HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/20/1999, 4 - BRIZZOLARA STREET SOUND WALL FEASIBILITY STUDY council Mai,Dae
July 20, 1999
acEn6A RepoRt It..Numbe.OA
4
C I TY OF SAN L U I S 0 B 1 S P 0
FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Terry Sanville,Principal Transportation Planner
SUBJECT: BRIZZOLARA STREET SOUND WALL FEASIBILITY STUDY
CAO RECOMMENDATION By motion, support the construction of a 10- to 12-foot high, 2,100-
foot long landscaped wall along the southeastern edge of SR 101
adjacent to Brizzolara Street(see Alternative B-2(e)).
REPORT IN BRIEF
At its January 5, 1999 meeting,the City Council authorized the CAO to hire a consultant to prepare a sound
wall feasibility study. In February, 1999, the CAO awarded a contract to the consultant team of Wilson,
Ihrig& Associates of Oakland California and MPA Design(a landscape architecture and urban design firm)
to complete the study. The total cost of the contract is$27,000.
The Consultants conducted an extensive noise analysis of Brizzolara Street and its surroundings,measured
interior noise levels within dwellings along the street, and evaluated optional sound wall designs that can
achieve the minimum levels of noise reduction required by CalTrans. The Consultants recommend that a 10-
to 12-foot high landscaped wall be installed along the south edge of SR 101 parallel to Brizzolara Street.
The Consultant's recommended sound wall will reduce both interior and exterior noise levels for housing
along Brizzolara Street and provide some benefit to other nearby dwellings. The preliminary cost estimate
for the wall (installation cost + 30% contingencies) is $1,017,531. As an alternative to building a wall,
retrofitting older buildings with new windows and doors and wall insulation would reduce only the interior
noise levels,but would cost substantially less— about $402,000. However,the City cannot use STIP funds
to pay for retrofitting existing older structures. The City would have to use its own funds if it selects this
option,attempt to swap STIP funds for other state transportation dollars that can be used for retrofit projects,
or possibly consider using CDBG funds.
The Council will need to consider whether the proposed wall location and general design is acceptable,and
whether its construction is worth the fiscal and aesthetic costs. Alternatively, if the "retrofit" option is
selected, the City will need to find a funding source and decide whether the investment in the remaining
older buildings is worth the effort. Finally,if the Council decides to abandon the project,the City's de facto
policy would be that the older structures along Brizzolara Street should eventually be replaced with buildings
that meet code requirements for noise attenuation.
DISCUSSION
1. Background: The Public Works staff distributed an RFP for this project on January 14, 1999. A copy
of the project's scope of work is attached as Exhibit A . The scope includes many of the questions
4-1
r
Council Agenda Report: Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Feasibility Study
Page 2
raised by the public and the Council members at the December 15, 1998 and January 5, 1999 meetings.
The selected consultant team began work in February.
2. Consultant Analysis: To enable the best type of analysis,the City ordered new aerial photographs with
topographical information for the Brizzolara Street area. The new photographs enabled the Consultant to
address the most basic design issue: how high and how long a sound wall needs to be to provide
minimum levels of noise protection.
The Public Works staff sent a letter to all residents along Brizzolara Street letting them know that the
feasibility study was underway and asking them to volunteer their dwelling as a test site for measuring
interior noise levels. A number of residents volunteered their homes (both older and contemporary
structures) for short term noise monitoring. The Consultants also measured exterior noise along
Brizzolara Street,along Hill Street and fronting land on the north side of SR 101,and at the south end of
Dana Street(see Figure 1 in the report).
In addition to developing information about the existing noise environment,the Consultant worked with
CalTrans to forecast future traffic levels along the segment of SR 101 adjacent to Brizzolara Street.
From these future traffic forecasts,estimates of future noise levels were made. It is the objective of this
feasibility analysis to evaluate mitigation strategies that can abate both current and future traffic noise.
The Consultant evaluated alternative sound wall designs suggested by various Council members and by
City staff. To address the City's concern for aesthetic impacts, the Consultant focused on alternative
designs that incorporate sound-absorbing landscaping into its construction. The application of this type
of wall at the highway's southern edge would enable the existing mature landscaping to remain
undisturbed,could reduce the overall height of the wall,and still address aesthetic concerns.
