HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-12-18; City Council; 10960; Approval Amendment Agreement Design of Tamarack Avenue Consider Alignment Alternatives.., CITWF CARLSBAD - AGENDWILL I.','\ II i >";;, k.!
r - I
AB# /< 4dd
MTG. jq~~~~
TITLE~~PPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING
ALTERNATIVES DEPT. ENG
AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN OF TAMARACK
AVENUE AND CONSIDER ALIGNMENT
DEPT.
CITY A
CITY l\i
I RECOMMENDED ACTION:
7&4/ Adopt Resolution No.- approving an amendment to an existing consultant agrc
for the design of improvements to Tamarack Avenue from Jefferson Street to C:
Boulevard and adopt Alignment Alternative No. 3 I ITEM EXPLANATION:
On August 22, 1989, the City Council entered into an agreement with Le
Herkenhoff, Incorporated, of San Diego for the preparation of an alignment study
proposed improvements to Tamarack Avenue from Jefferson Street to Ci
Boulevard. This scope of work included an assessment of the existing
improvements, public .facilities and utilities, existing and required rights-of-wa
preparation of alignment alternatives. Meetings were held with the property owner'
Tamarack Avenue potentially affected by the street improvements and the th
potential alignment alternatives were reviewed in detail. Staff wishes to present th
(3) alignment alternatives and requests City Council selection of a preferred altc
in preparation for beginning formal design of the street improvements.
By way of project background, on August 21, 1984 the City Council approved alignment for Tamarack Avenue from Jefferson Street to Carlsbad Boulevard requil
construction of 48 feet of curb-to-curb improvements within 80 feet of right-of-wa'
this overall project design outline, three (3) alignment alternatives were prep, accommodate various approaches to providing travel lane, parking, pedestrian, uti^
standard frontage improvements. Attached are various exhibits which illustrate tt
(3) alignment alternatives.
I Alternative 1
0 9 0 g
2
a
0 E
d 0 z 3
Alternative 1 is a minimum impact alternative that will construct a basic 44 foot (
curb width street providing for one travel lane in each direction, bicycle lanes an(
at an estimated cost of $900,000. No on-street parking would be provided
alternative.
Common to all three alternatives, the intersection with Jefferson Street to appro)
300 feet west will be widened to match existing 64 foot curb-to-curb section ex
easterly of Jefferson Street to Interstate 5. This widened portion will preserve
eucalyptus trees and provide for four thru-lanes, bicycle lanes and a left-turn
through the intersection. This widening fits with the existing right-of-way, i
significantly enhance the street capacity.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 is a maximum impact design providing for a 64 foot curb-to-cur
throughout the project limits.
way left turn lane, This alternative can be constructed entirely within existing righl
0 0
1
* e PAGE TWO OF AB# /fl, %& e
This alternative would provide one travel lane in each direction, bicycle Ian
continuous two-way left turn lane and parking lanes on both sides throughout most
project.
It would require acquisition of 23 parcels of land and six homes at an estimated c
$2,000,000. Total project cost is estimated to approach $3,000,000.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 is a hybrid alternative that provides a basic 44 foot curb-to-curb width t
at the Jefferson Street intersection and within the block between Garfield Stret
AT&SF Railroad. Within this block, existing right of way dedication has been utili.
approximately 20 guest parking spaces for the homes fronting on the strec
supplemental beach parking.
This alternative is estimated to cost approximately $1,000,000.
All alternatives include costs for undergrounding utilities, full curb, gutter and sid
and will correct site restriction through profile correction.
Proiect Review
On January 25, 1990, City staff and the project design engineers met with pr
owners along Tamarack Avenue and reviewed the three (3) alignment alternatives.
time, the vast majority of property owners voiced a strong preference for Altel
Number 3.
On March 5, 1990 the project was submitted to the Traffic Safety Commission,
selected the maximum project Alternative 2.
Staff Recommendation
In reviewing the alternatives along with the public input, it would be
recommendation that Council adopt the Alternative 3 project alignment and conti protect the 80 foot right-of-way in conformance with the Circulation Element
General Plan. The recommendation would include authorization of the final 1
contract.
Current traffic projections for this portion of roadway are less than 10,000 averag trips which can be easily accommodated by a two-lane facility. The additional ri way that would be obtained as current land uses transition could be utilized to E
the provisions for parking along the street. This option would not preclude
implementation of Alternative 2 should future circumstances dictate that action.
provide on-street parking spaces on both sides of the street, This will
e e
PAGE THREE OF AB# /$ 76)
ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS
Until an alternative project has been selected, a final environmental determination Ci
be completed. In order to aid the Council's decision, an Environmental Opportunitie
Constraints Analysis has been prepared for each alternative by A.D. Hinshav
Associates. This document, attached, concludes that each alternative is ro
equivalent in terms of impacts on trees, noise and safety but that the disruption an( use impacts of Alternative 2 would be considered significant.
Alternatives 1 and 3 will likely obtain a negative declaration of Environmental Ilr
Alternative 2 if selected will require a General Plan Amendment and Environmental 11
Report.
The analysis recommends Alternative 3 as the preferred option.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Alternative 3 is estimated to cost approximately $1,000,000 including the pro,
engineering fee of $85,248. The City Council has appropriated $1,900,000 of PFF
in the 1990-91 Capital Improvement Program budget for the design and construc
the improvements to Tamarack Avenue. These funds have been appropriated to F
Account Number 320-820-1 840-3203.
Should Council select Alternative 2 for implementation, insufficient PFF revenues
been identified for this project. The Public Facilities Fee would require adjustrr
generate appropriate funding.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location map. 7Je45/ 2. Resolution No.- approving an amendment to the existing consulting agrc
with Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Incorporated.
3. Alignment Alternative 1.
4. Alignment Alternative 2.
5. Alignment Alternative 3.
6. Study for the Improvement of Tamarack Avenue.
7. Environmental and Constraints Analysis for Tamarack Avenue lmprovemt
6. Amendment Number 1 to Design Agreement.
L
L LOCATION MAP
INTERSTATE 5
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD,
LEGEND
................. ................. ................. ................
~
................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................ ................ ................ ................ AREA TO BE lMPROVED \\ - , ............................... ................ TAMARACK BEACH
I
I
[PROJECT NAME 1 PROJECT # I E
TAMARACK AVENUE I JEFFERSON STREET TO CARLSBAD BOULEVARD I 3203 I
b I I
r
1
2
3
4
5
e 0
RESOLUTION NO. 90-45 1
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGN OF IMPROVEMENTS TO TAMARACK AVENUE AND THE
RWIEW AND SELECTION OF A PREFERRED ALIGNMENT
ALTERNATIVE
~
6 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad has appropriated funds
7
alignment alternatives to implement said improvements for the City Council’s consic 9
WHEREAS, design engineering consultants retained by the City have prepared a
improvements to Tamarack Avenue between Jefferson Street and Carlsbad Boulevi
1011 and
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad hereby finds it necessary, d
and in the public interest to proceed with selecting a preferred alignment alternative
design of said improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of C
California, as follows:
1. That the above, recitations are true and correct,
I
2. That the public safety, interest, and necessity requires proceeding
proposed improvements.
20 3. That the Ci Council has hereby reviewed the proposed alignment altt
21 and selected as the preferred alignment Alternative 3 for said project.
22 4. That the City Council further directs staff to continue to maintain ar
23 right-of-way west of Jefferson Street to Carlsbad Boulevard in conformance
24 Circulation Element of the General Plan.
25 I//
26
27
Ill
28
r 'I
e 0
5. That an amendment to an existing consulting agreement with Let
1 /I Herkenhoff, Incorporated is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Clerk are authoriz 2
3
4
5
6 Barnes Canyon Road, Suite A210, San Diego, California 92121.
directed to execute said amendment. Following the execution of said amendment, tl
Clerk is further authorized and directed to forward copies of said documents to the ML
Projects Department and Leedshili-Herkenhoff, incorporated, attention Mr. Charles Bras,
7 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsb:
8 Council held on the 18th day of December, 1990, by the following vote, to wit:
9 AYES: Council Members Lewis, Larson, Stanton and Nygaard
lo /I NOES: None
11 ABSENT: Council Member Kulchin
12
13
14 ATTEST: 15
16
17
18
2 R/,:-
19
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Cler
I
2o I1
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. .i , gf it -
.I ij: I,! r! - 1 '.I
~ ,- ,'
:i i!
i. j !,, 1
ij '. 3
; :]
; ,)
i , 5.
::
,.$
1:
[.I i
i'.3 q
i,!
:I ii ,
i: ,. ., :,i
I4 .< :I
I .I
.I .. ii i: .,
I. :? i !: .i ;; ::
I.
!I
'> i
ij
(4 < ii
I! ii
;I
i. j
i(
*!
:;
: .l
: .i
:\
/3
;]
,! I/ i j 'j
-1
i '1
*j 'i
:I
;. 1 .i
$1. q -I :i !:I
:.,j
: .1
: j !I
.I : ;i ii , I,
I
'i
,i
4
0. 0
n + v)
w E
3 v
2 + 9,'
.
cv
Lo I NlVM3QIS a0 6
\ . 3~~1 3x18 u)
. \
0 r)
\
\ 3NV113AVUl cu - cy cv r 1 K cy \
Nun1 1331 cft -
SnOtlNllN03 e *
3NVl 13AWl % N - - 0 M -.
3NVl 3Y18 . UJ
\ \
NlVM3QIS L". I Lo R -
x, N ac) s t X,' 2 \
? I-
v)
w 57
W
-
I
I 0 0 +
I b N 4
-
k-
I/)
oa t-n
nu ma +I wz hLI
4 -I >
-
"
t-0 mI- i=
m- d a -> +-I 7
am E
$n W m4 m c cz I
U a Ea +o
a 0
I" Ln
-
-
1
\
‘1 1-
1 .i ti
I
., .,
r
;i
” ,.- !
I:
I ii i
!i .. ..
I, ’/ ] 1 c
I .!
‘1 I I.
,.
<
.# 1; 4 t :j
f
:I 8. i *.i
.r
,!
.7
’!
‘i :!
$
,I 2
:j
.!
‘4 i I :! 13 ;. 1 : j
:j :j ‘1
il
,j i 1
r.l
/ .I
‘1 :I
:l
: .I
’.4
ii
;j
?.
:4 i ‘i e .{
,j
i1 ‘i
!l
il . .j 51
‘I
,!
:\
i;
1
1, M0138 335 9NIl H32VW- 0 ”
;j
“.~-awgS1~v~
”
I ”- _I.-”
- \;
+ 2
Z+ Mol30 33s 3Nfl HCllVW
”
” L+ 3AOSV 335 3NIl H31VW
-
-
-
0..
d“ c\1
6 om= - >
Y rngf I- 4
E <urn E
I zwz 4: ut: w
u 07: I- I- a03 $
WJ >+ ~
2 :Eo z:
> *Ea:
Q
Ll-
7
9-1
* ”_”” - 133tllS NOSH311331‘
ut
z+ 3~08~ 339 3NIl H31VW
a
b 0
1
n 13 c-w =z :F
\
\ \ u A,s*z \ 4 . -
YlVM3aIS v)
ui
a0
\ \ - 4
3NVl DNlYtlVd 4 'bo s '\
3NVl 3Y19 > b 0 * \ \ " cy M .
3NVll3AVkll K cu r cy f
\ 9
Ntlfll ld31 wi . cu" * I - .)
r
SnOnNllN03 ' (D
\ t
jNV1 13AVkll t ;N P - 4 c*l
7
\ cv m 1.\
3NV13Yla S' . a
'
\
3NVl DNlMtlVd 0
\ t * I
MlVM3alS In
v)
3 t,S'Z
\ ~a I= u- r. o$ 2, .:: *a ?A rz N.
