HomeMy WebLinkAbout3190; Rancho Sante Fe Road Realignment; Rancho Sante Fe Road Realignment; 2001-10-017ick Shdiis
ACOLSTICAL ASSCSSMCNT RCPORT
RANCnO SANTA CC ROAD RCAUGNNCNT
(Phase 1)
to
P
I)
k
m
to
(<•
te
Prepared for:
CITY or CARLSBAD
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carisbad, California 92009
Prepared by:
to
P
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
OCTOBER 2001
Rancho Santa Fe Road Project • Acoustical Assessment Report
to
to
TABLE or CONTENTS
Section Page No.
SUMMARY iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
2.1 Project Location and Setting 1
2.2 Project Characteristics 1
3.0 NOISE CRITERIA 4
3.1 City of Carisbad Noise Criteria 4
3.2 FHWA/Caltrans Noise Criteria 5
4.0 METHODOLOGIES AND INSTRUMENTATION 6
5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 6
6.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS 8
7.0 NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES INCORPORATED
INTO THE PROJECT 11
8.0 CONSTRUCTION NOISE 13
9.0 REFERENCES 15
ATTACriMENTS
Attachment 1 Traffic Volume Summary
Attachment 2 SOUND32
1576-01
**,4^}!^j^T^l^^^jJ •
October 2001 '
PK
itt
Rancho Santa Fe Road Project • Acoustical Assessment Report
P
itt
P
il
TABLE Of CONTENTS {Continued^
Page No.
E
LIST or riGLRES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Regional Map 2
Project Location 3
Noise Measurement and Receptor Locations 7
City Proposed Sound WaU Location 12
Construction Equipment Noise Levels 14
LIST OF TABLES
ii
Table 1 Noise Abatement Criteria
Hourly A-weighted Average Sound Level - Decibel (dBA) 5
Table 2 Short-term Measured Average Noise Level and
Concurrent Traffic Volumes 8
Table 3 Existing Noise Levels 9
Table 4 Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts 10
Table 5 Future Predicted Noise Levels with and without
City Proposed Sound WaU 13
E
m
k
rr U-mfc* Cmfiff iw<w
1576-01
October 2001
m
te
Rancho Santa Fe Road Project ^ Acoustical Assessment Report
SUMMARY
to
Existing noise sensitive receivers in the project vicinity include approximately 50 residences
^ located along the western portion of the project site along Rancho Santa Fe Road. Existing
^ noise levels currently exceed the Federal Highway Administration's Noise Abatement Criteria
at some of the residences along Rancho Santa Fe Road. to
The proposed project would realign Rancho Santa Fe Road east of the existing residences.
Future noise levels generated by project traffic from the proposed road realignment and
widening would comply with the Federal Highway Administration and California
Department of Transportation's Noise Abatement Criteria.
k
r
rr<4rf*itM4 'J> dH-^f CJW4^
1576-01
October 2001
to
m
te
E
k
P
Ito
Rancho Santo Fe Rood Project • Acoustical Assessment Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This noise study is provided for the proposed Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment (Phase 1)
project located within the City of Carlsbad. The City of Carisbad is the lead agency for the
project. The project would also be federally funded, therefore, Caltrans is a responsible
agency. Phase 2 of the project consists of the Rancho Santa Fe Bridge Replacement project
located north of the Phase 1 area. A noise study for the Phase 2 project has been previously
prepared (Dudek & Associates July 2001)
This study documents the existing noise level based on noise measurement and modeling.
The future noise levels were calculated based on the proposed project's roadway design and
traffic volume conditions. Noise sensitive receivers were identified and noise impacts have
been evaluated relative to the applicable noise criteria.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Location and Setting
The project site is located near the southeastern portion of the City of Carisbad. The regional
E proj ect location is depicted in Figure i. The area ranges from relatively flat ground to sloping
hUlsides. There are approximately 50 single family homes located adjacent to the existing
Rancho Santa Fe Road alignment and undeveloped land in the vicinity of the project site
2 {Figure Z). The homes along Rancho Santa Fe Road are situated below, above and at-grade
with the elevation of Rancho Santa Fe Road, and generally have existing four to six-foot high
m wood fences along the backyards.
2.2 Project Characteristics
The City of Carisbad's proposed Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment project would realign
and widen approximately 9,000-linear feet of Rancho Santa Fe Road (S-10) from two lanes
to an ultimate six-lane Prime Arterial Roadway from approximately La Costa Avenue to just
south of San Elijo Road (previously named Questhaven Road).