3. Citizen Participation: Prior to the Consultant being hired,the City Council received petitions from both
Brizzolara and Dana Street residents supporting the development of an effective noise mitigation
strategy. Concerns for both interior and exterior noise levels were expressed in these two petitions.
Residents and property owners who volunteered their homes for noise monitoring were very interested in
the outcome of the feasibility study and generally expressed support for the construction of a sound wall.
From this small sampling of residents,aesthetic concerns were less important than improving the indoor
and outdoor noise environment.
Once the feasibility study was published, Brizzolara Street and select Dana Street residents (those that
signed the previous petition)were notified of this Council meeting and the availability of the study. Two
communications from Brizzolara Street residents in support of the wall are attached.
4. Key Issues:
• Appearance of a Sound Wall: The Consultant recommends that a landscaped wall with gabions be
employed along this segment of SR 101. The landscaped wall's design begins with a standard vertical
masonry wall constricted at the edge of the highway's pavement. On the freeway side of the wall,
containers filled with rocks and soil would be attached in a stair-stepped fashion. The containers would
4-2
• Council Agenda Report: Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Feasibility Study
Page 3
be planted with irrigated landscaping designed to cascade down both sides of the wall and provide a
softened green appearance (see figures in report for details). To provide for maintenance access,
CalTrans will require sections of"K-rail" (3-feet high concrete barriers)to be installed and a minimum
2-foot wide walkway provided along the edge of the highway on the freeway side of the wall.
As viewed from the freeway,the proposed landscaped sound wall and requisite K-rail will significantly
alter the appearance of the southern edge of SR 101 and create more of a "walled in" feeling to this
highway segment than currently exists. The wall's integrated landscaping will help soften visual impacts
but may not totally mitigate them. Retaining the mature trees currently planted along this highway
section will help visually tie the wall to the current landscape backdrop and may reduce the apparent
height of the wall.
As viewed from Brizzolara Street and adjoining housing areas, the sound wall will be screened by the
existing mature landscaping and landscaping on the wall itself. The Consultant has also recommended
that the existing chain link fence along Brizzolara street be removed—which should improve the overall
appearance of this local street segment. Aesthetic impacts from the town side of the wall are considered
less than significant.
A tall wall could be built along the western edge of Brizzolara Street (e.g. 18-foot)with vines provided
to cover its surface. However, even with the surface of the wall covered with landscaping, the visual
impacts to Brizzolara Street residents would be significant,and as shown on Tables 5 and 6, these types
of wall are less effective in providing minimum levels of noise reduction under existing and future
conditions.
• Approval Uncertainties: The recommended wall would be installed within CalTrans controlled right-
of-way(ROW). CalTrans will need to approve any wall design. The Consultant's recommended design
for a landscaped wall has not been approved by CalTrans elsewhere in California. While CalTrans
initial response to the Consultants recommendation has been favorable, no formal approvals have been
received. Stability of the wall during an earthquake is a likely key design concern for CalTrans.
The proposed wall will require that an irrigation system be installed. Ongoing maintenance costs will be
considered by CalTrans prior to any final approval or denial.
• Other Issues: At past meetings, Council members have raised various questions about reflected noise
impacts,alternative sound wall materials and designs,and institutional and funding concerns. These and
other related issues are specifically addressed in the first section of the Consultants report and are
therefore not addressed here.
One issue of note,however,is the concern for reflective noise. Reflective noise impacts are discussed on
pages 2 through 4 of the Feasibility Study. This report section evaluates potential reflective noise
problems on both sides of the sound wall,in particular in areas northwest of the freeway along Hill Street
and in areas southeast of the wall within existing neighborhoods. The Study concludes that:
4-3
Council Agenda Report: Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Feasibility Study
Page 4
(a) Standard masonry walls or steel structures present acoustically"hard" surfaces for noise to reflect off
of. In contrast, walls with surfaces that include absorptive materials— such as the landscaped wall
recommended by the Consultant—have less potential for reflecting noise.
(b) According to the Consultant, even if a standard masonry wall were constructed (which is not the
recommended action),reflective sound levels "...can be considered small, usually falling below the
threshold of human perception" (reference page 3, second paragraph).
