Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/15/1998, 1 - SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SOUND WALL ALONG ROUTE 101 ADJOINING BRIZZOLARA STREET Council '"'D`°"` Dxember 15,1998 acEnaa REpoRt "� 1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Director of Public Work. 1 PREPARED BY: Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner -6-S SUBJECT: Support for the design and construction of a sound wall along Route 101 adjoining Brizzolara Street CAO RECOMMENDATION: By motion: 1) Direct staff to design and construct a sound wall along the south side of Route 101 adjoining Brizzolara Street; 2) Approve the performance objectives presented in Section II.E of this report to help guide the sound wall's design; and 3) Reserve $500,000 of the STIP dollars allocated to the City to pay for any costs that exceed the $500,000 programmed by SLOCOG for this project. I. REPORT IN BRIEF The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) has approved the programming of $500,000 State transportation funds to help pay for the construction of a sound wall along Route 101 adjoining Brizzolara Street. The City Council needs to obligate funds necessary to cover any project costs that exceed the$500,000 programmed by SLOCOG. Staff recommends that$500,000 of the recently-programmedSTIP funding be reserved for this purpose. This sound wall project is not included in the City's adopted Financial Plan nor its Capital Improvement Plan(CIP). Therefore,before the Council decides to reserve funding,it should first decide whether this is a worthwhile project to undertake. There are a variety of design, cost, and environmental factors to consider when making this decision. This agenda report outlines the principal factors and recommends"performance objectives"that should be used to guide the design of the wall including: • The type of traffic noise to be mitigated; • Wall height and alignment; • Wall length • Constructionmaterials;and • Landscaping 1 - 1 Council Agenda Report -Route 101 Sound Wall Adjoining Brizzolara Street Page 2 II. DISCUSSION A. State Funding In October 1998, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) amended the 1998 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). This amendment provided an additional $16,000,000 to transportation agencies in San Luis Obispo County. The allocation of these dollars is managed by San Luis Obispo Council of Governments(SLOCOG). On November 4, 1998, the SLOCOG Board approved an allocation scheme for the $16.483 million. San Luis Obispo's share of these fiords totals$2.175 million. Of this total, $500,000 was specifically reserved for the design and construction of the Brimlara Street sound wall, leaving $1.675 million for other STIP-eligible projects. All sound wall costs that exceed the $500,000 reservation amount must be paid by the City of San Luis Obispo. B. Past Caltrans Involvement In years past, Caltrans staff evaluated the need for constructing a sound wall adjoining Bd=lara Street. A Project Study Report (PSR) was prepared in 1991 and estimated that the wall's cost would range from $830,000 to $985,000 (reflecting the range of costs for a sound wall 1,800 foot long and 10 to 16 foot high). However,the project was never programmed by the State. In early October 1998, SLOCOG staff proposed that the cost of the sound wall be equally divided between the City, SLOCOG (using reserved STIP fiords) and Caltrans. However, Caltrans decided not to participate in funding this project since the Governor recently vetoed sound wall legislation. Therefore, SLOCOG proposes that it and the City share in the project's funding. C. Evaluation 1. Defining the Problem Location of the Wall: The attached aerial photograph (Exhibit A) shows the segment of Route 101 along which a sound wall should be considered for installation. The intent of the wall is to reduce the impact of traffic noise on residents living along the south side of Brimolara Street. Current and Future Noise Levels: The Briaolara Street area is subject to high traffic noise. The City's Noise Element and associated guidebook indicates that in 1990 all areas within 230 feet of Route 101 were exposed to 70dBA or greater noise levels. At buildout of the General Plan,the high noise exposure area increases to 342 feet from the highway due to anticipated increases in highway traffic. i -z Council Agenda Report- Route 101 Sound Wall AdjoHung Brizzolara Street -- Page 3 The existing dwellings fronting Brizzolara Street are generally within 100 to 150 feet of the edge of the nearest travel lane on Route 101. Therefore, both current and future noise levels exceed noise exposure and planning standards included in the Noise Element(see attached Exhibit B). A noise study conducted by Caltrans on May 6, 1987 indicated that the noise level along Brizzolara Street is"...above the tolerable level of 70 dBA Lio(67 dBA leq)." Development Trends: Since 1975 (the year that the City first adopted a Noise Element),many of the parcels along Bri=lara Street have been developed or redeveloped with apartments and condominiums while others are pending development (see attached Exhibit Q. These projects were subject to environmental review and the City Noise Element standards. In general, these "new" projects involve buildings that face the highway with outdoor activity areas located to the rear where they are partially shielded from highway noise. To staff s knowledge,no post-developmentnoise analysis of properties along Brizzolara Street has been conducted. However, in staffs view, structures on the redeveloped properties are likely to meet interior noise standards while the older apartment projects and houses developed in the 1950's and 1960's may not. Exterior noise in outdoor activity areas may still be a problem for some properties due to reflective noise and for street yard areas along Brizzolara Street that have no protection whatsoever. 