Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04071992 - 1.151 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director DATE: April 7, 1992 SUBJECT: Soundwalls on Interstate 680. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) &BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. Recommended Action: DIRECT the Public Works Director to request Caltrans to defer construction of the three remaining segments of soundwalls on 1/680 in Alamo until questions regarding the concerns raised by the local community are resolved and REFER to the Transportation Committee to establish criteria for public participation in resolving those questions. II. Financial Impact: The costs of deferral would be borne by the State and Federal government. Deferral may preclude construction in the widening contract now underway. III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: The soundwalls recently erected on 1/680 through Dublin, San Ramon, Danville and Alamo have become the subject of considerable local concern. At issue are the aesthetics, level of landscaping, blocking of view on a designated State Scenic Highway and unforseen sound impact on areas previously unaffected by freeway noise. The soundwalls were programmed as a part of the 1/680 widening project. This project provides High Occupancy Vehicle lanes from Dublin to Rudgear Road in Walnut Creek. Walls are used to mitigate significant increase of freeway noise levels on properties adjacent to the project. The locations are determined in accordance with Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration standards. Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: G � RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON April 7, 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X The BOARD heard all those who wished to comment on this matter, APPROVED the above recommendations and REQUESTED staff to obtain from Assemblyman Baker his position on sound walls. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: I hereby certify that this Is a We and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the LT:eh Board of Supervisors on the date shown. c:B02.t4 ATTESTED: April 7, 1992 _ PHIL BATCHELOR,Cierk of the Board Orig. Div: Public Works (Major Projects) of�Supervisors and Co Administrator By Dept/ i Soundwalls on 1/680 April 7, 1992 Page 2 III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background (Cont.): A noise study.was conducted as part of the environmental study for the project. On the basis of this study, over $15 Million of soundwalls were included in the project and were constructed except for a short segment at Livorna Road which will be constructed as part of the widening project. Subsequent to the initial study, at the request of residents along the 1/680 corridor, additional studies were performed and two additional segments of soundwalls were identified. On February 3, 1991 Preston Kelley, Caltrans District Director, requested confirmation from the County that Caltrans should proceed with the remaining three walls in the Alamo area. A presentation was made by Caltrans staff to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission in a study session, to review the concerns that the community may have. Based on the questions raised and the answers provided by Caltrans staff, the following are the issues that the Planning Commission felt must be resolved before the State proceeds with the construction: • The structure now blocks some of the scenic views cited as the reason for the establishment of the Scenic Highway designation. Did the process used to determine locations of soundwalls take the designation into consideration? • There are complaints from residents even as far as several miles away that they now hear a significant level of freeway noise where there was none perceived before the walls were installed. Caltrans cited studies in Los Angeles and Sacramento to indicate that diffraction of noise does not cause higher noise level at distant locations. The terrain of the San Ramon Valley, especially the north end is not similar to the study areas cited. The measurements that were taken before the 1/680 project started were taken immediately adjacent to the freeway. Because no measurements were taken away from the freeway, discussion of the impacts are subjective. Additional studies should be conducted to evaluate impact on distant receptors. • Can Caltrans eliminate soundwall construction even though the location satisfies the criteria for soundwall installation. Will impact to properties adjacent to the freeway constitute a "taking" in legal terms if the walls are required but not built? • Is the design criteria that Caltrans applied applicable to the valley? The valley is narrow in the North Danville/Alamo area. Normal Caltrans design may not apply to these areas. Are there design solutions to the noise problems, if the new walls are constructed, or will they increase the impact to additional people? • Whose noise should be attenuated?. Those people that are adjacent to the freeway or those who have not heard it before? Construction of soundwalls is usually received with community support. There is both support and opposition to their construction by a significant portion of local residents. The large negative public reaction to soundwalls is a new experience to Caltrans and the County. There are now several highway projects in similar terrain which have recently received adverse public reaction to new soundwalls. The State should consider that reaction to defer any soundwall construction to allow time to reassess their criteria for soundwall installation. IV. Consequences of Negative Action: If the Board takes no action, Caltrans plans to proceed with construction as planned.