HomeMy WebLinkAbout3190; Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Final; Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Final; 1987-09-01FINAL REPORT
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
ALIGNMENT STUDY COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 1987
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Chairman
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.
I. Executive Summary 1
II. Comparison of Alternatives 7
Preliminary Cost Estimate for RSF Rd. Alignment Alternatives. . . 10
III. Mitigated Alternative 11
Plan for Mitigated Alternative (Hunsaker 1) 13
Noise Impact/View Analysis Sections 14
Preliminary Cost Estimates (Hunsaker 1) 15
IV. Canyon Alternative 16
Plan for Canyon Alternative (Hunsaker 2) 19
Preliminary cost Estimates for Hunsaker 2 20
V. M.A.G. Properties Right of Way Analysis 21
IV. Appendices
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
«• 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
m Avenue northerly to Melrose Drive. Through its deliberation the Committee
«" explored in detail two potential corridor alignments. The first corridor
follows closely the existing alignment 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
m alignment.
** After detailed analysis of several alternatives in each corridor, two
"" alternatives were selected to provide the basis for final comparison.
IH
MITIGATED ALTERNATIVE (Hunsaker 1)
•«w
^ The first alternative, as recommended by the City Circulation Committee,
iw 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.
M Additional offsets of up to 150 feet provided little in the way of noise
m mitigation at significantly higher costs.
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 Alignment 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 developing the Canyon Alignment several alternatives were explored in
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
preliminary land plans.
All canyon alignments were located in areas constrained by 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 that alignment and see no
archeological, biological or paleontolgical restrictions. Grading cost and
construction scheduling would appear to be the primary negative aspects of this
alignment.
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
(including noise mitigation)
Canyon Alternative (Hunsaker 2) $14,434,000
Alternative Differential $2,092,600
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
Mel rose Drive cost savings. Should the Canyon Alternative be selected it is
calculated that Mel rose 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. Ignoring rights of way it would
3
appear from a construction-land economics perspective there could be little
cost overall differential between the two alternatives.
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
alternative.
ITEM MITIGATED CANYON COST
ALIGNMENT ALIGNMENT DIFFERENTIAL
(HUNSAKER 1) (HUNSAKER 2)
Construction Cost $11,358,330 $14,434,000 $3,075,670
$ 983,070 $ - 0 - ($983,070)
$ 300,000** $ 1,305,00 $1,005,000
$ 400,000 $ - 0 - ($ 400,000)
$ -0-
Environmental
Mitigation
*MAG Properties
Right of Way
Maintenance
Differential
Mel rose Drive
Adjustment ($ 1.800.000) ($ 1.800.000)
$13,041,400 $13,939,000 $ 892,600TOTAL
*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. The
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.
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 alignment.
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 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 alignment identified as Hunsaker 2 Alignment
and that Council direct that required financing and planning efforts be
expedited to insure the earliest construction of the roadway.
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 alignment.
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 recommendation and maintains that the Canyon Alignment will
Jm K jfc
severely damacyyiejjBdPPii&f by potentially severing access to Rancho Santa
Fe Road. MA^hJ^Jff jidicate<f that they are willing to dedicate all lands
required for the MitigJ|jflJ"BNfcwJp* participate financially in noise
mitigations proposed for that ait^jprc«r ^nejf would not voluntarily provide
either of these for the Canyon Alignment
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The Committee recommends that Council approve realignment of Rancho Santa Fe
Road southeasterly in the general alignment identified as Hunsaker 2 Alignment
and that Council direct that required financing and planning efforts be
expedited to insure the earliest construction of the roadway.
II COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
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 Alignment is estimated to cost approximately $15,000,000. The
Alignment 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.
Financing priority and phasing opportunities would however remain a primary
issue.
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 QUALITY 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 artificially
divides the community and that the Canyon Alignment follows a topographic
division which provides a natural hillside boundary.
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
impacts, public 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
quality of life for existing residents along the route exceed the potential
grading impacts then the Canvon Alignment is the logical selection. If either
of these facts are not clear the Mitigated Alternative should be more
thoroughly explored.
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD ALIQ1MENT STUDY
^ MA3KEX
OdfiPARISCN OF ALTERNATIVES
Factor Mitigated Alignnent
(Hunsaker 1)
Canyon Alignment
(Hunsaker 2)
Safety • Marginally Safer than Canyon
Alignnent due to reduced number
of curves.
• Biased construction will improve
the existing road conditions more
quickly.
• Would require increased
traffic control during cons-
truction with temporary safety
concerns.
• Meets optimum design
standards.
• Construction less dis-
ruptive to existing
traffic.
Environmental Impacts Noise, pollution and
vibration impacts to existing
homes unacceptable to residents.
• Construction would be more
disruptive to existing residents.
• Potentially significant
grading required.
• Construction activities
less disruptive.
• Superior noise miti-
gation for residences.
Cost & Financing • Least costly and more
easily phase constructed for
ease of financing.
• Mitigation may be const-
ructed more quickly.
• $2-5,000,000 more cost.
Difficult to phase con-
struct and finance. May
encounter costly delays
due to right of way con-
straints.
• Depending on financing
and priority, could take
5 to 7 years to construct
with no early relief to
existing roadway problems.
• Early construction
would likely require
financing which may tend
to increase development
pace.
Community Cohesion • Would tend to sever RIM
Lands creating- environ-
mental disruption on two
sides of the road creating
a relatively isolated
connunity on the southeast.
• Follows a natural edge
along a canyon and
hillside creating a more
cohesive RIM community
northeasterly of the
roadway which may enhance
marketing and development
economics offsetting in-
creased road cost.
Policy Impacts • Less likely to require special
policy considerations and priority
processing.
• Will likely require pro-
cessing priority and spe-
cial financial programing
to eliminate delays to con-
struction.
• Will require the relo-
cation of Fire Station No.
6 and potentially slow dev-
lopment in Zone 6.
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES
ITEMSi
Alignment Study Cost
ALIGNMENT 1 ALIGNMENT 2
1. SOUND MITIGATION
EXISTING DEVELOPEMENT
FUTURE DEVELOPEMENT
2. PARKWAY LANDSCAPE
(FUTURE DEVELOPEMENT)
3. REMOVE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
4. EARTHWORK
5. PAVEMENT AND BASE
6. CURB AND GUTTER
7. SIDEWALK
Q MEDIAN (CURB)
9. MEDIAN (LANDSCAPING)
10. STORM DRAIN
tl. PRESSURE REDUCING STATION
12. UTILITIES (GAS, ELECTRIC,
TELEPHONE, CABLE T.V.)
13. STREET LIGHTS
14. GUARD RAIL
15. MISC. REMOVALS & RELOCATIONS
16. WIDENING SAN MARCOS CREEK
BRIDGE TO SIX LANES
17. ENGINEERING
SUBTOTAL
107. CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
W.O. 470-6
AUGUST 24, 1987 10
$893,700.00
$234,000.00
$381,000.00
$160,000.00
$2,250,000.00
$1,973,250.00
$158,400.00
$297,000.00
$138,600.00
$1,514,700.00
$250,000.00
$25,000.00
$792,000.00
$80,000.00
*14,000.00
$10O,OOO.OO
$50O,OOO.OO
$1,325,498.00
$11,087,148.OO
$1,108,714.80
$12,195,862.80
$315,OOO.OO
$315,000.00
$4,795,OOO.OO
$2,070,000.00
$168,000.00
$157,500,00
$147,000.00
$1,606,500.00
$250,000.00
$25,000.00
$840,000.00
$80,000.00
$42,000.00
$100,000.00
$500,000.00
$1,423,200.00
$12,829,200.00
$1,282,920.00
$14,112,120.00
Ill MITIGATED ALTERNATIVE fHUNSAKER 1)
DESIGN OBJECTIVE
The Mitigated Alternative was designed to meet the recommendations of the City
Circulation Committee by developing a roadway design along the existing
alignment which optimally mitigates noise impacts and provides an aesthetically
pleasing scenic corridor.
Development of the chosen alternative 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
* t t 1 l i r i t i i • t i m
RANCHO SANTA FE
ALIGNMENT STUDY 1
LA COSTA
RANCH
COMPANY
WO. «70-i n»Tt T-1-1
1
1
ALIGNMENT STUDY 1A
ALIGNMENT STUDY 1B
SECTIONS C & D
Hg
m
SECTION B
SECTION A
14
COzo
LU
CO
Q co
<< cos^
.< Ill
Q LUZ co
< 6DC z
LACOSTAl
RANCH
COMPANY
W.O.4T»-«
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR BUDGETING PURPOSES
RANCHO SAN FE RD. FROM LA COSTA NORTH TO MELROSE
FULL WIDTH IMPROVEMENTS
ALIGNMENT 1
(9,900 LF)
1. A. SOUND MITIGATION SUMMARY
(EXISTING DEVELOPEMENT)
a) 6' WALL
b) 8* WALL
c) 10* WALL
d) 4' RETAINING WALL
e) EARTHWORK
•f) CUL-DE-SAC CADENCIA
9) LANDSCAPE 25' BUFFER
h) LAND VALUE
i> JERSEY BARRIER
SUB-TOTAL
B. SOUND MITIGATION
(FUTURE DEVELOPEMENT)
a) 6* WALL
2. PARKWAY LANDSCAPE
(FUTURE DEVELOPMENT)
3. REMOVE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
4. EARTHWORK
a) 5. PAVEMENT «e BASE
6. CURB & GUTTER
7. SIDEWALK
8. MEDIAN (CURB)
MEDIAN (LANDSCAPING)
9. STORM DRAIN
10. PRESSURE REDUCING STATION
b)ll. UTILITIES (GAS, ELECTRIC,
TELEPHONE, CABLE T.V.)
12. STREET LIGHTS
13. GUARD RAIL
14. MISC. REMOVALS & RELOCATIONS
c)15. WIDENING SAN MARCOS CREEK
BRIDGE TO SIX LANES
16. ENGINEERING (157.)
SUB-TOTAL
TOTAL
A) ASSUME SECTION OF 6" AC/12"
b) NUMBERS TO BE VERIFIED
c> ROUGH COST ESTIMATE
QUANTITY
3500 LF
1000 LF.
1300 LF
1300 LF
17500 CY
1 LS
10750O SF
2.56 AC
500 LF
7800 LF
UNIT PRICE
*30.00
BASE
TOTAL
$30.00
*40.00
$50.00
*40.0O
$4.OO
$40000.00
*3.00
*70000.00
*40.0O
$105,000.00
*40,OOO.OO
$65,000.00
* 52,000.00
*7O,000.00
$40,000.00
$322,500.00
$179,200.00
$20,000.00
$893,700.00
$234,000.00
127000
320000
450OOO
877000
19800
1980OO
1 9800
168300
1
1
99OO
40
70O
1
1
1
SF
LF
CY
SF
LF
SF
LF
SF
LS
LS
LF
EA
LF
LS
LS
LS
107.
$3.
$O.
$5.
$2.
$8.
$1.
$7.
$9.
$250000.
$25OOO.
*8O.
$20OO.
$20.
$100000.
$500000.
$1325498.
00
50
OO
25
00
50
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Contingency
$2
$1
$1
$1
$11
$1
$381,
$160,
,250,
,973,
$158,
$297,
$138,
,514,
$250,
$25,
$792,
$80,
$14,
$100,
$50O,
,325,
,087,
, 108,
$12, 195,
ooo.
000.
000.
250.
400.
000.
6OO.
700.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
498.
148.
714.
862.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
80
80
15
IV CANYON ALTERNATIVE (Hunsaker 2)
DESIGN OBJECTIVE
Safety, development compatibility 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 alternative 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 alternative 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 superelevation 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 will be constructed to mitigate 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
CT3
BEST ORIGINAL
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
ALIGNMENT STUDY 2
LA COSTA
RANCH
COMPANY
E
c
I
I
E
C
C
c
c
c
c
I
E
PRELIMINARY CDGT ESTIMATE FOR BUDGETING PURPOSES
RANCHO SAN FE RD. FROM LA COSTA NORTH TO MELROSE
FULL WIDTH IMPROVEMENTS
ALIGNMENT 2
U05OO LF)
1. SOUND ATTENUATION
FUTURE DEVELOPEMENT
2. GUARD RAIL
3. PARKWAY LANDSCAPE
FUTURE DEVELOPEMENT
4. JERSEY BARRIER
5. EARTHWORK
a) 6. PAVEMENT S« BASE
7. CURB ?< GUTTER
8. SIDEWALK
9. MEDIAN (CURB)
MEDIAN (LANDSCAPING)
10. STORM DRAIN
b) M- UTILITIES (GAS, ELECTRIC,
TELEPHONE, CABLE T.V.)
12. STREET LIGHTS
13. MISC. REMOVALS %•. RELOCATIONS
C>14. WIDENING SAN MARCOS CREEK
BRIDGE TO SIX LANES
15, ENGINEERING (15'/.)
SUB-TOTAL
TOTAL
a) ASSUME SECTION OF 6" AC/12'
b) NUMBERS TO BE VERIFIED
c) ROUGH COST ESTIMATE
BASE
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
10500
21OO
1O5OOO
5OO
959OOO
920OOO
21OOO
105OOO
21 OOO
178500
1
10500
40
1
1
1
LF
LF
SF
LF
CY
SF
LF
SF
LF
SF
LS
LF
EA
LS
LS
LS
10V.
$30.
$2O.
$3.
*4O.
$5.
$2.
$8.
*1.
$7.
$9.
$250000.
*8O.
$2000.
*10OOOO.
$500000.
$1423200.
OO
00
OO
OO
OO
25
00
50
OO
00
00
00
OO
OO
00
00
Cont ingsncy
$315,
$42,
*315,
$20,
$4,795,
$2,070,
$168,
*157,
$147,
$1,606,
$250,
$840,
$80,
$10O,
$50O,
$1,423,
$12,829,
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
ooo.
000.
500.
000.
500.
000.
000.
ooo.
000 .
000.
200.
200.
$1,282,920.
$14, 112, 120.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
OO
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
OO
OO
NOTE: Right-of-way gain of $352,100
offsets existing road removal
and water line relocation.
20
V. MAG PROPERTIES RIGHT OF WAY ANALYSIS
I
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
I• approval of the Zone 11 Facilities Plan. The property is variously Master
M 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
E revised. The current master plan designations are shown on Exhibit B.
C Both the Mitigated Alternative and the Canyon Alignment will require additional
m 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
f" 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
1^ estimated costs are represented below:
_ Right of Way Summary
«• Alternative Net R/W Requirements Estimated Value*
F Original 0.35 acres $ 105,000
Mitigated Alignment 1.00 acres $ 300,000
L Canyon Alignment 5.05 acres $1,515,000
*Estimates based on $300,000 per acre derived from current library siteEacquisition and 37 acre site adjacent to the Encina Treatment Plant, general
research, site constraints, and open space designations.
E
E
C
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
E
I
$1,000,000 greater than the Mitigated Alignment. MAG Properties maintains a
E 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 Damages/Access
_ Severance damages accrue to a property when the taking of a portion of propertyH
" 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
L sufficient for the Intended uses.
1
c
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
f" that Mi si on Estancia be extended to intersect with Rancho Santa Fe Road some
1300 feet northerly of the Intersection with La Costa Avenue. This spacing
L 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
P 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 Citv Engineer's opinion that access to Rancho Santa Fe Road has equalE
G
E
probability under both alignments and access should not be a consideration in
severance.