1576-01
«t.A^9^?ATES,JNC. —
October 2001 1
Orange
County
Camp
Pendlelon
Riverside County
Fallbrook
Oceanside
O
Carlsbad
O
o
Vista
San
Marcos
o
i Project Site
Rancho
Sanla Fe
Del Mar ,^
Mira Mesa
Valley
Center
Escondido
Rancho
Bernardo
Poway
Ramona
1" = 8 Miles
LaJolla
.1 =
r '^^
San Diego J
"' Coronado
National
City
'i Santee
La Mesa
Lemon
Grove
Chula
Visla 'i y
imperial
Beach Otay Mesa
Alpine
Tijuana
Mexico
k
Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment (Phase 1) - Acoustical Assessment Report
Regional Map
FIGURE
IP^ f r * r Existing Corintia Dr. Existing Single Family Residential CITY OF OCEANSIDE Existing Light Industrial Park La Costa Meadows Dr. Existing Bridge Questhaven Rd. Phase 1 Impact Area 750 La Costa Ave. Scale In Feet Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment (Phase 1) • Acoustical Assessment Report Project Vicinity FIGURE 2
Rancho Santa Fe Road Project • Acoustical Assessment Report
^ Roadway Realignment
G The proposed widening and realignment project is part of the City of Carisbad's General Plan
to upgrade Rancho Santa Fe Road to meet its designation as a Prime Arterial Roadway. The
realigned Rancho Santa Fe Road wUl be constructed with six lanes, a median, sidewalks, curb
B and gutter, and street lights. As part of the realignment project, a coUector road would be
constructed to connect realigned Rancho Santa Fe Road with a portion of existing Rancho
2 Santa Fe Road to provide temporary access to Cadencia Street.
g 3.0 NOISE CRITERIA
This report follows the noise criteria and poUcies estabUshed by the City of Carlsbad, as weU
C as the CaUfornia Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway
Admirustration (FFiWA). These guidelines establish procedures for noise studies regarding
traffic noise prediction, noise analyses and noise abatement criteria.
k
m
k
k
The proposed project is located within the City of Carisbad. The City of Carisbad noise
criteria are applied within the local jurisdiction area. Caltrans and FHWA noise criteria are
also used for land uses adjacent to Rancho Santa Fe Road and where Rancho Santa Fe Road
is the predominant noise source.
3.1 City of Carlsbod Noise Criteria
The City of Carisbad describes community noise levels in terms of the Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL is a 24-hour average A-weighted sound level with a ten
decibel (dBA) "penalty" added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., and a five
dBA penalty added to the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The five and ten dBA
penalties are applied to account for increased noise sensitivity during the evening and
nighttime hours. The A-weighted scale measures noise levels corresponding to the human
hearing frequency response. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted. Noise levels at
adjacent residences were also evaluated in terms of the peak hour average sound level. The
noise peak hour average sound level is the noise descriptor typically used by the FHWA and
Caltrans when evaluating traffic noise.
The City of Carisbad requires that the maximum acceptable exterior noise level for new
residential development shaU not exceed a CNEL of 60 dBA.
1576-01
October 2001 4
tti
Rancho Santa Fe Rood Proiect ^ Acoustical Assessment Report
to 3.2 FHWA/Coltrons Noise Criteria
The FFIWA follows the noise abatement procedures established in the Code of Federal
Regulations (23 CFR 772). Caltrans also foUows the noise abatement procedures as weU as
policies established in Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 1100.
The FFWA noise abatement criteria categorizes different activities and land uses for the
purposes of assessing noise impacts. Table 1 shows the FFiWA noise abatement criteria. The
criteria are based on the peak hour (noisiest) average sound level which regularly occurs
during a 24-hour period. The noise abatement criteria for outdoor noise exposure typically
is appiied where frequent human use occurs such as swimming pools and common use areas
at multi-family residences and the backyards of single family homes.
TABLE 1
Noise Abatement Criteria
Hourly A-Weighted Average Sound Level - decibel (dBA)
te
Activity
Category LJh)
—
Description of Activity Category
A 57
(Exterior)
Lands on wiiicii serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important
public need and where tlie preservation of ttiose qualities is essential if the area is to
continue to serve its intended purpose.
B 67
(Exterior)
Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
hotels, schools, churches, libraries and hospitals.
C 72
(Exterior)
Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
D Undeveloped lands.
E 52
(Interior)
Residences, motets, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals and
auditoriums.
A traffic noise impact occurs when the predicted traffic noise levels with project approach
within 1 dBA, or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria. Noise Abatement Criteria, when
approached or exceeded, requires the consideration of traffic noise abatement measures. Aiso,
a traffic noise impact occurs if there is a substantial noise increase. A noise increase is
m
to
1576-01
October 2001
E
to
Rancho Santo Fe Road Project • Acoustical Assessment Report
substantial when the predicted noise level within the project exceeds the existing hourly
average noise level by 12 dBA.
4.0 METHODOLOGIES AND INSTRUMENTATION
To determine the existing noise levels and potential noise impacts, noise measurement were
conducted adjacent to the project site. Noise modeling was also conducted using Caltrans'
SOUND32 traffic noise prediction model (Caltrans 1983). This model is based on the FHWA
traffic noise prediction model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The SOUND32 noise model accepts as
input the number and types of vehicles on the roadway {i.e., heavy trucks, medium trucks,
and automobiles), vehicle speeds, and physical characteristics of the road and topography; as
weU as receiver and noise barrier heights and locations. The CALVENQ vehicle noise
emission levels were used in the noise model (Caltrans 1987).