(c) On the "town side" of the proposed wall, residential structures are located between Mission School
field and the wall. These structures should block any noise from surrounding land uses south of the
wall from reaching the wall. Also,noise levels diminish with distance,should not be louder than the
residual noise from the freeway (with the wall in place) and therefore should not be noticeable
(reference page 3,paragraphs 2.2.1,2.2.2,and 2.2.3).
5. Recent Development History of Area: Throughout the 1980's and 1990's the City has approved new
residential projects along Brizzolara Street and adjacent areas. The most recent apartment project under
construction is at the corner of Brizzolara and Nipomo Streets and is owned by the San Luis Obispo
Housing Authority. The Building Code requires new projects use construction techniques that enable
interior noise levels to meet City standards. Also, as part of the ARC review process, the City has
required that outdoor activity areas planned as part of new housing projects be shielded from the
highway noise by buildings. To date,it appears that the City has not consideredthe street yards fronting
Brizzolara Street as"outdoor activity areas"that warrant protection from highway noise.
6. Policy Analysis: The following adopted City goals and policies may help to guide the City Council's
decision on the Brizzolara Street sound wall issue:
0 Protect people from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to noise. (Goal 1.1.1.,Noise
Element)
0 Emphasize the reduction of noise impacts through careful site planning and project design,giving
second preference to the use of noise barriers and structural features. (Goal 1.1.4, Noise
Element)
0 Mitigating Outdoor Noise Exposure [listed in descending order of desirability]: 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;F)Integrate buildings and sound
walls to create a continuous noise barrier.(Policy 1.2.13,Noise Element)
0 Noise mitigation walls (sound walls) may be used only when it is shown that preferred
approaches are not effective or that it is not practical to use the preferred approaches consistent
with other design criteria based on the General Plan. Where noise mitigation 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 them at regular
intervals,and planting.(Policy N 1.2.15,Noise Element)
4-4
Council Agenda Report: Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Feasibility Study
Page 5
0 Existing and Cumulative Impacts: The City will consider the following mitigation measures
where existing noise levels significantly impact existing noise-sensitive land uses, or where
cumulative increases in noise levels resulting from new development significantly impact
existing noise-sensitive land uses: A) Rerouting traffic onto streets that can maintain desired
levels of service, consistent with the Circulation Element, and which do not adjoin noise-
sensitive land uses;B) Rerouting trucks onto streets that do not adjoin noise-sensitive land uses;
C) Constructing noise barriers; D) Lowering traffic speeds through street or intersection design
methods (see also the Circulation Element); E) Retrofitting buildings with noise-reducing
features;F) Establishing financial programs,such as low cost loans to owners of noise-impacted
property, or establishment of developer fees to pay for noise mitigation or trip reduction
programs.(Policy 1.2.16,Noise Element)
0 Residential areas should be separated or screened from incompatible, nonresidential activities,
including most commercial and manufacturing businesses, traffic arteries, the freeway, and the
railroad(Part of Policy 2.2.2,Land Use Element)
0 Residential projects should provide ... B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise
and prevailing winds,and oriented to receive light and sunshine; ... D) Pleasant views from and
toward the project;... (FI)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 alternative. 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 them at regular intervals, and planting.).
(Part of Policy 2.2.12,Land Use Element)
FISCAL IMPACTS
• Cost Effectiveness of Noise Mitigation Alternatives: Table 8 of the feasibility study relates the cost of
the various sound wall alternatives to the number of dwellings that benefit from the noise mitigation.
Cost estimates per benefited dwelling range from $11,152 (Alternative B-2(e)) to $20,886 (Alternative
Q. For the Consultant's recommended Alternative B2(e), costs per dwelling benefited range from
$11,152 to $11,859. These estimates demonstrate that a substantial investment per dwelling would be
required to improve the noise environment along Brizzolara Street. However, this investment would
provide for both exterior and interior noise reduction and would provide some benefit to residents along
Dana Street and other nearby areas.
Staff recommends that the Consultant's cost estimates be inflated by 30%to cover design,environmental
and engineering studies, and construction contingency costs. Therefore,the cost per dwelling for the
recommended wall would be $15,417. Chapter 30 of the Development Procedures Manual published
by CalTrans stipulates that retrofit sound wall projects:
"... are considered to be cost effective if they cost no more than the criterion established for each
residential unit protected by the barrier. The cost effectiveness criterion was established as
$35.000 [emphasis added]for the 1996 and 1997 calendar years. This criterion will be adjusted
each two years by using the California Construction Cost Index as a guide. "
4-5
Council Agenda Report: Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Feasibility Study '
Page 6
Therefore,it appears that constructing the sound wall is well within the cost effective criterion employed
by CalTrans.