F Impacts on Development
MAG Properties currently has pending an application for development assuming
[y the existing alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Should the alignment change,
22
E the project would require redesign. Because the Canyon Alignment would not be
f" functional until fully completed it would be difficult to construct the
ultimate roadway adjacent to their property. Special conditions including
Q 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.E
F Conclusion
It is the City Engineer's opinion that the net cost of MAG Properties right of
fy way under the Canyon Alignment would not exceed $2.0 million and that the
P 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
f" 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
L 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.E
[
G
E
E
E 23
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I EXHIBIT A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E
1
I
I
EXHIBIT A
E
c
E
i
E
I
I
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 foot
for the actual net taking of 5.4 acres (235,224 sq. ft.), which
includes the actual road 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: $9,583,200.00 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.
Al
E
i
I
I
I
I
I EXHIBIT B
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT B
LOCATION MAP
BORDER
OS - OPEN SPACE
O - PROFESSIONAL AND RELATED
C - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
PROJECT NAME: MAQ
MASTER PLAN DESIGNATIONS
Bl
i
i
i
I
I
I EXHIBIT C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E
E
EXHIBIT C
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
LOCATION MAP
> =300'
PROPOSED CANYON
ALTERNATIVE
EXISTING TRUCK
BYPASS SITE
PROJECT NAME: MAQ PROPERT|ES
CANYON ALTERNATIVE RIGHTS OF WAY
ci
I
I
I
I
I
I
I EXHIBIT D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
FOR THE WIDENING OFRANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
i
I
1
CITY OF CARLSBAD
C
G
1
E August 21, 1987
Report #87-30-07.3
E
P Prepared For
Rancho Santa Fe Road Advisory CommitteeI
Prepared By:
Paul H. Dunholter, P.E.
E Principal
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
280 Newport Center Drive, Suite 230ENewport Beach, CA 92660
714^60-0891
I
i
I
1
August 21,1987
Report #87-30-07*
1
C
c
c
c
E
G
i
C
E
C
NOISE ASSESSMENT FOR THE WIDENING OF
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to present the results 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 are along Rancho Santa 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 design plan for these improvements can be categorized in
essentially three alternative alignments. These include current alignment with the additional lanes
added to the east side of the roadway; shifting the roadway a relatively small distance to the east;
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 governments 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 first 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 from traffic noise. The
Methodology used in predicting the noise environment and calculating the mitigating
effect of noise barriers is also presented in this section.
2. The second section presents the noise levels from existing and future traffic levels.
The existing and future noise levels are presented for the three representative
alternative alignments 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 traffic noise levels on the interior noise environment of these homes is
also addressed.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Noise Definitions and Assessment Criteria
Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency
(pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the Decibel
(dB). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, 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
frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.
Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in
sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale
used to measure earthquakes. Li terms 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
i
E
E
E
E
C
c
I
E
E
E
E
E
SOUND LEVELS AND LOUDNBSS OF ILLUSTRATIVE NOISES IN INDOOR AND OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS
dB(A)
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
10
OyERpALL LEVELSMHM FwNmUralApMmAMM
MlCPOOW
UNCOMFORTABLY
LOUD
VERY
LOUD
MODERATELY
LOUD
QUIET
JUST AUDIBLE
THRESHOLD
OP HEARING
COMMUNITY
«M*M)
MaUry Jet AtanftTttoOCrWUi After-tumor
Ron Aircraft Cmi«r«50R (130)
Tufao-PuAiicnft 0Tik*OffPower
« 200 PL CM)
ItlFtya«r« 1000 PL (103)
BoeagTOT. DC-t««OtOR
• BefaraLiadla|(106)
Bdl J-2A IMieopUrff 100 R QOO)
PoMrMvMr(M)
Boda|737.DC-90COIOR
BdoraLudimi (97)M«flrcycle«2SPt(90)
C*WMh«20R(l9)
Prop. AJ^UMR|onr91000R.(U)
Dienl Track. 40MPH050FL(S4)
DiaalTnla,4SMm«IOOa (S3)
Hifh Uibu Anbiot Sound (10)
Puintv Cv, 6S MPH • 25 R 07)
Frocwiy 9 « *• ITOHI n vflnootEd» 10:00 AM (76+^6)
Air CoodUioning Unk 9 100 R (60)
LwteTnmformBn0100PL(50)
BMCdt(44)
Lower Unit Uibn Anbtat Souad («)
(dBtAl.Vililmmirriri)
HOME OR INDUSTRY
Oxyfn Torch 021)
RiveBBgMiehia«(110)
RoctN-RoaBnd(10(-114)
Nemp«pcrIVtM(97)
PaodBtadv (SI)
MiUiatMieUai(SS)
Qrt.geD«pc«a(SO)
Liviii|RoaaMiuio(76)
TV* AudiOk VICUUBI ^ItfiHuf
CMhRegBUr 0 10 PL (65-70)
Electric Typewriur « 10 a (64)
Diihwuher (Ri»e) » I0a (60)
O>B WfHtlOllI (6Q)
LOUDNBSS
tfDUhraKMI
Lrab
120 <O(A) 32 Tin • Loud
110dB(A) UTinmnLoud
100dB(A) STnni tiLflid
90dB(A)4rHMiiiLoad
SOdBCA)2TinMMLoud
70dB(A)
60dB(A)WMLoud
SOdB(A)l/4uLoud
40dB(A)lrt»Laud
gQUBCH.B«r«AM!«lframM«l»ill«g.HrMdiMrfB.nri.B«l.tiil OutAiar None i. the VtempalilM
PubUdMd by the CKy «f Lot Anguta, 1970, pj.
Rancho Santa Fe Road
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Figure 1
Examples of Typical Sound Levels
10 dBA change. Examples of various sound levels in different environments are shown in
Figure 1.
Sound levels decrease 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 are more absorptive than hard surfaces such as concrete where the amount
of noise reduction is less. Atmospheric absorption also influences the levels that are received by
the observer. The greater the distance traveled, the greater the influence and the resultant
fluctuations. The degree of absorption is a function of the frequency 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 determining the degree of attenuation.
Noise has been defined as unwanted sound and it is known to have several adverse effects 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 people 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 are briefly discussed in the following narratives:
HEARING LOSS is, in general, not a concern in community airport 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. The Occupational 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 very
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
interfere 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
I
I
I
I
E
1
E
E
E
I
I
C
E
E
I
E
E
E
C
32
Hi
Z 8
UJ
4
\\\\\\\\\\s\\\\\\\\xv
^>>^ DISTANCE NOISED
REA WHERE UNAIDED
30
DISTANCE NOISE AREA
WHERE FACE-TO-FACECOMMUNICATION IN
NORMAL VOICE IS
ADEQUATE
J.40 50 60 70
A WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL
100
Rancho Santa Fe Road
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Figure 2
Noise and Speech Communication Relationship
of course, is most critical during nighttime hours. Sleep disturbance is one of the
major causes of annoyance due to community noise. Noise can make it difficult to
fall asleep, create momentary disturbances of natural sleep patterns by causing
shifts from deep to lighter stages and cause awakening. Noise may even cause
awakening which a person may or may not be able to recall.
Extensive research has been conducted on the effect of noise on sleep disturbance.
Recommended values for desired sound levels in residential bedroom space range
from 25 to 45 dB A with 35 to 40 dB A being the norm. The National Association
of Noise Control Officials have published data on the probability of sleep
disturbance with various single event noise levels. Based on experimental sleep
data as related to noise exposure, a 75 dBA interior noise level event will cause
noise induced awakening in 30 percent of the cases.
•
PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES are those measurable effects of noise on people
which are realized as changes in pulse rate, blood pressure, etc. While 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 are
a reaction to a loud short term noise such as a rifle shot or a very loud jet
overflight
ANNOYANCE is the most difficult of all noise responses to describe. Annoyance is
a very individual characteristic and can vary widely from person to person. What
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 interference 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 someone 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
I
I
i
I
i
i
1
c
i
G
i
I
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 observation. The predominate scales are the: Equivalent
Noise Level (LEQ), the Day Night Noise Level (LDN) and the Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL). Each of these cumulative noise metrics represent a fluctuating noise environment
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 occurred during the time period These scales are
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. LEQ 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
referred 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 hi
terms of the highest one hour LEQ of the day.
CNEL is a 24-hour, time-weighted annual average noise level It is a measure of the
overall noise experienced during an entire day. The time-weighted refers to the fact
that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring
at these times. In the CNEL scale, those events that take place during evening (7 pm
to 10 pm) are penalized 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 LDN scale is specified the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the City of Carlsbad and is accepted by the State of California for
community noise assessment
i
c Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 5
Track
SOUND LEVEPass
A _
~**/y W> 'V
LEQ Noise Level
/. .. ,
TIME (Typically One Hour)
Time Axis Not Drawi to Scale
Noise Events Are Much SftorterThan ShovnHere
CNEL Noise Level
40
35
MM 4M
-CNEL NOISE LEVEL-
"' -Jin
i 5 dBA Ennlng WUghOng
i 10 dBA Night Wtlghtng
MOOM 4M
Time of Day
PM
Ititt
Rancho Santa Fe Road
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Figure 3
Noise Metric Illustrations
I
CNEL Outdoor Location
• -90-
E•
P1
|
1
rIn
C
E
E
1
E
c
mmm
mm
mmm
mmmmm
mmm
mm
mm
-3T
•Ml
•M
••
••••
••
mm
mm
mm*
mm
mmmmm
mm
mm
mm
mmm
AmmwmQ
mm
mm
mmm
mmmmm
MM
mm
••
— fmm
mm
mm
mm
mmmm
mm
mm
mm
—lmm
mm
mm
mt
mm
mm
- -^
— ^L^-J ^*^*
MB
MB
MB
M)
I1^—mm
mm
mm
mm
MB)
BMBBBB
MB-
MB
BIB
fwu—mm
mm
MB
MBBBB1
^m
mm
mmm
0-*
•Mi
MB
MB
•M>
MMM*
MB
MB
MB
MB)
MB)
•^
MB)
mmt
-30-
E
Rancho Santa Fe Roadm
A —-»-.—* XT...* *-. 13«AA«H»f™^^ Apsi uiicni rNCAi uj nccwojr
*— 3/4 Mile From Touchdown at Major Airport
^^ — *. nV9.*f_ £% — . — . _ r"l^.« A*~_*.*»*£ AM A j**d***4it«^^uowntown wiui oome v^onsuucuon Acuvny
— Urban High Density Apartment
^^^^_T Tw»W«H«« *D A«*» TJT^^i« A«*««W f\*% Xvr«*t/\** A TI Ami AUrban KOW Housing on major Avenue
f\\r\ TTrhan 'Rp«iHpntifll AreaHHMMB V^lU Ui Uttll AiCaiUwililtU ^T\lwa
Wnnded Residential
gnc p
MMM^MOttvAl 13 ae«i4 Ai%tt olixurai jxesiQenuai
Figure 4
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Typical Outdoor Noise Levels
The public reaction to different noise levels varies from community to community. Extensive
research has been conducted on human responses to exposure of different levels of aircraft noise.
Figure 5 relates CNEL noise levels to community response from one of these surveys.
Community noise standards are derived from tradeoffs between community response surveys,
such as this, and economic considerations for achieving these levels.
2.3 Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
The purpose of this section is to present information regarding 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 Environmental
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 criteria such as LEQ, LDN or CNEL.
Federal Noise Standards. The purpose of this section is to present information regarding
noise and land use compatibility guidelines developed by several federal 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 FHWA are presented in Figure 6 in terms of
the maximum one hour Noise Equivalent Level (LEQ). The FHWA noise 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 areas and assumes that typical wood frame
homes with windows open provide 10 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
COMMUNITY
REACTION
VIGOROUS
COMMUNITY)
ACTION )
SEVERAL
THREATS
OF LEGAL
ACTION, OR
STRONG
APPEALS
TO LOCAL
OFFICIALS TO
STOP NOISE
WIDESPREAD
COMPLAINTS
OR SINGLE
THREAT OF
LEGAL ACTION
SPORADIC I
COMPLAINTS?
NO REACTION,
ALTHOUGH
NOISE IS
GENERALLY
NOTICEABLE
ENVELOPE OF 90%
OF DATA
DATA
NORMALIZED TO'
— URBAN RESIDENTIAL
AMBIENT NOISE
- SOME PRIOR EXPOSURE
— WINDOWS PARTIALLY
OPEN
— NO PURE TONE OR
IMPULSES
_u
45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
DAY - NIGHT NOISE LEVELS IN dB
90
Rancho Santa Fe Road
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Figure 5
Community Reaction Surveys
ACTIVITY DESIGN NOISE
CATEGORY LEVEL-LEQ
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY CATEGORY
B
57
(Exterior)
67
(Exterior)
(Exterior)
Tracts of land in which serenity and quiet are of
extraordinary significance and serve an important
public need and where the preservation of those
qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve
its intended purpose. Such areas could include
amphitheaters, particular parks or portions of open
spaces, or historic districts which are dedicated or
recognized by appropriate local officials for activities
requiring special qualities of serenity and quiet
Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active
sports areas and parks which are not included in
category A and residences, motels, hotels, public
meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
Developed lands, proin Category A or B
or activities not included
D
E 52
(Interior)
For requirements of undeveloped lands see FHWA
PPM 773.
Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms,
schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
auditoriums.
Rancho Santa Fe Road
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Figure 6
FWHA Noise Abatement Criteria
c
B
I
1
E
C
K&
i
Residential with Out-
tide Space and Farm
Residences
Residential with No
Outside Space
Commercial
Inside Transportation
Industrial
Hospitals
Educational
Recreational Areas
Farm Land and
General Unpopulated
Land
Measure
Ldn
Wq(24)
Un
^(24)
"^(24)
W24)
Leq(24)(d)
Ldn
W24)
>-eq(24)
Leq(24Md)
^(24)
^(24) '
Activi"y°HeariniLoss T°p«)Ucl
inter. Consider,- £*£
ference tion *£»
45
45
<»>
(a)
(a)
45
45
(•)
70
70
70
70
70
•
70
70
70
45
45
7<Kc)
(•)
70{c)
45
45
70(c)
Activity "towing Loss T°Prolecl
Inter- Consider* J*""1*1.
ference tion J01"";feels (b)
55
(a)
(a)
55
55
(a)
(a)
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
55
70tc)
70(c)
55
55
70(c)
7<Xc)
Code:
a. Since different types of activities appear to be associated with different levels, identifi-
cation of a maximum level for activity interference may be difficult except in those
circumstances where speech communication is a critical activity. (See Figure D-2 for
noise levels as a function of distance which allow satisfactory communication.)
b. Based on lowest level.
c. Based only on hearing loss.
d. An Lcq(g) of 75 dfl may be identified in these situations so long as the exposure over
the remaining 16 hours per day is low enough to result in a negligible contribution to
the 24-hour average, i.e., no greater than an Ljq of 60 dB.
Note: Explanation of identified level for hearing toss: The exposure period which
results in hearing toss at the identified level is a period of 40 years.
•Refers to energy rather than arithmetic avenges.
SOURCE : EPA
Rancho Santa Fe Road
E
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Figure 7
Environmental Protection Agency Guidlines
identifies safe levels of environmental noise exposure without consideration for
economic cost for achieving these levels. It represents an ideal acceptable noise
level.
The DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT details noise
criteria in their "Environmental Criteria and Standards," (CFR Part 51). In this
document (Section Sl.lOl.a) HUD states that "sites with a LDN average sound level
of 65 and below are acceptable," and that the interior noise environment "shall not
exceed 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 use/noise 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 further review and approval
Table 1
HUD NOISE ACCEPTABILITY CATEGORIES
CATEGORIES LDN NOISE LEVEL
Acceptable Less than 65
Normally Unacceptable 65 to 75
Unacceptable Above 75
State Noise Standards. The State of California has adopted noise standards in the areas of
regulation not preempted by the Federal government 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 standards for interior noise levels.