X w v
0
-
I
I -
I
rr
LLi
a
a
a
a
>
x 0
[r:
2
I-
- a x z
0 i-
n
m
a a m
J -
> -I
a -I 2 0
N
9 i=
Z fY LJ I- I
a
a
-
-
~~
k
,
.. : i+ M0139 33s 3Nll H31V
," -"-I-$ - 133kIlsl D13ldtlVO"
%4by
111
:\.-I j:
II II F 1: 0 ,
2 -1 I ~' 5 II 5 ; 11
z1.1
~
: *
1'1 * ?I II 5
1
?* z :: j:3I, I 112 I=. rnl z E
ZI..I \
E NI I;
; 1.1; r;, $
Y -I 4 0
)j\zip ri+
1, o~'~q r! E
n& Q .. D
I I I J2E CARLSBtD BLVD. '"I""
I 1"- / ""
- 1;
I- O z
Z+ Mol38 33s 3Nll H31VW
"
I+ 3AO8V 33s 3NIl HOlVW
e "" ._ -. " ." - "" 133tllS NOSkl3333r
Z+ 3A09V 33s 3NIl H31VN
"
0 - 9 0
G
23 Wo z
* 2. 6 v,
W
)llVM3QIS
3NVl 3Wl9
3NV1 13AVtll ;
-
3NVl 13AVtll ;
m
Nvlaw a3slvtl 7
7
7
w-
3NVl 13AVtll d ,- F
< 0 0
EO cv
3NVl 13AVtll tK i= > -6 r >u
W
\ - b cv 2s ’ h’
mEi
3NVl 3N18 8 I ~ r3 ;\ t
‘ WlVM3aIS z E :
l-k ~ v,k w ox’
- cn
-I- t
\
I- W W
I-
v)
2 0
v) a W IL IL
I W
a
*
Q) 7
0 I-
W 2
J a
a a 2 z - J
I\
" 0 m
n + ..
c/l
w k
3 U
i? 4 y .
(v
v)
\ -
xlvM3glS v) v Q3
4 \
3NVl 3Y18 In
. \
0
rc)
\
\ - 3NVl 13AVtll c\I r (v N 1
6\' h( -
Nun1 1331 -
SnOnNllN03 d. rt
\ \
6:
3NVl 13AVtll . . (v 7
r cv N - 0 M \ \
SNV~ 3x18 . m
b x z 1 P
YltrM3OIS uj
In ;-+-A7 N .fl - co
? I- cn
w
\ z F;.
W
0 0 + b N
I-
1/)
0
4
u+ 2n <a d+ cv a- ss
ZL" i zi r>' <
07- C Fa3 < n4 ;L *
1
c
8
4
1
I
uo Jt-
1
;io a0 i- < 0
i- v,
I
I.
* n 3 w z z. \- N LL.
YlVM3alS
. 10 ui
~~~
.
3NV1 9NIYUWd 0,
- 3NV1 3YIG v)
3NVl13AVtll
.
(u
l-
. 0 Ntlnl 1431
6nbflNllN09
7-
u"
.
3NV113AVtll a
7
. ~NVI wa v)
*
3NVl DNlYtlVd 0
7
.
NlvM3alS ? tn
8- 2 ~ - I- v>
X W
I -
Y
I
A
L,
h,
h,
4 1
m * /Y I
g 03 cv
c 7-7
k
\
-
m
6\0 cucu f
h
I a - *
I e
c - cu c9 si
\
I 1 .
\ il
(\1 4 - E r II I
Ti. /q
I
(1
I I
..
-
-
1
-
-
-.
i
I
n a
0 0 z a5
--a $;U
WLO
0 +-
mt- QPW w> iiEa I n+n Om4 z4!! Lk
4
(3
I-
I-
!
1
I
I
t
1
1
I
I
1
1
i
I
I
8
1
1’
0 0
RECElVf
JAN 25 1990
CITY ok t~~i :;
MUNICIPAL PR( .I ..”.
STUDY FOR THE IMPROVEMENT
OF TAMARACK AVENUE
FROM CARLSBAD BOULEVARD TO JEFFERSON STREET
IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
JANUARY 1990
PREPARED BY:
10225 BARNES CANYON ROAD SUITE A210
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
LEEDSHILL-HERKENHOFF, INC.
u- * 0 e
1-
1
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 Tamarack Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard and Interstate 5 is an important
I
I;
1
east/west transportation element of the City of Carlsbad’s circulation system. It
provides motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians access to the properties along the
street, and to and from the beach area. Between Carlsbad Boulevard and Jefferson
Avenue the street is paved only for two lanes of traffic. No safe area is available for
pedestrians, bicycles or left turn movements into the private driveways.
I
I This study examines three alternatives that provide a range of options to balance the
effect of improvement to the properties and still provide for traffic, parking, bicycles
1 and pedestrians.
1 Alternative 1 will require virtually no acquisition of property and provide for 2 lanes of
i traffic, a two-way left turn and bicycle lanes. It is estimated to cost $851,845. No
1. parking along the street will be allowed with this alternative.
1
I
Alternative 2 is the most costly, at an estimated $2,876,200. It has the same traffic
lanes as Alternative 1 but will allow parking on both sides of the street. It will be the
most disruptive to the neighborhood because of the need to acquire right-of-way.
1.
I
1
I
I - ., 0 0
1-
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
Alternative 3 is a combination of Alternative 1 and 2. It utilizes right-of-way that has
been previously acquired along the south side of the street. Estimated cost is
$982,595. About 20 on-street parking spaces will be provided.
The consultant recommends Alternative 3. This will provide some parking on the
street as well as bicycle lanes and adequate lanes for vehicular traffic.
Meetings will be held with the property owners to discuss the various alternatives. The
City Council eventually will be requested to adopt one of the alternatives.
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
t
1
1
ii
I-' 0 0
I-
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .
TABLE OF CONTENTS s I I I . I
INTRODUCTION .
PURPOSE OF STUDY .
METHOD OF APPROACH
DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS .
PRESERVATION OF TREES WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET .
DISCUSSION OF FINAL THREE ALIGNMENTS .
RECOMMENDATIONS .
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A: RIGHT-OF-WAY ESTIMATES .
FIVE PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
EXHIBIT B: CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE .
FINAL THREE ALTERNATIVES
EXHIBIT C: SUMMARY OF ALL COSTS .
FINAL THREE ALTERNATIVES
EXHIBIT D: PLANS FOR FINAL THREE ALTERNATIVES
(SEPARATE DOCUMENT)
PAGE
.i
. iii
.I
.2
.2
.3
.7
.8
.9
.IO
.I3
16
iii
D-
l-
I
I
I
1.
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
i
I
1
I
I
1
0 0
ALIGNMENT STUDY FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF TAMARACK AVENUE
FROM CARLSBAD BOULEVARD TO JEFFERSON STREET
FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
INTRODUCTION
Tamarack Avenue is one of the major routes between Carlsbad Boulevard and lntersta
5. It is shown on the adopted circulation element of the General Plan as a collector strec
About 9,200 vehicles per day now use the street. It is expected this will increase to i
much as 13,000 in the future. Tamarack Avenue not only carries heavy vehicular traffi
but also pedestrians and bicyclists bound to and from the beach. Improvements ha\
been made to that portion of Tamarack Avenue between Jefferson Street and 1-5. Tt
remainder is only two lanes with no shoulders for either pedestrians or bicycles.
present, the bicyclists are mixed with the traffic, and in many situations they are forced (
the street when two cars meet. The addition of adequate bike lanes would provide a mu(
greater degree of safety than now exists.
Most of Tamarack Avenue is paved approximately 24 feet wide with no curb, gutter
sidewalk. The right-of-way width is 60 feet except in those areas where the City h8
obtained additional dedications or holds Irrevocable Offers to Dedicate from properti1
that have been developed in the last few years. These areas are generally located on tl
south side of the street.
1
I ” ‘ 0 0
1-
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
t
1
,I
I
1
1
1
8
I
Property owners have built structures immediately adjacent to the right-of-way in som
locations. In some places along the street, there is less than 75 feet between the fronl
of houses on the opposite sides of the street. The drainage of the entire street is poor
defined, and no drainage easements or improvements exist.
PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this study is to analyze alternative alignments for improvement (
Tamarack Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard and Jefferson Street. The study identific
construction costs, right-of-way needs, width configurations and effect on propertic
along the street. The alternatives address the ways bicycle lanes and parking could I:
achieved along the street with a minimum disruption to the abutting properties.
METHOD OF APPROACH
In order to obtain current and accurate data for the study, the area was first mappc
using aerial photography in September of 1989. Next, a composite right-of-way m:
was developed using ground survey information, subdivision maps, and assessor’s par(
maps. Ground photography was taken along Tamarack Avenue to visually define probk
areas, and to aid in the cost assessment portion of the work.
Meetings were held with members of the Engineering Department of the City to g:
input about the requirements of the finished roadway, considerations regarding acquisitil
2
I-' 0 a
I-
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
of right-of-way, traffic, lane configuration, and design speed. The information wa
analyzed along. with the contents of a previous Geometric Design Study that WE
approved by the City in 1977. Preliminary design constraints such as intersection!
drainage, railroad crossings and large trees along the route were identified.
From these design constraints, five draft alternative alignments for Tamarack Avenue we1
developed. These were presented to the engineering staff and discussed in detail. Aftc
additional study and discussion, the number of alternatives were reduced to three.
Detailed alignment plans for each of the final three alternatives were prepared. Horizont
and vertical profiles were chosen for each alternative, along with draft cross-section
From these plans, estimates of right-of-way and construction costs were determine1
After review of the cost and engineering data, each alternative is discussed and
recommendation made.
DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS
The first step in the selection of the original five alternative alignments was the selectic
of a design speed for the road. Design speed, in this case, was dependent upon vertic
alignment because Tamarack Avenue has very little horizontal curvature.
The vertical alignment of Tamarack Avenue is most critical at the intersection with Garfie
Avenue. An analysis of this intersection, along with study of new topographic mal;
3
I- o 0
I-
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
1
1 u
1
8
i
I
1
8
indicated that the stopping sight distance would control the design speed. Therefore, th
maximum design speed is dependent upon the longest vertical curve that could pas
through the Garfield intersection without excessive cut.
Several trial vertical alignments were considered using a computer to generate cros!
sections at critical points such as adjoining driveways. The results of this analys
indicated the best situation that could be achieved at the Garfield intersection was
change in grade of about 13 percent, and a maximum vertical curve length of 150 fec
These conditions result in a design speed of 25 miles per hour, (reference Caltrans Desi$
Manual, P200-4) with a very small cut through the Garfield Avenue intersectio
Accordingly, the design speed was established at 25 miles per hour for all five origin
alternatives.
A lane configuration was then determined that would best match the design spee
Because the design speed was low, and inadequate passing sight distance could not t
improved, passing lanes were not considered. The final configuration was developed fro
the previous traffic study and recommendations given in the Caltrans Highway Desi!
Manual. This configuration was developed as two 12 foot driving lanes, a 10 foot cent
turn lane to allow adjoiners safe access to their driveways, and a five foot bike lane
each direction. The total width curb-to-curb would be 44 feet.
A second configuration was also established by the addition of two parking lanes to t
44 foot section, which resulted in a 64 foot curb-to-curb width. It was established tt
4
1c-
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
i
0 e
the 44 foot pavement would require a 60 foot right-of-way, and the 64 foot paveme
would require an 80 foot right-of-way. It was then decided that two alternative alignmen
would use a 44 foot pavement, two would use a 64 foot pavement, and the other wou
be a composite which would vary the pavement width where space was available.
