Agenda packet — Coachella City Council, June 4, 2025 (part 4 of 6)

Everything is used, stored and disposed within local, state and federal regulations and in the process of obtaining ISO 14001 certification.

We currently have an aboveground storage tank that contains xylene.

No
The company started in the 1960s.
1038
Item 3.

APPENDIX L

ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
1039
Item 3.

Resume www.ngem.com

Page 1 of 5 ends

DERRICK S. WILLIS

PRINCIPAL II
Mr. Willis has over 24 years’ experience serving both public sector and private clients in California and Canada on a wide variety of environmental projects. For the last several years, Mr. Willis’ focus has been on formulating and facilitating closure and development strategies for large, complex, high profile, environmental projects for aerospace, industrial, and real estate development firms. Mr. Willis has extensive experience with due diligence/property transfer and development issues in a wide variety of industrial and regulatory settings. He is familiar with the industrial processes that generate environmental wastes, the fate and transport of chemicals in the environment, the potential adverse effects of these substances on human and ecological receptors, compliance challenges faced by business operators, the performance of remedial technologies, and how these issues play into site acquisition, development, and divestiture.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Environmental Site Assessments
• RREEF, Multiple Sites, Southern California ― Mr. Willis serves as client director for RREEF on multiple projects including acquisition studies (which include mold, asbestos and indoor air quality surveys), tenant audit programs, soil remediation, groundwater investigation and remediation, third party oversight, agency negotiation, and mold and asbestos abatement programs. • Watson Land Company, Multiple Sites, Southern California ― Mr. Willis has directed over 40 acquisition-related due diligence investigations for Watson Land Company (Watson). Scope of work has included Phase I ESAs, soil and groundwater investigations, risk evaluations, agency negotiation, and aiding Watson in evaluating and quantifying the potential risk associated with recognized environmental concerns.
• Various Clients, Various Locations, Southern California ― Project manager for more than 200 Phase I environmental assessments (ESAs) for industrial facilities including aerospace, furniture and paper manufacturing factories; utility companies, vehicle and equipment maintenance facilities; and landfills as well former agricultural land. The objective of the ESAs was to evaluate and quantify potential liabilities associated with the acquisition and development of the properties.

Site Investigation and Remediation
• Kimco Realty Corporation, multiple locations in California and Nevada, – Serves Principal-inCharge and program manager for investigation and remediation of several dry-cleaner sites in California (Cupertino, Daly City, Lakewood, and LaVerne) and Reno, Nevada. Projects range from investigation of soil impact to remediation of soil and groundwater. Mr. Willis is responsible for developing remedial strategies, negotiating with regulatory agencies, and providing technical direction to staff in order to evaluate and remediate site impacts, and bring sites to regulatory closure.
1040
Item 3.

Derrick S. Willis
Principal II
Resume www.ngem.com

Page 2 of 5 ends

• Baker Cold Storage, Port of Long Beach Pier B Facility, California – Serves as project manager for investigation, remediation and redevelopment support of a 12-acre former wood treatment facility in the Port of Long Beach. The site is impacted with pentachlorophenol (PCP), metals, VOCs, and dioxins/furans. In addition, tidally influenced groundwater is impacted with PCP and petroleum hydrocarbons and methane charged from oilfield operations. Mr. Willis evaluated investigation data, managed a groundwater investigation program and develop a remedial approach for soil and groundwater. Mr. Willis successfully streamlined the regulatory process by aggregating the remedial work plans including RCRA closure of a drip pad, into one encompassing work plan (Soil and Groundwater Response Plan) and one Remedial Design Document ([RDD] that incorporated the facility design components into building mitigation design), and securing agency approvals on components of site construction concurrent with development of the RDD. Site is currently being developed with a 250,000 square-foot cold storage facility. • RREEF, Villa Marina Marketplace, Marina Del Rey, California ― Mr. Willis managed the design and installation of a groundwater treatment system to treat groundwater impacted from metals and selenium to meet NPDES discharge requirements for a basement dewatering system for a shopping center. He currently manages the operation, maintenance and reporting associated with the ongoing dewatering system.
• Black Mountain Industrial Complex Remedial Design and Implementation, Nevada – Served as project manager for expedited investigation and remediation program for the Tronox industrial facility within the BMI Complex. Previously the world’s largest magnesium production facility during World War II, the site was later utilized for the manufacture of rocket fuel, other products, and most recently alkali and manganese oxide-based chemicals. Historical Industrial operations resulted in subsurface impacts from heavy metals, perchlorate, pesticides, chlorinated solvents, asbestos, radionuclides, and other chemicals. Developed streamlined investigation and remedial approach, prepared remedial plans, and rapidly mobilized and managed a team of staff and subcontractors to remove approximately 800,000 cubic yards of soil from the site to meet commercial soil cleanup goals for direct contact exposure in an expedited timeframe. • Hawaii Wood Preserving Company Treatment Facility, Maui, Hawaii – Served as project manager, for decommissioning, investigation, remediation, and closure for a former wood treatment facility to allow for redevelopment. The site operated as from 1972 to 2001 to treat lumber with PCP, chromated copper arsenate (CCA), permithrin, and disodium octoborate. Chemicals were profiled, all equipment was decontaminated and ecommissioned, and verification sampling was conducted as part of decommissioning. A remedial investigation and remedial alternatives analysis was developed and implemented to investigate and develop a path-forward to closure. The implemented remedial approach consisted of site capping and long-term groundwater monitoring. • Lockheed Martin Former International Light Metals Facility, Torrance, California ― Served as project manager and principal investigator for a 67-acre aerospace facility where client objective was expedited redevelopment. The project included facility demolition, preparation and implementation of a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) closure plan for 11 permitted RCRA units, negotiations with the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), preparation of a RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) (210 features identified that required intrusive investigation), implementation of a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) for soil and groundwater, preparation of a health-based risk assessment, and implementation of soil remediation. Site closure for soil was granted only three years after project initiation, in contrast to the normal six to eight year process, and has been used as an example by head DTSC officials as an example of 1041
Item 3.