The State also requires each City and County to adopt Noise Elements of their General 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 Preparation 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
Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure
Ldn or CNEL, dB
55 60 65 70 75 80i
Residential - Low Density
Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes
Residential - Multiple Family
Transient Lodging - Motels, Hotels
Schools, Libraries, Churches
Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphitheatres
Sports Arena, Outdoor
Spectator Sports
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables
Water Recreation, Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business
Commercial and Residential
Industrial, Manufacturing Utilities
Agriculture
Interpretation \-
lU Normally Acceptable
Specified Land Use is Satisfactory.
Based Upon the Assumption that
Any Buildings Involved are of
Normal Conventional Construction.
Without Any Special Noise Insulation
Requirements.
Conditionally Acceptable
New Construction or Development
Should be Undertaken Only After a
Detailed Analysis of the Noise
Reduction Requirement is Made and
Needed Noise Insulation Features
Included in the Design. Conventional
Construction, but with Closed
Windows and Fresh Air Supply
Systems or Air Conditioning, Will
Normally Suffice.
Normally Unacceptable
New Construction or Development
Should Generally be Discouraged.
If New Construction or Development
Does Proceed, a Detailed Analysis of
the Noise Reduction Requirements
Must be Made and Needed Noise
Insulation Features Included in the
Design.
Hi Clearly Unacceptable
New Construction or Development
Should Generally not be Undertaken.
Rancho Santa Fe Road
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Figure 8
California Land Use Compatibility Studies
reduce the impacts from noise. Note that the State airport regulations consider 65 CNEL as the
acceptable criterion for residential land use near an airport
The State requires residential projects meet the California Noise Insulation Standard (California
Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4) which specifies that "Interior
community noise levels (CNEL) with windows closed, attributable to exterior sources shall not
exceed an annual CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room". This applies to all new multi-family
and hotel uses except for single-family developments. This standard applies to projects exposed
to an exterior noise level of greater than 60 CNEL.
The California Department of Transportation has adopted the FHWA noise standards for the
assessment of noise impacts along State highways. All state highway projects are subject to
compliance with the peak hour 67 LEQ noise standard. New highway projects must meet this
standard and freeway noise barriers are designed based upon compliance with this noise level.
Local Noise Standards. Local agencies as part of the General Han 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 CITY OF CARLSBAD 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 standard
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
[
I
1
1
I
c
c
c
c
c
i
1
I
E
project This criteria supersedes 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 dB A 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 dB A increase over existing
levels is allowed. This increase is permitted 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 specifies 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 uses do not exceed 65.CNEL.
Even if existing levels exceed 65 CNEL, the project must still mitigate the future
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
mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the LEQ noise level. A computer 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 Segal study conducted detailed noise measures along (he
project site. The results of these measurements showed good correlation 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 alleviating 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 reduction provided by a
barrier is essential to the design of effective barriers. When no obstacles are present between the
source and adjoining areas, sound travels by a direct path of "source" to "receiver", as shown in
Figure 9. The straight line from the source to the receiver is referred to as the "line of sight".
Introduction of a barrier between the source and receiver which interrupts the line of sight
redistributes the sound energy into several paths; a diffracted path over the top of the barrier, a
transmitted path through the barrier, and a reflected path directed away from the receiver. 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 die diffracted path.
Consider an infinitely long and massive noise barrier placed between the source and the receiver.
The bottom of Figure 9 illustrated a cross-section through such a configuration. 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 will 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 source, 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
:
:
c Direct Path
Source
Unbroken Line of Site
E
c
E
c
c
refected
dHtfsctsd
Source Battler Redever
Line of Site Interrupted
I
E
i
i
ZHHH
Source Banter
Path Length Difference
d=A+B-C
Redever
E Rancho Santa Fo Road
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Figure 9
Barrier Effects
I
4>
25
20
aI 1S
10
.01 .1 1 10 100
Fresnel Number, I^j = 3.21 x 9 (in meters)
Traffic Noise Barrier Attenuation vs. Fresnel
Number No for Infinitely Long Barriers
Rancho Santa Fe Road
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Figure 10
Barrier Attenuation
c
• relationship between Fresnel number and barrier attenuation.
§ 3.0 PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS
J 3.1 Traffic Modeling Assumptions
I Traffic data used to project existing noise level are shown in Table 2. These data were obtained
from the City of Carlsbad and the Rancho Santa Fe Road Advisory Committee. The traffic mix
E 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
assumed to be 7.58 percent A typical arterial truck mix is 2 to 3 percent
Note that these assumptions reflect worst case conditions. The ADT, vehicle speed and percent
truck assumptions are all modeled for the highest possible conditions for each variable. Given
assumption of 40,000 ADT, 50 mph and 4.5 percent trucks, the noise levels presented in this
section would be 3 to 4 dB A less. In addition, existing legislation is expected to reduce future
vehicle noise levels by 3 dB A 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.
1
C
E
i
I
I
i
E
Table 2
EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC SPEED ROADWAY
ROADWAY SEGMENT EXISTING FUTURE (mph) GRADIENT
Rancho Santa Fe Road
-North of La Costa 14,200 50,000 60
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 11
Table 3
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PER TIME OF DAY
PERCENT OF ADT
VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT
7 am - 7 pm 7 pm -10 pm 10 pm - 7 am
Automobile
Medium Track
Heavy Truck
71.64
3.56
3.64
11.92
0.09
.0.02
8.86
0.19
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 feet 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 specific residential locations.
Table 4
DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOURS
DISTANCE TO CONTOUR (FT)
ROADWAY SEGMENT -60- -65- -70-
Rancho Santa Fe Road
CNEL
•Existing 428 199 92
•Future 991 460 214
PEAK HOUR LEQ
•Existing
•Future
465
1075
216
499
100
232
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 12
G
I
1
C
I
c
c
[
I
I
3.2 Representative Receptor Analysis
In order to more accurately determine 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 were determined at five representative
cross-sections for four case studies. The representative locations are 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 Santa Fe Road. Site C represents residences in the
middle of the project site which are at the same elevation as the roadway. Sites D and E represent
residential land uses at the north end which are elevated with respect to this roadway.
The four case studies that were analyzed are designed to be indicative of the range in alternative
alignments available for the roadway. These alternatives that were analyzed are:
"Existing Cose Current Conditions and alignment.
"Future Alternative 1 Current Alignment. Current roadway alignment with
additional lanes added to the east side of the roadway.
Effective roadway centerline is shifted 34 feet to the east.
"Future Alternative 2 Mitigated Alternative. Shifting the roadway centerline 25
feet further east of the centerline of Alternative 1. The
effective centerline is shifted 59 feet east of the existing
conditions centerline.
"Future Alternative 3 Canvon Alternative. Shifting the roadway east of the
current truck by-pass 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 three
illustrative barrier 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 slope
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 interrupted as final
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 13
±
Rancho Santa Fe Road
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Figure 11
Cross-Section Locations
L J t J L J ft • L J t J I J I J I J II I .J L J I J
E
c
E
c
E
i
E
c
c
r
L
I
E
I
1
data. More precise grading information would be necessary for final barrier design).
The results of the barrier analysis are shown in Table 5. This data shows that the future 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 traffic
noise. As would be expected moving the roadway to the truck-by pass or greater would mitigate
the traffic noise levels the greatest The Alternative 2 shifting of the roadway SO feet reduces the
noise levels by an average of 3 dBA over Alternative 1. Any of the alternatives can reduce the
traffic noise levels to below 65 CNEL. Alternatives 2 and 3 can reduce the noise levels to below
60 CNEL. None of the alternatives can reduce the traffic noise levels to below 55 CNEL. All
three alternatives will comply with County of San Diego noise standards for highway projects.
The mitigation required for each of these standards is summarized 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 similar roadway projects is 65 CNEL
c Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 14
Tables
CNEL NOISE LEVELS AT REPRESENTATIVE LOCATIONS
SITE
A
B
C
D
E
BARRIER
HEIGHT
Of
61
81
0'
6'
0'
6'
8'
10'
Of
6'
8'
10'
0'
6'
8'
10'
——..-——_— f^MPT *TR AFPI
Existing Future Alt 1Current
67.1 69.8
61.6
60.2
61.6 65.6
58.0
73.6 75.9
69.7
65.8
62.6
70.7 73.9
66.1
62.1
59.6
71.0 74.2
66.5
62.4
59.9
C NOISE LEVEL
Future Alt 2
Mitigated
69.8
61.6
60.2
59.8
56.7
73.8
67.7
63.9
60.7
72.1
64.8
60.8
58.1
72.4
65.1
61.1
58.4
9 ,....,^^- -r
FuturcAH.3
Canyon
69.8
61.6
60.2
53.5
56.5
57.4
57.4
•I
m
3
"1m
1
NOTES
Blank spaces denotes sound levels were not calculated for that option.
Alternative 3 noise levels include shielding effects of topography.
(For Rancho Santa Fe Road the peak hour LEQ noise level is calculated tobeOJdB higher than
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 designing a barrier to comply with the 65
CNEL level would also insure compliance with the peak hour 67 LEQ criterion.)1
3
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 15
E
•i
n Table 6
MITIGATION TO COMPLY WITH REPRESENTATIVE NOISE STANDARDS
E
E
E
E
E
C
C
rL
C
c
E
E
E
NOISE CROSS
STANDARD SECTION
County of San Diego
Standard for New Highways
(3 dBA above existing noise levels
up to the FHWA standard)
FHWA/CaTTrans
67 Peak Hour LEQ
City of Carlsbad Guideline
65CNEL/LDN
(County of Orange Standard for
new highways & most common
standard in Southern California)
eOCNELVLDN
55CNEL/LDN
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
WALL HEIGHT REQUIRED (FT)
ALT1 ALT2 ALT 3
Current Mitigated Canyon
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
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
NF - Not Feasible, or wall heights greater than 10 feet.
C Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment 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. The results show that
the noise levels drop-off at a decreasing rate of return. These noise levels reduce at a rate of 4 J
dBA for every doubling of the distance. The table also shows the connection between roadway
setback and barrier height to achieve the same level of noise reduction. The data in the figure
show that the noise reduction gained by a 9 foot barrier and the roadway centerline located 70 feet
from the observer is equivalent to moving the roadway centerline to 500 feet from the observer
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 recommended. Wooden noise barriers are
not recommended because of deterioration with exposure to weather. Cement block walls,
earthen berms or block walls on earthen berms are very effective noise barriers. Barriers partially
constructed with glass or plexyglass are 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 prominent standards are 52 peak hour
LEQ by the Federal Highway Administration and 45 CNEL/LDN by the State of California.
Many Cities and Counties is California have adopted the 45 CNEL/LDN 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 are 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 floor 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 barriers and will
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 17
E
c
c
E
E
E
E
C
E
E
E
E
80
^75
CD•o
CNEL Versus Distance - Cross Section C
9CO
65
60
UJ
§ 55
50
250 500 750 1000 1250
Distance from Roadway Centerline (feet)
1500
i
E
Rancho Santa Fe Road
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Figure 12
Noise Levels Versus Distance
E
not benefit from any noise reduction. Without any noise barriers, the first floor would be the
same noise levels as these second story observers.
Table 7
ESTIMATED INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
CROSS INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
SECTION Existing Future Alt 1 Future Alt 2 Future Alt 3
Current Mitigated Canyon
CNEL Noise Levels (45 CNEL State of California Criteria)
A 44 47 47 47
B 43 46 46 46
C 49 51 50 35
D 47 50 48 35
E 47 49 48 35
Peak HourLEQ (52 LEQ FHWA Criteria)
A
B
C
D
E
45
44
50
48
48
48
47
52
51
50
48
47
51
49
49
48
47
36
36
36
The results show that for some residences, the existing and future noise levels exceed the 45
CNEL criterion for each of the alternative alignments. These noise levels approach, but do not
exceed the FHWA 52 LEQ criterion. Various measures are 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 first 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
c
L
G
C
I
C
C
C
i
g1
c
c
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 dB A of additional attenuation 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 mitigate the first floor interior noise
levels to below 45 CNEL. These barriers, (or slightly higher walls) will also mitigate the second
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 terms of higher sound walls
or building modifications to achieve 45 CNEL.
For sound walls to mitigate the second story observer, the barrier would need to interupt 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 staff report for additional information).
r Increasing the indoor/outdoor noise reduction characteristics of the residential buildings provides
the best means of minimizing the potential impacts on second floor interior noise levels. The
f" 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
C 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
E that element in relation to the total surface area of the room. Room absorption is the final factor
used in determining the total noise reduction.
In general, noise will infiltrate 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 increase 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 19
of the structure.
The following measures are 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 are
general estimates of the increase in building attenuation that would be achieved. Each building
has unique noise reduction characteristics and the actual attenuation would need to be calculated
specific to each building before 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 order to assume that windows can remain closed to
achieve greater attenuation, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be
provided. This would provide the greatest benefit in the summer months when
windows are commonly open. The buildings achieve substantially greater noise
reduction when the windows are closed. Mechanical ventilation 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 room including 20%
fresh make-up air obtained directly from the outside. The fresh 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 requirement
Improved Noise Rated Windows. Increasing the noise reduction
characteristics of the windows that face the noise sources would increase the
overall 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 dBA. 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 were 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 federal/state 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
i
c
c
c
E
C
E
E
[
4.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS
A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL. The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound
level meter using the A-Weighted filter network. The A-Weighting filter de-emphasizes the
very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner 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 all sources near and far. In this
context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise
at a given location.
COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL (CNEL). The average equivalent A-Weighted
sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in
the evening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and after addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the
night before 7 a.m. 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 a.m. and after 10 p.m.
DECIBEL (dB). A unit for measuring the amplitude of a sound, equal 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 (LEQ). The sound level corresponding 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 informational 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 interferes 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 ATTENUATION. 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
equal level of noise exposure. CNEL and LDN are typical metrics used.
NOISE REFERRAL ZONES. Such zones are defined as the area within the contour defining a
CNEL level of 60 decibels. It is the level at which either State or Federal laws and standards
related to land use become important and, in some cases, pre-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 should 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 stress and/or significant interference
from noise produced by community sound sources. Such human activity typically occurs 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. Specifically, noise sensitive land uses include: residences
of all types, hospitals, rest homes, 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 frequency-filter for attenuating part of the sound spectrum.
SOUND LEVEL METER. An instrument, including a microphone, an amplifier, an output
meter, and frequency weighting networks for the measurement and determination of noise and
sound levels.
Rancho Santa Fe Road Noise Assessment Page 22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I EXHIBIT E
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
E
E
E
C
ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS STUDY
for
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-5
Report 86-006
prepared for:
City of Carlsbad
Office of the City Engineer
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989
prepared by:
Alexander Segal. Ph.D.
Consultant in Acoustics
5222 Trojan Ave. * 316
San Diego, CA 92115
July 1986
Report 86-006
As sessaent DVstrtct No. 86-5
!. gfiMMARY OF FINDINGS
Traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road presently results in high levels
of noise affecting the existing residences located along the
road. Traffic noise impacts greatly depend on medium and heavy
truck traffic. Recently adopted Ordinance. which bans trucks
weighting more than 7 tons from using the road, resulted in
traffic noise decrease in the area.