By comparison,a more modest investment per dwelling would be required to retrofit the existing older
structures— $8,944 per dwelling(which includes the 30% contingency increase). However,the retrofit
strategy does not address exterior noise concerns; nor will it benefit residents along Dana Street or in
other nearby areas. If the Council wants to only mitigate interior noise impacts for the older structures,
then it should consider the cost effectiveness of retrofitting the older structures at a per unit benefit cost
of$8,944. The attached maps shows the parcels where older units are located. As described in the
feasibility study, some of these units (such as apartments built in the early 1950s at the north end of
Brizzolara Street) are minimally constructed and have poor site plan designs. Given the development
history of this street over the past 20 years, the City should expect to see these dwellings eventually
replaced with contemporary structures with improved noise insulation and superior site designs.
New replacement structures that fully meet building code provisions for noise attenuation will likely
command higher rents or mortgages. By the same token, installing a sound wall and improving
neighborhood quality might also enable the inflation of rents of existing dwellings. The Council needs
to consider whether the remaining older structures along Brizzolara Street are worthy of retention, if it
supports a retrofit only strategy.
• Budget Considerations: The total budget for the Brizzolara Street sound wall is $1,000,000,funded by
the State Transportation Improvement Program(STIP). SLOCOG has earmarked$500,000 of Regional
STIP funds for this project (these dollars would be used first) and the City has earmarked a matching
$500,000 of its 1998 STIP allocation. STIP funds cannot be used to support a retrofit strategy
(Alternative E).
Table 8 in the study report identifies the various costs for the sound wall alternatives. These costs vary
depending on the type of wall used,height of the wall (9 to 12 feet) and the length of the wall (1,800 to
2,100 feet). The "longer" wall (2,100 feet) would be needed to provide exterior noise protection to the
newly-developing apartments at the south end of Brizzolara Street and to provide some noise reduction
to residents along Dana Street. The Consultant indicates that a 10-foot wall will provide minimum
protection to first row dwellings along Brizzolara Street. However, a 12-foot wall section (about 300
feet long)would be needed at the north end of the street to provide noise protection to the older two-story
apartments at this location.
The Consultant's cost estimates for the various options(Table 8) only include installation costs and do
not include design costs,environmental evaluations required by CalTrans or construction contingencies.
Given the unique nature of the recommended landscaped wall, staff suggests that a 30%factor should be
added to these initial cost estimates for Alternative B-2(e) to cover design, environmental, and
construction contingency costs, recognizing that CalTrans management may inflate construction costs.
Therefore,the table below presents staffs estimate of total project costs.
Based on the preliminary estimates shown in the table below, the estimated cost of the wall is slightly
over the STIP budget for this project($1,000,000 budgeted vs. $1,017,531 estimated total cost). Staff
4-6
• Council Agenda Report: Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Feasibility Study
Page 7
does not consider this cost difference significant given the generous contingency factor(30%) that staff
used to prepare the estimates.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives presented in the Consultant's report are shown on the table on the following page, along
with three alternatives offered by staff. The Consultant's recommendation(13-2 (e)) is shown in boldfaced
type.