2. Design Issues How High Would a Sound Wall Have to Be to Effectively Block Noise? The answer is unknown at this time. A "Project Study Report" prepared by Caltrans(Exhibit D) indicates that a 10-foot high wall along the south edge of Route 101 or a 16-foot high wall along the north edge of Brizzolara Street might be needed to block traffic noise. However,a lower wall may be possible if only tire noise is identified as the target noise source to mitigate; engine noise and exhaust stack noise may not be fully blocked. The lower the wall,the lower the cost and visual impacts. It will require a site-specific acoustic analysis to determine the performance requirements for a sound wall along this segment of Route 101. How Long Does the Sound Wall Need to Be? The PSR prepared by Caltrans shows the sound wall extending from the south end of Brizzolara Street to Stenner Creek for a total of 1.800 feet. A wall along this segment would not provide protection for newly-constructed dwellings at the south end of Brizzolara Street adjoining the Promontory Project(the Evans property). Since these dwellings clearly meet City noise standards, staff is not recommending that the wall be extended to protect them. If the Council feels that their protection from noise is warranted,the sound wall would need to be extended about 300 feet. In general,a longer wall will increase costs and visual impacts. I-3 Council Agenda Report- Route 101 Sound Wall Adjoining Brizzolara Street Page 4 How Will a Sound Wall Look? Examples of sound walls can be found throughout California. The acceptability of the appearance of the wall is influenced by a variety of interrelated factors: • Height: The taller the wall,the more dominant it will be and the less likely that landscaping can provide effective screening. • Construction Materials: Walls constructed of materials that strongly contrast with their surroundings may be more objectionable than walls that complement the colors, fors and textures of their surroundings. Masonry walls, most commonly used in California, have been targets for graffiti which becomes a continual maintenance concern. Landscaping the surface of the walls (e.g. with creeping vines) has been used in some areas to combat graffiti, soften the wall's appearance, and may help to reduce"reflective noise." New materials are being developed and tested in various applications. One of the newest that staff has found is described on attached Exhibit E. • Location: Sound walls located at the edge of the highway's paved shoulder may create an undesirable "canyon effect," while those set back from the road edge with intervening landscaping are more acceptable. • Configuration and Length: Long sound walls that are aligned along a single plane create a "walled in" feeling and are less acceptable than walls that have some articulation and use variable alignments. • Landscaping: In general, the more integrated a sound wall within a landscaped area, the more visually acceptable it will be. • Setting: Sound walls in fully developed areas tend to be less intrusive because they may be similar to adjoining"hard edged"building forms and materials. Walls in more open rural areas can create a stark contrast with their setting. In this case, the south side of Route 101 is. developed while portions of the north side of the highway are more open and scenic. The Circulation Element's Scenic Roadways Map (Figure #6, page 39) identifies this segment of Route 101 as having"moderate scenic value." These and other factors should be evaluated by the City's Architectural Review Commission when it considers approving plans for the sound wall. Since the wall will be located within the Route 101 right-0f--way, its design must be approved by Caltrans. Given the variability of sound wall designs throughout the State and in Caltrans District 5, it appears that Caltrans is receptive to design solutions recommended by local agencies. 1 -�F Council Agenda Report-Route 101 Sound Wall Adjoining Brizzolara Street Page 5 How Will A Sound Wall Affect Noise Levels In Surrounding Areas? The obvious intent of a sound wall along this segment of Route 101 is to intercept traffic noise from reaching dwellings along Brizzolara Street. However, depending on the design and the materials used, a sound wall can also reflect traffic noise which might impact land areas on the north side of Route 101 or other nearby areas. As can be seen in Exhibit C, land along the north side of Route 101 opposite Brizzolara Street and generally southwest of the Nipomo Street intersection is part of the Cerro San Luis Obispo open space. The open space area is not considered a"sensitive receptor" for noise. In contrast,the area along the north side of Route 101 northeast of the Nipomo Street intersection with Brizzolara Street is developed with single dwellings on large lots. The requisite acoustic analysis will need to consider reflective noise impacts to these existing dwellings. C. Related Adopted City Policies 1. Noise Element(Policy 1.2.11 & 1.2.13) When approving new development of noise sensitive uses or noise sources, the City will require noise mitigation in the descending order of desirabilityshown below: A. Provide distance between noise source and recipient, B. Provide distance plus planted earthen berms; C. Provide distance and planted earthen berms, combined with sound walls; D. Provide earthen berms combined with sound walls; E. Provide sound walls only[emphasis addedl, F. Integrate buildings and sound walls to create a continuous noise barrier. Comment: This policy addresses mitigation strategies when approving new development and does not address mitigating traffic noise problems within developed areas. 