The field sound level measurements and the theoretical traffic
noise prediction calculations were performed in order to evaluate
traffic noise impacts on a number of the existing residences
located along Rancho Santa 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 were considered including the existing
traffic flow conditions (before and after the truck ban), and the
forecasted traffic flow conditions (with and without the proposed
widening 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 been imposed, traffic noise decreased by at least 3
decibel. However, at some of the residences traffic noise still
exceeds Ldn=65 dB.
It is expected that in the future traffic flow and traffic noise
would increase. 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 that
anticipated from the forecasted traffic flow increase.
Analysis shows that the present (after the truck ban) and the
forecasted traffic noise impacts could be reduced to Ldn-65 dB by
3 to 7 ."5 ft high solid acoustical barriers placed between the
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.
E2
I
E
I
E
E
E
E
c
c-
c
E
E
E
Report 86-006
Assessment District No. 36-5
2. INTRODUCTION
This Acoustical Analysis is submitted in accord with the
agreement with the City of Carlsbad regarding the acoustics/'
evaluation of traffic noise impacts on the existing residences
located along Rancho Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain Road avj
Melrose Avenue and shown on the topography cross-sect io«s
provided by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Severe/
traffic flow alternatives, as specified by the City of CarisbaJ
Engineer, are considered.
The City of Carlsbad General Plan uses a Day-Night Average SovW
Level (Ldn) of 65 dB as a noise limit for the outside "none
sensitive" residential areas (such as yards. patios. balconi'
etc.). The interior noise limit is Ldn-45 dB.
Since the existing and the forecasted traffic load on section of
Rancho Santa Fe Road under consideration is relatively high
(Average Daily Traffic CADT] in excess of 12,000 vehicles per
day), a potential exists that traffic noise impacts to the
residences along Rancho Santa Fe Road might exceed the City of
Carlsbad Noise Limits.
2. METHOD OF EXTERIOR NOISE EVALUATION
The acoustical conditions in the area under investigation were
evaluated using the direct sound level measurements and the
theoretical methods of traffic noise prediction.
The field noise measurements were made by a Metrosonics dB-306C
Metrologger Digital Sound Level Analyzer. which is a Type II
instrument in accord with the ANSI S 1.4-1971 requirements. The
Analyzer takes 4 samples of "A" Weighted sound levels per second
("Slow" time constant). Typically Metrosonics dB-3Q6C was mounted
on a tripod four to five feet above the ground with a windscreen
fitted to the microphone. Before and after the noise level
measurements the meter was calibrated with a C-302 Acoustical
Calibrator.
E3
Report 86-006
Assessment District No. 86-5
Traffic count was taken during the field sound level measurements
in order to aid in comparison analysis between the theoretical
and the field data.
The theoretical evaluation of traffic noise impacts was performed
on the IBM PC computer using a custom-made computer program. The
program is based on the Federal Highway Administration Traffic
Noise Prediction Model FHWA-RD-77-108 (1) modified for the
California conditions. The program uses the California Vehicle
Noise (Calveno) reference energy mean emission levels developed
by Caltrans in 1984 (2), and incorporates the new revised grade
corrections developed by Caltrans and presented at the January
1966 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting (3).
Based either on the one-hour number of vehicles (HNV) or on the
average daily number of vehicles (ADT) information, traffic mix.
speed, and other traffic flow and the project topography data,
the program estimates the one-hour equivalent sound level
CLeq(h)] and the Community Equivalent Noise Level (CNEL) at -'the
specified location. The program assumes that CNEL is 1.5 to 2 dB
higher than Leq(h). .That is rather a conservative assumption for
typical residential roads since lower traffic volumes on weekends
and lower truck volumes on weekends and during the night hours
are ignored.
The program takes into account different sound propagation above
the ground conditions (drop-off rate). For acoustically hard
si-tes ("reflective" sites with a site parameter ALPHA»0.0), the
calculations are performed using the propagation rate of 3 dB per
doubling of distance (3 dB/DD). For acoustically soft sites
("absorptive" sites with a site parameter ALPHAS0.5 and 4.5 dB/DD
propagation rate), the calculations are performed for both the
"soft" and the "hard" site conditions.
In order to describe potential noise impacts within the project.
the following community noise descriptors were used:
A-Weiqhted Sound Level (dB) - the sound level measured with the
utilization of the "A-weighting" frequency correction. This
correction weights the contribution of sounds of different
frequencies * so that the response of the average human ear is
simulated.
Equivalent Sound Level (LEQ or Leg) - the 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.
E4
i
I
E
E
E
C
c
i
c
E
E
E
I
Report 86-006
Assessment District No. 66-5
Maximum ' sound level (Lmax) - the maximum sound level recorded
during the measurements.
One-Hour Equivalent Sound Level (Leq(h)) - the Leq over one hour
averaging period.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) - a composite noise index
derived from the summation of hourly LEQ's over a 24-hour time
period with increasing weighting factors applied to the evening
(7:00 pm to 10:00 pm. «• 5 dB) and the nighttime (10:00 pra to 7:00
am, + 10 dB) time periods.
Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn) - is identical to CNEL
except that no evening (7:00 pm to 10:00 pm) adjustment is used.
For most practical applications, CNEL and Ldn are considered to
be equal.
4. EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
In order to determine the existing traffic noise impacts along
the stretch of Rancho Santa Fe Road under investigation, the
field sound level measurements were made at several locations on
two Saturdays (April 12 and May 24, 1986) and on two Tuesdays
(April 29 and June 24, 1986). The noise readings were taken
during morning, mid-day and afternoon hours. The measurements
were performed before and after the new Ordinance which bans
trucks weighting more than 7 tons from using the stretch of
Rancho Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain Road and Questhaven 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 Cadencia Road and about
several hundred feet south of the SDG&E easement. Surrounding
land is relatively level and vacant. Therefore, there was an
unobstructed view to the road from the measurement location with
subtended angles within -80, +90 degrees. The noise readings were
taken at approximately 50 ft from the centerline of Rancho Santa
Fe Road which at that location is a two lane road with posted
traffic speed of 45 mph.
The results7 of the sound level measurements at Location 1 with
the corresponding traffic flow data (number of automobiles.
medium and heavy trucks) recorded during each test are summarized
in Table 1.
E5
Report 86-006
Assessment District No. 86-5
Table 1
RESULTS OF THE FIELD SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS AT LOCATION 1
Test
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Date
4-12
4-29
4-29
4-29
6-24
6-24
6-24
6-24
6-24
6-24
6-24
Time
4-
l-
1-
1-
8-
8-
8-
8-
9-
9-
9-
5p
2p
2p
2p
9a
9a
9a
9a
lOa
lOa
lOa
. m .
. m .
. m .
. m.
.m.
. m
. m
.m
. m
. m
.m
Number
Auto
146
1 18
130
127
180
202
153
154
153
130
179
of vehicles
M.Tr. H.Tr.
1
6
6
8
4
5
5
4
5
5
6
0a
21
19
1
2
1
0
3
0
3
Test
durat ion
mm . sec
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
10
11
.04
.27
.33
.35
.58
.29
. 34
. 11
. 17
.46
.45
Leq
66
69
73
71
68
69
68
67
68
67
69
Lmax
82
83
86
85
84
83
81
81
82
86
87
The second noise measurement location was in front of the
existing residence at the south-west corner of Cadencia Street
and Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection. Rancho Santa Fe Road at
that location has 2 traffic lanes with the road grade ranging
from 2 to 6 percent. The noise readings were taken at roughly 30-
ft from the road centerline. There was an unobstructed view tc,
the road from the "measurement location with subtended angles of
about -90, +90 degrees. Posted traffic speed in the area is 45
mph.
The results of the sound level measurements at Location 2 with
the corresponding 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
Test Date
No.
Time Number of vehicles Test
Auto M.Tr. H.Tr. duration
rain.sec
Leq Lmax
1
2
3
4
5
6
-29
-24
-24
2-3p
4-5p
12-lp
. m.
. m.
. m.
166
170
156
6
2
5
11
0
2
10
13
11
.40
.55
. 17
74
70
72
91
87
83
E6 "1
•J
i
i
I
i
E
c
c
c
c
e
E
i
Report 86-006
Assessment District No. 86-5
The third noise measurement location was several hundred feet
south of intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road with Melrose
Avenue. Rancho Santa Fe Road at that location has 2 traffic lanes
and a left turn lane. Near the measurement location the road
grade was within 2 percent with significant grade increase
further to the north. Posted traffic speed is 45 mph. The noise
readings were taken at approximately 45 ft from the road
centerline (Tests 1. 2. and 3). and at approximately 56 ft from
the road centerline (Test 4). There was an unobstructed view to
the road from the measurement location with subtended angles of
-90, +90 degrees.
The results of the sound level measurements at Location 3 with
the corresponding traffic flow data (number of automobiles,
medium and heavy trucks) recorded during each test are summarized
in Table 3.
Table 3
RESULTS OF THE FIELD SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS AT LOCATION 3
Test Date
No.
Time Number of vehicles Test
Auto M.Tr. H.Tr. duration
mm. sec
Leq Lmax
1
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
-12
-12
-29
-29
3-4p
4-5p
2-3p
2-3p
. m .
. m .
. m.
.m.
148
153
83
152
4
1
9
7
0
0
14
20
10
. 10
4
10
.02
. 10
.38
.25
68
68
75
71
ai
80
89
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 these value the "calculated" Equivalent Sound Levels
CLeq(c)3 were estimated for all noise measurement locations.
Traffic speed of 45 mph was used in all calculations. The
calculated values (LeqCcl) were than compared with those obtained
during the field tests (LeqCm]>. Since the results of the field
tests were 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' allow the comparison of identical variables. The
examples of the acoustical calculations are shown in Tables 1
through 10 in the Attachment.The final results are summarized in
Tables 4. 5, and 6.
C E7
Report 86-006
Assessment District No. 86-5
Table 4
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FIELD RESULTS AT LOCATION 1
Test
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
HNV
676
758
693
673
1012
1197
903
648
656
752
960
X of
M.Tr .
0
4
3
5
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
.6
.5
.6
.2
.2
.4
. 1
.5
. 1
.7
.2
Trucks
H.Tr .
0
6
13
12
0
1
0
0
1
0
. 1
.0
. 1
.4
.3
.5
.0
.6
.0
,9
.0
.6
Speed
mph
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
LeqCc] LeqCm]
(calc) (meas)
66
69
72
72
66
69
67
67
68
66
66
.6
.8
.4
. 1
. 1
.2
.9
. 1
.4
.8
.7
(67)
(70)
(72)
(72)
(68)
(69)
(68)
(67)
(66)
(67)
(69)
68
69
72
71
68
69
68
67
68
67
69
LeqCm] -
LeqCc]
+ 1
-1
0
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
tf
Table 5
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FIELD RESULTS AT LOCATION 2
Test HNV
No.
1
2
3
1029
742
867
r. of
M.Tr.
3
2
3
.3
.8
. 1
Trucks
H.Tr.
6.0
0.0
1.2
Speed
mph
45
45
45
LeqCc] LeqCm]
(calc) (meas)
73.5 (74) 74
69.1 (69) 70
70.6 (71) 72
Leq Cm] -
LeqCc]
0
+ 1
+ 1
a
E8
J
J
""!
—
1j
**j
1
3
I.
E p«port 86-006
Assessment District No.86-5
E
I
I
£
C
C
C
C
C
E
E
E
Table 6
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF THE FIELD RESULTS AT LOCATION 3
Test
No.
1
2
3
4
HNV
909
909
1374
1031
V. of
M.Tr.
2.6
0.6
8.5
3.9
Trucks
H.Tr.
0.0
0.0
13.2
11.1
Speed
mph
45
45
45
45
LeqCc]
(calc)
68.2 (68)
67.8 (68)
75.3 (75)
72.2 (72)
LeqCm]
( meas >
68
68
75
71
LeqCm] -
LeqCcl
0
0
0
-1
As can be seen from Tables 4, 5, and
theoretical calculations are in a good
obtained during the field tests (some
explained by higher traffic speed during
presence of unusually loud vehicles in
reflections by the intervening topography,
theoretical noise prediction techniques
used to describe the existing and the
conditions in the area.
6, the results of the
agreement with those
differences could be
the spec i f ic --tests ,
traffic flow, sound
etc.). Therefore, the
specified above can be
forecasted acoustical
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.
Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain
within 12,700, and between La Costa
traffic increases to ADT=14.400.
the existing ADT on Rancho
Road and La Costa Avenue is
Avenue and Mel rose Avenue
The majority of the existing
residences along Rancho Santa Fe Road are located between La
Costa Avenue and Melrose Avenue where the traffic load is
greater.
For the 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 Melrose 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:
E9
peport 86-006
Assessment District No. 86-5
of La Costa Avenue
Sect
Sect
Sect
Sect
Sect
Sect
Sect
Sect
Sect
ion
ion
ion
ion
ion
ion
ion
ion
ion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
11
- Lot
-- Lot
- Lot
- Lot
- Lot
-Lot
- Lot
- Lot
- Lot
40
48
49
54
57
92
93
99
at
(At
(At
(At
(At
(At
(At
(At
(At
Cadencia St
Casca Way,
Casca Way,
Muslo Lane.
Muslo Lane.
Trigo Lane,
Trigo Lane.
reet . Revi sed
Revised C.T.
Revised C
Revi
Revi
Revi
Revi
Piragua Street,
Agua Dulse (C.T. 72
sed
sed
sed
sed
Revi
-20)
.T.
C.T.
C.T.
C.T.
C.T.
sed
1
C.T. 72-20)
72-20) ;
72-20) ;
72-
72-
72-
72-
C.T.
20) ;
20) ;
20) ;
20) ;
72-20) ;
South of La Costa Avenue
Section 9 - Lot 126 (At Quebrada Circle. C.T. 72-3);
Section 10 - Lot 129 (At Quebrada Court, C.T. 72-3);
As has been specified above, the existing traffic load on Rancho
Santa Fe Road between Olivenham Road and La Costa Avenue is
slightly lower than that between La Costa Avenue and Melrose
Avenue. In order to address "the worst case" conditions, the
calculations were performed assuming that the existing JkDT is
14.400 along the entire stretch of Rancho Santa Fe Road under
investigation. Traffic . speed of 45 mph was used in all
calculations.
Analysis of the weekday traffic count data revealed that during
the day-hours thece 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 medium and IX of heavy trucks after the ban was imposed.
These data were further used in the theoretical noise prediction
analysis in order to address 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
might provide some attenuation of traffic noise impacts. However.
since most of these walls are acoustically not "solid", their
sound attenuation effect was ignored during this analysis.
All calculations were performed for the "first
the ground) observer position. The examples
calculations are presented in Tables 11 and 12
The final .results of the
in Table 7.
acoustical
floor" (5 ft abgve
of the acoustical
in the Attachment..
calculations are summarized
10
E10
Report 86-006
Assessment District No. 86-5
c
Table 7
TRAFFl'C NOISE IMPACTS AT THE SELECTED CROSS-SECT IONS
(EXISTING CONDITIONS. NO BARRIERS)
Section
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
Before
Ldn
in dB
74
74
73
73
74
74
75
74
66
71
62
the truck ban
Compl lance
with Ldn»65 dB
+ 9
+9
*8
+ 8
+ 9
*9
+ 10
+ 9
+ 1
+ 6
-3
After
Ldn
in dB
71
71
70
70
71
71
71
71
61
65
56
the truck ban
Compl lance
with Ldn=65 dB
+ 6
+ 6
+5
+ 5
+6
+ 6
+6
+ 6
-4
0
-9
r
C
C
c
As can be seen. traffic noise impacts to most of the existing
residences under investigation significantly exceed the Ldn=65 dB
limit established by the City of Carlsbad. It also can be seen
that the noise impacts decreased by at least 3 dB after the truck.
ban had been enforced.