ATTACHMENTS
EXHIBIT A: Preliminary Work Scope: Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Feasibility Study
EXHIBIT B: Map showing location of older dwellings along Brizzolara Street
Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Feasibility Study(under separate cover)
4-7
Council Agenda Report: Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Feasibility Study
Page 8
- Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Alternatives
# DescriptionAesthetic Staff's Cost Estimates(1) Type Noise
Impact Protection
Consultants Alternatives 2,100 ft.wall 1,800 ft.wall
B-I(a) 10 ft Masonry Wall @ Highway Edge High $1,291,290 $1,106,820 Interior/Exterior
B-1(b) 11 ft. Masonry Wall @Highway Edge High $1,356,810 $1,162,980 Interior/Exterior
B-I(c) 12 ft.Masonry Wall @Highway Edge Very High $1,422,330 $1,219,140 Interior/Exterior
B-2(a) 9 ft. Living Wall @ Highway Edge Moderate $1,607,970 $1,378,260 Interior/Exterior
B-2(b) 10 ft.Living Wall @ Highway Edge Moderate $1,646,190 $1,411,020 Interior/Exterior
B-2(c) 11 ft. Living Wall @ Highway Edge Moderate $1,684,410 $1,443,780 Interior/Exterior
B-2(d) 12 ft. Living Wall @ Highway Edge Moderate $1,722,630 $1,476,540 Interior/Exterior
B-2(e) 10-12 ft.Landscaped Wall @ Hwy Edge High $1,017,531 $869,848 Interior/Exterior
C-1 14 ft Masonry Wall @ Brizzolara Edge High $1,004,640 $861,120 Interior/Exterior
C-2 15ft Masonry Wall @.Brizzolara Edge High $893,880 Interior/Exterior
C-3 16ft Masonry Wall @ Brizzolara.Edge Very High $926,640 Interior/Exterior
C-4 18 ft Masonry Wall @ Brizzolara Edge Very High $992,160 Interior/Exterior
D-1 14 ft.Masonry Wall on Bank High(2) $861,120 Interior/Exterior
D-2 15 ft.Masonry Wall on Bank High(2) $893,880 Interior/Exterior
D-3 16 ft.Masonry Wall on Bank High(2) $893,880 Interior/Exterior
E-1 Retrofit Older Buildings None $402,480(1)(3) Interior
Staffs Alternatives
S-1 Retrofit Older Buildings via 50-50 None $201,240 Interior noise for some dwellings
matching grant program
S-2 Retrofit Older Buildings via low interest None $0 in the long- Interior noise forlimitednumber
loan program term(4) of older dwellings
S-3 Alt. E + City asks Caltrans to use None $402,480 assumes Interior noise for all older
rubberized asphalt when SR 101 needs to CalTrans pays dwellings and some exterior noise
be reconstructed I road surface costs for all dwellings
(1) Staff's cost estimates= Consultants installation cost estimates(Table 8) x 1.3. The 30% increase is to cover
design costs,environmental costs, and construction contingencies for a project that will need to meet CalTrans
planning, construction and bid protocols. A 30% increase was also applied to the retrofit alternatives
(Alternative E, S-1, S-2, S-3) to cover the costs of requisite site studies described on page 22 and for
construction contingencies. If Federal CDBG funds are used,additional costs maybe realized.
(2) Alternative D involves the construction of a sound wall on the sloped bank half way between Brizzolara Street
and SR 101. Constructing this wall would involve substantial removal of mature vegetation. Therefore,at the
time that the wall is completed,the aesthetic impacts would be"high." (In the past,CalTrans has considered the
removal of mature vegetation to be a significant impact.) However, both sides of the wall could be re-
landscaped with trees and shrubs and in the long-term (10-20 years), aesthetic impacts could be reduced to
moderate to low levels.
(3) As previously stipulated,STIP funds can not be used to retrofit older buildings. However,it may be possible to
exchange STIP funds for State Highway Account dollars that have been earmarked for other City transportation
projects. For example, it may be possible to exchange SHA dollars earmarked for the Mid-Higuera Street
Widening for STIP dollars. This type of exchange would have to meet all State eligibility guidelines and be
approved by SLOCOG. It may also be possible to earmark future CDBG funds to pay for retrofit projects,if the
projects benefit targeted CDBG program households.
4-8
Council Agenda Report: Brizcolara Street Sound Wall Feasibility Study
Page 9
(4) Staff assumed that this loan program would be fully serviced by a commercial bank(potential unknown)or by
the City Finance Department. Administrative effort of a City-managed loan program would be significant. If a
program is administered by a bank,loan applicants would need to meet standard eligibility requirements—which
may limit the participation of some property owners. Qualification requirements combined with the complexity
of the loan process would likely discourage some owners from participating,thereby limiting the benefits and
the costs of the program. A bank's administration costs are not included in the program cost estimates provided
here.