Derrick S. Willis
Principal II
Resume www.ngem.com

Page 3 of 5 ends

industry and the regulatory community working together to achieve expedited site closures for property redevelopment purposes. Mr. Willis also developed strategy for groundwater investigation and remediation and negotiated the corrective action consent agreement (CACA) with DTSC. • Playa Capital Corporation, Playa Vista Development Project, Los Angeles, California ― Mr. Willis served as program manager for the Playa Vista project, one of the largest and most visible brownfield development projects in the country. At 1,100 acres, it is the largest underway in Los Angeles County. His primary responsibility included environmental program management (including scoping, developing, scheduling, and tracking environmental activities for the development project), risk management (including developing and negotiating with agencies for appropriate cleanup criteria), remedial strategy/management (including development and implementation of pilot tests and oversight of investigation and remediation activities), agency/RP/buyer negotiations, consultant and contractor selection/oversight, coordination with Playa’s infrastructure group on the development/implementation of integrated remedial approach where appropriate, litigation support, data management, and transactional support with respect to the sale of remediated parcels.
• Project Manager, Confidential Client, Buena Park, California ― Served as project manager for multi-media remediation project at a commercial development in Buena Park, California. The site was a former food processing facility that was redeveloped into commercial offices and warehouse space. Evaluated the environmental liability for a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) that subsequently purchased the property, and managed remediation program in conjunction with site redevelopment.
• Project Manager, Brownfield Redevelopment, Torrance, California ― Served as project manager for site redevelopment project for a PacTrust. Evaluated environmental liabilities associated with a 12-acre parcel that was part of a butadiene plant (Del Amo Superfund Site) left undeveloped as a brownfield, and formulated a strategy to expedite regulatory closure and redevelopment. A comprehensive investigation was completed on the parcel, and the report submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for review. Successfully negotiated with EPA to conduct a non-Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) closure program. Conducted soil remediation program under EPA oversight in conjunction with site construction activities.
• Project Manager, Investigation and Remediation Program, Safety Kleen, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada ― Managed remediation of former solvent recycler transfer stations in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada. Sites involved characterization and remediation of soil and perched groundwater zones. Assessed feasibility of vapor extraction for cleanup of vadose zone contamination, and designed and installed a dewatering system for perched water in former tank cavities and surficial saturated zone for Vancouver transfer station. Achieved regulatory site closure two years faster than previous consultant’s estimate. • Cupples Manufacturing, Investigation and Remediation Program, La Mirada, California ― Project manager for soil/groundwater characterization and remediation program at a truck maintenance facility in La Mirada, California. Conducted an underground storage tank and clarifier removal program in conjunction with site characterization activities. Implemented remediation of soil and groundwater impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons. Negotiated and received closure from Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
• Alberta Environment, Abandoned Wood Treatment Sites, Various Locations, Alberta, Canada ― Project manager for the Wood Preserving Sites Characterization Program for Alberta 1042
Item 3.

Derrick S. Willis
Principal II
Resume www.ngem.com

Page 4 of 5 ends

Environment. Performed site characterization of four former wood preservation sites in Alberta, Canada. The sites had been used for many years for treating wood poles and railroad ties with a pentachlorophenol/diesel mixture. Soil and/or groundwater were impacted at the sites. Soil borings and groundwater monitoring wells were installed, and laboratory analysis of soil and groundwater was performed, to help determine the lateral and vertical migration of dissolved-phase hydrocarbons in the groundwater and dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) through glacial tills and several non-confining layers. Detailed drilling and sampling plans were necessary to ensure correct evaluation of vertical DNAPL migration. Aquifer tests were performed and receptor data were collected in order to formulate a quantitative assessment of both health-based and environmental risk.
• Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc., Investigation and Remediation Programs, Various Locations, Southern California ― Responsible for remediation programs at several petroleum retail outlets for Texaco in the southern California area. Projects included soil and groundwater investigation programs, underground storage tank (UST) removals, remedial design (including design and implementation of vapor extraction and aquifer tests), implementation of remedial program, and operation and maintenance of remediation systems. This included designing, specifying, permitting, and installing of all equipment (including piping, downhole pumps, off-gas treatment, and water treatment).
• Groundwater Contamination Investigation and Analysis, Technisol, Raymond, Alberta, Canada ― Conducted a groundwater investigation program at a solvent recycling facility located in southern Alberta, Canada. The program was implemented to determine the lateral and vertical extent of several species of chlorinated volatile organic compounds present in the confined aquifer beneath the facility. Aquifer testing was performed to estimate migration rates and to provide preliminary data for remedial action. Successfully negotiated with Alberta Environment (lead regulatory agency) for monitored natural attenuation approach. • Pier A Railyard, Port of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California ― Managed a soil and groundwater investigation program at a Port of Los Angeles rail transfer yard. The objective of the project was to characterize previously identified polynuclear aromatic compounds, volatile organic compounds, and petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil and groundwater, and identify any regulated building materials in the site structures in order to facilitate an expedited redevelopment program.

The project was finished ahead of schedule and under budget. • Soil and Groundwater Remediation, Texaco, Various Locations, Southern California ― Conducted vapor extraction tests, performed data analysis, and generated recommendations for an industrial manufacturing facility to determine the viability of using vapor extraction for remediating chlorinated solvents, primarily tetrachloroethene (PCE), present in the soil beneath the facility.

Each test was designed to assess air flow rates and vacuums, vertical interference and crossflow, radii of influence, potential for water upwelling, and effectiveness of vapor extraction in both vadose and capillary zones. Extracted vapors were collected to determine volatile organic compound concentrations. Data were used to determine well spacing and slotting intervals, optimum flow rate/vacuum combinations, extraction blower sizing, and vapor treatment equipment. • Texaco, Various Locations, Southern California― Responsible for preparation of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) permitting, installation, operation and maintenance of thermal and catalytic oxidizers/vapor extraction systems for the remediation of soil (containing petroleum hydrocarbons) beneath operating service stations. 1043
Item 3.

Derrick S. Willis
Principal II
Resume www.ngem.com

Page 5 of 5 ends

Litigation Support
• Litigation Support, Confidential Client, City of Commerce, California – Conducted site review of historical records, developed and implemented soil, soil vapor, and groundwater investigation, and developed Site Conceptual Model (SCM) for former aerospace facility that was now developed as a multi-tenant warehouse. Successful in being able reconstruct historical SCM to show that environmental impacts were caused by historic aerospace operations from the 1940s to 1960s and not from the more recent tenant operations. Provided information and deposition for property management firm’s counsel.
• Mediation Support, Confidential Client, Los Angeles, California – Project manager for mediation support of insurance claim for cost reimbursement for handling, transportation and disposal of petroleum contaminated soil encountered during development of a high rise on a former hospital site. Work consisted of using photogrammetry and historical records to develop a volume of contaminated soil and expert witness report using spatial data analysis, rebuttal of expert witness reports, and expert witness testimony as part of mediation where a judgement was made in favor of our client for the full reimbursement cost.