The additional calculations were performed in order to determine
the existing traffic noise contour location. Since the existing
building structures provide different degree of shielding.
determination of the noise contour location within the already
developed areas is considered to be not pract ical . Therefore , the
noise contour location on the undeveloped "level" land was
addressed.
It was determined that before the truck ban the Ldn=65 dB traffic
noise contour was located somewhere at 200 to 220 ft from the
road cent'erllne. After the 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) areas distance to Ldn=65 dB noise contour
might be different.
11
c Ell
.. 86-5
•I
m
5 gfTTURE NOISE ENVIRONMENT
Future
D «cnoEUneho
development, . in th. area and anticipated improvements of
Santa Fe Road to th. Prim. Major Arterial standard willSan^Yraffic nois. impact increase. The City of Carlsbad
that future traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road without the
ad widn ng (2 lane road) might increase to ADT of 20.000. With
[h. proposed road improvements to a 6 lane standard, the expected
ADT might reach 44.000.
The forecasted traffic
noise prediction analysis
conditions in the area of
Table 6.
flow data were used in the theoretical
for determination of future acoustical
interest. The results are summarized in
Table 6
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS AT THE SELECTED CROSS-SECTIONS"
(FUTURE CONDITIONS. NO BARRIERS)
Sect ion
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
Without
Ldn
in dB
72
72
71
71
72
72
73
72
62
67
58
the widening
Compl lance
with Ldn»65 dB
+ 7
+ 7
+6
+6
+ 7
+ 7
+8
*7
-3
+ 2
-7
With
Ldn
in dB
73
74
73
73
74
74
74
74
65
69
59
the wideninq
Comp 1 lance
with Ldn=65 d3
+ 8
«-9
*a
+ 6
+ 9
+ 9
*9
+ 9
0
+ 4
-6
•J
•I
m
nl
3
•i
12
ml
m
E12
E oeport 86-006
Assessment District No.86-5
G
G
G
I
E
The analysis shows that the forecasted traffic noise impacts on
the majori.ty. of the existing residences under investigation could
significantly exceed Ldn=65 dB outdoor noise limit established by
the City of Carlsbad. The analysis also shows that after the road
widening, traffic noise impacts on the existing residences would
be by I to 2 dB higher than that without the widening. That sound
level increase is somewhat lower than could be anticipated from
the forecasted traffic flow increase by 220X after the road
widening (101og(44000/20000)»3.4 dB). The lower noise increase
can be explained by the fact that after the widening. the road
centerline would be further from the existing residences than it
is now.
It was determined that without the road widening future Ldn»65 dB
traffic noise contour would be located somewhere at 120 to ISO ft
from the road centerline ("level" topography). With the road
widening and the anticipated traffic increase, the Ldn*65 dB
noise contour would be located somewhere at 200 to 240 ft from
the road centerline. As was mentioned above, for elevated or
depressed (in relation to the road elevation) areas distance to
the Ldn=65 dB noise contour could be different.
c
IP
1
G
i
I
E
G
6. MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis shows that the existing and the forecasted traffic
noise impacts on some of the existing residences along Rancho
Santa Fe Road might exceed the Ldn=65 dB noise level limit
established by the City Of Carlsbad. In order to reduce traffic
noise impacts to Ldn=65 dB of less, different noise mitigation
measures were considered. Since the acoustical barriers are the
most widely used measures for traffic noise mitigation,
application of the free standing solid acoustical barriers was
evaluated the first.
The City of Carlsbad typically considers 6 ft high solid noise
attenuation walls as an acceptable noise mitigation alternative
(4). Therefore, the acoustical calculations were performed to
determine the noise attenuation effect of 6 ft high acoustical
barriers placed between the road and the existing residences
under the.investigation. The calculations were performed for all
4 traffic flow alternatives considered in this analysis. The
examples of the acoustical calculations are shown in Tables 13
and 14 in the Appendix. The final results are summarized in
Tables 9 and 10.
13
E13
86-006
District No. 86-5
Table 9
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS AT THE SELECTED CROSS-SECTIONS
(EXISTING CONDITIONS, 6 FT HIGH BARRIERS)
Section
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Before
Ldn
in dB
68
68
66
66
67
68
68
68
62
66
Not
the truck ban
Compl lance
with Ldn»65 dB
*3
+ 3
+ 1
+ 1
+ 2
+ 3
+ 3
*3
-3
+ 1
requi red
After
Ldn
in dB
63
63
62
61
63
63
64
64
Not
Not
Not
the truck ban
Compl lance
with Ldn»65 dB
-2
-2
-3
-4
-2
-2
-1
-1
requi red
requi red
requi red
•i
m
Table 10
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS AT THE SELECTED CROSS-SECTIONS
(FUTURE CONDITIONS, 6 FT HIGH BARRIERS)
Section
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
Without the widening
Ldn
in dB
64
65
63
63
64
65
65
65
Not
62
Not
Compl lance
with Ldn=65 dB
-1
0
-2
-2
-1
0
0
0
required
-3
required
With
Ldn
in dB
67
67
66
65
66
67
67
67
Not
65
Not
the widening
Compl lance
with Ldn=65 dB
+ 2
*2
+ 1
0
+ 1
«-2
+ 2
+ 2
required
0
requi red
"S•I
m«
"1j
14
E14
c
E
I
c
c
Report 86-006
Assessment District No. 86-5
As can be seen from Tables 9 and 10. at the "after the truck ban"
and "future "without widening with the truck ban" traffic flow
alternatives. the 6 ft high solid walls would reduce traffic
noise impacts on the "first floor" observers at the residences
under investigation to Ldn=65 dB or less. However, at the "before
the truck ban" or "future with widening with 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 additional calculations were performed to determine the
optimal acoustical barrier height needed for traffic noise
mitigation to Ldn=65 dB at all cross-sections under the
consideration. The results of the calculations are summarized in
Tables 11 and 12.
c
c
c
Table 11
NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE EXISTING CONDITIONS
(COMPLIANCE WITH Ldn=65 dB LIMIT)
Section
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Before
traff
Wal
Wal
Wal
Wal
Wal
Wal
Wal
Wal
Wal
Wal
Not
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1C
(8
(8
(6
(6
(7
(7
(7
(8
(3
(6
the truck ban
flow conditions
.5
.0
.5
.5
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.5
requi
' above
' above
' above
' above
' above
' above
' above
' above
' above
' above
red
pad)
pad)
pad)
pad)
pad)
pad)
pad)
pad)
road)
road )
After the
traff
Wal
Wal
Wal
Wal
Wal
Wal
Wal
Wal
Not
Wal
Not
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
truck ban
c flow conditions
(4.5
(4.5
(4.0
(4.0
(5.0
(5.0
(5 .5
(5.0
requi
(3.0
requi
' above
' above
' above
' above
' above
' above
' above
' above
red
' above
red
pad)
pad)
pad)
pad)
pad)
pad)
pad)
pad)
road )
c
E
c
IS
E15
Report 86-006
Assessment..District No. 86-5
The noise attenuation barriers should be of solid design
(masonry, concrete, stucco on wood frame. 2 inch thick wood.
etc.) without any openings. A barrier that has openings totaling
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 IX of the total area, and
the construction specifications should require that all joints
are tightly sealed.
The barriers could contain the light transparent sections (1/8 to
1/4 inch safety glass, shatterproof plexiglass, etc.) and could
consist of the earth berms topped by the freestanding walls. For
depressed or elevated (in relation to the road grade) lots, the
barrier height might be lower than that for "level" lots.
The City of Carlsbad uses Ldn=45 dB as the interior noise limit.
In order to reduce the exterior noise impacts specified above to
Ldn»45 dB, the building envelope need to provide at least 20 to
30 decibel of noise 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 o~f the
open area, room abs.orption. etc.), it can be expected that with
the windows open. the interior noise in 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.
Determination 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.
Alexander Sfegal. Ph.D.
AcousticaZ Engineer
17
E17
86-006
c
c
REFERENCES
Barry,T.M.. and Reagan,J.A. (1978). "FHWA Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model." Report No. FHWA-RD-77-108 by the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
2. Hendnks, R.W., (1984).
Levels." Interim Report by
Laboratory, California Department of Transportation
"California Vehicl«
Office of the
Noise Emission
Transportation
3 Hendriks, R.W., (1986). "Heavy Truck Noise Emission Levels on
Grades in California," Report by Office of the Transportation
Laboratory (Caitrans) to the Transportation
Meeting.
Research Board Annual
4. Letter from
dated April 8,
the City
1986.
of Carlsbad Land Use Planning Office
5. The Noise Guidebook, A Reference Document for Implementing the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's Noise Policy,
(1985). U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office
of Community Planning and Development.
:
18
E18
Figure 3. Cross-sections 5 and 6.
E19
E
E
E
c
c
c
c
E
L
Figure 4. Cross-factions 7 and 8.
E20
Figure 5. Cross-sections 9 and 10.
E21
f"Ml
L
c
c
30'
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
o
^c.
Figure 6. Cross-section 11
E22
REPORT 86-006
APPENDIX
TABLE 1
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
RECEPTOR LOCATION - LOCATION 1. TEST 1
TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION
HNV - 976.0
7. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 0.6
7. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - 0.0
SPEED IN MPH - 45.0
PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION
SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 50.0
SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 49.6
BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 0.0
WAD ELEVATION '• . - 1.0
TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - 1.0
RECEIVER ELEVATION - 5.0
ROAD GRADE ('/.) - 1.0
LEFT ANGLE - -80.0
RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0
INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE)
SOURCE Leq(h) FRESNEL SHIELDING Leq(h)
(NO BARRIER) NUMBER in dB (WITH A BARRIER)
AUTOS 66.6 -3.76 0.0 66.6
M.TRUCKS 52.7 -3.94 0.0 52.7
H.TRUCKS 39.5 -4.33 0.0 39.5
FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING)
TOTAL Led(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA*0.0) - 66.9 d2
EXPECTED CNEL -'REFLECTIVE' SITE 68 to o9
E23
if
REPORT 86-1)06
APPENDIX
TABLE 2
C
p
ta
pM
m
1
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
ROAD NAME - RANCHQ SANTA FE ROAD
RECEPTOR LOCATION - LOCATION 1, TEST 3
TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION
HNV - 893.0
'/. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 3.8
'/. OF HEAVY TRUChS - 13.4
SPEED IN MPH - 45.0
PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION
SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 50.0
SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 49.6
BARRIER- TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 0.0
ROAD ELEVATION - l.Q
TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION <WALL> - 1.0
RECEIVER ELEVATION - 5.0
ROAD GRADE (X) - 1.0
LEFT ANGLE ' - -30.0
RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0
INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE)
SOURCE Leq<h) FRESNEL SHIELDING Lea<h>
(NO BARRIER) NUMBER in <3B (UITH A BARRIER
AUTOS 65.9 -3.76 Q.Q 65.9
M.TRUCKS 60.8 -3.94 3.0 60.9
H.TRUCKS 70.8 -4.33 0.0 70.3
FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING)
TOTAL Led(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA-O.Q) - 72.4 iB
»*»**»»•»*»»+*»»»***»»»»•»»»•»»»+*»*»**********»+**»**++*«••»»»*»
EXPECTED'CNEL - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE - 73 to 74 c-p
E24
APPENDIX
REPORT 86-006
TABLE 3
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
RECEPTOR LOCATION - LOCATION I, TEST 7
TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION
HNV - 903.0
'/. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 3.1
','. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - 0.6
SPEED IN MPH - 45.0
PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION
SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 50.0
SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 49.6
BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 0.0
ROAD ELEVATION - 1.0
TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - 1.0
RECEIVER ELEVATION - 5.0
ROAD GRADE C/J - 1.0
LEFT ANGLE - -30.0 '
RIGHT ANGLE - 90. C
INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE)
SOURCE L»Q<h) FRESNEL SHIELDING Lea<f.:'
(NO BARRIER) NUMBER in dB (UITH A EASRIEP)
AUTOS 66.6 -3.76 d.O 66.6
M. TRUCKS 60.0 -3.94 0.0 60.0
H. TRUCKS 57.4 -4.38 0.0 57.4
FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING)
TOTAL L«d(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=C.O> - 67.9 dB
*»*#»»#«*»»»»#*«»»***»»*»•»***»»*»»+****+**»»*»**#+*****»**»»»•»
EXPECTED CNEL - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE - 69 to 72 dS
E25
I
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
I
i
c
E
E
APPENDIX
REPORT 86-006
TABLE 4
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
9EC£BTOP LOCATION - LOCATION 1, TEST 9
RAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION
rlNV - 336.0
•/. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 3.1
". OF HEAVY TRUCKS - 1.9
SPEED IN MPH - 45.0
PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION
SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 50.0
SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 49.6
BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 0.0
30 AD ELEVATION - - 1.0
TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - 1.0
RECEIVER ELEVATION - 5.0
POAD GRADE U) - l.C
LEFT ANGLE - -90.0
RIGHT ANGLE - 90,0
INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITS!
SOURCE L»q<M FRESNEL SHIELDING Lec<M
<NO BARRIER) NUMBER in dB (WITH A BARRIER)
AUTOS 66.3 -3.76 0.0 '66.3
M. TRUCKS 59.9 -3.94 0.0 59.3
H. TRUCKS 62.2 -4.38 0.0 , 62.2
FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING)
TOTAL LBd(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=C.Q) - 69.4 <-«
»**«*»»»+»»»*#»»»»•»+*»•»*»»*»*•»+»»*•****»»»*#****»»*+**+*»*»»•»»»
EXPECTED CNEL - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE - 69 to 70 dB
»*»**#»#*»•»*•»•****#*»*»»*•»**»*»*******##**»»**»***+»******»****
E26
PEFORT 86-006
APPENDIX
TABLE 5
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
POAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
PECEPTOR LOCATION - LOCATION 1, TEST 11
TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION
HNV ~ 960.0
7. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 3.2
V. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - , 1.6
SPEED IN MPH - 45.0
PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION
SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 50.0
SINGLE-LANE EOUIVALENT DISTANCE - 49.6
BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 0.0
90AD ELEVATION - - 1.0
TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (UALLi - 1.0
RECEIVER ELEVATION - 5.0
ROAD GRADE (V.) - 1.0
LEFT ANGLE - -90.0
RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0
INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE)
SOURCE Leq<h) FRESNEL SHIELDING Leo<h;
(MO BARRIER) NUMBER in dB (WITH A BARRIER)
AUTOS 66.9 -3.76 0.0 66.9
M.TRUChS 60.4 -3.94 0.0 60.4
H.TRUCKS 61.9 -4.38 0.0 61.9
FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (UITH SHIELDING)
TOTAL Led(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=Q.C> - 69.7 iB
**»»*»»**»***•*#»#*»**»«***+•»»**#»*»»»**+***»*»+*******»*»**»»
EXPECTED CNEL - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE - 70 to 71 tf
£27
fa,
E
C
c
c
i
c
c
c
fll
BEFORT 86-0.06
APPENDIX
TABLE 6
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
RECEPTOR LOCATION - LOCATION 2. TEST 1
TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION
HNV - 1029.0
'/. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 3.3
'/. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - 6.0
SPEED IN MPH - 45.0
PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION
SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 30.0
SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE. - 29.4
BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 0.0
ROAD ELEVATION - 1.0
TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION 'MALL) - 1.0
RECEIVER ELEVATION - 5.0
ROAD GRADE <7.) - 4.0
LEFT ANGLE - -90.0
RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0
INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE)
SOURCE Lea(h) FRESNEL SHIELDING Leq(S)
(NO BARRIER) NUMBER in dB (WITH A BARRIER)
AUTOS 69.5 -3.65 0.0 69.5
M.TRUCKS 63.4 -3.95 0.0 63.4
H.TRUCKS 70.6 -4.70 0.0 70.6
FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING'
TOTAL L«d(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA»0.0> - 73.5 22
E
EXPECTED C'NEL -'REFLECTIVE' SITE 74 to 75 S3
c E28
REPORT 86-"00 6
APPENDIX
TABLE 7
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
FHWA-RD-77-10Q TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
9ECEPTOR LOCATION - LOCATION 2, TEST 3
TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION
HNV - 867.0
7. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 3.1
!'. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - 1.2
SPEED IN MPH - 45.0
PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION
SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 30.0
SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 29.4
BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 0.0
ROAD ELEVATION . - 1.0
TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - 1.0
RECEIVER ELEVATION - 5.0
ROAD GRADE U) - 4.0
LEFT ANGLE - -9Q.O
RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0
INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE'
SOURCE Leq(h) FRESNEL SHIELDING Leq(h)
(NO BARRIER) NUMBER in <jB (WITH A BARRIES)
AUTOS . 69.0 -3.65 0.0 69.0
M.TRUCKS 62.3 -3.95 0.0 62.3
H.TRUCKS 62.9 -4.70 0.0 62.9
FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING)
TOTAL Led(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=C.O) - 7C.6 <iZ
EXPECTED CNEL -'REFLECTIVE' SITE 71 to
E29
pk.