2. Land Use Element(Policy 2.2.12(ID) Residential projects should provide... (IV Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses. (Barrier walls, isolating a project, are not desirable. Noise mitigation walls may be used only when there is no practicable alternatives. Where walls are used, they should help create an attractive pedestrian, residential setting through features such as setbacks, changes in alignment, detail and texture, places for people to walk through at regular intervals,and planting.) Comment: Again this policy really applies to the performance of new residential projects. Cotmp7 Agenda Report-Route 101 Sound Wall Adjoining Brizzolara Street Page 6 However,the potential use of sound walls is acknowledged"when there is no practicable alternatives"(e.g.those listed as items A through D above). Staff suggests that there are no practicable alternatives along this segment of Route 101 except maybe to further insulate existing structures and provide protection for outdoor activity areas where possible. With the exception of this policy's reference to pedestrian access, staff believes that a well- designed sound wall can meet the other design performance factors noted above, such as setbacks,changes in alignment,details and texture,and planting. D. Workload Issues The sound wall project is not included in the adopted Financial Plan and Capital Improvement Program (CIP). As a capital project, its development would be managed by the Public Works Department Engineering Section. Consultants will be needed to perform the requisite noise studies and it is likely that a consultant will be needed to design the wall and landscape scheme. Managing consultant services, coordinating the wall's design and construction with Caltrans, complying with State and Federal environmental requirements, preparing requisite Caltrans documents,and dealing with neighborhood concerns all will be time consuming components of this project. E. Recommended Performance Objectives Staff recommends that, as part of its action, the City Council approve the following performance objectives to help guide the sound wall's design: I. Target Noise Source: noise from the tires of passing vehicles should be the "target" noise source to be mitigated by the sound wall. 2. Wall Height: the height of the wall should be the minimum needed to mitigate the target noise source. It is acknowledged that second story dwellings along Brizzolara Street may continue to be affected by traffic noise. 3. Wall Length: the wall should extend 1,800 feet from Stenner Creek to the south end of Brizzolara Street. The new dwelling constructed at the south end of the street would not be protected by the sound wall. (Note:the fiscal impact section of this report identifies alternative costs for a 2,100 foot wall if the Council decides a longer wall is warranted.) 4. Setbacks and Alignment:the sound wall should be set back from the edge of the paved shoulder of Route 101. To the extent possible,variations in its alignment should be incorporated into its design. The setback should be of sufficient depth to provide for screening landscaping along both the Brimolara Street and Route 101 sides of the wall. Council Agenda Report-Route 101 Sound Wall Adjoining Brizzolara Street Page 7 Comment: meeting this objective will mean that existing landscaping along the south side of the highway will be disturbed and plant materials removed in order to construct the sound wall. Caltran's 1991 PSR resected this alternative alignment because "...this location could necessitate removing a significant portion of the existing landscape vegetation and an increase in the sound wall height... " [over the alternative that placed the sound wall at the highway's edge]. 5. Building Materials and Maintenance: construction materials should complement the area's landscape and architectural character and should be low maintenance. Wall surface landscaping should be considered to minimize graffiti removal problems. 6. Reflective Noise: .the construction of the sound wall should not create reflective noise that adversely effects nearby sensitive noise receptors. III.CONCURRENCES The SLOCOG Board has programmed$500,000 in STIP funding to support the sound wall project. In 1991, Caltrans prepared a "Project Study Report" for a sound wall along this segment of Route 101 but had decided not to help fund its construction— leaving that responsibility to the City and SLOCOG. IV.FISCAL IMPACTS Past cost estimates made by Caltrans as part of the 1991 Project Study Report show the cost of the sound wall ranging from $830,000 to $985,000 depending on its height and location. In 1997, Caltrans staff reviewed its 1991 construction cost estimates and revised them downward to $625,000.Therefore,using information from Caltrans,the following