The five preliminary design alternatives were first developed using a criterion of minimu
disruption to adjoining houses. Alignments were studied using a pavement width of 1
feet and 64 feet curb-to-curb, and the following five were initially selected for study:
1. A 44 foot curb-to-curb street within the existing 60 foot riaht-of-wav. Very liti
acquisition of property is needed. This would occur only at intersections in ord
to install full width sidewalks round the corners.
2. A 64 foot curb-to-curb street within an 80 foot riaht-of-way. The additional widenir
would be located to the south of the existing 60 foot right-of-way to take advantac
of the land already acquired by the City from developers. This alignment wou
require the purchase of six houses and acquisition of land from 23 parcels.
3. A 64 foot curb-to-curb street within an 80 foot riaht-of-wav widened both to tt
north and south of the existina riaht-of-wav and realianed as much as possik
while maintaining a 25 miles per hour desian speed. This would result in the ne€
to purchase of one house and acquire land from 30 parcels, the alternative wou
affect the most number of properties.
5
I- - 0 0
I
I
I
I
I
8
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
4. A 64 foot .curb-to-curb street within an 80 foot riaht-of-wav widened both north an1
south through the Garfield intersection. This would result in a rnorelles
curvalinear horizontal alignment, but require the purchase of two houses, an
acquisition of land from 33 parcels.
5. A composite alianment, in which the basic curb-to-curb width would be 44 fee
This would increase to provide additional parking lanes in areas where addition;
right-of-way was available or inexpensive to acquire.
Draft preliminary alignments for the five original alternatives were prepared and presente
to the City staff for review. Two of these alignments, Alternative 3 and 4, were rejecte
because of the difficulty and expense involved with the acquisition of so many parcels (
land, and the incomplete use of the additional right-of-way that was presently owned t
the south of Tamarack Avenue. Alternatives 3 and 4 would have the most detriment;
impact on the adjacent properties. In many cases, the new road would be within four t
five feet of the existing homes. Exhibit A details the right-of-way costs for the final thre
alternatives.
A summary of the three final alignments are:
o Alternative 1, a 44 foot curb-to-curb in the existing 60 foot right-of-way;
o Alternative 2, a 64 foot curb-to-curb in an 80 foot right-of-way in which all ne
right-of-way is acquired to the south of the existing right-of-way; and
6
I- * 0 0
I- o Alternative 3, a composite of Alternative 1 and 2 that utilize the land alread
I
I
I
available for widening of the south side of the street. The drawings whic
accompany this report are titled in the same manner.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS - PRESERVATION OF TREES IN THE TAMARACK AVENU
AND JEFFERSON STREET INTERSECTION AREA I
I
I
Field investigation of the Jefferson Street intersection revealed three large eucalyptu
trees within the right-of-way that might have to be removed for any widening of Tamarac
Avenue. Because of the aesthetic considerations and a desire to preserve these tree:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
alternatives at Jefferson Street were investigated. A title search indicated an lrrevocabl
Offer to Dedicate existed on the north side of the street adjacent to the trees. With thi
amount of right-of-way, there would be sufficient land for construction of a median t
protect the trees, as well as providing an additional west bound driving lane area near th
intersection.
A preliminary design was prepared and then reviewed by City Staff. It was agreed th
trees should be saved, and a design which would preserve the trees in a median wa
chosen. The median will also provide an opportunity to create additional landscape an
an entrance to the area along Tamarack Avenue. This will improve the appearance of th
area.
7
I- o 0
I-
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
1
DISCUSSION OF FINAL THREE ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS
All of the final three alternatives share the same vertical grades. This will minimize impac
upon adjoining property and limit cuts and fills on the center line to one foot or less
Cross sections at selected areas have been provided with this report.
Alternative 1 :
This will provide a 44 foot street in an existing 60 foot right-of-way. The street will bl
striped with a single 12 foot lane in each direction, a 10 foot two way left turn lane ant
5 feet bicycle lanes on each side. No on-street parking is planned.
This is the least expensive alternative. If this alternative is chosen, the street and th
associated sidewalks will take up 55 feet of the existing 60 foot right-of-way, and parkin
will have to be eliminated along the entire street with the exception of the north side ne;
the intersection with Jefferson Street.
Alternative 2
This will provide a 64 foot street in an 80 foot right-of-way. It is the most expensiv
alternative. The existing 60 foot right-of-way would be widened to the south an addition;
20 feet. This would necessitate, among other acquisitions, the purchase of six house
on the south side of the street near the Garfield Avenue intersection. Land from 2
parcels must also be acquired. On-street parking would be provided throughout th
length of Tamarack Avenue except where safety considerations prohibited it.
I 8
I
I- " 0 e
1-
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
i
I
Alternative 3
This is a combination of Alternative 1 and 2. Construction of a 44 foot street would alsc
be required in the same manner as Alternative 1, but with the addition of an on-stree
parking lane to the south in those areas for which the necessary right-of-way is alread!
owned by the City or can be easily obtained. In the future, additional parking lane coulc
be added as additional right-of-way was acquired through the development process
Total cost for this alternative is $900,690. Some land is needed and estimated to cos
$84,995. About 20 on-street parking spaces will be provided with this alternative.
Exhibit B details the construction cost while Exhibit C summarizes the total cost for eacl
of the three final alternatives.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Each alternative alignment provides a solution to the problems on Tamarack Avenue. A
of the alignments have the same traffic carrying capacity, the same facilities for bicyclists
and very nearly the same provisions for pedestrians. The alignments recommended var
in two areas: the amount of on-street parking that will be provided; and the cost of righl
of-way to be obtained. It can be stated that the difference in cost between the alternative
is the cost of the on-street parking. Alternative 3 will utilize right-of-way previous1
acquired along the street. About 20 omstreet parking spaces mid4ength of the projer
will be constructed at a minimum of additional cost over Alternative 1.
9
I-
E-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
0 0
EXHIBIT A
RIGHT-OF-WAY COSTS-FINAL 3 ALIGNMENTS
ALTERNATIVE 1
ALTERNAT I VE 1
TAMARACK AVENUE-CARLSBAD BLVD, TO JEFFERSON
ESTIMATE OF IMPROVEMENT COSTS
A 44 FOOT CURB TO CURB STREET IN A 60 FOOT R.O.W.
FI LE TAM44-60.WK 1
DECEMBER 27,1989
THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF THIS ALTERNATIVE IS ------- $12,460.80
A.P.N S.F. TAKE $/S.F. LAND COST IMP-COST DAMAGES MOVING
204-253-4
204-270-43
204-280-43
204-280-15
206-42-23
206-42-5
206-12-1
206- 1 1-1 5
54
54
10
56
54
54
54
54
$33.00 $1,782.00 $200.00
$33.00 $1,782.00
$33.00 $330.00
$17.50 $980.00
$17.50 $945.00 $200.00
517.50 $945.00 8200.00
433.00 $1,782.00 $200.00
$33.00 S 1,782.00 $200.00
TOTAL
APPRAISAL & AQUlSlTlON COSTS-10%
TOTAL ROW COSTS
10
PCL. TOTAL
$1,982.00
$1,782.00
$330.00
$980.00
$1,145.00
$1,145.00
$1,982.00
$1,982.00 -""""-
$11,328.00
$ 1,132.80 """""-
$12,460.80
B-
m-
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 e
EXHIBIT A
RIGHT-OF-WAY COSTS-FINAL 3 ALIGWENTS
ALTERNATIVE 2
ALTERNAT I VE 2
TAMARACK AVENUE-CARLSBAD BLVD, TO JEFFERSON
ESTIMATE OF IMPROVEMENT COSTS
A 64 FOOT CURB TO CURB STREET IN AN 80 FOOT R.0.W.
FILE TAM64-80.WK1
DECEMBER 27,1989
THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF THIS ALTERNATIVE IS ------- $1,&12,806.90
A.P.N S.F. TAKE $/S.F. LAND COST 1MP.COST DAMAGES MOVl NG PCL. TOTAL
204-253-4
204-270-43
AT&SF R.R.
204-280-43
204-280- 15
206-42-27
206-42-25
206-42-24
206-42-23
206-42-5
206-42-4
206-42-3
206-42-2
206-42- 1
206-20-8
206-20-5
206-20-3
206-20- 1
206- 12- 1
206-1 1-15
206-1 1-16
206- 1 1- 17
206-1 1-18
206- 1 1- 19
54
54
2000
10
56
1580
1020
1100
2250
1550
1550
1060
1040
2020
2040
1040
1480
1320
6000
6000
900
900
6000
900
$33.00 $1,782.00 $200.00 $1,982.00
$33.00 $1,782.00 $1,7a2.00
$20.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00
$33.00 $330.00 $330.00
$17950 5980,OO $980.00
$17.50 $27,650.00 $3,500.00 $31,150.00
$17.50 $17,850.00 617,850.00
$17.50 $19,250.00 $38,800.00 $58,050.00
$17.50 $39,375.00 51,500.00 $37,250.00 $78,125.00
$17.50 $27,125.00 $500.00 $31,000.00 $58,625.00
$17.50 $27,125.00 $200.00 $39,250.00 $66,575.00
$17.50 $18,550,00 $10,000.00 $28,550.00
$17.50 $18,200.00 $18,200.00
$17.50 $35,350.00 $200.00 $35,550.00
$14.00 $28,560.00 $65,000.00 $26,000.00 $119,560.00
$33.00 $34,320.00 $34,320.00
$17.50 $25,900.00 $3,500.00 $35,350.00 $64,750.00
$33.00 $43,560.00 $43,560.00
$33.00 $198,000.00 $65,000.00 $263,000.00
,$33.00 $198,000.00 $80,040.00 $278,040.00
$33.00 %29,700.00 $3,500.00 $37,500.00 $70,700.00
$33.00 $29,700.00 $3,500.00 $37,500.00 $70,700.00
$33.00 5198,000,OO $65,000,00 $263,000.00
$33.00 $29,700.00 $200.00 $29,900.00
"""""
TOTAL $1,675,279.00
APPRAISAL & AQUlSlTlON COSOSTS-10% $167,527.90 -"""""
TOTAL ROW COSTS $1,842,806.90
11
I-
I-
!
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I1
0 m
EXHIBIT A
RIGHT-OF-WAY COSTS-FINAL 3 ALIGNMENTS
ALTERNATI YE 3
ALTERWTIVE 3
TAMARACK AVENUE-CARLSBAD BLVD. TO JEFFERSON
ESTIMATE OF IMPROVEMENT COSTS
A 44 FOOT CURB TO CURB STREET WITH LOCAL WIDENING
F I LE TAM44VAR.W 1
DECEMBm 27 , 1989
THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF THIS ALTERNATIVE IS I----- $85,357.80
A.P.N S.F. TAKE $/S. F. LAND COST IMP.COST DAMAGES MOVING
204-253-4
204-270-43
ATBSF R.R.