EDUCATION
B.S., Geology, University of Alberta, Alberta, 1988

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
Northgate Environmental Management, Principal, 2006–present LFR Levine Fricke, Principal Hydrogeologist, 2002–2006
Integrated Environmental Services, Director of Operations/Senior Program Manager, 1999–2002 ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Senior Hydrogeologist, 1993–1999 Environmental Design Corporation, Vice President, 1992
Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc., Staff Geologist, 1991 Terracon Geotechnique, Ltd., Geologist, 1989–1991
Contract Positions, Various Locations, Geologist, 1988

REGISTRATIONS
Certified Environmental Manager, Nevada, No. EM 2252
1044
Item 3.

Resume

Page 1 of 2 ends

www.ngem.com
JACOB A. LACY, CHMM, REM

ASSOCIATE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT
Mr. Lacy has an exceptional record of accomplishment in management and support of environmental projects and programs. Highly adept at coordinating activities across multiple initiatives. Special expertise in auditing, risk mitigation, regulatory analysis/enforcement, RCRA, and site remediation.

Experienced at developing policies and procedures, performing research, and conducting presentations. Extensive knowledge of environmental regulations at the Federal level, as well as in Maryland and Virginia. Strong in building relationships with government representatives. Certified Hazardous Materials Manager (CHMM), Registered Environmental Manager (REM), Hazardous Waste Compliance Manager, and Environmental Management Systems Auditor.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Consulting
 JBG Smith, Bethesda, Maryland — Coordinate environmental management and remediation activities for major DC based land developer from 2022-Current. Projects include management of contaminated soil, UST removal, and review of Phase I & Phase II reports. Assist in preconstruction activities including planning for soil disposal, regulatory interaction, and moisture/mold mitigation. Also provide guidance in Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasure issues, hazardous waste management & disposal, and planning for the abatement of hazardous building materials (typically asbestos).
 MDOT-Maryland Aviation Administration, Baltimore, Maryland — On-site Environmental Compliance & Permitting Support from 2015-2022. Served in an onsite staff capacity charged with the responsibility of managing and leading Environmental Compliance efforts for two State Owned Airports (BWI & Martin State). Independently and autonomously managed duel Hazardous Waste Programs, including storage, segregation, packaging, and maintaining an inventory of waste items. Scheduled waste removal events with various transporters, and rigidly tracked manifest.

Produced Bi-Annual reports to regulatory authorities on behalf of the Client. Served on an Agencywide Permit Committee, where contractor/tenant building permits were reviewed and evaluated for potential environmental hazards and impacts, including indoor air quality issues and hazardous building materials. Investigated issues associated with tenant and client Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans (SPCC) and directed resolution with responsible parties. Issues typically included improper storage & handling of fuels and chemicals. Authored Phase I reports for derelict properties purchased by the Airport Authority.  MDOT-Motor Vehicle Administration, Glen Burnie, Maryland — Environmental Compliance & Support from 2014-2015. Revised a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) covering all aboveground and underground storage tanks (37,800 gallons total) at the headquarters in Glen Burnie, MD. Updated a Compliance Focused Environmental Management System (EMS) manual which applied to the entire organization. Completed a beta test and data population of a new EMS document management system. Revised a stormwater management plan governing the activities associated with the facility’s MS4 permit. Administered hazardous & universal waste management training.
 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland — Phase I Environmental Site Assessment completed in 2014. Performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment at a space satellite tracking facility located on the Goddard campus. Reviewed all accessible records 1045
Item 3.

Jacob Lacy, CHMM, REM
Associate Environmental Consultant
Resume

Page 2 of 2 ends

www.ngem.com
pertaining to the site and conducted a physical evaluation in addition to holding employee interviews to determine if any environmental hazards were present.  Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), Laurel, Maryland — Right of Entry Coordinator from 2012-2015. Aided multiple engineering firms in obtaining entry permits for sanitary sewer infrastructure on private, public, and commercial properties. Worked closely with client (WSSC) and project teams to facilitate EPA-mandated sewer repairs. Communicate extensively with project engineers, government agencies, and consulting companies. Conduct property research and verify ownership. Resolved issues such as denial of entry by property owners and business concerns.

Electrical Utility
 Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO), Washington, DC — Sr. Environmental Program Manager from January through May 2022. Provided management and oversight of multiple environmental compliance programs for electrical power utility serving nearly 900,000 customers across the District of Columbia, as well as Montgomery & Prince Georges Counties in Maryland.

Responsible for maintenance and oversight of Hazardous Waste Contingency Plans for three Service Centers designated as Large Quantity Generators. Also charged with ensuring compliance with hazardous waste storage and biennial reporting. Tasked with Tier II Reporting for over 40 transmission facilities (Substations). Conducted compliance inspections at various facilities including fleet maintenance, transformer maintenance, waste storage, and salvage yards.

Local Government
 City of Newport News Department of Engineering, Newport News, Virginia — Environmental Specialist II from 2004-2012. Coordinated environmental compliance programs for Engineering Dept. that manages and maintains entire infrastructure for 120-mile2 city. Planned and managed projects to remediate environmentally contaminated properties. Investigated and resolved environmental contamination from USTs and other compliance issues. Worked on projects related to State of Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA). Conducted compliance and program audits. Worked in conjunction with multiple departments. Reviewed residential and commercial construction plans and environmental studies for CBPA compliance.

EDUCATION
MS, Public Administration, Old Dominion University, 2011 BS, Environmental Science, Lynchburg College, 2004

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
Northgate Environmental Management, Inc., Associate Environmental Consultant, (2022–present) Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO), Senor Environmental Program Manager, 2022 AECOM, Environmental Scientist IV, 2016-2022
Straughan Environmental, Environmental Management Specialist, 2012-2016 City of Newport News, Environmental Specialist II, Dept. of Engineering, 2004-2012

REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS/TRAINING
Certified Hazardous Materials Manager (CHMM), Institute of Hazardous Materials Management Registered Environmental Manager (REM), National Registry of Environmental Professionals Hazardous Waste Compliance Manager, Aarcher Institute of Environmental Training Registered Asbestos Inspector, State of Maryland
Certificate in Environmental Management Systems (based on ISO 14001), Virginia Technical Center for Organizational & Technological Advancement
ISO 14001:2004 Environmental Management Systems Lead Auditor Training, British Standards Institute
1046
Item 3.