estimate is provided: - COUND WALL:CPST-1 - ln1 A,-W Maximum 1991 Caltrans Cost Estimate(16 foot high wall, 1,800 feet long) $985,000 Caltrans 1997 Revisions to Sound Wall Cost(capital costs only) $625,000 Application of CPI Inflation Factor (3% annual increase) for two years to $663,000 develop 1999 costs. Total cost of wall with application of inflationary factor (35%) to cover all $895,000(2) required studies and design work Notes (1) 1999 Cost Estimate for a 2,100 foot wall if City desires to protect new dwellings at south end of Briaolara Street is$1,047,000. (2) This estimate is based on a 5 meter high wall(16 feet),which is generally not desirable. A lower wall would cost less and have fewer visual impacts but would probably not block all traffic noise. t-1 Council Agenda Report-Route 101 Sound Wall Adjoining Brizzolara Street Page 8 As a quick independent cross check,the Public Works staff developed cost estimates for building a sound wall that is 550 meters long (1,800 feet) and 4 meters (13 foot) high. These estimates are shown below: KV M11, Cost Item Estimate Footings for 550 meter(1,800 foot)masonry wall $165,000 Poured masonry wall or equivalent cost design,4 meters(13 foot)high $335,000 Substantial landscaping on both sides of wall @$100/m $110,000 Landscape Design $10,000 Structural Design $25,000 Noise Studies&other environmental work $50,000 Contingency(25%) $175,00 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST $865,000 (1) 1999 Cost Estimate for a 2,100 foot wall if City desires to protect new dwellings at south end of Briaolara reet St =$910,000. Based on these estimates, staff recommends that the following project budget be established: Source of Funding: Amount SLOCOG's Approved Reservation $500,000 Reservation from City STIP Funding (as $500,000 needed to cover all costs that exceed$500,000) Total Budget $19,0009000 The impact of this funding strategy is to reduce the amount of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds available for transportation projects (mostly street reconstruction and repair projects)from$1.675 million to$1.175 million. However: If the cost of the project does not use(in whole or in part)the City's $500,000 reservation,then the residual STIP funding can be reprogrammed for other STIP-eligible City transportation projects. • If the cost of the project exceeds the total project budget of $1,000,000, the City would be required to complete the project using local funds or ask the State to approve the deletion of one of the City's other STIP-funded projects and divert the funds to the sound wall project t-g VI/.LYLaO lu:lil rm OYil dya-JVf.�.. ypy.y4yiq.7.rl.MIALIV Qy VVJ E F I ■ D IIAAAA Dam::07/10/98 Namb�ofP� ��F_ l / To: From: iNilm Haim_oa Rick YadebW C2laans-Dict 5 50 Stguaa S<. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 rmm..781.5724 Phmd 542.4604 ' Fmp6o:781=5703 Fuapbmo.(805)549-3077 oc: iasss: o tkg= ® Farpwfc-icw ® a g Pcryw ToqursL,bele is the sound aaU PSEC / ivr r r l + J 1 r r I rf ti r /1 r J + • + r r r 'r f r I l r r J f r r + r f J r \ + r / f + r JI 'r IPOM' 0 r r � r I � r ti � L r r J f r J r / r ; + � ' r J r + r + J r / N rJ r EXIMIT C Development Activity Along Brizzolara and ®Parcels developed after peach Streets 1975 or pending development - Residential parcels bordering the north side of Route 101 which may be subject to reflective noise ►-13 policies generally is not possible. (p3,2) Noise Element N 1.2.6: New Development Design and Transportation Noise Sources New noise-sensitive development shall be located and designed to meet the maximum outdoor and indoor noise exposure levels of Table 1. (p4 3) i, Table Maximum Noise Exposure For Noise-Sensitive Uses Due To Transportation Noise Sources t t i L&or L&or i Land Use �,in �,in LdB2 L.M.in dB' I Residences, hotels, - motels,hospitals, 60 45 — 60 nursing homes Theaters,auditoriums, _ music halls — 35 60 € Churches, meeting halls,office building, 60 — 45 _ mortuaries Schools, libraries, _ 45 museums — 60 Neighborhood parks 65 i ; Playgrounds 70 1if -Y G M/OIKNI of:oYIYWI.atYe•y ^• { , " •`,• .y _ . areas rs notshovm„tlae outdoor norseNstandaN aO apphre ProPem►Tme of the^receive larva 3 As.detsrtmned for.a.typical worstfiourduirrig penods of:use. Liridoor.sharidard applies only radronorse atloCa6ons south ;Orcutt Road r../Yl W 'Y L :.I N 1.2.7: New Transportation Noise Sources Noise created by new transportation noise sources, includingroad railroad , and airport expansion projects, shall be mitigated to not exceed the levels specified in t j City of San Luis Obispo-General Plan Digest N-3 EXHIBIT B loise Element uses, which are considered to be acceptable, conditionally acceptable, or unacceptable. (p3,2) N 1.2.3: Acceptable Noise Environments In acceptable noise environments, development may be permitted without requiring specific noise studies or specific noise-reducing features. (p3,2) Fieure 1 Acceptability of New Noise-Sensitive Uses Exposed to Transportation Noise Sources Community Noise Exposure Land Use Ldn or CNEL,Db 6I5 0 15 W Residences,Theatres Auditoriums,Music Halls - i j Motels,Hotels i I Schools,Libraries, �® Museums,Hospitals, i I I j Nursing Homes,Meeting Halls,Churches, i Mortuaries I ®I Playgrounds Office Buildings i I Neighborhood Parks ® Acceptable-Development may permitted without specific noise studies or mitigation. K ® Conditionally Acceptable-Development may be permitted if designed to meet noise e exposure standards;a specific noise