204-280-43
204-280- 15
206-42,-23
206-42-5
206-20-8
206-20-5
206-20-3
206- 12- 1
206-11-15
54
54
10
10
56
45
54
867
1040
195
54
54
$33.00
$33.00
$20.00
$33.00
$17.50
$17.50
$17.50
$17.50
$33 00
$33.00
$33.00
$33.00
S1.782.00 8200 I 00
$1 9782.00
s200.00
$330.00
$980.00
$787.50 $500.00
$945.00 $200.00
$l!i, 172.50 $10,000.00
$34 , 320.00
$6,435.00
5’1,782.00 $200.00
$1,782.00 $200.00
TOTAL
APPRA I SAL 8 AQU 1 5 IT 1 ON COSTS-1 0%
TOTAL ROW COSTS
PCL. TOTAL
61,082.00
f 19782.00
$200.00
$ 330.00
$980.00
$1,287.50
$1 , 145.00
$25,172.50
$34,320.00
$6,435.00
$1,982.00
$1,982.00
”””””
$77,598.00
$7,759.80
”””””-
$85,357.80
12
I-
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I'
e 0
EXHIBIT B
CONSTRUCT I ON COST EST I MATE
TAMARACK AVE. AL I GNMENT STUDY, ALTERNATIVE 1
PREPARED BY: GXA
DATE! 01/19/40
FILENAME: TAMEST01 .WKl
TOTAL EST I MATE: $729,878
~~~~~
I TEM DESCR I PT i ON UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TOTAL
Storm Dra I ns 1811 RCP Lln. Ft. 570.00 180 612,600
24" RCP Lin. Ft. $80.00 560 $44,800
36Il RCP Lin. Ft. $120.00 500 $60,000
Curb and Gutter 6", Type (; Lin, Ft. $12.00 4860 $58,320
(G-2)
Curb Inlet Type A or B Ea. $3,000.00 8 $24,000
(D-1, D-2)
CI eanout Type A Ea. $3,310,00 2 $6,620
Headwa I Is Gravity tvpe Ea $2,100.00 2 54,200
(Type A I
Rip Rap Energy Di!;sipator Cu. Yd. $140.00 20 $2,800
Pav i ng , A.C. 411 Surface Sq. Ft. $3.50 46502 $162,757
(Includes grading,
subgrade preparation
and 12" aggregate base)
Street Light L.P.Sod i mn Ea. 13,000,OO 28 $84,000
R8R Cross i ng RBR surfa,: i ng L.S. $50,000.00 1 $50,000
R8R crossing gates L.S. $80,000.00 1 $80,000
Signing 8 Striping L.S. $10,000.00 1 $10,000
Land scapi ng S. F. 52.00 6714 513,428
Signal Modification L.S. $50,000.00 1 $50,000
TOTAL ITEMIZED COST $663,525
10% CONTIGENCY $66 , 353 """""""""""""""-
13 TOTAL ESTIMATE $729,878
I-
I-
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
1
I
I,
I
I
I
I
1
il
0 m
EXHIBIT B
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
TAMARACK AVE. ALI GNMENT STUDY , ALTERNATIVE 2
PREPARED BY: GXA
DATE: 01/19/90
FILENAME: TAMESTOZ.WK1
TOTAL ESTIMATE: 5898 , 545
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TOTAL
Storm Dra i ns 18" RCP tin. Ft. 570.00 180 512,600
24" RCP Lin. Ft. $80.00 560 $44,800
36Il RCP Lin. Ft. $120.00 500 560,000
Curb and Gutter 6" , Type G Lin. Ft. 512.00 5460 '$65,520
(62)
Curb Inlet Type A or B Ea. 53,000.00 8 524,000
(D-1, D-2)
C I eanout Type A Ea. 53,310.00 2 56 , 620
Headwa I I s Grav i ty type Ea. 52,100.00 2 54,200
(Type A)
Rip Rap Energy Dissipator Cu. Yd. 5140.00 20 52,800
Pav i ng , A.C. 4" Surface Sq. Ft. 53.50 88330 $309,155
(includes grading,
subgrade preparation
and 12" aggregate base)
Street Light L.P.Sod i wn Ea. 53,000.00 28 584,000
R8R Cross i ng R&R surfacing L.S. 550,000.00 1 $50,000
R8R crossing gates L.S. 580,000.00 1 580,000
Signing & Striping L.S. $10,000.00 1 510,000
Land scap i ng S.F. $2.00 6582 513,164
Signal Modlfication L.S. f50,000.00 1 $50,000
TOTAL ITEMIZED COST $816,859
10% CONTIGENCY 58 1,686 """""""-""""""""
14 TCTAL ESTIMATE $898 , 54 5
I-
!-
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
B
I
I
I
I
1
I
e a
EXHIBIT B
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
TAMARACK AVE. ALIGNMENT STUDY, ALTERNATIVE 3
PREPARED BY: GXA
DATE: 01 / 19/90
FILENAME: TAMEST03,WKl
TOTAL ESTIMATE: $780,211
ITEM DESCR I PT I ON UNIT PRICE QUANTITY TOTAL
Storm Dra ins 18" RCP
24" RCP
36" RCP
Lin. Ft. 870,OO 180 $12,600
Lin. Ft. $80.00 560 $44,800
Lin. Ft. $120.00 500 $60,000
Curb and Gutter 6", Type G Lin. Ft. $12.00 5070 $60,840
(62)
Curb Inlet Type A or B Ea. $3,000.00 8 $24,000
(D-1, D-2)
C I eanout Type A Ea a 163,310aOO 2 $6,620
Headwa I 1 s Grav I ty type Ea. $2,100.00 2 $4,200
(Type A)
Rip Rap Energy Dissipator Cu. Yd, $140.00 20 $2,800
Pav i ng , A. C. 411 Surface Sq. Ft. $3.50 58931 $206,259
(includes grading,
subgrade preparation
and 12" aggregate base)
Street Light L.P.Sod i um Ea. $3,000.00 28 $84,000
R8R Cross i ng R8R surfacing L.S. $50,000,00 1 S50,000
R8R crossing gates L.S. $80,000.00 1 $80,000
Signing & Striping L.S. f10,000.00 1 $10,000
Land scap i ng S.F. $2.00 6582 $13,164
Signal Modification L.S. $50,000.00 1 $50,000
TOTAL ITEMIZED COST $709,283
105 CONTIGENCY $70,928 """""""""""""""-
15 ?VAL ESTIMATE $780,211
I- o 0
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
EXHIBIT C
SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR
THREE ALTERNATIVES
To arrive at an accurate comparison of costs for each alternative all the costs associatec
with each choice must be included. It not only includes construction, with a contingenc)
amount, but also right-of-way, design engineering, inspection and administration. Man)
of these are commonly estimated to be a percentage of the construction cost.
For this study, the following has been used:
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
Construction Contingency 10%
Design Engineering (and Surveying) 10%
inspection, Testing, Administration 5%
The total cost of right-of-way includes relocation and 10% increase for appraisal an(
acquisition.
Alternative 1 :
Construction (includes 10% contingency)
Engineer, Inspection, Administration (1 5%)
Right-of-way (includes 10% appraisal and acquisition)
Total Cost of Project
$729,900
$1 09,485
$ 12,460
$851,845
16
I-
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
e 1)
Alternative 2:
Construction (includes 10% contingency)
Engineer, Inspection, Administration (1 5%)
Right-of-way (includes 10% appraisal and acquisition)
Total Cost of Project
Alternative 3:
Construction (includes 10% contingency)
Engineer, Inspection, Administration (I 5%)
Right-of-way (includes 10% appraisal and acquisition)
Total Cost of Project
$898,600
$1 34,790
$1,842.810
$2,876,200
$780,200
$1 17,030
$ 85.365
$982,595
17
0 ib
c
ENVIRONMENTAL
OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
FOR TAMARACK AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
Prepared for:
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
Prepared by:
A.D. Hinshaw Associates
6136 Mission Gorge Road, Suite 111 San Diego, CA 92120-3413
July 311 1990
file: \bernard\eir\tamarack.282
e IA
%
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Trees
3.0 Noise
4.0 Traffic Safety
5.0 Land Use (disturbance of existing residences)
6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
7.0 References
FIGURES
1.1 Regional Map 1.2 Vicinity Map
1.3 Alternative 1
1.4 Alternative 2
1.5 Alternative 3
TABLES
Table 3.1 - Noise Contours
PHOTOS
Photos A & B
Photo C, D 6 E Photo F
APPENDICES
A) Noise Level Contour Tables
Paqe
1
9
9
12
12
13
15
2
3 6
7
8
11
4
5
10
1 e @
”.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Environmental Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
(EOCA) has been prepared to address three alternative improvement
options for Tamarack Avenue, located in the City of Carlsbad (see
Figures 1.1 and 1.2). Tamarack Avenue, between Carlsbad Boulevard
and Interstate 5, provides motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians
access to the properties along the street and to and from the beach
area.
Improvements to Tamarack Avenue are recommended because the
current configuration of the roadway contains unsafe areas for
pedestrians, bicycler; and left-turn movements into private driveways. In the area of the planned improvements, Tamarack Avenue is currently paved 24 feet wide (see Photos A-E). The existing right of way is 60 feet except where the City has obtained additional dedications or holds Irrevocable Offers to Dedicate from properties that have been developed in the last few years.
In evaluating the proposed alternatives, four potential environmental issues were identified: tree removal, noise, traffic safety and land use (disturbance of existing residences). These issues are analyzed under separate headings for each of the three alternatives.
Figures 1.3-1.5 illustrate the three alternative improvement designs being considered. The analysis of the alternatives in the
EOCA does not take into account the cost factor associated with each alternative; it is strictly an evaluation of the environmental impacts which might be expected to occur based on the implementation of each alternative.
Alternative 1 (Figure 1.3) is a 44-foot curb-to-curb street
within the existing 60-foot right of way. No additional right of
way would need to be acquired under this alternative, however no parking would be provided along Tamarack Avenue.
Alternative 2 (Figure 1.4) is a 64-foot curb-to-curb width in
an 80-foot right of way. Portions of the additional right of way
for Alternative 2 would be taken from the south side of Tamarack Avenue from existing Irrevocable Offers of Dedication. Additional right of way would also need to be acquired by the City.
Alternative 3 (Figure 1.5) is a composite alignment of the
first two alternatives. The basic curb-to-curb width would be 44
feet, however in areas where existing Irrevocable Offers of Dedication exist, the right of way would be larger and parking
would be available in these areas.
The speed limit on Tamarack Avenue is posted at; 25 m.p.h. and would continue to be so under all three alternatives.
I
f
Oceanside Harbo
r Source: San Diego Association of Goverments
~~~ ~~~
Figure 1. d I 1‘.eet 20,,000 40,pOO
I +U”,
024 a
Regional May:
Miles A. D. HINSHAW ASSOCIATES
2
~~
p-o-urce: San Luis Rey USGS Quad Map Figure 1. I Vicinity May
A. D. HINSHAW ASSOCIATES- - 3
B
- "
c
. ,. .. ......... . .- _. - -.. ..._ .. ., .
..... i
. .., ,'.
. .. '. . , ..
,' ., . , .i ..
3...:'';,? .: .:; . , ,. ,. .I .
."_
. ,' ., . ,^._ . .;
.I. .. . ,,
..I ...
.. .. .. . . ,
,. , .. .. .., .' ,.
, ,. t.,,.., ... ,
I.
.I. .. 1 , .. ,.
. .:,,, . .' ,,.
. ., '.b".","*.
If
-
-
..... . .
..
".,I. -
. . . . .. .. - . . . . ._
.1 .._. ^.-. ...
#&/
..
.i;
" - _L_ "_ .~ "
z 0
I- o W
v) U W c z
z 0
v) U W
LL LL W 7
-
-
\ Y o
U
2
t-
a
a
a
n
a 3
U
0 I-
I-
v) W 3
c3 Z
Y 0 0
-
-I
0
D
-L a
~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~~
I* M0138 335 3NIl H31VW
---; :,?, .' -
;. ; 1;
B
::
: I
: I I ,i:
i I_.I
$1 1 :; 01 I ;' < q I(
;I y.
g :; :l I : %
I-
.:J $1 :: w I
'a I, ij g 11 i
e :.
-. W G.
-~'---(*;$~ . "i ;il : I -
jl
'.
'1 1.1 1: I It 1:
: '31 D
: I1
I I
j : AIfl
: I1
5 < 7 21, II
3 :I I w, D 2,. z X I
II I"
10"' I B' ,&I 4; 4 It I b&
w- -2iJ - " ~~~H.LS~I~~~IAUVO
- ' ..- "- . -% .A& pe. #, ~ - -----
II I
W It 5
. z Ill
z
Y
. II ' Yr I .l; I I 001 I < I I :I 3
Q
5!