The noise measurements were conducted using calibrated Larson-Davis Laboratories Model
700 (S.N. 2132) digital integrating sound level meter. The sound level meter meets the
current American National Standards Institute standard for a Type 1 sound level meter.
Traffic counts were made during the short-term noise measurement. The truck percentage
used in the noise model was 3.52% medium trucks and 1.24% heavy trucks for Rancho Santa
Fe Road. The truck percentages are based on vehicle mix surveys conducted by the City of
Carisbad (City of Carlsbad 1995). To verify the input used in the noise model, the same
traffic volume and vehicle composition ratios counted during the noise measurements were
used. The posted speed limit for Rancho Santa Fe Road is 45 miles per hour. This speed
correlated weU with the results of the noise measurements and was used in the existing noise
modeling for the road. The modeled values were within 1 dBA of the measured noise levels
which confirms the assumptions used in the noise model. Existing and future traffic voiume
information is provided inAttachment 1.
5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Three noise measurements were conducted at the residential area located along the western
portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road (Sites Ml, iVl2 and M3, Figure 3). The primary noise source
at the measurement sites is traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road. The noise measurement sites
were selected to provide an unobstructed view of the Rancho Santa Fe Road {i.e., no
interverung wails, buUdings, topography etc.). The measured average sound levels were 73
1576-01
October 2001
r r-1 r"'"i <r-^ r r 1 <^ Noise Measurement Location O Noise Receptor Location GRADING PLAN SOURCE: Dokken Engineering. February 2000 Scale In Feet Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment (Phase 1) - Acoustical Assessment Report Noise Measurement and Receptor Locations FIGURE
to
Rancho Santo Fe Road Project 4 Acoustical Assessment Report
dBA at Site 1, 70 dBA at Site 2 and 71 dB at Site 3. Table Z depicts the results of the noise
measurements adjacent to Rancho Santa Fe Road.
E:
r
L
r
k
TABLE 2
Short-Term Measured Average Noise Level and Concurrent Traffic Volumes
Site Descriptian Date/Time Cars HT'
Ml Approximately 30' to center line of road 10118/01
12:50-1:10PM
73 dBA 446 7 1
M2 Approximately 45' to center line of road 10/18/01
12:20 12:40 PM
70 dBA 466 g 3
M3 Approximately 40' to center line of road 10/18/01
11:40 AM -12:00 PM
71 dBA 505 7 1
Notes: ' Equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level (time-average sound level)
^ Medium trucks
3 )leavy trucks
The existing noisiest hourly average sound level was determined based on the existing peak
hour traffic volume (City of Carlsbad, 2001a). When adjusted to the peak hourly average
noise level, the modeled noise level ranges from approximately 53 to 73 dBA at the backyards
of the existing homes (i.e.. Sites 4-14). The existing (noisiest) one-hour average sound levels
for various receiver locations are depicted in Table 3. The noise level at the homes adjacent
to Rancho Santa Fe Road varies. Due to factors such as the amount of noise attenuation
associated with intervening topography (i.e., graded slopes) as weU as the distances from the
homes to the road. The intervening topography is generally more effective at shielding the
traffic noise for the homes located at the bottom of the slopes.
I
e
6.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS
To determine future noise levels and the significance of potential noise impacts at land uses
adjacent to the project site, future peak hour buUdout (assumed to occur in the year 2020)
k
&ASsoaA'm,jLNc. 1576-01
October 2001
il ll
Rancho Santa Fe Rood Project 4 Acoustical Assessment Report
noise levels were caiculated using the SQUND32 model. The noise modeling included the
future peak hour buUdout traffic information (City of Carisbad, 2001b) and the physical
improvements shown on the design plan for the road widening and realignment
improvements.
TABLE 3
Existing Noise Levels
(to
m
m
M2
M3
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Rancho Santa Fe Road (right-of-way)
Rancho Santa Fe Road (Utility
easement)
Rancho Santa Fe Road (Undeveloped
Land)
Cuesta PI. (Backyard)
Cuesta PI. (Backyard)
Dehesa Ct. (Backyard)
Dorado PI. (Backyard)
Dulce Ct. (Backyard)
Del Rio Ct. (Backyard)
Trigo Lane (Backyard)
Trigo Lane (Backyard)
Muslo Lane [Backyard)
Casca Way (Backyard)
Esfera Ct. (Backyard)
Undeveloped (Zoned Residential)
Undeveloped (Zoned Residential)
Undeveloped (Zoned Residential)
Undeveloped (Zoned Residential)
73
73
53
54
54
D(")
DH
B(67)
B(67)
B(67)
55
57
B(67)
65
68
73
70
67
64
51
51
49
48
B(67)
B167)
B(67)
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
B(67)
B(67)
B(67)
B(67)
D(")
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
&ASS£>aAT^S,JNC.