studyt is usually iequired. YUnacceptable-Development with acceptable noise exposure generally, is not possible. N 1.2.4: Conditionally Acceptable Noise Environments In conditionally acceptable noise environments, development should be permitted only after noise mitigation has been designed as part of the project, to reduce noise exposure to the levels specified by the following policies. In these areas, further studies may be required to characterize the actual noise exposure and appropriate means to reduce it. (p3,2) N LM: Unacceptable Noise Environments In unacceptable noise environments, development in compliance with the N-2 General Plan Digest-City of San Luis Obispo i-lI n' N �. � a 4 FF jL l'/ 4.2. lz L; j`X ✓-.c"r O IIA ItA r r fp• � sr{a , �1d� �. /10 •, Council Agenda Report-Route 101 Sound Wall Adjoining Brizzolara Street Page 9 If the City Council decides not to support the sound wall,the SLOCOG Board will reprogram the $500,000 previously reserved for the sound wall project. How these unused dollars might be divided among local jurisdictionsor applied to specific projects is unknown. If the City Council supports the sound wall project,staff will need to specify in the paperwork sent to SLOCOG the time frame for implementing it — e.g. within the upcoming financial planning period(1999 to 2001). If supported,staff will include this project in the draft Financial Plan being developed and slated for Council consideration in Spring of 1999. V. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may choose: • Not to pursue the construction of a sound wall. The funds earmarked by SLOCOG for this project would be reprogrammed. • Pursue this project but identify additional or alternative performance objectives that should direct the design of the wall. • Continue consideration of this matter and request that staff provide additional information as needed. ATTACE ENTS Exhibit A: Aerial Photograph Showing Candidate Location of Sound Wall Exhibit B: Noise Element Standards Exhibit C: Development Activity Along Brizzolara.and Peach Streets Exhibit D: Caltrans-preparedPSR for Sound Wall Exhibit E: Description of"rubber-core' sound walls I:\EvMone\CoumrilAgendaReporm\Sound W al I V1/LV/00 1Y:14 Lm 0V.1 440 .IV11 VJ)L.101f1,J.[Ltla,11.V 4W vv. .. swtrNa. .ravporWbe aM HoAft AWq weai ammo �lg1morand um : Mr. Thomas L. Pollock Dara June 21, 1991 District Director Fae No. 5-SW-101-26.4/2$.7 Const. sound wall 05252 31420K FAP-101 M. J. Nicholson, Chief, Project Studies rort1 DEPAF MENT OF TRANSPORTATION augeet PROJECT STUDY REPORT ON ROUTE 101 IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BETWEEN MARSH STREET SEPARATION BRIDGE (JCT 101/227) AND STENNER CREEK BRIDGE CONSTRUCT SOUND ATTENUATION WALL La•:,:a Submitted by: Reviewed by: M. .. xicholson, Chief Michael Grantham Project Studies Project Manager Approval Recommended by: Approval Recommended: Dyer H. Campbell G. x. Laumer r ,r Deputy District Director Deputy District Director Project management Planning and Programming approval Recomm Approved: / J C. McMillan TROMAS L. POU= putt' District Director District Director Project Development and, Construction DATE: � -.s WI/L=/OV iM.io XA1 VVV V'•O VV11 •Ai .i11V dVVV . 1 • r CaNTmCT No. 314208 The Project Study Report contained herein has been prepared by or under the direction of the following Registered Engineer; The Registered Engineer can attest to the tecbnical information contained therein and has judged the qualifications of any technical specialist who has provided engineering data upon which recommendations• conclusions, and decisions are based. �4pfEssr�, w �I.NL AlesSr Mo. 34` sAmpff M. ALBSSI FjW REGI TERED CIVIL ENG =RCIVL E OF �1 -' -i- I-Ib YI/LY/00 Lu;iJ CAA OYJ ova JYII 9. IA1.V tivvs '1 TA8L8 07 CONTENTS PAW I. INTRODUC'T'ION I - II. BACKGROUND 1 III. PROBLEM DEFINITION 2 ID. ALTERNATES 2 V. SYSTEM PLANNING 3 VI. HAZARDOUS ATE 4 VII. TRAFFIC HANAGEM£NT PLAN 4 VIII. ENVIRONMENTA=L CLEARANCE 4 IX. PROGRAMaXG 5 X. DISTRICT CONTACT 5 -1m. ATTACEMaNTS 5 vtizv/vo. iu:lo rAA gva ara ovii wu.irU%Q'rLJM41Li%v xNTRODUCTION This project Study Report proposes to construct a sound barrier to mitigate the noise level for the residences of Brizzolara street along Route 101 in the City of San Luis Obispo between Harsh Street Separation (PM 28.4) and the Stenner Creek Bridge (PM 28.7, see attachments A and B) . - This improvement was initiated by the state as part of a sound wall retrofit program. The estimated cost for this project ranges from $830,000 to $985,000. The State's share of the• project cost would be funded by the 88-311 (Community Noise Attenuation) program in the SND (Sound walls) element. This project, a Type II project, does not propose any changes to the alignment or profile of the existing route. II. BACRGROII�ID A program was initiated in 1975 to construct sound walls at locations where- freeway traffic noise is above tolerable levels. The areas of concern involved residences that had been in the vicinity prior to construction of the freeway. The dwellings on .Brizzolara Street along Route 101 between the Marsh' Street on- ramp and the Broad Street off-ramp meet the criteria for a sound wall retrofit. The sound attenuation wall project for this segment was on a Program Priority District Candidate Listing in 1987 and was included on the 1989 Priority List. y. A letter dated February 15, 1991, was received from the Comummzty Development Department for the City of San Luis Obispo and included the following comments: 1) The site planning of the apartments and condominiums along ' Bri.zzolara street that were built since 1983 took into account noise exposure problems. In general, outdoor use areas are buffered by buildings with limited window areas facing the freeway. These uses comprise about 25% of the total number of units along the street. 