City of Coachella Armtec Expansion Master Plan
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
F
Appendix F
Preliminary Hydrology
1047
Item 3.
1048
Item 3.

ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGIES

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS:

I PURPOSE AND SCOPE

II DESIGN METHODOLOGY

III RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH CALCULATIONS
IV APPENDIX – REFERENCE MATERIAL
1049
Item 3.

I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report was prepared in support of the Armtec Defense Technologies Warehouse Expansion entitlement package submittal. The purpose of this preliminary report is to analyze the existing and proposed drainage patterns, discuss the on-site drainage design and size the proposed on-site drainage facilities to meet the City of Coachella drainage ordinance requirements.

Armtec Defense Technologies (Armtec) manufactures state-of-the-art combustible ordinance products at its facility located at 85091 Avenue 53 in Coachella, Riverside County, CA. The project includes the construction of new and expanded buildings within the existing footprint of the Armtec facility, which occupies the southwest corner of the intersection of Avenue 53 and Tyler Street. The facility consists of two parcels totaling approximately 52.65 acres in size, identified by assessor's parcel numbers (APNs) 778-420-013 (14.96 acres) and 778- 390-008 (37.69 acres). Armtec's existing operations, utilized for industrial and manufacturing purposes, are located on the southern parcel (APN: 778-390-008).

Overall, the proposed project is anticipated to be completed in phases and includes the construction of new small and medium sized warehouses for both production and storage purposes, along with a new truck staging area. The project will incorporate the phasing of off-site street improvements required by the City along Tyler Street.

On the northern parcel (APN: 778-420-013), a new 15,000 SF warehouse will be constructed solely for storage purposes. This facility will remain unoccupied except when goods are moved in and out. The northern parcel will also include the construction of a new truck staging area and paved parking lot.

On the southern parcel (APN: 778-390-008), a new 3,000 SF production facility will be constructed for research and development activities. The southern parcel currently houses all of Armtec’s existing operations.

A separate surface infiltration type retention basin designed with the capacity to store storm runoff generated during the 100 year design storm tributary to each of the two new on-site facilities (15,000 SF warehouse and 3,000 SF research and production). Runoff that exceeds the capacity of the on-site retention basin storage systems in an emergency overflow condition, is designed to overflow onto perimeter public streets, Avenue 53 to the north and Tyler Street to the east, then east from Tyler Street following a dedicated drainage easement toward the Coachella Velley Stormwater Channel.

II. DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS
Riverside County Flood Control District Synthetic Unit Hydrograph methods are used to quantify the runoff volume generated and stored on-site during the 100 year “worst case” design storm return period. The program data and results prepared for this project are included in the Appendix of this report. The program model typically accounts for the volume of runoff lost due to infiltration in the basins and the allowable design retention basin infiltration rate of 10 gal./s.f./day (0.67 in/hr) established by City of Coachella will be applied over the surface area of the basin bottoms. The capacity of the on-site basins will be compared to the total design runoff volume generated over the two separate on-site development areas to show that runoff generated during the 100 year design storm can be 1050
Item 3.
stored within the basins at a depth not to exceed 3.5ft and the runoff generated during the 10 year storm event can be stored within the on-site basins at a depth not to exceed 1.5 feet in accordance with City of Coachella retention basin criteria.

The northern parcel where the 15,000 SF warehouse and associated improvements will be constructed is currently vacant. Storm water tributary to this improvement area will be directed via surface flow to a new infiltration type retention basin. The southern parcel is developed in its existing condition housing all of Armtec’s existing operations and includes existing infiltration type surface retention basins. The new 3,000 SF research and development facility and associated improvements will be constructed adjacent to an existing retention basin currently providing storm water storage for a portion of the existing site. New improvements in this portion of the site will include expansion and realignment of the existing retention basin to provide capacity to store the additional runoff generated due to the new development and addition of impervious surface area.

City of Coachella requires that runoff water stored on-site must be evacuated completely via infiltration within a period of 72 hours in order to comply with vector control concerns. In order to help facilitate this requirement, City of Coachella has limited the maximum depth of stored runoff within any basin to 3.5 feet and establishes a design infiltration rate for basin storage at 10 gal./s.f./day (0.67 in/hr), thereby ensuring total evacuation of the basins via infiltration within the required period.

DESIGN CRITERIA
The following Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFCD) parameters were used in the preparation of the analyses:

 10 year – 3 hour Precipitation 0.992” (NOAA)
 10 year – 6 hour Precipitation 1.29” (NOAA)
 10 year – 24 hour Precipitation 2.09” (NOAA)
 100 year – 3 hour Precipitation 2.04” (NOAA)
 100 year – 6 hour Precipitation 2.73” (NOAA)
 100 year – 24 hour Precipitation 4.28” (NOAA)
 Hydrologic Soil Type “B” US Dept. of Agriculture, SCS  Runoff Index Number 56 (RCFC&WCD Plate E-6.1)
 Assumed Design Percolation Rate 0.67 in/hr

1051
Item 3.

III RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH CALCULATED RETENTION

VOLUMES

SUBAREA
100 YR. VOLUME

REQUIRED
(CU.FT.)

BASIN VOLUME

PROVIDED
(CU.FT.)
100 YR. BASIN

STORAGE
DEPTH
10 YR. BASIN

STORAGE
DEPTH
NORTH
(15,000 SF

FACILITY)
18,216 21,778 3.04’ 0.74’

SUBAREA

EXISTING
BASIN
VOLUME
(CU.FT.)
100 YR.

ADDITIONAL
VOLUME

REQUIRED
(CU.FT.)
BASIN

ADDITIONAL
VOLUME

PROVIDED
(CU.FT.)
100 YR. BASIN

STORAGE
DEPTH

INCREASE
10 YR. BASIN

STORAGE
DEPTH

INCREASE
SOUTH
(3,000 SF

FACILITY)
169,929 9,142 32,822 0.17’ 0.04’ (0.5 in)
1052
Item 3.

IV APPENDIX
1053
Item 3.
1054
Item 3.
1055
Item 3.

!"