c
c
L
C
APPENDIX
REPORT 66-006
• TABLE 8
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
RI-.AO NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROADLOCATION - LOCATION 2, TEST i
TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION
HNV ~ 9Q9. 0
y. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 2.6
•/. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - 0.0
SPEED IN MPH - 45.0
PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION
SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 45.0
SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 44.6
BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 0.0
p ROAD ELEVATION - 1.0
L TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION 'WALL) - 1.0
RECEIVER ELEVATION - 5.0
ROAD GRADE (V.) - 2.0
r LEFT ANGLE - -90.0
Ihr RIGHT ANGLE - 90.C
MBH^^^^MHH^^^^WW^MWMHtBMWMHMBaKw^HavH.^.'.^w.wMww^BB^VW
p* INTERMEDIATE RESULTS jF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE)
ta SOURCE L*q<h) FRESNEL SHIELDING Lea<h)
(NO BARRIER) NUMBER in ifl (WITH A 3
!• AUTOS 67.4 -3.74 0.0 67.-4
n.TRUCKS 60.0 -3.94 0,0 60.2
m H.TRUCKS 40.3 -4.44 0.0 40.3
FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH
TOTAL L«d(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALFHA=Q.O> - s3.L -3
EXPECTED CNEL - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE - 6" ts 70 d£
>•»*»»»»»*
r-
w
C E3°
REPORT 86-006
APPENDIX
TABLE 9
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
FHWA-FD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
RECEPTOR LOCATION - LOCATION 3, TEST 3
TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION
HNV - 1374.0
•/. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 8.3
•>. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - - 13.2
SPEED IN MPH - 45.0
PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION
SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 45.0
SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 44.6
BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 0.0
ROAD ELEVATION " - l.Q
TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) 1.0
RECEIVER ELEVATION - 5.0
ROAD GRADE U) - 2.0
LEFT ANGLE - -90.0
RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0
INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE)
SOURCE Leq(h) FRESNEL SHIELDING Leq(h)
(NO BARRIER) NUMBER in dfl (WITH A BARRIER)
AUTOS 68.3 -3.74 0.0 68.3
M.TRUCKS 66.9 -3.94 0.0 66.9
H.TRUCKS 73.3 -4.44 0.0 73.3
FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING)
TOTAL Led(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=O.C> - 75.2 dB
EXPECTED CNEL -'REFLECTIVE' SITE 76 to 77
E31
c
G
I
c
E
c
c
APPENDIX
REPORT 86-U06
TABLE 10
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
RECEPTOR LOCATION - LOCATION 3, TEST 4
TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION
HNV - 1031.0
•/. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 3.9
V. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - 11. I
SPEED IN MPH - 45.0
PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION
SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 56.0
SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 55.7
BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE 0.0
ROAD ELEVATION - 1.0
TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - 1.0
RECEIVER ELEVATION - 5.0
ROAD GRADE C/.) - i.C
LEFT ANGLE - -9Q.Q
RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0
INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE'
SOURCE Lsq<h) FRESNEL SHIELDING Leq(h)
(NO BARRIER) NUMBER in dB 'WITH A BARRIES)
AUTOS 66.4 -3.77 0.0 66.4
M.TRUCKS 61.3 -3.93 0.0 SI.3
H.TRUCKS 70.4 -4.33 0.0 70.4
FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING)
TOTAL.L«d<h> - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=Q.O)
TOTAL*.L«q<h) - 'SOFT' 5ITE <ALPHAaQ.5i
**•»»»»#»»»»******»*»»#**»#»#*»***»*#**•#***»*»*+»**»*»*•»*•»»*•»
EXPECTED CNEL - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE - 73 to 74 £3
EXPECTED CNEL - 'SOFT' SITE - 72 to 73 cB
E32
APPENDIX
REPORT 66-006
TABLE 11
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
FHWA-RD-77-106 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
RECI-TOR LOCATION - SECTION 1, NO BARRIER. BEFORE THE TPUCh BAN
TPAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION
AOT - 14400.0
V. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 4.2
'/. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - *.4
SPEED IN MPH - 45.0
PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION
SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE • . - 43.0
SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 42.3
BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 15.0
ROAD ELEVATION " • - 506.3
TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION 'WALL) - 507.2
"ECEIVER ELEVATION - 512.2
ROAD GRADE (!'.) - 2.0
LEFT ANGLE - -90.0
RIGHT ANGLE - 9Q.Q
INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE>
SOURCE L»a(h) FRESNEL SHIELDING Lea<M
(NO BARRIER) NUMBER in jJB (WITH A BARRIER)
AUTOS 66.9 -0.41 0.0 66.3
M.TRUCKS 61.9 -C.68 0.0 61.9
H.TRUCKS 69.9 -1.63 0.0 69.9
FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING)
TOTAL Led(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=Q.Q) - 72
?
EXPECTED CNEL - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE - 73 to 74 <JB
E33
c
c
APPENDIX
REPORT 86-OGS
TABLE i 2
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
FHWA-RD-77-1Q8 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA F£ ROAD
RECEPTOR LOCATION - SECTION 1, NO BARRIER. AFTER THE TRUCK BAN
TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION
ADT - 14400.0
'/. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 3.0
V. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - 1.0
SPEED IN MPH - 45.0
PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION
SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 43.0
SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 42.3
BARRIER TO RECEIVER.DISTANCE - 15.0
ROAD ELEVATION - 506.3
TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - 507.2
RECEIVER ELEVATION - 512.2
ROAD GRADE <X) - 2.0
LEFT ANGLE - -'0.0
RIGHT ANGLE - ^0.0
r INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE)
SOURCE L»q<h) FRESNEL SHIELDING Leq(h)
(NO BARRIER) NUMBER in dB (WITH A BARRIER)
c
c
c
C
E
c
c
c
AUTOS 67.2 -0.41 O.Q 67.2
M.TRUCKS 60.5 -0.68 0.0 60.5
H.TRUCKS 60.2 -1.63 0.0 60.2
FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING)
TOTAL L»d<h) - 'REFLECTIVE* SITE (ALPHA=O.Q) - 63.7 sB
•
EXPECTED CNEL - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE - 70 to 71 cB
E34
APPENDIX
REPORT 66-006
TABLE 13
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
FHWA-RD-77-10T8~ TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
SECEPTOR LOCATION - SECTION 1, 6' BARRIER, BEFORE THE TRUCK BAN
—^ — — ——-— ^—— — — ——— — — J-m — ^ ,-r — ^ •••_•.•.•• JL w •-n _i -• • • •
TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION
ADT - 14400.0
7. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 4.2
'/. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - 9.4
SPEED IN MPH - 45.0
PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION
SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 43.0
SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 42.3
BARRIER TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 15.0
ROAD ELEVATION - 506.3
TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - 513.2
RECEIVER ELEVATION - 512.2
ROAD GRADE ('/.) - 2.0
LEFT ANGLE - -90.0
RIGHT ANGLE - 90. C
INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE)
SOURCE Leq<M FRESNEL SHIELDING Lec<!-.>
(NO BARRIER) NUMBER in dB (WITH A BARRIER)
AUTOS 66.8 0.47 -3.4 53.4
M.TRUCKS 61.9 0.26 -7.2 54.7
H.TRUCKS 69.9 0.00 -5.0 • 64.9
FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING)
TOTAL L«d(h) - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE <ALPHA=Q.Q) - 66.1 iB
EXPECTED CNEL - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE - 67 to 63
E35
E
E
c
c
E
c
E
E
E
E
C
C
APPENDIX
REPORT 86-006
TABLE 14
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
FHWA-RD-77-108 TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(MODIFIED FOR CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONDITIONS)
ROAD NAME - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
RECEPTOR LOCATION - SECTION 1, 6' BARRIER, AFTER THE TRUCK BAN
TRAFFIC FLOW INFORMATION
ADT - 144QQ.O
V. OF MEDIUM TRUCKS - 3.0
v. OF HEAVY TRUCKS - 1.0
SPEED IN MPH - 43.0
PROJECT GEOMETRY INFORMATION
fF™'° — •».»^Mi»<»»^-^-»-»'-rra»-»»-^»-»-»™!••••••••••• ••••••-•-•^•ni • • •
to SOURCE TO RECEIVER DISTANCE - 43.0
SINGLE-LANE EQUIVALENT DISTANCE - 42.3
C BARRIER TO RECEIVER- DISTANCE - 15.0
ROAD ELEVATION - 506.3
TOP OF BARRIER ELEVATION (WALL) - 513.1
_ RECEIVER ELEVATION - 512.2
[ ROAD GRADE (7.) - 2.0
» LEFT ANGLE - -90.0
RIGHT ANGLE - 90.0
INTERMEDIATE RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS ('REFLECTIVE' SITE)
SOURCE Ltq(h) FRESNEL SHIELDING Leq(h)
(NO BARRIER) NUMBER in dB (WITH A BARRIER)
AUTOS 67.2 0.47 -3.4 59.8
M.TRUCKS 60.5 0.26 -7.2 53.2
H. TRUCKS 60.2 0.00 -5.0 "33.2
FINAL RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS (WITH SHIELDING)
TOTAL L«d<h> - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE (ALPHA=O.O> - 6i.: as«
EXPECTED CNEL - 'REFLECTIVE' SITE - 62 to 63 dB
E36
I
I
I
I
I
I
i EXHIBIT F
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7,
_
L
C
c
[
c
c
C
C
I
C
c
c
JUL291337July 30, 1987
TO t MEMBERS OF RANCW SANTA1-Ffi3W)A0i ALIGNMENT STUDY COMMITTEE
FROMt FRED MOREY FOR MAG PROPERTIES
SUBJECTi MAG STATEMENT REGARDING ALIGNMENT STUDIES
We thought it would be appropriate to provide to the Committee in
writing an outline of the thinking of MAG Properties in regard to the
Rancho Santa Fe Alignment. Before expressing that thinking we will
provide the information with which MAG is working;
(A) The construction of a prime arterial at its present alignment
or moved east fifty feet will cost about $10,500,000 if an over-
pass is not required at Melrose. If the overpass is required the
cost would be about $12,000,000. This estimate does not include
the cost of any sound and safety mitigation measures for existing
residences nor does it provide any payment for land required for
widening and pushing fifty feet east.
(B) Technical studies prepared for the city (Wildan & Associates
7-31-86) and the report of the Corridor Circulation Committee
both indicate that the present alignment is the best from a traffic
flow view point.
(C) Based on the information we have available the "Canyon" route
would cost either $14,500,000 or $16,000,000 depending on the
Melrose overpass decision plus the cost of land and severance
damages for MAG Properties. We have not quantified this but there
would be a significant dollar cost (certainly in the millions of
dollars range). We do not know who would pay this cost. We don't
think it could be argued that move would benefit the city as a
whole or even the majority of property owners in the La Costa area.
(D) Under any circumstance it appears that the financing of the four
center lanes of this regional arterial should be considered for
financing from city wide public facility fees. This road (and
PalomaTf) is regional in nature and should not (in our opinion) all
be financed by a relatively few property owners in Zone II of the
city.
Now that we have outlined the information with which we are working we
will outline those decisions which we think should be made and the areas
in we think we can be helpful:
(1) We believe the present alignment should be generally followed. 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 a prime arterial (this is conditioned on the retention of the
provision for an adequate access point on .Rancho Santa Fe Road for
MAG Properties).
F1
Page 2
(2) Assuming the modified prestnt alignment we would pry for th. *
•idewalks, curbs, gutters and one lane on both sides of Ranch*
Santa Fe for the length of the MAC Properties. .
(3) Again assuming the present modified alignment we would *
with others in financing some reasonable
measures. (There is nothing in city
1 ^ ± m » _ . • . 'prctjustifies this expenditure. However, we do wn?"o bS
neighbors and help to solve this difficult "political" situation)
FRED MOREY
FOR MAG PROPERTIES
cc: Mayor and Members of City Council
City Manager
Director of Community Development
City Engineer
Planning Director
3
Hi
J
1
2
I
1
3
3
3
3
3
F2 i
f"ta
c
c
c
II
!
i
C
n costn RflncH co.
August 6, 1987
To Rancho Santa Fe Road Committee
The La Costa Ranch Company, as one of the members 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 the "canyon alignment"
provided certain conditions and City Council commitments are
included. We can also support a mitigated alternative approxi-
mating the existing alignment.
We understand and appreciate why the existing residents would
prefer the canyon alignment. However, that alignment will require
massive grading not only for the relocated Rancho Santa Fe Road
and Melrose, but also for the future adjacant properties. The
canyon alignment could require variances from the existing Hillside
and Grading Ordinances of the City, will result in very substan-
tial additional costs for construction of the road, and will
require a close and fast-tracked working relationship between
the La Costa Ranch Company, the other properties participating
in the construction, including M.A.G. Properties, and the City
to achieve canyon alignment.
f™ Recognizing this, the La Costa Ranch Company is prepared to support
L the "canyon alignment" consistent with the Hunsacker Associates
engineering to date, providing the City Council by resolution
directs the following:
1. The Local Facilities Management Plans for Zones 11 and
12 be expedited, and the Rancho Santa Fe Road Committee
participate in the Rancho Santa Fe alignment selection
and implementation.
2. A definitive financing plan and facilities agreement fo:
the improvement of Rancho Santa Fe Road be ccr.su.TiT.aced
promptly.
3. Concurrently, the La Costa Master Plan and related
Environmental Impact Reports be modified or amended
as required to implement the Committee's recommendation.
4. Variances or other relief from the Hillside and Gradir.g
Ordinances of the City be achieved where appropriate to
accommodate the realignment with minimal impact to the
surrounding properties and to mitigate the substantive
additional costs.