< W 11
I' I
-I
,I ,"I
It
z 1"
II
Y
v)
W
v) 1 I!\(,.
I
I)
3 AI I 01
01 v,
I W II - 2
I -I e
Q
c
X W
. Y
<
2 I!
It I 01 p J7I I '=I I I '[t
- It li'
ma* 1 am
"
PI
"
".+*fn"R8lHt/3
- ,\
Ill -I
0 <
rn
2
b- 0 Z
'2; Mol38 338 3Nfl H3lVW
"
-L_
'I
-
-. ". "
$W w' -Iw > rnz! a ocni
y 22:
0 ,o:
4 $E! cc ":?I .4 0,. x zw! "-~-0-?
I-
t
I-. rro kt- -
9-1
tpb-""" 133HlS NOSH
" L+ Mol38 336 3NIl H31VN-
" 133~s IOT\~I=!UVE> '4 I "
. . ., I I j . :,+: ...:...... - - " __ ;j:.. C" -1- -i. :
". , -%
y,t; II I r; ;j :j =
X
"-
;Ij jll; ;I
-I W m1.11 +I I ::
I, F[q [\ Y
j I .js D mI !LE
' I 1. w 111; ;I .I< :I I .;
!;lit g ; .;
4 I: <
IW .: f W
ii1 I IC
1; 1; Y
.:I Y ol I
d z 0 a I :j
Q j $1 -1 x .: ; I+;: I 1;
0:
a1 0
z w ,l IJ I-
I?\ I ' ".I' " 0 gi II v)
X w 012 Ill 101
L Ill
,do 0 .a
-1 V) ..I 4 0
v)
0 I-
t- 0 z
'Z+ M0138 336 3Nn H31VW
"
" - 7- , ;.[I $ i
1: 1;
$ I\
:: - -
0.1: "",
. -. i - -3.-
5 1: I j gl I I q;
i;b y; UI
-. -r- - " - . " = 1;; 8 I; I;:
I- 0 :I. - w ;;I
:I I 4 ,lv)
l&J .i I
'I Io1 I $ ~j 171' I ;i
z
2 x I It- .I . 2.J
I j:j ;:I ; I ~I
'ii::,\ 141 & 14 I"I ' "'
, .:. d ' !tL"?L
" .. " ""T.-"
"
-
-
b
0
> .m 4a
Ym
uj3
4
2: 5: = 'I 6.c ka lL - "
S-1
""- 133tllS N(
m I 0:
-~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ___~~~~
. - .. . . , ,
1 + Mol38 33s 3NIl H31VW '
"
... . . .. % c ;:.
41
. . "
i 111
..i I I I II
a : '11
w ' II
Ill
I .I
i II
~ g1.1
: $1 I
I: I I
D I: l,.l
: I1 I
~ 11
a .All
j II
?? I .I
3 j Z1.J
I I
Y A r1 qI
3
0
v,
Q
I-
x
5
W II, I" I, '
r!Jc3 1,'11 4
tlfl
. _. , -
I I'.l I .i
::
,. -" ~ - " I
,.
;I
I
.. Y
:J :a
W 3
2 ;ij
u\ \, [u '2 Y, -I
> 6 W
y riI v)
:' rot Q ;
E
pq U I- % 0 .... 0
L I
- \;
I- O z
Z+ M0130 33s 3Nll H31VrJ " " ; 11; ;
i 1'1 jl q! :. OIII !I! _I ;
Ii
* \ j . '7.1 I i
olt
Y
< J K l!: @Jl I ;,
8 1;: I I i 3
- - - -~. . I
C > w- >a ac
Y;
aii .a 4 Uc 2- U' f
t-0
ou
U
-
I
S-I
* - "._ " -.. . 133tllS NI
w
2.0 TREES
Three large Eucalyptus trees exist near the intersection of
Tamarack Avenue with Jefferson Street. These are the only trees
which would be considered significant visual resources if impacted
through the improvements to Tamarack Avenue. Other trees exist along Tamarack Avenue which would be impacted under any of the alternatives proposed, however these other trees are not considered significant visual resources.
The three Eucalyptus trees near the Tamarack/Jeffersor intersection are currently within the right of way for Tamarack Avenue (see Photo F). However, under each of the three alternatives proposed, the trees would be retained in a landscaped median which would divide the east bound lanes from the west bound lanes. Under each of the three alternatives, Tamarack Avenue is four lanes wide (two each direction) at its intersection with
Jefferson.
Other trees would be removed because of the improvements. Alternative 2, because it has the widest right-of-way and curb to curb width, would involve the largest number of trees. Alternative 1 would require the least amount of trees to be removed because it involves the narrowest configuration of improvements to the existing roadway.
3.0 NOISE
San Diego Acoustics, Inc. has generated noise contours for each of the alternatives being considered. Each alternative was evaluated for the current traffic level, 9,817 Average Daily Trips (ADT), and for the projected traffic level of 13,000 ADT.
The project itself will not generate additional traffic noise.
However, the improvements planned will make Tamarack Avenue more accessible to drivers and could indirectly result in an increase in traffic up to the projected 13,000 ADT. Short-term construction noise would result with any of the three alternatives proposed.
As shown in Table 3.i, the 65 CNEL noise contour would be
within the right-of-way under all three alternatives for both the
current and projected traffic levels on Tamarack Avenue. However,
as indicated in the table, the 60 CNEL contour would extend beyond
the right-of-way along some portions of Tamarack Avenue under all three alternatives. The City of Carlsbad Noise Ordinance states that noise levels should not exceed 60 CNEL at five feet within a property line. Under existing traffic conditions, this level of
noise is exceeded on some properties adjacent to Tamarack Avenue.
Because the improvement alternatives will not generate additional traffic, no significant noise impacts would result from
the improvements. However , as shown in Table 3.1, the design of
9
7
?
z. ~ ..
13
z cn z 4
g n
B cn
0 C n
0 rn *.
D
O
I -. a u 5
b s
D u u
0
0
b
ID
v)
-. -
.. ~ - - . . . " - ~-~
e m
TABLE 3.1
. ..
Location Of Noise Contours Along Tamarack Avenue As A
Function Of Alternative Geometry And Traffic Volume.
Distance from center of right-of-way to contour - Feet
9.817 ADT 13,000 ADT
Alt Contour-CNEL 65 60 55 65 60 55 ..
1 25* 80 255 32* 101 321
2 24* 77 245 31* 97 309
1,2,3 Linmar/Jefferson 22* 68 215 34* 108 341
(South Side)
1,2,3 Linmar/Jefferson 26* 81 258 32* 102 325
(North Side)
3 Garfield/Linmar 24* 77 245 31* 97 309
* - indicates Contour within right-of-way.
Source: San Diego Acoustics, Inc. ..
11
0 0
Alternatives 2 and 3 limit the noise level better than Alternative
1 under the projected 13,000 ADT. The 60 CNEL contour under Alternative 1 would be 101 feet from the centerline of the road,
while under Alternatives 2 and 3, it would be 97 feet from the
Linmar and Jefferson are the same under all three alternatives, as
shown in the table.
4.0 TRAFFIC SAFETY
road. The noise levels for the stretch of Tamarack Avenue between
The main safety issue involved with the proposed improvements are the installation of sidewalks and bike lanes along Tamarack Avenue. Each of the three alternatives being considered would provide sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of Tamarack Avenue. The only difference between the three alternatives is that Alternative 2 would provide a 6-foot wide bike path, while Alternatives 1 and 3 have a bike path width of 5 feet; this is not considered a significant difference.
The installation of a curb and sidewalk, which is proposed under all three alternatives, would preclude vehicles from parking on dirt areas along Tamarack Avenue, which is the current practice.
Alternative 1 does not provide any on-street parking, while
Alternative 2 provides on-street parking on both sides of the
street for the entire length of the improvement project.
Alternative 3 provides some on-street parking at various locations along Tamarack where there is sufficient existing right-of-way or Irrevocable Offers of Dedication: it does not provide as much parking as Alternative 2.
The provision of parking along Tamarack could be considered a
safety issue. Currently, without any marked parking along Tamarack Avenue, drivers of vehicles become preoccupied with trying to locate areas to park. Many vehicles now park in unmarked dirt areas along the side of the road, providing a safety hazard to
pedestrians and bicyclists which currently use the road.
5-0 LAND USE (disturbance of existing residences)
Of the three alternatives proposed, only one would involve the acquisition of existing houses - Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, six houses would have to be purchased by the City in order to acquire the appropriate right of way. These houses are located on the south side of Tamarack Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard and
Garfield and would either be demolished or moved to another site. The condominiums located at the corner of Tamarack and Carlsbad Boulevard would not be affected because there is adequate area to acquire the needed right-of-way.
All three alternatives would move the edge of the pavement
closer to existing houses along Tamarack Avenue. In some places along the street, there is less than 75 feet between the fronts of
12
e 0
houses on opposite sides of the street. Under Alternative 2, with the 80 foot right of way, these houses would have to be acquired
and removed. Under Alternatives 1 and 3, the houses would remain,
however some buffering might be necessary because of the proximity
of the pavement to the existing houses.
Alternatives 1 and 3 would not involve the relocation or
demolition of any residences. The improvements under Alternative
1 would be limited to the existing right-of-way. Under Alternative
3, improvements are limited to existing right-of-way and to areas where the City currently holds Irrevocable Offers to Dedicate
(IODs) right-of-way. No structures are located within areas with
IODs.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section compares the three improvement alternatives to each other with regard to the potential impacts discussed previously. The alternative which would provide the least amount
of impact or the greatest benefit is identified for each potential
impact. After each potential impact is individually evaluated, the alternative which provides the least amount of environmental impact from an overall perspective is identified.
6.1 Trees
As noted in SectiGn 2.0, the only trees which are considered a significant resource are the Eucalyptus located near the Tamarack/Jefferson intersection. These trees would be saved under all three improvement alternatives, so no significant impacts from tree removal would result from implementing any of the three alternatives. Because Alternative 1 involves the least amount of tree removal, it is considered the best alternative available from
a tree removal standpoint.
6.2 Noise
Because of the existing traffic on Tamarack Avenue and the
proximity of houses to the roadway, noise levels already exceed the
threshold for significance as determined by the Carlsbad Noise Ordinance. None of the three alternatives would result in an increase in noise levels, however the design of Alternatives 2 and
3 would help to limit future noise levels more than Alternative 1. Because of this, Alternative 2 or 3 is the most noise-sensitive alternative available.
6.3 Safety
All three alternatives will actually improve safety on Tamarack Avenue by providing sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides
of the street. Because Alternative 2 provides the most parking, it is considered the best alternative from a safety standpoint.
13
I)
Alternative 3 also provides some parking, although not as much as
Alternative 2. No parking is provided under Alternative 1.
6.4 Land Use
Alternative 2 would result in a significant impact to land use
along Tamarack Avenue, as six houses would have to be relocated or
demolished to implement this alternative. Alternatives 1 and 3 do not involve the removal of any houses and therefore do not have a land use impact.
6.5 Recommendation
Alternative 3 is the best improvement option available for
creating a land use impact by providing parking in areas already
available through existing right-of-way and IODs. Also, along with
Alternative 2, Alternative 3 is the most noise-sensitive design.
Alternative 1 is the most environmentally sensitive alternative, however it does not provide any parking and its design would result in the highest noise levels of any of the three alternatives. Although Alternative 2 provides the most parking, the loss of six houses along Tamarack Avenue in order to implement the alternative is too significant an impact to warrant its implementation.