2) -The construction of four condominium units is proposed on the vacant land adjacent to the creek at the south end of the street. 3) There are 91 residential units within .the project area. There are no public, commercial, or industrial units being affected by this project. 4) Construction of a sound wall may not be effective in blocking noise from second stories of older apartment buildings. The most exposed projects are at the north end of Brizzolara and near the intersection of Nipomo Street. _• The use of city site planning controls and other land - - 1 1-!B UI/ZU/Vo 1Y:14 res out aaa JUCI ULLAIULNJ.rL I%.LANV vyVVV planning strategies are preferred When addressing noise exposure for these dwellings. Route 101 at this location was constructed in 1948 as. a divided four-lane freeway. All of the grading and pavement of the ramps was completed by 1954. A rehabilitation project placing asphalt concrete pavement on this portion of Route 101 was completed in 1985. The north and south bound roadbeds each consists of two twelve-foot lanes with an eight-foot outside shoulder and a five- foot inside shoulder. The freeway median width varies from twenty-four feet to thirty-six feet. III. pROBLzx DIFIMTZON A noise study survey was conducted by the District on January 29-30, 1975. The survey showed the noise level at 71 Decibel Tim. This figure was confirmed by a field trip on April 2, 1975. on May 6, 1987, an updated noise study was requested. This noise survey concluded that the noise level is 68 Decibel L,,. Both surveys indicated that the noise level is above the tolerable . -level of 70 dBA Lo (67 dBA r,,,) . There are 91 residential 'units at Bri.zzolara street. A table showing the dates of development permits for each of these units has been provided in Attachment E. The oldest permit issued in this area is dated 1886. ' Some of the blocks which had permits prior to the opening of the freeway -•� have been reconstructed and cowrerted to apartment houses. These complexes are counted as one unit to determine Priority Index. The 1989 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) ' for this section of Route 101-'was 53,000 vehicles. The peak hour handles 5,900 vehicles. Truck traffic amounts to 8.5-1 of this volume. The AAM for the proposed constructLon year, 1996, will be 56,000 and for the year 2016 will be 84,00 1). The Design Hourly Volume for the year 2016 is anticipated to be 9,000 with 8.5% truck traffic. ti AL 5 Two alternates were developed. Alternate 1 proposes placing the wall at the top of the emb t near the highway and Alternate 2 proposes constructing the noise barrier at the toe of the embankment along Brizzolara Street. Additional Right cf' Way will not be required for either of these alternates. Plans are being considered to • stall a main water line to carry reclaimed water for irrigation of the highway planting in this vicinity. It is anticipated t the water main will be installed prior to construction of the wall. Both alternates may impact the proposed water main-. �-Aire amen �—t�i2a� �ct�e�r-QST �(ow� �.J � i�.t�• -,�-�a.s-- —- ---- V f/LU/s0 LU..Lk rAA Oud i/xa Ju 1 1 V6i.ar4U%Q.rLdri LOU IW V V'f • Y Alternate-I proposes to construct an 1800' sound Wall along the highway two feet from the edge of shoulder (see attachments C and D) . this alternate would=require a ten-foot wall into which a safety-shape barrier would be incorporated because of the close proximity to the travelled way. Tt is anticipated that a lane closure on Route 101 would be required* during construction. The District-Hydraulics Branch recommends replacing the three twelve- inch CMP downdrains with grate-type drainage inlets. The City of San Luis Obispo mentioned in the letter referenced earlier their concern about the wall's appearance. According .to the letter, "any wall project should include an integral landscaping sch and avoid the appearance of creating a 'walled off' CammuidtT'tir neighborhood.° The estimated cost of Alternate 1 s $830,000. ternat_e 2 proposes to construct an 1800' sound e� � . right of way along Brizzolara Street at the toe of the embankment ; -(see attachments'C and D) . This -alternate would require a sixteen-foot Wall. Safety-shape barrier would also be /s�7 incorporated into this wall because of the close proximity to tre 'y/ city street. - most of the construction operation could be performed from the city street and would not conflict with the high speed traffic on Route 101. The area at the toe of the embanicAp*+t immediately behind the Wall would have to be regraded for drainage and the existing drainage facility near the intersection of Nipomo and- Brizzolara streets have 2e modified. The aesthetics of the wall proposedby will be more of a concern to the residents along Brizzolara ^' Street. A right of way cost estimate was calculated for anticipated construction easements for the north and-so -end, of the wall. The estimated cost of Alternate 2 0 $985,000 ) ($950,000 Construction, $35,000 Right of Way) . it� ► �Gj Constructing -the wall mid-way on the slope between Route 101 and Brizzolara Street was investigated: Since construction of a wall at -this location could necessitate removing a significant portion of the existing landscape vegetation and an increase iU the wall height, this alternate was rejected. V. STSTE ZI PLaInUNG The Route Concept Report reccmends a six-lane freeway facility from the Santa Barbara County line to the separation of Route 101/46 in the City of Paso Robles. The specific benefits that could be expected from construction of a sound barrier is the interception of noise produced by traffic on Route 101 for the adjacent residences. 