#$ ! %
" &'
$(

)*+,-./01234567* ))*+,-./08292 :;<:=&;:;<<;>=&? &@&
<;A<&
26BC6D/-E.6F26-6GHE/IJF26-6GK/ELFMENNE6BKEB/-FO6J,BP,56EI6-E6FH/Q+-6G56-IEBF26BR-6 D6SN+SE.F4*G6BE3+TFU6-NV-T76N,WFH6N/8B-,GFX/BPNEBY6BF5E.G6/NY/WI6FV6BZG6+F9/+[[-/T \+BBEBFH6BE/N\-/]/-FME^UG,6BUG/BFVT/D6-JTQ+WF_+GBY6-.G+6B `abbF`6IE+B6Nc/6IG/-2/-SE./F2ENS/-27-EBPF56-TN6BR defghijkhlmdefnlhopqrhkmshotfufhvlqhkt :>w :x $wy
yy
z{|(}~
'
x
'#'{ } } }}}}}} }}} $ }!} }!}( }!
% }! (

}! }! } }!
}!

}! }!%
}$ }!}%% }!
} }!
}! }! }!

}
}! (
}!} }!
}!%
$ }! } }! (
}! }! }!

}!
}!% }!
}!%% !}
}$ }!
( }! }! } }!

}!} }!

}!%% !} !
!
}$ }!}(
}! }!} }!
}!%} !} !
!

!
!(( $ }!%% }!
}!

}!% ( !
! ( !% !}} !} !(

$ }! }!
}!
}!(( ! ! !}

!
! !

$ }!

}!
}!((
!(
!%
! ! !

! } ! %

$ }! }!%
! !% ! % ! !

!}

! !
$ }!} !} !} !}( !% !
!%
! ! !
${ }!(( ! !% ! } !
!(

!

!
!(
%!}
${ }!%} !
!}} !( !

! (

!((
!%
! %

%!%

${ }!(
!
! ! ! ! (
!}
! } !

%! ${ }!( !
( !
!%
!%

!

! !% !}
%!( }${ !} ! !% !(
!%
!

!
! %

!

%!% }${ !}(
! !
!
!

!((
!%% !%

%! (! % }${ ! !( !
!

!

!

! %
!

%!( }!

${ ! !(( !(( !% ! } !

!}
%! % }!
!
}${ !
!
!
!
! !
!( (!} }!( ! D-/.E7EI6IE+B[-/,/B.TDX/*IEL6I/*EBIGE*I6QN/6-/Q6*/R+B[-/,/B.T6B6NT*E*+[76-IE6NR,-6IE+B*/-E/*DH2 `,LQ/-*EB76-/BIG/*E*6-/DX/*IEL6I/*6IN+]/-6BR,77/-Q+,BR*+[IG/.+B[ER/B./EBI/-S6NVG/7-+Q6QENEITIG6I7-/.E7EI6IE+B[-/,/B.T/*IEL6I/*[+- 6PES/BR,-6IE+B6BR6S/-6P/-/.,--/B./EBI/-S6N]ENNQ/P-/6I/-IG6BIG/,77/-Q+,BR+-N/**IG6BIG/N+]/-Q+,BRE* 1*IEL6I/*6I,77/-Q+,BR*6-/B+I .G/.W/R6P6EB*I7-+Q6QN/L6EL,L7-/.E7EI6IE+BD5D/*IEL6I/*6BRL6TQ/GEPG/-IG6B.,--/BINTS6NERD5DS6N,/* DN/6*/-/[/-I+`abbbIN6*R+.,L/BI[+-L+-/EB[+-L6IE+B hrgo :>#y 1056 Item 3.
1057
Item 3.
56 10 YEAR EVENT - AMC I
1058
Item 3.
56 100 YEAR EVENT - AMC II
1059
Item 3.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
AB C D

RCFC&WCD SHORTCUT UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD

DATA INPUT SHEET
WORKSHEET PREPARED BY: JAMES R. BAZUA, P.E.

PROJECT NAME ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 10 YEAR
JOB #
CONCENTRATION POINT DESIGNATION 1
AREA DESIGNATION 15000 SF BUILDING

TRIBUTARY AREAS ACRES

COMMERCIAL
PAVING/HARDSCAPE 2.37
SF - 1 ACRE
SF - 1/2 ACRE
SF - 1/4 ACRE

MF - CONDOMINIUMS

MF - APARTMENTS

MOBILE HOME PARK

LANDSCAPING
RETENTION BASIN 0.83

GOLF COURSE

MOUNTAINOUS
LOW LOSS RATE (PERCENT) 90%
LENGTH OF WATERCOURSE (L) 480
LENGTH TO POINT OPPOSITE CENTROID (Lca) 65
ELEVATION OF HEADWATER 412.5
ELEVATION OF CONCENTRATION POINT 411.5
AVERAGE MANNINGS 'N' VALUE 0.02
STORM FREQUENCY (YEAR) 100

POINT RAIN
3-HOUR 0.992
6-HOUR 1.29
24-HOUR 2.09
BASIN CHARACTERISTICS: ELEVATION AREA
408 4560
409 5470
410 6430
411 7470
411.5 7980
PERCOLATION RATE (in/hr) 0.67

DRYWELL DATA

NUMBER USED
PERCOLATION RATE (cfs)
1060
Item 3.

RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD PROJECT: ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 10 YEAR BASIC DATA CALCULATION FORM JOB # 0
SHORTCUT METHOD BY ES R. BAZUA, P.E. DATE 2/2/2025
[1] SOURCE
[2] FREQUENCY-YEARS 100
[3] DURATION:
[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

POINT AREA AVERAGE POINT AREA AVERAGE POINT AREA AVERAGE

RAIN POINT RAIN POINT RAIN POINT

INCHES RAIN INCHES RAIN INCHES RAIN
(Plate E-5.2) INCHES (Plate E-5.4) INCHES (Plate E-5.6) INCHES

0.99 3.200 1.00 0.99 1.29 3.200 1.00 1.29 2.09 3.200 1.00 2.09

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SUM [5] 3.2 SUM [7] 0.99 SUM [9] 3.20 SUM [11] 1.29 SUM [13] 3.20 SUM [15] 2.09 [16] AREA ADJ FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000
[17] ADJ AVG POINT RAIN 0.99 1.29 2.09
DURATION 3-HOUR 6-HOUR 24-HOUR
EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 0.38 0.37 0.24
FLOOD VOLUME (cu-ft) 4,424 4,333 2,799
(acre-ft) 0.10 0.10 0.06
REQUIRED STORAGE (cu-ft) 3,716 3,218 475
(acre-ft) 0.09 0.07 0.01
PEAK FLOW (cfs) 2.38 2.03 0.27
MAXIMUM WSEL (ft) 408.74 408.64 408.09