Tamarack Avenue, because it maximizes safety features without
14
a 0
7.0 REFERENCES
Documents Cited
1) Study of the Improvement of Tamarack Avenue, Leedshill
Herkenhoff, Inc., January, 1990.
2) Location of Noise Level Contours, San Diego Acoustics, Inc.,
July 25, 1990.
Persons Contacted
1) Mr. Pat Entezari, Civil Engineer/Project Manager, City of
Carlsbad.
2) Mr. John Cahill, Municipal Projects Director, City of
Carlsbad.
3) Mr. Ed Kamps, Acoustical Engineer, San Diego Acoustics, Inc.
15
0
APPENDIX A
0
SAN DIEGO ACOUSTICS, Inc.
July 25, 1990
Mr. Mark Kragen
A. D. Hinshaw Associates
6136 Mission Gorge Road, Suite 11 1
San Diego, California 921 20
Subject: Location of Noise Level Contours, Tamarack Avenue as a Function Of
Right-of-way Alternatives And Traffic Volume,
Dear Mr. Kragen:
At your request calculations were made to identify the location of noise level
contours which will result along Tamarack Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad.
The FHWA Traffic Model RD-77-108 was used to calculate the noise levels based
upon the information about the road which you provided. Present and future traffic
volumes were 9,187 ADT and 13,000 ADT, respectively. Vehicle speed was 25 mph
and medium and heavy truck volumes were taken to be 2% and 1% of the total
traffic volume. The geometry (traffic lane locations) was taken from the Alternative
1,2 and 3 figures which are included.
Tables 1A through 1 J contain the calculated locations of the noise contours. The
"Hard Ground" condition is the appropriate choice for this study. The data are all
contained in Table 2 to facilitate comparison of the affect of the various alternatives.
4414 CARMELO STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92107 (619) 225-1691
0 m
Page 2
Table 2
Location Of Noise Contours Along Tamarack Avenue As A
Function Of Alternative Geometry And Traffic Volume.
Distance from center of right-of-way to contour - Feet
9,817 ADT 13,000 ADT
A1 t Contour-CNEL 65 60 55 65 60 55
1 25* 80 255 32* 101 321
2 24* 77 245 31* 97 309
1,2,3 Linmar/Jefferson 22* 68 215 34* 108 341
(South Side)
1,2,3 Linmar/Jefferson 26* 81 258 32* 102 325
(North Side)
3 GarfieldILinmar 24* 77 245 31* 97 309
* - indicates Contour within right-of-way.
Please call if there are any other questions concerning this matter.
Very truly yours, g(jLd-kc p9yL
Edwin C. Kamps
Consultant in Acoustics for,
San Diego Acoustics, Inc.
4414 CARMELO ST. * SANDIEGO, CA. 92107 * (619) 225-1691
m W
San Diego Acoustics, Inc. Report No. 90-060
TABLE 1 A
Noise Levels Resultinq From Automotive Traffic Per FHWA Traffic Model RD-77-108.
INPUT DATA
Road:Tamarack Avenue - Alt #1
ADT: 9187 % AUTOS: 97 % Medium Trucks: 2 % Heavy Trucks: 1
Distance (Feet) observer to geometric center of traffic: 51
MPH: 25 Viewing angle (Degrees) Left and Right:-90 90
OUTPUT OF MODEL - HARD GROUND (ALPHA = 0)
Observer to source distance (Feet): 51 CNEL/Ldn: 62
Center of road to observer - Ft Noise level - CNEL/Ldn Auto Med Trk Hvy Trk Total
51 58 53 58 62
0
0 0
0
80
255
76 71 76 90
71 66 71 75
66 61 66 70
61 56 61 65
56 51 56 60 51 46 51 55
OUTPUT OF MODEL - SOFT GROUND (ALPHA = .5)
Observer to source distance (Feet): 51 CNEL/Mn: 60
Center of road to observer - Ft Noise level - CNEL/Ldn
Auto Med Trk Hvy Trk Total
51 57 52 56 60
0 0 0
0
51
109
77 7 2. 76 80
72 67 71 75 67 62 66 70
62 57 61 65
57 52 56 60 52 47 51 55
A distance of 0 feet means less than 40 feet from center of road
e
San Diego Acoustics, Inc. Report No. 90-060
TABLE 1 B
Noise Levels Resultinq From Automotive Traffic Per FHWA Traffic Model RD-77-108.
INPUT DATA
Road:Tamarack Avenue - Alt #I
ADT: 13000 % AUTOS: 97 % Medium Trucks: 2 % Heavy Trucks: 1
Distance (Feet) observer to geometric center of traffic: 51
MPH: 25 Viewing angle (Degrees) Left and Right:-90 90
~ ~ ~~~
OUTPUT OF MODEL - HARD GROUND (ALPHA = 0)
Observer to source distance (Feet): 51 CNEL/Ldn: 63
Center of road
to observer - Ft
Noise level - CNEL/Ldn
Auto Med Trk Hvy Trk Total
51 60 55 59 63
0
0 0
0 101 321
77 72 76 80
72 67 71 75 67 62 66 70 62 57 61 65 57 52 56 60
52 47 51 55
OUTPUT OF MODEL - SOFT GROUND (ALPHA = .5)
Observer to source distance (Feet): 51 CNEL/Ldn: 62
Center of road to observer - Ft
Noise level - CNEL/Mn Auto Med Trk Hvy Trk Total
51 58 54 58 62
0 0
0
0
69 149
76 72 76 80
71 67 71 75
66 62 66 70 61 57 61 65
56 52 56 60
51 47 51 55
A distance of 0 feet means less than 40 feet from center of road
e 0
San Diego Acoustics, Inc. Report No. 90-060
TABLE 1 C
Noise Levels Resultinq From Automotive Traffic Per FHWA Trafflc Model RD-77-108.
INPUT DATA
Road:Tamarack Avenue - Alt #2
ADT: 9187 % AUTOS: 97 % Medium Trucks: 2 % Heavy Trucks: 1
Distance (Feet) observer to geometric center of traffic: 49
MPH: 25 Viewing angle (Degrees) Left and Right:-90 90
OUTPUT OF MODEL - HARD GROUND (ALPHA = 0)
Observer to source distance (Feet): 49 CNEL/Mn: 62
Center of road to observer - Ft Noise level - CNEL/Ldn Auto Med Trk Hvy Trk Total
49 58 54 58 62
0
0
0
0
77 245
76 72 71 67 66 62 61 57
56 52 51 47
76 80 71 75
66 70
61 65 56 60
51 55
OUTPUT OF MODEL - SOFT GROUND (ALPHA = ;5)
Observer to source distance (Feet): 49 CNEL/Ldn: 61
Center of road Noise level - CNEL/Ldn to observer - Ft , Auto Med Trk Hvy Trk Total
49 57 52 57 61
0
0
0
0
57
123
76 7 1. 76 80
71 66 71 75
66 61 66 70 61 56 61 65 56 51 56 60
51 46 51 55
A distance of 0 feet means less than 40 feet from center of road
e
San Diego Acoustics, Inc.
0
Report No. 90-060
TABLE 1 D
Noise Levels Resultinq From Automotive Traffic Per FHWA Trafflc Model RD-77-108.
INPUT DATA
Road:Tamarack Avenue - Alt #2
ADT: 13000 % AUTOS: 97 % Medium Trucks: 2 % Heavy Trucks: 1
Distance (Feet) observer to geometric center of traffic: 49
MPH: 25 Viewing angle (Degrees) Left and Right:-90 90
~~TPUT OF MODEL - HARD GROUND (ALPHA = 0)
Observer to source distance (Feet): 49 CNEL/Ldn: 63
Center of road to observer - Ft
49
Noise level - CNEL/Mn Auto Med Trk Hvy Trk Total
60 55 59 63
0
0 0
0 97
309
77 72 . 76 80
72 67 71 75
67 62 66 70
62 57 57 52 61 56 65 60
52 47 51 55
OUTPUT OF MODEL - SOFT GROUND (ALPHA = .5)
Observer to source distance (Feet): 49 CNEL/Ldn: 62
Center of road to observer - Ft Noise level - CNEL/Ldn Auto Med Trk Hvy Trk Total
. 49 59 54 58 62
0
0
0
0
66
143
77 72 76 80
72 67 71 75 67 62 66 70
62 57 61 65
57 52 56 60
52 47 51 55
A distance of 0 feet means less than 40 feet from center of road.
0
San Diego Acoustics, Inc.
0
Report No. 90-060
TABLE 1 E
Noise Levels Resultinq From Automotive Traffic Per FHWA Trafflc Model RD-77-108.
INPUT DATA
Road: Linmar/Jef f - South Side
ADT: 9187 % AUTOS: 97 % Medium Trucks: 2 % Heavy Trucks: 1
Distance (Feet) observer to geometric center of traffic: 43
MPH: 25 Viewing angle (Degrees) Left and Right:-90 90
OUTPUT OF MODEL - HARD GROUND (ALPHA = 0)
Observer to source distance (Feet): 43 CNEL/Ldn: 62
Center of road to observer - Ft Noise level - CNEL/Ldn Auto Med Trk Hvy Trk Total
43 59 54 58 62
0
0
0
0
68 215
77 72 76 80 72 67 71 75 67 62 66 70 62 57 61 65 57 52 56 60 52 47 51 55
OUTPUT OF MODEL - SOFT GROUND (ALPHA = .5)'
Observer to source distance (Feet): 43 CNEL/Ldn: 61
Center of road to observer - Ft Noise level - CNEL/Ldn Auto Med Trk Hvy Trk Total
43
0
0
0 0 50 108
58 53 57 61
77 72 76 80 72 67 71 75 67 62 66 70 62 57 61 65 57 52 56 60
52 47 51 55
A distance of 0 feet means less than 40 feet from center of road.
0 0
San Diego Acoustics, Inc. Report No. 90-060
TABLE 1 F
Noise Levels Resultinq From Automotive Traffic Per FHWA Traffic Model RD-77-108.
INPUT DATA
Road:Linmar/Jeff - South Side
ADT: 13000 % AUTOS: 97 % Medium Trucks: 2 % Heavy Trucks: 1
Distance (Feet) observer to geometric center of traffic: 43
MPH: 25 Viewing angle (Degrees) Left and Right:-90 90
OUTPUT OF MODEL - HARD GROUND (ALPHA = 0)
Observer to source distance (Feet): 43 CNEL/Mn: 64
Center of road
to observer - Ft Noise level - CNEL/Ldn Auto Med Trk HVy Trk Total
43 60 56 60 64
0
0
0
0 108 341
76 72 76 80
71 67 71 75
66 62 66 70
61 57 61 65
56 52 56 60
51 47 51 55
OUTPUT OF MODEL - SOFT GROUND (ALPHA = .5)
Observer to source distance (Feet): 43 CNEL/ Ldn : 6 3
Center of road to observer - Ft Noise level - CNEL/Ldn Auto Med Trk Hvy Trk Total
43 60 55 59 63
0
0
0
0
68 146
77 72 76 80
72 67 71 75
67 62 66 70
62 57 61 65
57 52 56 60
52 47 51 55
A distance of 0 feet means less than 40 feet from center of road.
0 0
San Diego Acoustics, Inc. Report No. 90-060
TABLE 1 G
Noise Levels Resultinq From Automotive Traffic Per FHWA Trafflc Model RD-77-108.