6670 E: Cirnnc Real. ?O Sex 90CO-I66 • Carisoad • Canforva 91CC9 • .619.931-374:
F3
Page Two
Rancho Santa Fe Road Committee
August 6, 1987
5. City staff be directed to 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,-' //I* i/> c^^*-^ f ^-
ROSS MCDONALD
For the La Costa Ranch Company
c
E
C
E
C
C
C
C
C
E
E
E
E
C
PUUtNINO CONSULTANTS
ANO CIVIL CNGINEEHSRICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
3088 PIO PICO OR. • SUITE 202 . CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PO. BOX 1129 • PHONE . AREA CODE 619 • 729-4987
August 18, 1987
Mr. Lloyd Hubba
City Engineer
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad/ California 92009
RE: RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
RICK ENGINEERING JOB NO. 7936-B
Dear Lloyd:
Per the last committee meeting on Rancho Santa Fe Road, August
12, 1987, I would like to submit to you comments relative the
concerns we have as 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, M.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.
0 The existing alignment would conform with the existing Circula-
tion Element, General Plan, La Costa Master Plan, and zoning.
9 The existing alignment and site plan allows for a possible full
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
August 18, 1987
Page Two
A signalized intersection and entrance one-quarter-mile 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 circulation for
the site and not concentrate all the traffic at the existing
intersection of La Costa Avenue.
0 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 Fe 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:
0 There would be a loss of about four-plus acres of their
property.
0 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 10 feet
to meet the vertical standards.
0 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.
0 If the current intersection-spacing requirements were held on
Rancho Santa Fe Road, the Mision Estancia intersection would be
700 feet off the M.A.G. property on adjacent ownership. 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.
9 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 of
the two on the current design.
F6
c
c
c
c
r
c
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
August 18, 1987
Page Three
0 Moving Rancho Santa Fe Road compounds the design problems. 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.
In 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/004
cc: Mr. Fred Morey
Mr. John Stanley/ Esq.
Mr. Ted Aroney
Mr. Larry Mabee
C
i
:
F7
"1*
"I
M
^August 20, 1987 «*
To: RSF Rd. Committee «^|
From: Hal Mortensen J
re: RSF Rd. Alignment
•I
As a resident of La Costa HS377& Bajo Ct.) I will be l-
impacted by the decisions of this committee and future
decisions of council. I am concerned new these decisions ^j
will affect me. But I am equally concerned about how these J!
decisions will affect others in this city and throughout
this region. For this reason I have attended each of your m
meetings except the first. I have on occasion participated.
I appreciate that they have been open to the public. I "^
appreciate the manner in which Lloyd Hubbs has conducted
these meetings. I also wish to express some personal ^
background thoughts and c-jncerns. Ml
While living in La Costa for the last 14 months, I have •
called "911" 5 times for accidents on "Deadmans Curve" (4 ]
over—turns,! head-on including 1 fatality). The city
traffic engineer indicated that all accidents on RSF Rd.
can be attributed to driver negligence when additional ™
reflectors were suggested (implying the road does not *t
contribute). Screeching tires are the norm for this dark
winding stretch. . m
My child needed to be bused to Encinitas because the school
needs of the community were not addressed ass this community
was built (perhaps because La Costa is split into multiple
school districts-only one which is "Car 1 abad's" > .
Major parks are added in locations which thir majority of
the community cannot access safely without driving. Our"
parks and recreation department does not tra^ d?
responsibility for children^' team sports (but do-?-* '---st up
adult leagues). As a result, a suitable, Icrral f-.-i-! cannot
be used for local, childrens' team sports. In-s ti-;»J,
children need t<3 be driven to other communities ..-.rid
neighborhoods to participate. Children must J!=G ije driven
to playgrounds because the local par I s are devoid of
playground equipment.
I have listened to my neighbors speak of years of meetings
and long-running concerns regarding the noise and aafecy of
this road. A hind-sight analysis makes me wonder wny ^L<CM a
major road and houses (including 2-story houses.) woula ^.=.-r
have been placed in close proximity without Bound and
safety mitigation measures being instilled.
F8
C
E
C
jl
•"
Is it any wonde.r why the residents view with skepticism the
staff recommendations " to leave the road" that are nude
after years of community discussions, but without thorough
technical staff review? I-s it any wonder that the communitv
is interested in slow-growth when community needs and
concerns have not been addressed "' Rather- than taking the
lead in community planning and develupment-at least in the
past-Planning has only reacted to it. Is not the Growth
Management Plan a reaction?
With those background thoughts, I would like to present why
I believe this road should be moved to the canyon
alignment:
1. The road and homes should never have been placed in close
proximity to each other without sound and safety
mitigation.
2. As traffic and accidents have built, local government has
fogged the community, and did not address or solve the
problem with mitigation measures many years ago. The
community now has its back up and believes the only
solution is to move the road-regardless of cost.
3. With an improperly designed interface between a
residential community and a prime arterial, we cannot move
the community but we do have the opportunity to move the
road and properly design that interface.
P" 4. The General P-lan with its various elements (including the
I noise element) and other planning documents seeks to
provide guidelines to city government and assurances to
our residents that the quality of our lifestyle and
f" protection of our community will be a priority. The noise
•i expert has indicated that for 2-story home the noise will
be significantly above the norm with the windows
f" closed. Few people in North County live in enclosed boxes
L with air conditioning. By his charts, the noise will be
sufficient to interfere with sleep and normal
conversations inside my home with the windows closed.
{ Moving the road will mitigate noise for all areas
fc* right at the intersection with La Costa Ave.
5. While mitigation for the current alignment may "work1
|F local residents are skeptical and there was a decided .lack
|l of guarantees chat it would.
6. The canyon route can be laid out with conservative,
_ scenic, sweeping curves through our community, unproved
f" grades, and a better location approaching Queathaven.
™ While not a straight, flat road, this design was bacl-ed
away from the limits of the highway design standard.* for
safe roads. It is safe.
7. The intersection interval can be maintained to meet prime
arterial standards for collectors and a future
intersection with Mel rose.
3. Circulation elements can provide "natural" separations or
buffers between commercial and residential properties.
,
C F9
9. The residential properties can tie developed a-5 continuous
residential areas-wi tnout isolated pocket:.; of roaiaenc;al
sites. The integrity at" the community 13 main tainea. This
represents good planning!
10.The best possible noise and safety controls can be
installed near La Costa Ave.
11.Some residents bought their homes when the road was
classified as a major arterial. Some were mislead by city
planning maps and statements by city planners that the
road was in a temporary location. Moving the road will
make these residents whole.
12.Even with minimal "excess" grading, the value of property
throughout the area will be improved-well in excess of the
extra road costs. This includes both for residents and
developers (possibly all developers). This would also
improve the future tax base for the city.
13.The overall cost to build and maintain Meirose Ave. when
the southerly extension is built will be lower.
14.The road would placed into areas otherwise undevelopable.
I appreciate MAG Property's position, but I am disappointed
by their lack of presentation ot what it would take to make
their investment work.with the canyon route (except for
inflated severance). They seem to take for granted with a
current alignment an access to their property from RSF Rd.
Their having not tried to work through to a workable
solution will, I suspect, raise the ire of the community.
This lack of good will towards the community may now affect
them even if the canyon route is selected, f would expect
relatively narrow interpretations by planning and would
question anything but.
I am also concerned that the decisions made by this
committee have been made prematurely before having anything
but a gross cast-benefit analysis. The gross numbers
covered only the cost of the road. They do not show any of
the benefits (for the canyon route) for decreased future
cost of Melrose, increased property values, or dti-cres. sed
grading costs to develop the property after grading for the
road. While discussions regarding severance for MAG
Properties has i»een made if the canyon route i!~ selected,
no costs have been discussed for the city to cover
litigation or the costs to developers-both La Costa Ranch
and MAG Properties for delays due to homeowner opposition
area development if the current alignment is selected. It
certainly should be understood that some residents will
consider no road improvements or developments better' than
an improved road at the current location.
F10
E
E
E
E
G
c
L
i
I also fmml much more information .should have been
presented by the La Co<sta Ranch Co. to show how in general
they would use the land for both routes (Just as I feel MAG
should have). The extent at -arianc^s from grading
ordinances should be better understood, to what extent the/
could be minimised, and inputs and participation. by
planning at *n earlier stage -should precede an enaorsement
by the local homeowners af the acceptability of variances
to the grading ordinance. I am convinced that -in ecor.cmical
land use plan can be implemented that is consistent with
intent of the current general plan. I also believe the
grading could take place that modifies the structure of the
lower slopes but continues to leave the observer with the
impression of developments built into rolling hills
.(generally consistent with the current topography). I
hope that La Costa Ranch Co. will be abls to present soma
planning that would show how they may develop the land with
both alignments. Also that their planning may show the
extent of grading .and where it may be appropriate.
Reviewing the draft agenda bill and draft staff
recommendations, I felt importance of not bisecting the
residential community was understated! This is an important
issue just like Stagecoach Park access is. I would not like
to see this become a future political issue because of poor-
planning now. The "canyon alignment" is not staight and
flat, but it is safe. This is also under-sta tt»d. Mow much
safer is the current alignment over the "safe" canyon
alignment is never stated. The long term cost of the canyon
alignment (factoring in cost savings for south Mel rose
which is in the circulation element) is only margin-ally
more expensive but may also become the responsibility of
the developers. The impact to the value of MAG Properties
land with a canyon alignment (thus far only stated by MAG
Properties) has not been compared to (nor has there been
any attempt to establish) the impact to the value of La
Costans land which is also certainly million's of dollars.
I certainly hope when the city council
it is for the canyon alignment .
makes a final decision
E
E
F11
As the appoint^ citizen's representatives to the hancho Janta Fe
Road Alignment Committee, v,e woula lilce to compliment Lloyd Hubbs
for the professional manner in which he nas handled a very difficult
assignment. V»e would also like to thank the representatives of the
La Costa Ranch Co. and *u*i Properties for their efforts in attempt-
ing to effect a solution to the Rancho -anta Fe Road situation.
After much .study and deliberation, we are convinced that the impacts
of a regional prime arterial roadway through our community would be
devastating. Both the mitigated alignment (Hunsaker if I) and the
canyon alternative ^Hunsaker >?2) meet city design standards for a
prime arterial roadway, and either would be able to move the pro-
jected number of A.Ii.T.s safely and conveniently through our community.
However, only the canyon alternative (Hunsaker jf2) fully addresses
and solves the concerns of our community.
The Canyon alternative ^Hunsaker ^2) enhances the development
potential of residential land by combining a community of present
and future homeowners. It is the only alignment according to the
noise consultant, and endorsed by the homeowners, which can mitigate
noise for both one and two story homes. The canyon alternative will
also provide motorists with * scenic corridor of hillsides and
valleys rather than a feeling of driving through a tunnel of walls
created by the mitigated Alignment, (-..unsaker *!) ~ince there is
apparently little cost differential in the tv/o rcaav/ay-, the canyon
alternative {Hunsaker ff2) is the only sensible alignment.
Thus the resident members of the committee ask that the Carlsbad
City Council select the canyon alternative (Hunsaker ff2) as the
future alignment for Kancho w«tnta re Road, furthermore, we endorse
the La Costa Ranch Company's request to expediate road construction
and development of the adjoining land. However, we must oppose any
intersection north of La Costa nvenue on Rancho oanta re P.oad that
would specifically service the needs of the KIAJ rroperties corunercial
development. This intersection would negatively impact the Hillside
Patio Homes with both noise and safety concerns.
F12
I
I
I
I
I
i EXHIBIT G
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c
M
C Meeting of:
Committee
Time of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
MINUTES
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study
4:00 P.M.
Carlsbad Community Development Building
July 9, 1987
c
c
r
C
C
C
Present: Lloyd Hubbs, Joe Dunn, Mike Glass, Ross McDonald, Fred Morey and Alan
Recce.
rin
c
c
Staff Members Present:Doug Avis, La Costa Ranch Co., Steve Tate, 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
realignment alternatives.
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.
E
C Gl
ru
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
for 4:00.p.m. July 14, 1987 in the Community Development Building.
m
•i
LLO
City En
LBH:rp
eer
m
m
HI
m
m
m
]
]
G2
i
i Meeting of:
Time of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
MINUTES
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study
Committee
4:00 P.M.
Carlsbad Community Development Building
July 16, 1987
i
i
i
Committee Members Present:Lloyd Hubbs,
Dunn, Mike
McDonald, Fred
Recce.
Doug Avis, Joe
Glass, Ross
Morey and Alan
Staff Members Present
c
c
ii
C
C
E
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 Program
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 Designs Option for Rancho
Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue Intersection
Material from CalTrans Design Standards were distributed
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
a fixed starting
suggested that
point in their
G3
the Committee
di scussion.
use it as
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 agreed 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.
C. Establishment of Design Criteria for Mitigated
Alternative
Mr. Hubbs requested that Mr. Dunholter address the
Committee on noise measurements and accepted standards.
Mr. Dunholter explained that "Idn" 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 Idn. It is the standard which new
projects must be designed to meet. This is the level
which the average person finds acceptable.
G4
:
E July 16, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe
Page 3
Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting
E
E
E
C
E
C
E
E
E
Mee
Mr. Glass stated that he and Mr. Recce do not believe
homeowners In the area will accept the 65 Idn 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. Dunholter
pointed out that these are Instantaneous decibel levels,
not Idn 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 Idn was too
high and that 50 to 55 Idn would be most acceptable.
Mr. Dunholter expressed the opinion that 55 to 60 Idn
was probably the best that could be expected in any
circumstance. It was decided that no specific level be
selected but that Mr. Dunholter and Mr. Tate be
instructed to obtain the greatest mitigation practical.
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. Dunholter 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. Dunholter
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.
journed at 6:15 p.m.
LLOYD B
City En
UBBS
neer
LBH:FB:rp
G5
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
E
C
C
E
C
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting:
Place of Meeting
Date of Meeting:
MINUTES
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study
Committee
4:30 p.m.
Carlsbad Community Development Building
3uly 23, 1987
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 Duly 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 A--1/2 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-
1/2 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.
C
G6
Ouly 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. 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
would be accessed by alternatives. RL - is low
residential with a control point of 1 to the acre and
RLM is a 3.2 control point (0-4- is the range).
2. 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.
3. 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.
4-. The other item 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.
5. 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
E
1
i
I
E
C
C
i
E
E
E
C
July 23, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 3
6. Environmental constraints such as rare and endangered
species and 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' wit-h 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
10'. 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
Ouly 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
24-00' radius curve around the center-line intersection, moving
the curb and everything about a foot or so. At 24-00' 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 "Oersey" 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 "Jersey" barrier in and put the sound wall
right 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
mM
I
E
I
E
E
L
C
E
I
E
July 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 right
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
E
G10
Ouly 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
G11
fa
1
1
c
c
c
c
I
E
c
c
c
July 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 are 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.
Goe 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.
G12
July 23, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 8
Fred Morey stated that if you realign the road, it means the
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
intersection. 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 Mr. Morey's
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,
noise, 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.
G13
p
m
i
:
E
Ouly 23, 1987
Rancho 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
p those costs - the owners, MAG Properties, La Costa Ranch Company,
y 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 knowEif 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.
E 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 noted 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. Mr. 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
alignment 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.
;ing adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
i, -^
p. LLOYD BT./HUBBS
i City Engineer
LBH:FB/afm
ta GU
r
MINUTES
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study
Committee
4:30 p.m.
Carlsbad Community Development Building
Ouly 30, 1987
c
c
Committee Members Present:
Staff Members Present:
Others Present:
Lloyd Hubbs, doe Dunn,
Ross McDonald, Fred Morey and
Alan Recce.