October 2001
1576-01
1^
te
E
C
r
C
C
Rancho Santo Fe Road Project ^ Acoustical Assessment Report
The proposed project would realign the road away from the existing homes, thereby reducing
the traffic noise exposure at the residences. With implementation of the project, the future
peak one-hour average noise level is projected to range from approximately 49 to 58 dBA at
the backyards of the existing residences located along the west side Rancho Santa Fe Road
This noise level would comply with the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria. The predicted
future buildout peak one-hour average noise levels at the receivers is depicted in Table 4.
TABLE 4
Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts
Ml Rancho Santa Fe Road (right-of-
way)
76 63 -13 D(--) None
M2 Rancho Santa Fe Road (Utility
easement)
73 55 •18 D{") None
M3 Rancho Santa Fe Road
(Undeveloped Land)
73 54 -19 D(") None
4 Cuesta PI. (Backyard) Yes 53 " "55, +2 B(67) None
5 Cuesta PI. [Backyard) Yes 54 53' •1 B(67) None
6 Dehesa Ct. (Backyard) Yes 54 52' -2 B(67) None
7 Dorado PI. [Backyard) Yes 55 50' -5 B(67) None
8 Dulce Ct. (Backyard) Yes 57 49 -8 B(67) None
g Del Rio Ct. (Backyard) Yes 65 58 -7 B(67) None
10 Trigo Lane (Backyard) Yes 68 58 -10 B(67) None
11 Trigo Lane (Backyard) Yes 73 56 -17 B(B7) None
12 Muslo Lane (Backyard) Yes 70 53 -17 B(67) None
13 Casca Way (Backyard) Yes 67 53 -14 B(67) None
14 Esfera Ct. (Backyard) Yes 64 53 -11 B{67) None
15 Undeveloped (Zoned Residential) 51 57 -^6 Dl") None
16 Undeveloped (Zoned Residential) 51 55 +4 D[-) None
17 Undeveloped (Zoned Residential) 49 53 -^4 D{") None
18 Undeveloped (Zoned Residential) 48 54 +6 D(") None
Note: ' Includes noise attenuation associated with City proposed 6-foot high sound waU
included as part of the roadway design plans.
1576-01
October 2001 10
p
to
E
E
Rancho Santo Fe Rood Project ^ Acoustical Assessment Report
Future residential development has been approved for single family homes along the east side
of Rancho Santa Fe Road (Sites 15-18). The tentative map for these homes indicates that the
residences would be located approximately 15 to 30 feet below the elevation of Rancho Santa
Fe Road. The future peak hour average noise level at these future residences would range
from approximately 53 to 58 dBA.
The future worst-case one-hour average noise level at the homes located near the northwest
corner of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue (Sites 4-7) would range from
approximately 50 to 55 dBA. This noise level includes the noise attenuation associated with
the City proposed sound wall along the edge of Rancho Santa Fe Road. This noise level
compUes with FHWA/Caltrans Noise Abatement Criteria of 67 dBA, Leq(h) for Activity
Category B land uses. The City proposed sound waU is discussed in more detaU in Section
7.0.
It should also be noted that the future noise levels at the existing homes wUl comply with
the City of Carisbad's noise criteria. Thus, the noise impact would be less than significant
as compared to the City's noise criteria.
7.0 NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE
PROJECT
Future noise levels would comply with the FHWA/Caltrans noise criteria at aU the existing
homes located along Rancho Santa Fe Road Phase 1 project area. Therefore, noise abatement
features are not required to comply with the Noise Abatement Criteria. However, as part of
the engineering design plans for the project, the City wiU construct a six-foot high sound wall
along the west side of Rancho Santa Fe Road at the southern portion of the project site. The
location of the proposed noise barrier is depicted on Figure 4.
The homes adjacent to the proposed sound waU are located at the bottom of a slope and
would be approximately 25 to 50 feet below the elevation of realigned Rancho Santa Fe Road.
The intervening slope wiU provide significant noise attenuation at the adjacent residences.
The proposed sound waU wUl provide little additional sound attenuation at these homes. A
comparison of the noise reduction provided with a six-foot high sound waU is shown in Tahle
5. As previously stated, the sound waU is not required to comply with the FFIWA/Caltrans
criteria, but, is a design feature of the project. The City recognizes that the sound wall is not
**.i^?*?^i>lT'^r INC 1576-01
October 2001 11
r--^ r"^ f Proposed 6' Sound Wall GRADING PLAN SOURCE: Dokken Engineering. February 2000 Scale in Feet Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment (Phase 1) - Acoustical Assessment Report Sound Wall Location FIGURE
to
Rancho Santa Fe Road Project • Acoustical Assessment Report
L
required per FHWA/Caltrans criteria. Therefore, the City wUl not seek reimbursement from
the FFiWA for construction of this sound waU (City of Carisbad 2001).
TABLES
Future Predicted Noise Levels with and without
City Proposed Sound Wall
K^^"?:!:. withff soiikviraftk--"v%.