0.091

65.00 0.000
[12] S^0.5
[13] L*LCA/S^0.5
[14] AVERAGE MANNINGS 'N'
[10] H-FEET 1
[11] S-FEET/MILE

PHYSICAL DATA

RAINFALL DATA
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT 1
15000 SF BUILDING

3.200
480

0.012
412.5
411.5

0.02 1.4

1.4 2.8

11.0 3.32

0.02 6-HOURS
[6] La-FEET
[7] La-MILES
[8] ELEVATION OF HEADWATER
[9] ELEVATION OF CONCENTRATION POINT
[2] AREA DESIGNATION
[3] AREA - ACRES
[4] L-FEET
[5] L-MILES
5 24-HOURS
[15] LAG TIME-HOURS
[16] LAG TIME-MINUTES

0.07 STORM EVENT SUMMARY
[17] 100% OF LAG-MINUTES
[18] 200% OF LAG-MINUTES
[24] TOTAL PERCOLATION RATE (cfs)
[19] UNIT TIME-MINUTES (100%-200% OF LAG)
3-HOURS
Plate E-2.1

Page 2 of 14 ends

Item 3.

RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD PROJECT ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 10 YEAR CONCENTRATION POINT: 1BY MES R. BAZUA, P.E. DATE 2/2/2025

ADJUSTED LOSS RATE

SOIL RI PERVIOUS DECIMAL ADJUSTED AREA AVERAGE

GROUP NUMBER AREA PERCENT INFILTRATION ADJUSTED

INFILTRATION OF AREA RATE INFILTRATION

RATE IMPERVIOUS RATE
(in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr)
[Plate C-1] [Plate E-6.1] [Plate E-6.2] [Plate E-6.3]
B 56 0.70 90% 0.13 0.00 0.000 0.0000
B 56 0.70 100% 0.07 2.37 0.741 0.0518
B 56 0.70 20% 0.57 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.70 40% 0.45 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.70 50% 0.39 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.70 65% 0.29 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.70 80% 0.20 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.70 75% 0.23 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.70 0% 0.70 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.70 0% 0.70 0.83 0.259 0.1816B 56 0.70 0% 0.70 0.00 0.000 0.0000 D 93 0.70 90% 0.13 0.00 0.000 0.0000

0.00 0.000 0.0000

0.00 0.000 0.0000
SUM 3.2 SUM 0.2334
VARIABLE LOSS RATE CURVE (24-HOUR STORM ONLY)Fm= 0.116703125C= 0.00216Ft=C(24-(T/60))^1.55 = 0.00216 0.12 in/hr LOW LOSS RATE (80-90 PERCENT) = 90%Where:T=Time in minutes. To get an average value for each unit time period, Use T=1/2 the unit time for the first time period,T=1 1/2 unit time for the second period, etc. (24-(T/60))^1.55 +

LAND USE

COMMERCIAL

PAVING/HARDSCAPE
SF - 1 ACRE
SF - 1/2 ACRESF - 1/4 ACRE
MF - COND0MINIUMS

MF - APARTMENTS

MOBILE HOME PARKS

LANDSCAPING

RETENTION BASINS

GOLF COURSE

MOUNTAINOUS
Plate E-2.1

Page 3 of 14 ends

Item 3.

RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD PROJECT: ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 10 YEAR 100 YEAR - 3 HOUR STORM EVENT CONCENTRATION POINT: 1
BY: MES R. BAZUA, DATE 2/2/2025
DRAINAGE AREA-ACRES 3.20
UNIT TIME-MINUTES 5
LAG TIME - MINUTES 1.38
UNIT TIME-PERCENT OF LAG 362.1
TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN-INCHES 0.99
CONSTANT LOSS RATE-in/hr 0.23
LOW LOSS RATE - PERCENT 90% TOTAL PERCOLATION RATE (cfs) 0.07 cfs Unit Time Pattern Storm Effective Flood Required
Period Minutes Hours Percent Rain Rain Hydrograph Storage in/hr Flow
(Plate E-5.9) Max Low in/hr cfs cf
1 5 0.08 1.3 0.155 0.23 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.00
2 10 0.17 1.3 0.155 0.23 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.00
3 15 0.25 1.1 0.131 0.23 0.12 0.01 0.04 0.00
4 20 0.33 1.5 0.179 0.23 0.16 0.02 0.06 0.00
5 25 0.42 1.5 0.179 0.23 0.16 0.02 0.06 0.00
6 30 0.50 1.8 0.214 0.23 0.19 0.02 0.07 0.00
7 35 0.58 1.5 0.179 0.23 0.16 0.02 0.06 0.00
8 40 0.67 1.8 0.214 0.23 0.19 0.02 0.07 0.00
9 45 0.75 1.8 0.214 0.23 0.19 0.02 0.07 0.00
10 50 0.83 1.5 0.179 0.23 0.16 0.02 0.06 0.00
11 55 0.92 1.6 0.190 0.23 0.17 0.02 0.06 0.00
12 60 1.00 1.8 0.214 0.23 0.19 0.02 0.07 0.00
13 65 1.08 2.2 0.262 0.23 0.24 0.03 0.09 6.13
14 70 1.17 2.2 0.262 0.23 0.24 0.03 0.09 6.13
15 75 1.25 2.2 0.262 0.23 0.24 0.03 0.09 6.13
16 80 1.33 2.0 0.238 0.23 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.00
17 85 1.42 2.6 0.310 0.23 0.28 0.08 0.24 51.84
18 90 1.50 2.7 0.321 0.23 0.29 0.09 0.28 63.27
19 95 1.58 2.4 0.286 0.23 0.26 0.05 0.17 28.98
20 100 1.67 2.7 0.321 0.23 0.29 0.09 0.28 63.27
21 105 1.75 3.3 0.393 0.23 0.35 0.16 0.51 131.83
22 110 1.83 3.1 0.369 0.23 0.33 0.14 0.43 108.98
23 115 1.92 2.9 0.345 0.23 0.31 0.11 0.36 86.12
24 120 2.00 3.0 0.357 0.23 0.32 0.12 0.40 97.55
25 125 2.08 3.1 0.369 0.23 0.33 0.14 0.43 108.98
26 130 2.17 4.2 0.500 0.23 0.45 0.27 0.85 234.68
27 135 2.25 5.0 0.595 0.23 0.54 0.36 1.16 326.11
28 140 2.33 3.5 0.417 0.23 0.37 0.18 0.59 154.69
29 145 2.42 6.8 0.809 0.23 0.73 0.58 1.84 531.81
30 150 2.50 7.3 0.869 0.23 0.78 0.64 2.03 588.95
31 155 2.58 8.2 0.976 0.23 0.88 0.74 2.38 691.80
32 160 2.67 5.9 0.702 0.23 0.63 0.47 1.50 428.96
33 165 2.75 2.0 0.238 0.23 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.00
34 170 2.83 1.8 0.214 0.23 0.19 0.02 0.07 0.00
35 175 2.92 1.8 0.214 0.23 0.19 0.02 0.07 0.00
36 180 3.00 0.6 0.071 0.23 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.00