I:Everyone\CouncilAgendaReports\BriaolaraSoundW allStudy
4-9
Council Agenda Report: Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Feasibility Study
Page 10
EXHIBIT A
January 14, 1999
TO: Prospective Qualified Consultants
FROM: Terry Sanville,Principal Transportation Planner
City of San Luis Obispo California
Telephone (805)781-7178
FAX (805)781-7198
e-mail tsanville@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us
SUBJECT: Request for Proposals:Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Feasibility Study
The Situation
The City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department wants to hire a qualified consultant to prepare a
Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Feasibility Study. If you are interested in this project you should immediately
contact me at the numbers provided above, and then submit three copies of a proposal to the San Luis
Obispo Public Works Department to be received by no later than February 1", 1999 at 3 pm. $25,000 has
been budgeted for this work..
Background
The City of San Luis Obispo is deciding whether to build a sound wall along a 1,800 foot stretch of State
Route 101 (attached Exhibit A). This highway segment adjoins the Brizzolara Street neighborhood which
contains a mixture of old and new detached dwellings,apartments,and condominiums.
The Regional Transportation Agency and the City has earmarked up to $1,000,000 in State funding (1998
STIP Amendment dollars)to design and build the sound wall. Our City Council has approved basic design
objectives to guide the design of the wall (attached Exhibit B). However,the Council has not yet authorized
the preparation of plans,specifications and estimates(PS&E).
Before PS&E work is initiated, our City Council directed the Public Works staff to hire a consultant to
prepare a Feasibility Study for this project. This study would be used to help the Council decide whether the
sound wall project should proceed (with specific design direction), should be abandoned, or should be
replaced with some other noise attenuating strategy.
More information about the background of this project is presented in the attached Council Agenda Reports
(Exhibit C).
Key Questions That Need to be Answered!
4-10
Council Agenda Report: Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Feasibility Study
Page 11
While the residents of Brizzolara Street appear to support the idea of building a sound wall (see attached
Exhibit D), our City Council is concerned that, if not properly designed, it could look ugly, could create
reflective noise problems in nearby residential areas, and might not be as cost effective as other noise
attenuating strategies. It's probably safe to say that our community wants to avoid building a wall that looks
like many of those found in northern and southern California metropolitan areas.
The Feasibility Study should answer the following questions:
I. Sound Wall Height: What is the effective height of a sound wall (measured from the elevation of the
roadway) needed to block tire noise from vehicles using the highway? One of our Council members
wants to know whether a 3-foot high wall would be sufficient.
2. Reflected Noise Impacts: Will building a sound wall cause"reflective noise"problems in adjoining and
nearby residential areas? What type of wall design should the City consider to reduce or eliminate the
potential for reflective noise impacts? One Council member is concerned that noise generated from
within the existing neighborhood, south of the highway (e.g. from nearby Mission High School), will
reflect off the wall and impact nearby dwellings.
3. Alternatives to Sound Wall: What alternatives to a sound wall might be effective in achieving interior
noise standards within dwellings along Brizzolara Street? Are there other strategies for improving the
outdoor noise environment? Double glazing of windows has been identified as one potential idea
4. Institutional and Funding Issues:
(a) Given recent court decisions,can the City hire a consultant to prepare construction documents for
a sound wall located in right-of-way controlled by Caltrans? If not, can City staff prepare the
final design? Or if the City wants to hire a consultant for this work, does the sound wall have to
be located on City-controlled land?
(b) Will Caltrans approve a sound wall that only mitigates"tire noise?" Are there any restrictions on
using STIP funds to build a sound wall that only blocks tire noise?
(c) Will Caltrans approve changes to existing landscaping along Route 101 needed to install a sound
wall consistent with the City's design objectives(see Exhibit B)?
(d) Can State STIP dollars be used to provide funding,to residential property owners adjoining the
highway, to retrofit buildings with noise attenuation measures? One Council member has
suggested that the City establish a low-interest or no-interest loan program available to
BrizzolaraStreet property owners. Another option might be for the City to make a one-time offer
to property owners to install double glazing or insulation in older homes and apartments.
4. Analysis of Alternative Wall Designs: Consistent with the design objectives approved by the City
Council,what preliminary design concept for the wall would meet these objectives and avoid significant
visual/aesthetic impacts? To date the following ideas have been voiced.