Leq(h)dBA Leq(h) dBA Insertion Loss (dBA)
4 57 55 2
5 56 53 3
6 53 52 1
7 51 50 1
8 49 49 0
p
k
8.0 CONSTRUCTION NOISE
Noise generated by construction equipment on this project would occur with varying
intensities and durations during the different phases of construction: clear and grub,
earthwork, base preparation, paving and cleanup.
Equipment expected to be used would include tractors, backhoes, pavers and other related
equipment. Maximum noise levels at 50 feet range from approximately 75 to 95 dBA for the
type of equipment normally used in a project such as this. The noise levels associated with
various types of construction equipment are shown in Figure 5- Noise produced by
construction equipment would be reduced by approximately six dB per doubling distance.
Thus, the noise level wouid be about 6 dB less at 100 feet as compared to 50 feet from the
equipment.
Project construction wiU comply with apphcable local requirements. Also, the contractor
shaU comply with aU local sound control and noise level standards, regulations and
ordinances which apply to any work performed pursuant to the contract. Each internal
&A^>aAT^,JNC.
1576-01
October 2001 13
St
COMPACTERS (ROLLERS)
FRONT LOADERS
BACKHOES
TRACTORS
SCRAPERS, GRADERS
PAVERS
TRUCKS
NOISE LEVEL <dBA) AT 50 FEET ,
•:*:
CONCRETE MIXERS
CONCRETE PUMPS
CRANES (MOVABLE)
CRANES (DERRICK)
PUMPS
GENERATORS
COMPRESSORS
p LU
-O
UJ
PNEUMATIC WRENCHES
JACK HAMMERS AND ROCK DRILLS
PILE DRIVERS (PEAKS)
VIBRATORS
SAWS
NOTE: Based on liinited available data samples.
SOURCE: EPA PB 206717, Environmental Protection Agency, Dec. 31,1971, "Noise from Construction Equipment & Operations"
Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment (Phase 1) - Acoustical Assessment Report
Typical Construction Noise Generation Levels
FIGURE
z
E
tm
z
c
k
Rancho Santa Fe Road Project • Acoustical Assessment Report
r combustion engine, used for any purpose on the job or related to the job, shall be equipped
* with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. No internal combustion engine
g shaU be operated on the project without said muffler.
9.0 REFERENCES
^ California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), June 1983. User's Instructions for
te SOUND3Z (FHWA/CA/TL-83/06). • CaUfornia Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 1987. California Vehicle Noise Emission I Levels, FHWA/CA/TL-87/03. H City of Carisbad, September, 1995. Noise Guidelines Manual. City of Carisbad, Qctober 10, 2001a. Future Buildout Peak Hour Traffic Forecast Volumes (Fax P data).
City of Carisbad, October 9, 2001b. Existing Peak Hour Traffic Count Volumes (Fax data).
City of Carisbad, Qctober 22, 2001. Telephone Conversation vcith Ms. Carrie Loya-Smalley.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), December 1978. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise
Prediction Model.
& A^Oa ATES, INC._
1576-01
October 2001 15
te
m
I
I
ATTACHMENT I
Traffic Volume Summary
(Existing and Future Peak Hour Volumes]
DUDEK
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
Pro/essional Teami for Complex ProjeclJ
ia
Rancho Santa Fe Road
Existing Peak Hour Vehicles
Cars
1199/905
MT
44/33
HI
16/12
Future Peak Hour Vehicles
Rancho Santa Fe Road
(n/o future coUector road)
(s/o future collector road)
Cars
1695/2206
1418/1989
MT
63/82
52/74
HT
22/29
18/26
(Northbound/Southbound)
P
k
to t '
I Attachment 2
SOUND32
to
I
t.S
Li
f '.: DUDEK
A California Corporation
k
Rancho Santa Fe existing (rsfrplex.s32)
T-Rancho Santa Fe Road, 1 tll99 , 45 , 44 , 45 , 16 , 45
-Rancho Santa Fe Road, 2