Steve Tate, Engineering Consultant
La Costa Ranch Company
Bob Ladwig, Engineering Consultant
MAG Properties
Frank Boensch, Management Analyst
Paul Dunholter, Acoustical
Consultant, Mestre Greve Associates
Annette Sanchez-Baesel,
Environmental Consultant, Sanchez
Talarico Associates
c
c
c
C
C
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 geometries 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 land. It was stated that it is all useable
land.
G15
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 trade offs start off-
setting the $4 million dollars. Mr. McDonald commented 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
E
E
E
E
E
P
•
E
i
i
E
3uly 30, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 3
Mr. Hubbs then introduced Annette Sanchez-Baesel, environmental
consultant, who has done some work in the area. Ms. Sanchez-
Baesel stated that their company started work in June 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 paleontology. 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 likelihood 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.
G17
E
July 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 project,
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 required
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 will 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 Duly
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.
G18
c
[
:
E
E
C
C
F
••
_
F
•*
c
c
[
July 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
alignments. 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 caYi 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.
c G19
3uly 30, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 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 LDN 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 10' barrier. He stated that he believed 10' 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 dB. 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
c
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
C 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
I* study mean that it was not calculated. Mr. Dunn asked that he
M would really like to know what the noise level in the homes
directly affected on La Costa. Mr. Dunholter stated that he
p narrowed his study down to Rancho Santa Fe. Mr. Dunn stated
jy that his concern is what those people are going to hear not what
is predicted to come from Rancho Santa Fe. Mr. Dunholter stated
pm that no matter what you do to Rancho Santa Fe the noise level is
i 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
|P 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
in sound if you have a dominating sound. It was noted that the
L influence of La Costa Avenue has been ignored in this study and
that there may be problems with La Costa Avenue.
C 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
p* of return diminishes. You have to keep doubling the distance to
L 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
j 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
P* the wall is closer, but the noise levels are less at distances
ia, further away, this would only be in certain instances.
mm 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
li the land if it was moved. Mr. Hubbs replied that the City
would.
G21c
Ouly 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 from 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 4-5 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.
Mr. Dunholter stated that it is correct. Mr. Re~~e 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
G22
c
[
C
july 30, 1987
(P Rancho Santa Fe, Road Alignment Study Committee
y Page 9
P 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
IF 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 extra 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 line 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.
C
C
C
[
C
c
c
c
[
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
wall of 10'. 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
July 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 need 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
c July 30, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 11
c
c
r
c
fL
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 would 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 meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
LLOYD 'B/jdUBBS
City Engineer
LBH:FB/af
C
c
c
c
c G25
c
MINUTES
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
E 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 theCCommittee 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
p should be on-site or off-site, and how effective a wall would be.
jy 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
F 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
p indicated on a chart showing wall heights versus the road
1^ elevation. The chart indicates moving the road to the east
versus varying the grades on the street. Mr. Hubbs indicated two
p options, one was burying the roadbeds on the east lower than the
f west, and the other option was to move both roadbeds. The road1-1 doesn't alter the location of the wall situation significantly.
The chart indicated that you can do about as good on the 25'
F offset for the elevated condition as can be done with any other
hi offset. Mr. Hubbs stated he believes the way to do that would be
to present a 51 retaining wall with up to a 10' slope bank and
p an 8'- 12' wall on top of it, landscaped and with all the
jy 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.
P 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
m returns he wouldlike to establish a few conclusions such as 1) to
c G26
August 1, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 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 "in the hole", 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
C27
c August 1, 1987
_ Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
P Page 3
the point that another cost item might be mitigating the other
p side of the road. It was stated that these figures are already
If in the estimates. Land cost has not been included in either
estimate.
L 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. TheChomeowners 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
p stated that in his opinion the 55 level doesn't exist anywhere.
L 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
P been presented, none of them have a 55 level as a standard. Mr.
m 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
p summed it up by saying that what the consultant is saying is that
jy 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
f* that particular area. The noise consultant had given the
«f Committee three alternatives at future traffic projection. He
modeled his study using three alternatives - leaving the road
P* where it's at, providing walls for mitigation of 50', and putting
jjy the road in the canyon. He also used maximum wall heights to
make a worse case situation. Mr Hubbs stated the Committee
p, should be looking at maximum wall heights for each case also.
I 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
P 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
E 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
P general noise level already there, the obtainability is the thing
m 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
p would like general concurrence on what the Committee thinks they
L 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
F 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
F time. Mr. Recce continued stating that he is having a real hard
G28
August 1, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 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
f Page 5
must do some significant replanning of the project. This can be
C 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
p there is no free lunch, there are other costs involved. It is
f* 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 roadCwould 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.
p Recce continued that MAG Property has made no statement as far as
jL 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 swapEshould 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
jL 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
I look at the possibility. It was noted that there would be less
M options available to MAG Properties if there were structures on
the property. This issue is basically still on the table. Mr.
f Recce stated that Mr. Morey's plan will have to change no matter
j^ 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
p,, 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
P process they would go through.
ita Mr. Hubbs stated that the Committee must move on into what they
E 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 viableEoptions, 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
p involved. The other item that needs to be dealt with is the
L 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
P 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-C
[G30
August 1, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 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 l) 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
are a lot of unknowns. They do not like mass grading. He
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
c
E
E
E
E
E
C
E
E
E
E
E
August 1, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
Page 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 haye 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
Page 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
y
Ml
P
August 1, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
P Page 9
ta
back burner.
Mr. 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
P will take a staff recommendation to the City Council outlining
JJH the whole problem. Mr. McDonald stated that maybe they come up
with something to mitigate the MAG property and then they could
pi 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
P Ranch Company to absorb they are going to want to recapture those
ii costs. Some working with the developer to help things like
grading will have to be done. It was noted that from the
p developer's standpoint they are looking for support. Mr.
i 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
P 4:30 in the Conference room.
c
c
c
C
C
c
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.
Tha^jn,e^ting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m
LLOYD IgJBBS
City Engineer
LBH:FB/af
G34
c
:MINUTES
Meeting of: Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study
P Committee
|l Time of Meeting: 4:30 p.m.
Place of Meeting: Carlsbad Community Development Building
pi Date of Meeting: August 6, 1987
I*
Committee Members Present: Lloyd Hubbs, Joe Dunn, RossCMcDonald, Fred Morey, Mike Glass,
Doug Avis, and Alan Recce.
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
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
C35
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
August 6, 1987
Page 2
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 committee 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
p
Py
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
August 6, 1987
P Page 3y *-**—
existing alignment, it could be done in increments. Mr. Morey
p stated that if you want to build a road the easiest way to go is
y 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
p not going to affect very many people. He continued that if the
y City Council embarks on the canyon alignments, the Committee is
in for a long, long haul. During the discussion, Mr. Green
pp stated that he doesn't believe there is anyone in the room that
F 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
P will give this priority number one. Mr. Hubbs stated that is
y correct, but they need the $15 million to do it. He continued
that this is of primary concern to the Council right now because
p of the number of other issues of financing. Mr. Glass stated
k that he would be very opposed to anything that would segment the
road.
P Mr. McDonald distributed a letter stating that the La Costa Ranch
In Company can support the canyon alignment provided certain
conditions have been met. They have identified some of the
S 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.
P 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
p the meaning of some of these things. Mr. Glass stated that item
y #4 relating to the Hillside and Grading Ordinance is the point of
contention. Mr. McDonald stated that they haven't been able to
p complete enough engineering estimates but they will obtain more
y specifics on this item as soon as they can. Mr. Morey stated
• that item #2 is contrary to general impression. He stated that
it is going to depend on how much the City is gong to participateEin 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
E 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.C 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
p alignments. Mr. Recce stated that all the factors have not been
c G37
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
August 6, 1987
Page 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. Mr. 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
C38
m Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
August 6, 1987
** Page 5y
conditions of the La Costa Ranch Company or would they support
p this aspect. Mr. Glass made the motion that the Committee
L 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
P 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
p some of their concerns in the report to the City Council. Mr.
jjy Ross wanted to clarify to the Committee that the road is going to
change significantly and he wants everyone to be aware of this
p, fact. Mr. Hubbs stated that the City would probably take the
F 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
P might be able to get better home sites.
!• ,.Mr. Hubbs continued to discuss the mitigated alternative stating
p that at the last meeting the Committee had decided that was the
F 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 currentEcorridor 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
E 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
S
E
C
E
C
C
[G39
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
August 6, 1987
Page 6
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.
Thej meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
LLOYD V./HUBBS
City Engineer
LBH:FB/af
G40
c
L
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
MINUTES
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study
Committee
4:30 p.m.
Carlsbad Community Development Building
August 12, 1987
c-
c
Committee Members Present:
Staff Members Present:
Lloyd Hubbs, Joe Dunn, Ross
McDonald, Fred Morey, Mike Glass,
Doug Avis, and Alan Recce.
Walter Brown, Principal Civil
Engineer
Michael Holzmiller, Planning
Director
Marty Orenyak, Community
Development Director
Steve Tate, Engineering Consultant
La Costa Ranch Company
Bob Ladwig, Engineering Consultant
MAG Properties
Frank Boensch, Management Analyst
I
I
c
p
c
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
Page 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 mitigation 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 center line 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." 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
c
E
C
C
c
E
E
E
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
August 12, 1987
Page 3
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 #6 - "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 |
Page 4
The major difference in the cost figures is the grading and the I
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 I
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. m
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 B
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. B
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
c
c
c
c
c
[
•*
C
p
[
"ll
P"
m
E
C
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
August 12, 1987
Page 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
Mitigated Alignment being easily implemented in phases. Mr.
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
CU5
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
August 12, 1987
Page 6
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
money 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." Mr.
G46
c
c
F
•
C_
f~
•
C
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
August 12, 1987
Page 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
p. is picking one or the other and in anticipation of the
L environmental impact report, which is going to say don't go with
** the canyon, the staff has picked the mitigated alignment.
C 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
P< people at all the meetings is that it is symbolic. Basically,
i 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
f" going to be a barrier and they were going to get a quiet deal.
It* 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
p are affected. He stated that there are still people that think
Ig this is not going to be a prime arterial and this has 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
F 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
P moves traffic according to how the. engineers want to see it and
jy something that fits in nicely with the community. With the road
going in the canyon, it greatly decreases the impact on the
p, present homes, it is going to be less of an impact on the future
r* homes, and it is going to combine a community. It is coming up
"8 with the best alternative from a community standpoint. Mr. Glass
commented that we are at a point in our community where we are
P going to take a lot of two lane roads and make them bigger roads.
I* The way this road is handled is going to impact current residents
F" G47
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
August 12, 1987
Page 8
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 next meeting was scheduled for August 27th. The
report will be mailed to all by Monday the 24th. Mr. Hubbs
G48
I
c
L
C
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee
August 12, 1987
Page 9
stated that he would like to have all the Committee responses by
Thursday of next week.
ourned at 6:15 p.m.
LLOYD B./HUBBS
City Engineer
LBH:FB/af
C
r
c
c
c G49
r
MINUTES
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study
Committee
4:30 p.m.
Carlsbad Community Development Building
August 27, 1987
Committee Members Present:
Staff Members Present:
Lloyd Hubbs, Joe Dunn, Fred Morey,
Mike Glass, Doug Avis, Alan Recce
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.
rL
r
c
c
c
c
c
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:
Page 1
Last paragraph under Mitigated Alternative. A couple of the
Committee members did not like the use of the word "optimum". It
was agreed to delete the word "optimum".
Page 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
Page 2
mitigation has been constructed." It was suggested to include
"for an observer 61 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 capsulize 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 airport standard
that the exterior has to be 65 CNEL. That is the only exterior
standard the state has. There is nothing for single family.
Page 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.
G51
C
c
c
c
August 27, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting
Page 3
Page 4
Fred Morey presented his comments in writing. He stated
p regarding the last paragraph relating to the Melrose Drive and
L 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
f" 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
C 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
P 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
C 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
IP, 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
P recommendation that Melrose be analyzed again. Mr. Hubbs stated
|g that this is still a debatable issue, but he thinks it is a
legitimate cost and should be included.
Page 5
It was noted that MAG Properties will be contributing the right-
f* of-way for the Hunsaker 1 Alignment, so therefore they did not
l« 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
E 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
P would clarify the statement.
Page 6
j^ Mr. Dunn stated that he has a problem with the third paragraph
relating to MAG Properties access to Santa Fe Road. However, it
p was noted that this was a statement of opinion and MAG properties
I 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 27, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting
Page 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.
Page 7
No comments. However, Mr. Morey's notes indicated that some
questions will arise in the peripheral comments.
Page 8
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 "preferential
priorities" was suggested.
Page 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
I
c
c
c
E
C
C
C
August 27, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting
Page 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.
P Page 10
ll Mr. Morey questioned community cohesion. Stating that there is
p an inconsistency in the analysis. Mr. Dunn stated that the 2nd
F 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,C 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.
p* Mr. Morey discussed the conclusion. He stated that it has so
L 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
f" major issues in the conclusion.
Page 11
L 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.
h"» 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.
Page 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 10' 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
not ignored. This will be inserted into the report. The
question was asked what would happen if a double wall is used.
G54
August 27, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting
Page 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.
Page 13
No comments
Page 14
No comments
Page 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.
Page 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
E
[
C
c
C
C
E
C
August 27, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting
Page 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.
Page 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
I position.in
Mr. Hubbs stated that hopefully the Committee will be able to
C 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
I
August 27, 1987 _
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting I
Page 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. •
I
LLOYD B. HUBBS PI
City Engineer •
LBH:FB/af
3
I
3
I
I
a
i
i
G57
a
a
a
MINUTES
is
™
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study
Committee
4:30 p.m.
Carlsbad Community Development Building
September 3, 1987
P*
E
f"
|g
L
P
Committee Members Present:
Staff Members Present:
Lloyd Hubbs, Joe Dunn, Fred Morey,
Mike Glass, Doug Avis, Alan Recce
Ross McDonald
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
September 3, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting
Page 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 Committee 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 going to float the bond. If there is such a financing
agreement 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 continued 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
Properties situation, along with the access. A major unresolved
issue is the MAG Properties access. Based on that, staff
recommends that the Committee postpone going before Council
until there is more resolution in this area.
Mr. Recce questioned if the La Costa Ranch Company would be
bumping anyone as far as priority goes at present. Mr. Avis
stated that the Zone 11 and 12 Plan is already in first place as
far as priority is concerned so it is not a matter of bumping
anyone.
Mr. Morey discussed the financing of the road stating that either
way the decision goes there will need to be financing. While if
C59
c
ry
September 3, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting
Page 3
the Existing Alignment were chosen, MAG properties may be able
p« to put the road by its property out of its pocket. You are
y talking about significant up-front money if they go the Canyon
Alignment. 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 entitlement that a lender or
P bond underwriter can say is there.y
Mr. Morey continued that due to the La Costa Ranch Company, MAG
p, 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 will
have on the Zone 11 Plan. Mr. Morey continued that in the zone
P plans you have to come up with financing mechanisms to assure
y that certain improvements are going 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
f* 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,
p* but they would like to spend more time with MAG Properties to
y help sort out their problems.
Mr. Morey stated that MAG Property had a preliminary look at the
P 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
P situation with the City, La Costa Ranch Company and MAG
y Properties. He continued that they are going through
conversations with La Costa Ranch Company and will continue to do
m, so. Some of these things require intense engineering studies
P 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
P that MAG will throw out.L
Mr. Recce stated that it is for the betterment of the community
m 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
f* already a priority issue based on promises that were made during
IN the election and promises that were made to the City of San
Marcos because of the trucks and access to the landfill. Mr.
p Orenyak stated that they are still a long way from a tentative
G60
September 3, 1987
Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment Study Committee Meeting
Page 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