4-11
Council Agenda Report: Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Feasibility Study
Page 12
(a) Install a friction-fit modular retaining wall (no footings) up to 8 feet high and provide
landscapingon both sides, including surface landscaping(see attached ExhibitE).
(b) Install a traditional retaining wall with footings and provide landscaping on both sides,
including surface landscaping.
(c) Install a steel casement containment wall similar to one being installed by Union Oil Company
in Avila Beach(see attached Exhibit F., memo describing concept).
(d) Install a vertical wall (either options (a) or (b)) and backfill the highway side of the wall with
soil to create a sloped bank; install landscaping on the bank and supplement landscaping on the
Brizzolara Street side of the wall as needed(see attached Exhibit G).
(e) Install either options (a) or (b) combined with the double glazing of windows in older second
std dwellings along Brizzolara Street.
0 Install a wall at one of the two alternative locations (at the edge of the highway or the edge of
Brizzolara Street)as previously identified by Caltrans(see attached Exhibit H).
(g) Consider alternative materials for the sound wall, other than standard concrete, that would best
integrate with the area's landscape and architectural setting(see attached Exhibit I).
5. Alternative Alignments: What are the advantages,disadvantages,and advisability of installing a sound
wall at alternate locations within Caltrans right-of-way?
6. Cost Effectiveness: What is the relative cost effectiveness of the various alternative noise attenuation
strategies(Question#3)and alternative sound wall designs(Questions#4 and#5)?
Project Goals
The Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Feasibility Study should provide our City Council with enough
information that allows them to:
• Select a specific sound wall design concept and authorize the preparation of plans, specifications and
estimates(PS&E);or
• Identify an alternative noise attenuation strategy for retrofitting older dwellings along Brizzolara Street;
or
• Abandon the project.
Anticipated Services and Deliverables
The Consultant will be required to:
4-12
Council Agenda Report: Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Feasibility Study
Page 13
1. Contact appropriate Caltrans staff, schedule and attend meetings,act as liaison between Caltrans and the
City,and manage the resolution of any interagency issues.
2. Submit four(4) copies of a draft of the Feasibility Study to the Public Works Department for review and
critique.
3. Submit one (1) camera-ready final report to the Public Works Department for reproduction and
distribution by the City. The report should be prepared in 8 `/Z x 11 vertical format (using Microsoft
Word,Version 6.0 software)and contain the minimum number of fold-out maps or color graphics.
4. Attend one City Council meeting to present the conclusions and recommendations of the study and
respond to Council questions and comments.
4-13
Council Agenda Report: Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Feasibility Study
Page 14
EXHIBIT B
r
� d
f �f
r f rrf �
f r fl f Y r
f �
r 1 { � r
{ Jr ff
1
� r J r •.
f f r i
r r r 4
� r r
� r
JJ Jf { I[POMD , ' f
r Y f X
r l r
r Y f
J �
f ti f
r J Y X
J r 4
r k �
J
r '
r � Y
r J �
-
J
r r
f f r r w
F •+
r r f
f } {
PARCELS WITH OLDER DWELLINGS
THAT PROBABLY DO NOT MEET INTERIOR
NOISE STANDARDS
4-14
.tom
cz�
CNN, OIA-
,
PD41,
1995 UTIIBTIES
4-15
From: <Miaktxca@aol.com>
To: CITYSLO.955PO(tsanville)
Date: 6/27/99 6:56pm
- Subject: Srizzolara Sound Wall Study
We are residents living on Brizzolara St. who are currently looking for
someplace else to live. The primary reason for our decision to move is the
constant noise. we've endured it for over a year and our lack of peaceful
sleeping conditions has worn us down to the point of surrender.
We were present for the 15 minutes of sound sampling that occured in our
residence (545 Srizzolara) and noticed that it did not record any of the
really bad sounds that we hear regularly: the engine noise of Harley-type
motorcycles (especially when travelling in packs) , vehicles driving on the
Bott's Dots, trucks accelerating and/or driving on the Bott's Dots, or even
normal traffic during the rain (wet pavement increases the noise very
noticably) . The report makes a good case for the wall, but those who live
here are aware that the need is even greater.
we hope for the sake of future residents that you build the wall, but it will
be too late for us.
Sincerely,
Judi and Herb Childress
P.S. If the wall is approved at the July 20th council meeting, how long do
you think the actual building process might take?