905 , 45 , 33 , 45 , 12 , 45 t-Rancho Santa Fe Road, 3
905 , 45 , 33 , 45 , 12 , 45
T-Rancho Santa Fe Road, 4 J1199 , 45 , 44 , 45 , 16 , 45
-Northbound existing segment 1, 1
K,10,70,300,N1
N,170,270,310,N2
1,245,360, 315,N3
,576,820,330,N4
N,719,965,332,N5
f, 902,1140, 334,N6
,1040,1275,340,N7
N,1170,1400,350,N8
JJ, 1350, 1571,366,N9
MJ, 1710, 1920, 392,NIO
to.750,1960,396,Nil
L-SOUTHBOUWD EXISTING SEGMENT 1, 2
-40, 90, 300,Sl
1,130,310,310,52
N,200,400,315,S3
^,551, 825,330,S4
IN,719,982,332,35
N,900,1160,334,S6
N,1038, 1290,340,37
N,1160,1410,350,38
te^,1349,1588,3S6,S9
N, 1700,1930,392,310
P*L740,1972,396,Sll
^L-SOUTBOUND EXISTING 2, 3
N, 1740,1972,396,311
£,2048,2453,436,312
,2223,2749,460,513
,2280,2840,468,514
N,2398,3040,484,515
•fcj,2525,3249,500,316
JfJ, 2663, 348 0,510,317
N,2728,3580,512,318
1^,2859,3806,510,519
3058,4145,508,520
L-NORTHBOUND EXISTING 2, 4
N, 1750, 1960,396,Nil
1, 2060, 244 0,436, N12
,2242,2732,460,N13
N,2300,2828,468,N14
•N, 2422, 3019, 484, N15
W, 2550, 3226, 500, N16
N,2676,3447,510,N17
r,2739,3545,512,N18
1,2885,3795,510,N19
'3083,4140,508,N20
B-Top of Slope, 1 , 1 , 0,0 t28,418,314,314,Bl
73,419,316,316,B2
295,560,322,322,B3
pi399, 689,326,326,B4
tm
450,750,329,329,65
545,850,330,330,B6
^78, 979,332, 332,87 ifeE (80,1170,334,334,B8
1020,1308,340,340,39
|Pll45,1429,350,350,810
^-Top of Slope, 2,1,0,0
1327,1600,366,366,Cl
1397,1670,372,372,C2
iJ.430,1705,374,374,C3
L657,1915,390,390,C4
1726,1993,398,398,C5
K847,2160,412,412,C6
-Top of Slope, 3,1,0,0
1815,2385,442,442,01
||tf.925,2351,442,442,D2
1^1960,24 00,442,442,03
2031,2485,445,445,04
2140,2679,4 64,464,05
^ 3210,2800,476,476,06
Ite249,2858,476,476,07
2390,3070,492,492,08
|P>5447, 3160,492,4 92,09
^450, 3200, 504, 5 04,010
2500,3277,504,504,011
^-Top Of Slope, 4,1,0,0
2530,3495,528,528,El
""bsgO,3465,528,528,E2
2645,3540,525,525,E3
**2703,3630,525,525,E4
^780, 3750, 525, 525, E5
2835,3815,525,525,E6
0tH. 1 , 67 ,500
229,556,298,Rl
R, 2 , 67 ,500
290,650,300,R2
3 , 67 ,500
•b90,780,299,R3
R, 4 , 67 ,500
(22, 1033,295,R4
, 5 , 67 ,500
821,1220,296,R5
6 , 67 ,500
|993,1335,336.,R6
7 , 67 ,500
1339,1630,369.,R7
, 67 ,500
L689,1955,401,R8
R, 9 , 67 ,500 r223,2831,481,R9
, 10 , 67 ,500
2390,3113,497,RIO
R, 11 , 67 ,500 t649,3580,530,Rll
, 12 , 67 ,500
960,1240,341.,M1
t , 13 , 67 ,500
900,2280,425.,M2
R, 14 , 67 ,500
||||2890, 3910,518. ,M3
R, 15 , 67 ,500
2070,1032,371.,RFl
i, 16 , 67 ,500
te250,1080,373.,RF2
R, 17 , 67 ,500
|l^590,1205, 376 . , RF3
18 , 67 ,500
2820,1310,383.,RF4
te^. 4.5
MU.L, 7, 8, 9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18
k
0.'
0.^
196.7 BERM
174.3 BERM
telO
11
^12
iu-,13
r
17
1::
20
|Pi21
23
24
0.»
0 .*
0.*
0. *
0. *
0 .*
0.*
0. *
0 .*
0 .*
o.»
0. *
0. *
0 .*
0 .*
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
Dl
D2
03
04
D5
D6
D7
08
09
DIO
99.2 BERM
48.1 BERM
309.7 BERM
104.4 BERM
206.7 BERM
lis.
60.
110.
223 .
140.
69 .
255 .
106.
41.
91
1 BERM
2 BERM
8 BERM
BERM
BERM
BERM
BERM
BERM
BERM
. 8 BERM
ta25
26
^27
^28
29
0.-
0. -
0 , *
0 .*
0 .*
El
E2
E3
E4
E5
67.1 BERM
93.1 BERM
107.1 BERM
142.6 BERM
85.1 BERM
REC
tm
REC ID ONL PEOPLE LEQ (C
im 1 Rl 67 . 500. 52 . 9
2 R2 s 67. 500. 53 . 9
3 R3 67 . 500. 53. a
lm'
5
R4
R5 %
67 .
67.
500 .
500.
55 .
56 .
0
5
6
m
7
R6
R7
^\ 67.
67 .
500.
500.
64 .
68 .
5
.3
3 R8 u 67 . 500. 72, ,8
9 R9 67. 500. 70, .4
^10 RIO 13 67. 500. 66 . ,6
^11 Rll 67 . 500 . 63 . . 5
12 Ml 67. 500 . 75 . .5
M2 67. 500 . 73 . .0
i, 14
to
^15
M3 67 . 500 . 73 .1 i, 14
to
^15
RFl ir 67. 500. 51. .4
16 RF2 67. 500. 50 ,5
Rl7 RP3 n 57. 500. 49 .2
Iii8 RF4 67. 500. 48 .4
BARRIER TYPE COST
BERM 0.