INPUT DATA
Road:Linmar/Jeff - North Side
ADT: 9187 % AUTOS: 97 % Medium Trucks: 2 % Heavy Trucks: 1
Distance (Feet) observer to geometric center of traffic: 41
MPH: 25 Viewing angle (Degrees) Left and Right:-90 90
OUTPUT OF MODEL - HARD GROUND (ALPHA = 0)
Observer to source distance (Feet): 41 CNEL/Ldn: 63
Center of road Noise level - CNEL/Mn to observer - Ft Auto Med Trk Hvy Trk Total
41
0
0
0
0
81
258
59 54 59 63
76 71 76 80
71 66 71 75
66 61 66 70
61 56 61 65
56 51 56 60
51 46 51 55
OUTPUT OF MODEL - SOFT GROUND (ALPHA = .5)
Observer to source distance (Feet): 41 CNEL/Ldn: 62
Center of road to observer - Ft Noise level - CNEL/Ldn Auto Med Trk Hvy Trk Total
41 58 54 58 62
0
0
0
0
55 120
76 7 2. 76 80
71 67 71 75
66 62 66 70
61 57 61 65
56 52 56 60
51 47 51 55
A distance of 0 feet means less than 40 feet from center of road.
a a
San Diego Acoustics, Inc.
I
Report No. 90-060
TABLE 1 r-l
Noise Levels Resulting From Automotive Traffic Per FHWA Traffic Model RD-77-108.
INPUT DATA
Road:Linmar/Jeff - North Side
ADT: 13000 % AUTOS: 97 % Medium Trucks: 2 % Heavy Trucks: 1
Distance (Feet) observer to geometric center of traffic: 41
MPH: 25 Viewing angle (Degrees) Left and Right:-90 90
OUTPUT OF MODEL - HARD GROUND (ALPHA = 0)
Observer to source distance (Feet): 41 CNEL/Ldn: 64
Center of road to observer - Ft
41
0
0
0
0
102 325
Noise level - CNEL/Ldn Auto Med Trk Hvy Trk Total
61 56 60 . 64
77 72 76 80
72 67 71 75 67 62 66 70
62 57 61 65
57 52 56 60 52 47 51 55
OUTPUT OF MODEL - SOFT GROUND (ALPHA = .5)
Observer to source distance (Feet): 41 CNEL/Ldn: 63
Center of road
to observer - Ft Noise level - CNEL/Ldn Auto Med Trk Hvy Trk Total
41 60 55 59 63
,o .o
0 0 64 139
77 72 76 80
72 67 71 75
67 62 66 70
62 57 61 65
57 52 56 60
52 47 51 55
A distance of 0 feet means less than 40 feet from center of road.
0 0
San Diego Acoustics, Inc. Report No. 90-060
TA~LE 1 I
Noise Levels Resultinq From Automotive Traffic Per FHWA Trafflc Model RD-77-108.
INPUT DATA
Road:Alt #3 - Garfield to RR
ADT: 9187 % AUTOS: 97 % Medium Trucks: 2 % Heavy Trucks: 1
Distance (Feet) observer to geometric center of traffic: 49
MPH: 25 Viewing angle (Degrees) Left and Right:-90 90
~ ~~
OUTPUT OF MODEL - HARD GROUND (ALPHA = 0)
Observer to source distance (Feet): 49 CNEL/Ldn: 62
Center of road to observer - Ft Noise level - CNEL/Ldn Auto Med Trk Hvy Trk Total
49 58 54 58 62
0
0
0
0 77 245
76 72 76 80 71 67 71 75
66 62 66 70 61 57 61 65
56 52 56 60 51 47 51 55
OUTPUT OF MODEL - SOFT GROUND (ALPHA = .5)
Observer to source distance (Feet): 49 CNEL/Ldn: 61
Center of road Noise level - CNEL/Ldn to observer - Ft Auto Med Trk Hvy Trk Total
49 57 52 57 61
0 76 71 76 80
0 71 66 71 75
0 66 61 66 70
0 61 * 56 61 65
57 56 51 56 60
123 51 46 51 55
A distance of 0 feet means less than 40 feet from center of road.
-f 0 0
San Diego Acoustics, Inc. Report No. 90-060
TABLE 1 CT
Noise Levels Resulting From Automotive Traffic Per FHWA Traffic Model RD-77-108.
INPUT DATA
Road:Alt #3 - Garfield to RR
ADT: 13000 % AUTOS: 97 % Medium Trucks: 2 % Heavy Trucks: 1
Distance (Feet) observer to geometric center of traffic: 49
MPH: 25 Viewing angle (Degrees) Left and Right:-90 90
OUTPUT OF MODEL - HARD GROUND (ALPHA = 0)
Observer to source distance (Feet): 49 CNEL/Ldn: 63
Center of road to observer - Ft Noise level - CNEL/Mn Auto Med Trk Hvy Trk Total
49 60 55 59 63
0
0
0
0 97
309
77 72 76 80
72 67 71 75 67 62 66 70 62 57 61 65
57 52 56 60 52 47 51 55
OUTPUT OF MODEL - SOFT GROUND (ALPHA = .5)
Observer to source distance (Feet)! 49 CNELILdn: 62
Center of road to observer - Ft Noise level - CNEL/Mn Auto Med Trk Hvy Trk Total
49 59 54 58 62
0
0
0
0 66 143
77 72 76 80
72 67 71 75
67 62 66 70 62 57 61 65 57 52 56 60 52 47 51 55
A distance of 0 feet means less than 40 feet from center of road.
* 0 0 -
I/)
v - -
3NVl 3x18
3NVl 73AVkJl
Nun1 1431 snonNlmo3
3NV-I 13AV'tll
3NV-I 3ila
-
"4
I I Y &
0 0 + fi N
I-
v)
0 I"
r) m +
cu.
4
f- 4
m-
I"
v)
r) + a3
f- v,
0 I"
0 0 " 0
c m
4
2
6c' n
a a z z
.-I -
0 I-
n
m
n a m
> -I
v) d cs 4' 0
1 -I
Ul > i= 4 z ClZ u I- I a
e
\. 0 e
r3 0."
3NVl DNlYUVd
~NVI 3wa
3NVll3AVtll
Nut71 ld31
SnOnNllN03
3NVl 13AVtll
3NVl 9Nl)lkiVd
mvmals
\
u-
z- ot; i? / '4 X W 1 v
oc d
8 i a' z: -
.9 & 0
t -1 J
Y
CJ Xd > < m
< Ea
a <
-I
Q z(0 -I
+a E
0
CY
u > F < z CK u P- J <
8 ." . n 0 e
YlVM3alS
3NVl 3NlYtlVd r
3NVl 3x18
3NVl13AVUl
Nun1 1337
SflOflNllN03
. .
3NVll3AVtll @J 3- c\I
cr)
.. SI -. . E~NVI 3118 10
-
3NVl ONlYtlVd 0 r
.
XlVM3alS v! w
n c-
c/)
X w
I
W
"
0 za 8" " 5: ;bi
ZP
Eo a+ 00, 24
"b
I- 0
e e 0 I%: J
r;e
0 P
LLi > 4 el J w
ijy: rx a c9
2
i 0 m
n
t-
-- 7
3NV113At'tfl
Nun1 1331 -
SflOnNllN03 * w
3NV1 73AVtfl
i .
N-IVM~~IS LD I
\ lo' \. &<I
2 t X,' N a3
2 \ - "
c' I- m
X
\
I w 6, 74
v
0 0 + b N
1-
v)
0
4
u+ zm Cea A+
MV cu
e4
z % - .J Ti-
+a3 Sa4
0'3
SL
KO ,dJ"
co + 0 4
;?a
i- v,
<
4
,.
,, t
* n a
6-
9 0
v,L I- s z3 v,
YlVM3CIIS
3NVl 13AVUl z
3NVl 13AVkIl d
3NVl 3x18 I LL
a.
~ 8. I 0 e
A. D. ~~~~~~~ ASSOClATES
61 36 Mission Gorge Road 0 Suite 1 1 1 e $an Die
( 61 9 1 280-2264 %E&y$&
AUG 16 1333
MUNElPAC P&)&eGTe
August 15?'m@ "'
Mr. Pat Entezari
Civil Engineer/Project Manager City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: Revised Noise Contours for Tamarack Avenue
Dear Mr. Entezari:
Table 3.1 of the Environmental Opportunities and Constraints Analysis (EOCA) contains an error which led to an incorrect
conclusion regarding noise sensitivity. Page 12 of the EOCA
indicates that "Alternatives 2 and 3 limit the noise level better
than Alternative 1 under the projected 13,000 ADT,"
Upon review of the calculations used to determine the distance
of the center of the right-of-way to the noise contour, our
acoustician realized a mistake had been made on the calculations
for Alternative 1. Page 11 of the EOCA contains a table indicating the distances to contour. The table indicates that the distance to the 65, 60 and 55 CNEL contours are 32, 101 and 321 feet, respectively, for Alternative 1. These are incorrect. A revised table is attached and indicates that these distances are actually 31, 97 and 309 feet, respectively; the distances are the same for Alternatives 2 and 3.
The recommendation contained on page 14 of the EOCA is still valid, with the exception of the sentence "Also, along with
Alternative 2, Alternative 3 is the most noise-sensitive design."
This sentence should be deleted. Mme of the Altf?xna.tives is more noise sensitive than the others.
We hope this error has not been an inconvenience. If you have any questions regarding this revision or require additional information, please contact me at 280-2264. n
Attachments: Revised Noise Contours Table
II
7- I 0 m
SAN DIEGO ACOUSTICS, Inc.
August 14,1990
Revision 1
Mr. Mark Kragen
A. D. Hinshaw Associates
6136 Mission Gorge Road, Suite 11 1
San Diego, California 921 20
Subject: Location of bioise Level Contours, Tamarack Avenue as a Function OF
Right-of-way Alternatives And Traffic Volume,
Dear Mr. Kragen:
At your request calculations were made to identify the location of noise level
contours which will result along Tamarack Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad.
The FHWA Traffic Model RD-77-108 was used to calculate the noise levels based
upon the information about the road which you provided. Present and future traffic
volumes were 9,187 ADT and 13,000 ADT, respectively. Vehicle speed was 25 mph
and medium and heavy truck volumes were taken to be 2% and 1% of the total
traffic volume. The geometry (traffic lane locations) was taken from the Alternative
1, 2 and 3 figures which are included.
Tables 1A through 1J contain the calculated locations of the noise contours. The
"Hard Ground" condition is the appropriate choice for this study. The data are all
contained in Table 2 to facilitate comparison of the affect of the various alternatives.
*
4414 CARMELO STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92107 (619) 225-1691
" ~, ,, 0 0
Page 2
Table 2
Location Of Noise Contours Along Tamarack Avenue As A
Function Of Alternative Geometry And Traffic Volume.
Distance from center of right-of-way to contour - Feet
9,817 ADT 13,000 ADT
A1 t Contour-CNEL 65 60 55 65 60 55
1 24'* 77 245 31* 97 309
2 24* 77 245 31* 97 309
1,2,3 Linmar/Jefferson 22* 68 215 34* 108 341
(South Side)
1,2,3 Linmar/Jefferson 26* 81 258 32* 102 325
(North Side)
3 Garf ield/Linmar 24" 77 245 31* 97 309
* - indicates Contour within right-of-way.
Please call if there are any other qtiestions concerning this matter.
Very truly yours, ecfiA%+U
Edwin C. K mps
Consultant in Acoustics for,
San Diego Acoustics, Inc.