3 f I -� uI/Auiro Au=AO rd.A 000 440 Jul/ &A%W VI. $A'ZARDOUS WASTE A field review was conducted for this project by the Hazardous Waste Section of the District Materials Branch on April 18, 1991. There were no apparent indications of hazardous waste in the project limits. There does not appear to be any.hazardous waste sites nearby that would have a potential for impacting the proposed project. According to the Caltrans Hazardous Waste spill List, there have not been any recent spills in the project area. There are no sites nearby which are listed on the Regional Water Quality control Board List of Leaking Underground Tanks that would have a potential for impacting the proposed project. It is anticipated that this project can proceed with no expected hazardous waste problems. VII. TRAFFIC RANAG8M8bPl' PLXN Alternate 1 could require a Traffic Management Plan for a lane closure on Route 101. Alternate 2 should not impact Route 101 traf f ic. VIII. CLELUNCE The Environmental Planning Branch has conducted a field review and record search for potential sensitive resources pertaining to this project. Environmental issues are as follows: cultural Resources The entire length of the project has been surveyed for archeological resources with negative results. There are no bistoric• structures listed with the City of San Luis Obispo in the project area. Therefore, there are no potential impacts to cultural resources. Biological Resources A large amount of mature vegetation exists within the project area. Placement of the sound attenuation wall to minimize impacts to the vegetation should be considered. If impacts to the vegetation are not avoidable, we would need to assess the loss and the potential for revegetation. There are no rare and/or endangered species listed and no wetlands within the project limits. Visual impacts The proposed project will require a Scenic Resources Evaluation. If the landscape vegetation is determined to be a scenic resource, then we would be prohibited from clearing this project with a Categorical Exemption (CEQA) . A 'Negative Declaration would be warranted. 4 i -2f V//LY/110 iV.lil fM.OV' O JV11 V6LiMl•J.IL31•LOW �IYVV Based on the available information, enviro>rmiental clearance can - probably be obtained through _2L Ca orical Exemption on the state' level (unless Scenic Resources are involved) and a Categorical Exclusion on the federal level (regardless of Scenic*Resources) . The environmental clearance process can be expected.to take one year to complete from the initiation of environmental studies. rS. PROG 2=6 This project qualifies for funding under the BB-311 (Coity Noise Attenuation) program in the SND (Sound wall) element for fiscal year 92/93 (see attachment E) and is a candidate for the 1992 STIP. _The project support program by Fiscal Year is shown on the attached pypSCAN printout (See Attachment P) . The milestone Dates have been adjusted to reflect a more realistic time schedule based on anticipated funding. These revised Kilesto:+e Dates are as follows: Begin Study . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .January 1992 project Report Submitta . . . . . . . . . . .. ..January.1993 Environmental Clearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .January 1993 Submit Baps to the Right of Way .. . . . . . .March 2.993 � w District p. S. 8 E. . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . .April 1994 -R• Right of Ray Certification . . . . . . . . . . .September 1994 X. DISTRICT CONTACT M. J. Nicholson, Chief, Project -Studies (805) 549-3171 ATSS 629-3171 J. M. Alessi, Project Engineer, Project Studies (805) 549-3486 ATSS 629-3486 T. Thompson, Assistant Engineer, Project Studies (805) 549-3527 ATSS 629-3527 SI. ATTaCEMENT8 A. Vicinity Map B. Location Map C. plan view D. Typical Cross-Section E. ED-311 Priority Rating Sheet F. PYPSCAN Printout - 5 I -tea, V1/LY/s0 lu:AV reu% owo 440 JV 11 %"%A.arju%.7 gLaula" SM � z K Gel" � sow"d r w. sw r' . �acDueo«o Boa ►atc Bis c:.: `�. � . © SAN w l KZIN CO. 1 man ., I ; � PROJECT 0 B I S P 0 LOCATION ""� tact 6--; ttuu NEW 0 S A N T ..� mum B E Sim A A twat' ., f t� 1� �^. 1 P F BiRBARA •tet SANTA 64RBARA N~E[ DISTRICT 5 SLO-101-28.4!2&7 CONSTRUCT SOUND ATTENUATION WALL -VICINITY MAP .9 IsItems .o .+v AT MCHMENIT A --_ VI/LY/a0 LV.LV 98 OVJ J•O oulf .1.LAI" D+++ i�; � MP • • • O 00 00 .ws a PROJECT LIMITS VO oos i r� IIS • Y ■ f `A /y�y LOCATION MAP SLO-101-28.4/28.7 NO SCALE I-�,4 ion arc s _ r _ '�i'! ..-JCC -' �,. .:.-i.� _�-.�L.• _ _ 0 OF CAUnANIA STATIE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 01STRICT IS �►. _� FROM - '1H STPMT SEPARATION � • +r TO STENNER MRE7 CONMUCT SOUND WALL Co. Frr • J m V1/LU/LO {u.Al r60..OV:1 Jyb dull •.na.aneu•a.ra.lu•aM7 %WV&v `' � 03-5401-�.�4,3�.3/2�.7 • SOUND ATTENUATION WALL PROPOSAL O . I a ROUTE 101 1 K - ( t ORIZWUUtA ST. - ' ALTERNATE 1 I p I A 1 Y� - O r Il v ' m m ROUTE 101 1 - SE ALTERNATE 2 ' BRIZWLARA ST. ATTACHMENT D I -z6 UriAU/VO ay.ar Zm QUO V%V vvrr vn+.