MASONRY 0.
MASONRY/JERSEY 0 .
CONCRETE
1 _
0.
I TOTAL COST = $ 0.
tBARRIER HEIGHT INDEX POR EACH BARRIER SECTION
RANCHO SANTA FE FUTURE-(rsfrplfu)
T-Rancho Santa Fe Road, 1 E1418 , 50 , 52 , 50 , 18 , 50
.-Rancho Santa Fe Road, 2
1695 , 50 , 63 , 50 , 22 , 50
B-Rancho Santa Fe Road, 3
1695 , 50 , 63 , 50 , 22 , 50
T-Rancho Santa Fe Road, 4
11989 , 50 , 74 , 50 , 26 , 50
-Rancho Santa Fe Road, 5
2206 , 50 , 82 , 50 , 29 , 50
T-Rancho Santa Fe Road, 6
12206 , 50 , 82 , 50 , 29 , 50
-NORTHBOUND FUTURE SEGMENT 1, 1
N,10,73,300,N1
I,172, 275,310,N2
,243,365,315,N3
N,390,530,326,NN4
I,555,680, 336,NN5
J,735, 815,344,NrJ6
I,995,950,352,NN7
N,1201,1022,356,NN8
1^,1423, 1070,360,NN9
Ilf, 1655 . , 1100, 36 6, NNIO
N,1822.,1128,372,NNll
;,-NORTHBOUND FUTURE SEGMENT 2, 2
J,1822.,1128,372,NNll
1,1930.,1150,376,NN12
N,2085.,1180,3B2,NN13
^•1,2330. , 1270, 392,NN14
to^-2570.,1378,402,NN15
N,2792. ,1515.412,NN16
p|J, 3000 . , 1678, 422, NN17
1^^,3190.,1858,432,NK18
N,336 0.,2058,442,NN19
3482.,2230,450,NN20
j. L-NORTHBOUNO FUTURE 3, 3
toj,3482,2230,450,NN2 0
N, 3634,2510,462,NN21
^,3755, 2852, 476, NN22
te^, 3833,3275,506,NN23
N,3863,4025,524,NN24
,^,3 905. ,4520, 530,NN25
'. L-SOUTHBOUNO FUTURE 1, 4
MJ, -40, 90, 300,SSI
N,130,310, 310,332
E,200,400,315,333
,332,549,326,534
N, 500,710,336,335
I, 730, 880, 346,SS6
,935,982,352,557
N,1125,1055,356,338
^,136 0,1113,360,539
M,1645 . ,1150, 366, SSIO
^,1815, ,1180,372,3511
L-SOUTHBOUND FUTURE 3, S
B, 1815 . , 1180, 372,SSll
,1920.,1195,376,3312
N,2070.,1235,382,3313
^,2310 . , 1318, 392,3314 z
N, 2540 . ,1420,4 02,3315
N,2760.,1568,412,3516
f*I,2970 . , 1720,422,3317
3150. ,1898,432,3318
N, 3325.,2090,442,5519
fmi20.,2253,450,SS20
te-SOUTHBOUND FUTURE 3, 6
N,3430,2253,450,3320
^,3580,2538,462,3321
1 1,3700,2869,476,3322
tol,3779,3282,506,3323
N,3805,4025,524,3324
853,4538,530,3325
-Top of Slope. 1,1,0,0
128 . ,418,314,314,Bl
73 . ,419,316,316,B2
-Top Of Slope, 2,1,0,0
398 . ,690,332,332,B4
450.,750,336,336,B5
C45 . , 850, 330, 330,B6
78.,979,332,332,67
880.,1170,334,334,88
PW.020. , 13 08, 340, 340, B9
1^145.,1429,350,350,BIO
B-Top of Slope, 3,1,0,0
^327, 1600, 366, 366, Cl
_397,1670,372,372,C2
430,1705,374,374,C3
1657,1915,390,390,C4
^726,1993,398,398,C5
tes^T,2160,412,412,06
8-Top of Slope, 4,1,0,0
(pS.815, 2385,442.442,01
( L925,2351,442,442,02
1960,2400,442,442,03
2031,2485,445,445,04
tm
3140,2679,464,464,05
lte210,2800,476,475,D6
2249,2858,476,476,07
^390 , 3070, 4 92 , 492 , 08
^447,3160,4 92.492,09
2450,3200,504,504,010
_^500,3277,504,504,Dll
^-Top of Slope, 5,1,0,0
™530,34 95,528,528,El
2590.3465,528, 528,E2 K645, 3540, 525, 525, E3
703,3630,525,525.E4
2780,3750,525,525, E5
835,3815,525,525,E6
-Top of Slope (New), 6 , 1 , 0 ,0
2050.,960,370,370.FTl