4414 CARMELO ST. * SANDIEGO, CA. 92107 * (619) 225-1691
I 4 e e
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN OF IMPROVEMENTS TO TAMARACK AVENUE
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1, made and entered into as of the da
of t 1990t by and between the CITY OF CARLSBAD,
municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as glCITY,gg an
LEEDSHILL-HERKENHOFF, INCORPORATED, hereinafter referred to a
ttCONSULTANT. I'
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California
adopted Resolution No. 89-300 on August 22, 1989, approving
consultant agreement with Leedshill-Herkenhoff, Incorporated, fc
the preparation of an alignment study for the proposed improvement
to Tamarack Avenue between Jefferson and Carlsbad Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, said agreement identified a scope of work whic
included an assessment of existing improvements and publj
facilities, meetings and presentations regarding projec
alternatives with City staff and property owners, an assessment c
alignment alternatives and related work associated with tk
proposed improvements to Tamarack Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the parties to this aforementioned agreement desil
to expand the scope of work to include additional work related tc
the final design of proposed improvements to Tamarack Avenue j
accordance with the detailed scope of work identified as attachc
Exhibit I1Alg incorporated by reference and made a part hereof; an(
1 0 e
WHEREAS, a supplemental scope of work and fee schedule hav
been negotiated and agreed to between the parties hereto; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California
,hereby finds it necessary, desirable, and in the public interest t
proceed with this Amendment No. 1 for said additional work.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these recitals and th
mutual covenants contained herein, CITY and CONSULTANT hereby agre
as follows:
1. CONSULTANT shall provide CITY additional work related t
the final design of improvements to Tamarack Avenue from Jeffersc
to Carlsbad Boulevard in accordance with the scope of wox
identified as Exhibit l1AW1 attached hereto and incorporated k
reference herein, Said work shall include:
0 Task 1 - Initial Scheduling and Planning
0 Task 2 - Design Surveying
0 Task 3 - Documents for Property Acquisition
0 Task 4 - Drainage
0 Task 5 - Preliminary Design
e Task 6 - Final Design
Task 7 - Landscape Design
0 Task 8 - Specifications and Contract Documents
e Task 9 - Cost Estimate
0 Task 10 - Quality Assurance
0 Task 11 - Status Meetings and Presentation
of Deliverables to City
0 Task 12 - Coordination with Utility Companies
1 0 e
0 Task 13 - Coordination of Crossing Modifications
with AT&SF Railroad
0 Task 14 - Attend Preconstruction Meeting
0 Task 15 - Signal Modification at Jefferson and Tamarac
2. CONSULTANT shall begin work under this amendment withi
ten (10) calendar days after receipt of notification to proceed b
CITY. All work associated with this amendment shall be complete
by CONSULTANT within one hundred and twenty (120) calendar day
therefrom. Extensions of time may be granted by CITY if requeste
by CONSULTANT and agreed to in writing by CITY. The time extensio
will give allowance for documented and substantiated unforeseeabl
and unavoidable delays not caused by a lack of foresight on th
part of the CONSULTANT for delays caused by CITY in action or othe
agencies' lack of timely action.
3. CITY shall pay CONSULTANT monthly upon receipt an
approval of detailed invoices in accordance with the belo
referenced fee schedule.
4 - CITY shall pay CONSULTANT a total lump sum fee c
$85,248.00. The fee schedule for this scope of work shall be a
follows:
Item of Work Contract % Amount
1. Planning, research,
documentation & title reports. 10% $ 8,524.E
2. Preliminary plans & specifications with cost estimates. Excludes 30% $25 , 574.4 underground utility plans and includes right-of-way work.
I a 0 Q
3. Final design plans & specifications
including underground utility work, 50% $42,624.0
estimate. 10% $ 8,524.8
TOTAL FEE $85,248.0
5. All provisions of the aforementioned agreement entere
into on August 22, 1989, by and between CITY and CONSULTANT shal
remain in full force and effect.
4. Final plans, specifications, & cost
6. This Amendment No. 1 to the aforementioned agreemen
between CITY and CONSULTANT shall be effective on and from the da
first above written.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals
LEEDSHILL-HERKENHOFF, INCORPORATED CITY OF CARLSBAD
BY
.& /a
Title CLAUDE A. LEWIS
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
City Attorney City Clerk
I 0 a
ENCLOSURE "A" - SCOPE OF WORK
The following is a scope of services detailed by various task:
TASK 1 - INITIAL SCHEDULING AND PLANNING
The Consultant shall deliver to Carlsbad a detailed design schedull within two (2) weeks of the execution of a contract with the City
After delivery of the schedule, an Initial Planning Meeting woull be held between Carlsbad and Leedshill-Herkenhoff at the beginnin1 of the project. The purpose of the meeting would be to define thl design parameters for Tamarack prior to commencing the work, Th, following items would be discussed and agreed upon:
1. Changes to the preferred alternative alignment as depicted i~
the plans (the design alignment will be finalized at thir time).
2. Any changes to the proposed schedule.
3. Content and form of the specifications and contract document! to meet Carlsbad requirements.
4. Drafting standards and digital data formats (if desired).
5. Review of preliminary estimate and discussion of cost factors which affect the design. These include:
a. Type and quality of improvements b. Type and quality of landscaping c. Specific striping, signing and signaling requirements
d. Slurry seal in specific areas
e. Existing improvements to be retained or removed
6. Identification of utilities and other governmental agencies
for coordination.
7. Strategy for public contact regarding the project.
8. Procedures for review and acceptance of the project deliverable documents.
EXHIBIT IIA1#
e 0
9. Specific scope considerations
a.
b.
d. e.
f.
g* h.
C.
Surfacing. Lighting. Typical sections Soils/geotechnical investigation Phasing (preliminary, final, reviews, estimate) Drainage Landscaping Traffic control
TASK 2 - DESIGN SURVEYING
Provide a precise alignment survey of the new centerline il relation to the existing centerline. Provide cross sections at 5r
foot intervals including additional sections at grade breaks railroad crossing, intersections and driveways. Provide precis pick-up topography for location of planimetric features not show]
by photogrammetry.
TASK 3 - DOCUMENTS FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITION
Prepare legal descriptions, exhibit maps, and area computations fo: acquisition parcels. Prepare composite right-of-way map showin< areas of acquisition, property owners, and Assessorts Parcel Numbers. Includes preliminary title reports for 12 parcels.
TASK 4 - DRAINAGE
Provide hydrology and hydraulic design report for storm drains, Determine outfall location and elevation. Design storm drain tc drain low point at 8+00 to extend to existing 60t@ storm drain i1
the railroad right-of-way.
TASK 5 - PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Draw the plan and profile sheets for the roadway. Show all proposed grading, improvements, utility relocations, right-of-way acquisitions and necessary information for construction. Compile initial estimate of quantities and draft specifications. Sketch the signing and striping for the roadway. Develop the level of landscapingto be employed and provide preliminary design concepts. Prepare preliminary estimate of construction costs.
A meeting will be held to present the initial design, which will be one (1) set of pencil sketches, to the City for a progress review.
The initial estimate, outline specifications, and draft contract
EXHIBIT ItAtt
I A
21 e 0
documents will also be presented. Any necessary changes in desig:
cost or scope would be made at this point.
TASK 6 - FINAL DESIGN
Upon preliminary plan review and approval by the City, the fin:
design will be completed and drafted in ink on mylar. The finishc plans will consist of a cover sheet, four (4) plan an profi: sheets, a striping and signing plan, a traffic control plan, a1 approximately three (3) additional sheets of notes, typic: sections, and detail drawings. Consultant will provide tl
original mylars, and drawings as Autocad files on floppy disks, a1 two (2) sets of prints to the City. Utility undergroundiny pial (prepared by each affected utility) will be incorporated into t~ final set of drawings.
TASK 7 - LANDSCAPE DESIGN
Provide plans drafted in ink on mylar and specifications for tk landscaping ofthe median and associated areas. Provide irrigatic plans for median.
TASK 8 - SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
After review by Carlsbad in TASK 6 above, the specifications ar contract documents will be completed. The original documents, on
(1) set of copies, and all text in Wordperfect format on 1.2 me floppy disk will be provided.
TASK 9 - COST ESTIMATE
After the plans are completed, final construction quantities wil
be determined. Unit prices will be established and a fina engineer's cost estimate will be prepared and submitted to th city.
TASK 10 - QUALITY ASSURRNCE
All plans, drawings, and specifications will go through a thoroug check by Leedshill-Herkenhoff's senior engineer.
TASK 11 - STATUS MEETINGS AND PRESENTATION OF DELIVERABLES
TO CLIENT
Formal monthly status meetings will be held between the consultan
design team and the City to review the status of the work, and t ensure that the City has opportunity for input at critical stage. of the project.
EXHIBIT "A"
1 e a
Upon completion of the work, the project manager and the desig engineer will present the deliverable documents to the City.
TASK 12 - COORDINATION WITH UTILITY COMPANIES
Meet with utility companies (maximum of two meetings) to coordinat'
the project specs for bidding.
TASK 13 - COORDINATION OF CROSSING MODIFICATIONS WITH
the work, Incorporate undergrounding plans and specifications i
AT&SF RAILROAD
Meet with railroad to coordinate installation of crossing gates Provide railroad with design data necessary. The design 0: railroad crossing protection devices and other planning 01 engineering for the railroad crossing will be performed by AT&SF. Drawings prepared by AT&SF will be incorporated into the final sei of drawings.
TASK 14 - ATTEND PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING
The Leedshill-Herkenhoff project manager and project engineer will attend the preconstruction meeting.
TASK 15 - SIGNAL MODIPI@IPTON AT JEFFERSON
Prepare signal modification plans for the Jefferson/Tamaracl intersection.
HOURS EXPENDED IN DESIGN OF THE PROJECT
The following is a tabulation of hours to be expended by Leedshill- Herkenhoff in the design of the project:
Pro j ect Manager Senior Engineer
Q/A Engineer . Civil Engineer Drafter Clerical
38 Hours
180 Hours
8 Hours
280 Hours
292 Hours
42 Hours
TOTAL 840 Hours
EXHIBIT "A"
MI iITE IT - DON’T SAY 1 I ! P
Date 12/17/90 I! . .~
To MAYOR E COUNCIL MEMBERS [?Reply Wanted
From Bonnie UNO Reply Necessary
The following people have called regarding Tamarack Avenue,
and are in favor of Alternative #3:
BEVERLY SHOFF, 4014 Aguilia (434-0059)
ESTHER ESTES, 390 Tamarack (729-4159)
AIGNER FORM NO. 55-032 PRINT
b* ;ITE IT - DON'T SAY I m i & &' (/
I
Date 12/17/90
To MAYOR E COUNCIL MEMBERS 0 Reply Wanted
From Bonnie UNO Reply Necessary
SHERYL GOT0 of 3911 Garfield (434-93381, who lives
two houses from Tamarack, called regarding the Council
item Tuesday night concerning Tamarack improvements.
She wanted you to know that she prefers recommendation
#3 for Tamarack.
AIGNER FORM NO. 55-032 PRlN
r > a q
F-
December 17, 1990
Tamarack Avenue - Engineer Recommended Plan 3
All support this.
MaryJane 729-2187
Mr. Lettle 729-4713
John Standerfer
Mrs. Huber Hope they do it SOON!
Mr. & Mrs. Boyd Yes, Yes
Mrs. Clark
3914 Hibiscus Carlsbad, CA 729-5364
Andrew Borakove
2535 Jefferson Carlsbad, CA 434-9509
Mary Hogan 2535 Jefferson St. #13 Carlsbad, CA 434-9509
George Miller
850 Magnolia
Harry Haubert - Also remind Buddy and Ann how well East 1-5 WOI
out very well with two lanes, hope the same can happen wit Tamarack
1241 Tamarack
591-6362
Helen McEwen (213) 742-7547 owns property at N.E. corner c Garfield and Tamarck has beautiful eucalyptus tree she wants savec
Ann Caples
3117 Vista Rica
436-6177
Mr. Henkins Yes!!
438 Tamarack
Mrs. Henkins Yes
438 Tamarack
Tina Tepper 434-5524
Victor Gordon, Nautical Drive, Carlsbad (Alternative #3)
Mr. and Mrs. Frank Bohler, 4370 Stanford, Carlsbad (434-3921)