4-16
Greg A.`Cates
David M.Cumberland CUMBERLAND & COATES
Christopher J. Duenow ATTORNEYS AT L A W
• Kevin R Anderson
OF COUNSEL
Fu�
O CDD DIR
❑FI4 D'^
❑FIR[C.. .'
MEETING AGENDA 8 PW Dia July 12, 1999
DATE '� -` ITEM # a ❑POLICE C;:F
❑REC DIR
16, ❑UTILDIR
o PMVIR L
Terry Samville
Principal Transportation Planner
San Luis Obispo Public Works Department
955 Monro Street RECEIVED
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
J U L � 4 1999
Re: Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Feasibility Study
Dear Mr. Sanville:
As I will not be able to attend the City Council meeting on Tuesday, July 20'x, I wish
to express in writing my support for the construction of a sound wall at least as effective as those set
forth in the Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Feasibility Study. I work at 550 Dana Street and reside
in a condominium at the Dana Creek PUD at 574A Dana. 'My particular residence is directly across
the creek from Location 2,the noisiest location on Brizzolara Street. I can verify that the noise levels
at my residence are unbearable. As you well know, the traffic along this Flighway 101 corridor has
increased significantly over the years and, no doubt, will only continue to increase. I am unclear as
to which alternative provides the best sound reduction considering expense and aesthetics,but urge
the City Council to proceed with the project.
Obviously, the noise levels have a much greater effect during these summer months.
We would like to have barbecues and enjoy our backyards, but the noise level prohibits this
enjoyment. The sound level at night interferes with sleep. The traffic noise does not die down until
after 11:00 p.m. and begins in earnest again about 5:30 a.m. During the summer months it is
impossible.to sleep beyond 6:30 a.m. without earplugs.
In my review of the feasibility study, it appears no testing was done during early
morning hours. The peak levels appear to have been"scaled"and not measured. See Table 1. This
is unfortunate in that,based on my experience, the peak noise level is during the early morning and
late afternoon commutes. I don't understand why these professionals do not test during these time
frames when the noise level is at its greatest. In sum, I believe the noise levels in the Brizzolara Street
Sound Wall Feasibility Study are understated because the peak noise and To
actually measured.
J U i.. 1 4 1999
SLO C!-}�� . I
550 DANA STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 749 • SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93406 `
TELEPHONE(805)541-4200 • FACSIMILE(805)541-4293 • E-MAIL cumber@callamerica.net / 0 [P%/]
Terry Sanville
Principal Transportation Planner
San Luis Obispo Public Works Department
July 12, 1999
Page 2
No doubt certain members of the City Council will object to construction of a sound
wall along the 101 corridor on aesthetic grounds. Having grown up in San Luis Obispo,I understand
the desire to keep the City's appearance consistent with the sleepy town it once was. However, the
City Council and the City's residents must face the reality that traffic and the noise generated thereby
in the 101 corridor is having a serious impact on the.residents' use and enjoyment of their property,
and property values. Absent some action to reduce these noise levels, the neighborhoods along the
101 corridor will decline. Accordingly, I would point the City Council members to the aesthetically
pleasing sound walls constructed along the 101 corridor in Santa Barbara. Obviously,Santa Barbara,
due to its growth, is ahead ofthe curve of San Luis Obispo in this area. The sound walls constructed
along the 101 corridor in Santa Barbara are aesthetically pleasing,having used vegetation and design
techniques which soften the appearance of the walls. We don't have to construct bare walls like they
did years ago in San Jose.
The City Council may also take the position that this problem is the homeowners'
problem. If the homeowner doesn't like the noise,the homeowner should take measures in the form
of modifications to their house to keep the noise level down inside the house. However, if the City •
Council were to choose this route,it would have the effect of keeping everyone indoors. That defeats
the purpose of the friendly neighborhood atmosphere for which San Luis Obispo seems to be famous.
On behalf of myself, my wife,and all the residents of the Dana Creek PUD,I urge the
City Council to move forward with the Brizzolara Street Sound Wall Project.
Ve ly you
NOW
CJD:ds
cc: Mayor Allen Settle
Councilman Bill Roalman
Councilman Dave Romero
Councilwoman Kathy Smith
Councilwoman Dodie Williams
miscici lsanvdIe.ltr
•