1998.,1035,377,377,FT2
2002.,1070,330,380,FT3
262 . ,1145,390,390,FT4
2540.,1260.400,400,FT5
te!765.,1390,410,410,FT6
1^980. ,1555,420,420,FT7
B-New Wall, 7,2,0,0
pji.74 . ,418, 317, 323,BF2
pi
k
296.,559,327,333.BF3
398.,690,332,338,BF4
75.,815,342,348,BF5
^40. , 985, 351, 357,BF6
R, 1 , 67 ,500
|pi29,556,298,Rl
te' 2 , 67 ,500
290,650,300,R2
C|, 3 , 67 ,500
90,780,299,R3
I, 4 , 67 ,500
622,1033,295,R4
5 , 67 ,500
1,1220,296,R5
R, 6 , 67 ,500
p(98,1335,336.,R6
|g, 7 , 67 ,500
1339,1630,369.,R7
8 , 67 ,500
,689,1965,401,R8
9 , 67 ,500
2223,2831,481,R9
I, 10 , 67 ,500
1390,3113,497,RIO
R, 11 , 67 .500
^649,3580,530,Rll
y, 12 , 67 ,500
2070,1032,371.,RP1
R, 13 , 67 ,500
250,1080,373.,RF2
, 14 , 67 ,500
2590,1205,376.,RF3
|, 15 , 67 ,500
1820,1310,333.,RF4
R. 16 , 67 ,500
960,1240,341.,M1
i, 17 , 67 ,500
§910,2230,420.,M2
R, 18 , 67 ,500
1390,3910,518.,M3
m, 4.5
ALL,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18
£,C
to
^BAR BARRIER HEIGHTS BAR
ELE 01234567 10 LENGTH TYPE
1 0.* 81 45 .1 BERM
^2 0. * B4 79 .5 BERM
3 0.* B5 138 .1 BERM
P' 0 .* B6 185 .3 BERM
R •
to'
0 .* 87 278 . 0 BERM
6 0.* B8 196 .7 BERM
7 0 .* B9 174 . 3 BERM
i. 0.* Cl 99 .2 BERM
9 0. * C2 48 .1 BERM
teio 0. * C3 309 .7 BERM
llll 0. * C4 104 .4 BERM
12 0. • CS 206 .7 BERM
te
"l4
0. * 01 115 . 1 BERM
te
"l4 0 . * D2 60 .2 BERM
15 0.* 03 110. . 8 BERM
0 . * 04 223 . .3 BERM
i|l7 0 . * 05 140. ,3 BERM
18 0. * 06 69. , 9 BERM
0. * 07 255 . .1 BERM
120 0. * 08 106 . ,5 BERM
21 0 .* 09 41 . . 9 BERM
22 0 . * 010 91. . 8 BERM
^23 0 .* El 67 . . 1 BERM
24 0 . * E2 93, . 1 BERM
^25 0. * E3 107. . 1 BERM
^26 0. * E4 142, . 6 BERM
27 0. * E5 85. . 1 BERM
^29
0. • FTl 91. 5 BERM
^29 0.* FT2 35. .4 BERM
30
31
0 .*
0. *
FT3
FT4
270 .
301 .
8
0
BERM
BERM
0. * FTS 2S0 , 0 BERM
33 0. • FT6 271. 2 BERM
m
1^34 6 . • BF2 186 . 7 MASONRY
35 6 . * BF3 166 . 1 MASONRY
36 6 .* 8F4 216 . 9 MASONRY
1" 6 .* BF5 315. 0 MASONRY
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
l^REC REC ID ONL PEOPLE LEQ(CAL)
k
1 Rl 67. 500 . 54 .5
2 R2 5" 67. 500, 53 .4
3 R3 67 . 500 . 51 . 9
4 R4 1 S7. 500. 50 .3
5 R5 QJ 67. 500. 49 . 1
6 R6 f\ 67. 50-0 . 57. .9
7 R7 i'^ 67. 500. 57. ,7
8 R8 il 67. SOO. 56 . .3
te
9 R9 67 . 500 . 53 . .4
10 RIO 67 . 500 . 53 . .2
'll Rll l'i 67 . .500 . 53 . .4
'12 RFl ir 67 . 500. 57. .3
13 RF2 67 . 500. 55. ,4
14 RF3 n 67 . 500. 52. .5
115 RF4 67 . 500. 53 . 9
16 Ml 67. 500. 63 .2
17 M2 67. 500. 54 . 8
18 M3 67. 500. 54 .4
BARRIER TYPE
BERM 0.
P'MASONRY 46536.
MASONRY/JERSEY 0.
CONCRETE 0 .
tm -
TOTAL COST = S 47000.
BARRIER HEIGHT INDEX FOR EACH BARRIER SECTION
lililillliillliliiiilllii
IHjiiiiiiiiiiii
CORRESPONDING BARRIER HEIGHTS FOR EACH SECTION
IP* 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 6. 6. 6. 6.
I