•an.•.+..+.s.••••.r v--- • c - LIST of Buiwnta PERaT DATES FOR EMOTING UNITS 1983 459-75 Brizzolara,7 unit apartment * 1948 499 Brizzclara, single .family residence 1962 505 BriZzolara, 12 unit apartment * 1948 519 Brizzolara, -duplex 1964 537 BriZZOlara, 5 unit apartment 1990 545 BriZZOlara, triplex * 1903 557 Brizzolara, single family residence 1987 567 Brizzolara, 4 condos 1987 589 Brizzolara, •5 condos 1959 611 Brizzolara, 8 apartments * 1886 633-35 Brizzolara,duplex t 1953 645 BriZZOlara, single family res. converted to triplex •1986 651 Brizzolara, 4 condos * 1948 663 Brizzolara, single family residence * 1903 675 Brizzolara, single family residence 1958 690 BrizZOlara, 20 unit apartment * 1926 726-28 Nipomo, duplex * 1950 750 Nipomo, single family residence PRIORITY INDEX MKBER CALCULATION AR x (NL - 67)= x LU Where: PI = Priority Index PI = AR Achieveable Reduction Cost ($ 11000) NL = Noise Level L., LU = No. Living Units This Project: 6x (71 �a`Z�= X9 �f 0.9X985 ;. ,r J n row S ~` ' -a �►. .�� ' - Notes: * Living Units used in calculation based .on building permit issued prior to construction of freeway in 1954. dBA Based on California Ref. Energy Nean Emission Levels ATTACHMENT E EXHIBIT E Rubber-core sound well Wilkes meri Minimal equipment and manpower needed for installation along 1-675 in the BucKeye State hen it comes to highway con- struction projects, chances are good that the scene will include a lot of heavy-duty equipment and an elevated level of noise.This was quite the contrary when the Ohio Depart- ment of Transportation (ODOT) recently called for the installation of a new sound wall along I-675 near Cen- terville, Ohio. In its efforts to reduce the highway vehicle noise from sur- rounding residential areas,ODOT was .able to complete the sound wall instal- lation quickly and with minimal con- struction equipment intervention. lam'Sold ».:: ::_ . The project required that a product Appsommately 200 ft of the sound wall ponds Lad to be installed on top of . overpass. be used which featured recycled rub- ber within the panels of the wall.Lake irm"PAM& governing land use so there will be less Erie Construction was selected by For the ODOT project,approximate- need for state involvement and more ODOT to work on the project from the ly 1,000 ft of sound wall was delivered responsibility on the developer." bidding process all the way through in pre-assembled panels on an A- For the I-675 project aesthetics final installation. Knowing the param- frame. Unloaded in a predetermined played a prominent role in the decision eters of the job,the company consult- storage area, all the panels were num- of which sound wall to use.ODOT and ed with distributors in the area and bered and sequenced to make the the participating groups wanted to manufacturers in the highway market installation easier and more precise- match the sound walls that were to determine the most viable and reli- "We were able to set up the 1,000 ft already in the area and they wanted a able sound wall system. of panels using only three individuals pleasant looking color scheme and tex- The sound wall, manufactured by from our work crew and one small ture on both sides of the wall Carsonite International, is construct- crane," added Winkler. "It was defi- "We liked the ability of the sound ed from fiber-reinforced composite nicely less worrisome to lift up such barrier system to change colors within and filled with a ground, recycled lightweight panels and m the end, we the same panel,"added Pinckney. rubber core, thus making the end saved both on manpower and time." product lightweight. Different from The lightweight feature of the sound RW ffi m other sound walls made of concrete or wall also played a big role in its The sound wall used in the ODOT pro- wood, it can be deployed without a deployment on a bridge along I-675. ject included 53,790 lb of recycled tires. lot of heavy construction equipment. "We had the option of putting a After completion,ODOT commissioned The simple post and foundation mod- wood sound wall on the bridge, but a professor from Ohio University to con- ular design features 6-in. high x 10-ft we wanted a lighter material and a duct sound tests on the wall.The sound wide x 2-in. deep planks which can more uniform appearance to the pro- study concluded that residents living in be stacked on top of each other to ject,"said Todd Schafer,project engi- the area adjacent to the sound wall attain the desired height. neer,District 7,ODOT. received a reasonable benefit from the "Knowing the Carsonite name and project considering the length of the bar- quality, we learned about their unique 011 PFWM net and the terrain in the area near the sound barrier system using recycled ODOT was not the only group who overpass. rubber and made the decision to use the had a say in the selection of the sound product for the Ohio project," wall prodUCL The state organization explained Mark Winkler, superinten- worked closely with local public offi- - dent,Lake Erie Construction. cials and the residents in the area to include their opinions and requests in _ the outcome of the project. In fact, as n ; Elvin Pinckney, environmental super- information uper- In ormation or this article provided visor, Office of Environmental Ser- * ` f f P , by Carsonite International, Early vices, ODOT, explained, `We would Bran$ S.C. like to see more action in the way of 50 Roans&BRIDGES•OcfnBER 1998 �-z9