EFFECTIVE RAIN & FLOOD VOLUMES SUMMARY
EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 0.38
FLOOD VOLUME (acft) 0.10
FLOOD VOLUME (cuft) 4424.24
REQUIRED STORAGE (acft) 0.09
REQUIRED STORAGE (cuft) 3716.16
PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs) 2.38
Loss Rate
in/hr
Time

EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
Plate E-2.2

Page 4 of 14 ends

Item 3.

RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD PROJECT: ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 10 YEAR 100 YEAR - 6 HOUR STORM EVENT CONCENTRATION POINT: 1
BY: JAMES R. BAZ DATE: 2/2/2025
DRAINAGE AREA-ACRES 3.20
UNIT TIME-MINUTES 5
LAG TIME - MINUTES 1.38
UNIT TIME-PERCENT OF LAG 362.1
TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN-INCHES 1.29
CONSTANT LOSS RATE-in/hr 0.233
LOW LOSS RATE - PERCENT 90% TOTAL PERCOLATION RATE (cfs) 0.07 cfs Unit Time Pattern Storm Effective Flood Required
Period Minutes Hours Percent Rain Rain Hydrograph Storage in/hr Flow
(Plate E-5.9) Max Low in/hr cfs cf
1 5 0.08 0.5 0.077 0.23 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.00
2 10 0.17 0.6 0.093 0.23 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.00
3 15 0.25 0.6 0.093 0.23 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.00
4 20 0.33 0.6 0.093 0.23 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.00
5 25 0.42 0.6 0.093 0.23 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.00
6 30 0.50 0.7 0.108 0.23 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.00
7 35 0.58 0.7 0.108 0.23 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.00
8 40 0.67 0.7 0.108 0.23 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.00
9 45 0.75 0.7 0.108 0.23 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.00
10 50 0.83 0.7 0.108 0.23 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.00
11 55 0.92 0.7 0.108 0.23 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.00
12 60 1.00 0.8 0.124 0.23 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.00
13 65 1.08 0.8 0.124 0.23 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.00
14 70 1.17 0.8 0.124 0.23 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.00
15 75 1.25 0.8 0.124 0.23 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.00
16 80 1.33 0.8 0.124 0.23 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.00
17 85 1.42 0.8 0.124 0.23 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.00
18 90 1.50 0.8 0.124 0.23 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.00
19 95 1.58 0.8 0.124 0.23 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.00
20 100 1.67 0.8 0.124 0.23 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.00
21 105 1.75 0.8 0.124 0.23 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.00
22 110 1.83 0.8 0.124 0.23 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.00
23 115 1.92 0.8 0.124 0.23 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.00
24 120 2.00 0.9 0.139 0.23 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.00
25 125 2.08 0.8 0.124 0.23 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.00
26 130 2.17 0.9 0.139 0.23 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.00
27 135 2.25 0.9 0.139 0.23 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.00
28 140 2.33 0.9 0.139 0.23 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.00
29 145 2.42 0.9 0.139 0.23 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.00
30 150 2.50 0.9 0.139 0.23 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.00
31 155 2.58 0.9 0.139 0.23 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.00
32 160 2.67 0.9 0.139 0.23 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.00
33 165 2.75 1.0 0.155 0.23 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.00
34 170 2.83 1.0 0.155 0.23 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.00
35 175 2.92 1.0 0.155 0.23 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.00
36 180 3.00 1.0 0.155 0.23 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.00
37 185 3.08 1.0 0.155 0.23 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.00
38 190 3.17 1.1 0.170 0.23 0.15 0.02 0.05 0.00
39 195 3.25 1.1 0.170 0.23 0.15 0.02 0.05 0.00
40 200 3.33 1.1 0.170 0.23 0.15 0.02 0.05 0.00
41 205 3.42 1.2 0.186 0.23 0.17 0.02 0.06 0.00
42 210 3.50 1.3 0.201 0.23 0.18 0.02 0.06 0.00
43 215 3.58 1.4 0.217 0.23 0.20 0.02 0.07 0.00
44 220 3.67 1.4 0.217 0.23 0.20 0.02 0.07 0.00
45 225 3.75 1.5 0.232 0.23 0.21 0.02 0.07 1.07
46 230 3.83 1.5 0.232 0.23 0.21 0.02 0.07 1.07
47 235 3.92 1.6 0.248 0.23 0.22 0.01 0.05 0.00
48 240 4.00 1.6 0.248 0.23 0.22 0.01 0.05 0.00
49 245 4.08 1.7 0.263 0.23 0.24 0.03 0.10 7.35
50 250 4.17 1.8 0.279 0.23 0.25 0.05 0.14 22.21
51 255 4.25 1.9 0.294 0.23 0.26 0.06 0.19 37.07
52 260 4.33 2.0 0.310 0.23 0.28 0.08 0.24 51.93
53 265 4.42 2.1 0.325 0.23 0.29 0.09 0.29 66.79
54 270 4.50 2.1 0.325 0.23 0.29 0.09 0.29 66.79
55 275 4.58 2.2 0.341 0.23 0.31 0.11 0.34 81.65
56 280 4.67 2.3 0.356 0.23 0.32 0.12 0.39 96.51

EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
Time Loss Rate
in/hr
Plate E-2.2

Page 5 of 14 ends

Item 3.

EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
Time Loss Rate
in/hr
57 285 4.75 2.4 0.372 0.23 0.33 0.14 0.44 111.37
58 290 4.83 2.4 0.372 0.23 0.33 0.14 0.44 111.37
59 295 4.92 2.5 0.387 0.23 0.35 0.15 0.49 126.23
60 300 5.00 2.6 0.402 0.23 0.36 0.17 0.54 141.09
61 305 5.08 3.1 0.480 0.23 0.43 0.25 0.79 215.40
62 310 5.17 3.6 0.557 0.23 0.50 0.32 1.04 289.70
63 315 5.25 3.9 0.604 0.23 0.54 0.37 1.19 334.28
64 320 5.33 4.2 0.650 0.23 0.59 0.42 1.33 378.87
65 325 5.42 4.7 0.728 0.23 0.65 0.49 1.58 453.17
66 330 5.50 5.6 0.867 0.23 0.78 0.63 2.03 586.92
67 335 5.58 1.9 0.294 0.23 0.26 0.06 0.19 37.07
68 340 5.67 0.9 0.139 0.23 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.00
69 345 5.75 0.6 0.093 0.23 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.00
70 350 5.83 0.5 0.077 0.23 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.00
71 355 5.92 0.3 0.046 0.23 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00
72 360 6.00 0.2 0.031 0.23 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00

EFFECTIVE RAIN & FLOOD VOLUMES SUMMARY
EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 0.37
FLOOD VOLUME (acft) 0.10
FLOOD VOLUME (cuft) 4333.03
REQUIRED STORAGE (acft) 0.07
REQUIRED STORAGE (cuft) 3217.93
PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs) 2.03
Plate E-2.2

Page 6 of 14 ends

Item 3.

RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD PROJECT: ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 10 YEAR 100 YEAR - 24 HOUR STORM EVENT CONCENTRATION POINT: 1
BY: JAMES R. BAZ DATE: 2/2/2025
DRAINAGE AREA-ACRES 3.200 CONSTANT LOSS RATE-in/hr n/a
UNIT TIME-MINUTES 15 VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG) in/hr 0.2334 LAG TIME - MINUTES 1.38 MINIMUM LOSS RATE (for var. loss) - in/hr 0.117 UNIT TIME-PERCENT OF LAG 1086.4 LOW LOSS RATE - DECIMAL 0.90 TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN-INCHES 2.09 C 0.00216
PERCOLATION RATE (cfs) 0.07
Unit Time Pattern Storm Effective Flood Required
Period Minutes Hours Percent Rain Rain Hydrograph Storage in/hr Flow
(Plate E-5.9) Max Low in/hr cfs cf
1 15 0.25 0.2 0.017 0.412 0.015 0.002 0.01 0.00
2 30 0.50 0.3 0.025 0.407 0.023 0.003 0.01 0.00
3 45 0.75 0.3 0.025 0.403 0.023 0.003 0.01 0.00
4 60 1.00 0.4 0.033 0.398 0.030 0.003 0.01 0.00
5 75 1.25 0.3 0.025 0.393 0.023 0.003 0.01 0.00
6 90 1.50 0.3 0.025 0.389 0.023 0.003 0.01 0.00
7 105 1.75 0.3 0.025 0.384 0.023 0.003 0.01 0.00
8 120 2.00 0.4 0.033 0.379 0.030 0.003 0.01 0.00
9 135 2.25 0.4 0.033 0.375 0.030 0.003 0.01 0.00
10 150 2.50 0.4 0.033 0.370 0.030 0.003 0.01 0.00
11 165 2.75 0.5 0.042 0.366 0.038 0.004 0.01 0.00
12 180 3.00 0.5 0.042 0.361 0.038 0.004 0.01 0.00
13 195 3.25 0.5 0.042 0.357 0.038 0.004 0.01 0.00
14 210 3.50 0.5 0.042 0.352 0.038 0.004 0.01 0.00
15 225 3.75 0.5 0.042 0.348 0.038 0.004 0.01 0.00
16 240 4.00 0.6 0.050 0.343 0.045 0.005 0.02 0.00
17 255 4.25 0.6 0.050 0.339 0.045 0.005 0.02 0.00
18 270 4.50 0.7 0.059 0.335 0.053 0.006 0.02 0.00
19 285 4.75 0.7 0.059 0.330 0.053 0.006 0.02 0.00
20 300 5.00 0.8 0.067 0.326 0.060 0.007 0.02 0.00
21 315 5.25 0.6 0.050 0.322 0.045 0.005 0.02 0.00
22 330 5.50 0.7 0.059 0.318 0.053 0.006 0.02 0.00
23 345 5.75 0.8 0.067 0.314 0.060 0.007 0.02 0.00
24 360 6.00 0.8 0.067 0.309 0.060 0.007 0.02 0.00
25 375 6.25 0.9 0.075 0.305 0.068 0.008 0.02 0.00
26 390 6.50 0.9 0.075 0.301 0.068 0.008 0.02 0.00
27 405 6.75 1.0 0.084 0.297 0.075 0.008 0.03 0.00
28 420 7.00 1.0 0.084 0.293 0.075 0.008 0.03 0.00
29 435 7.25 1.0 0.084 0.289 0.075 0.008 0.03 0.00
30 450 7.50 1.1 0.092 0.285 0.083 0.009 0.03 0.00
31 465 7.75 1.2 0.100 0.281 0.090 0.010 0.03 0.00
32 480 8.00 1.3 0.109 0.278 0.098 0.011 0.03 0.00
33 495 8.25 1.5 0.125 0.274 0.113 0.013 0.04 0.00
34 510 8.50 1.5 0.125 0.270 0.113 0.013 0.04 0.00
35 525 8.75 1.6 0.134 0.266 0.120 0.013 0.04 0.00
36 540 9.00 1.7 0.142 0.262 0.128 0.014 0.05 0.00
37 555 9.25 1.9 0.159 0.259 0.143 0.016 0.05 0.00
38 570 9.50 2.0 0.167 0.255 0.150 0.017 0.05 0.00
39 585 9.75 2.1 0.176 0.251 0.158 0.018 0.06 0.00
40 600 10.00 2.2 0.184 0.248 0.166 0.018 0.06 0.00
41 615 10.25 1.5 0.125 0.244 0.113 0.013 0.04 0.00
42 630 10.50 1.5 0.125 0.241 0.113 0.013 0.04 0.00
43 645 10.75 2.0 0.167 0.237 0.150 0.017 0.05 0.00
44 660 11.00 2.0 0.167 0.234 0.150 0.017 0.05 0.00
45 675 11.25 1.9 0.159 0.230 0.143 0.016 0.05 0.00
46 690 11.50 1.9 0.159 0.227 0.143 0.016 0.05 0.00
47 705 11.75 1.7 0.142 0.223 0.128 0.014 0.05 0.00
48 720 12.00 1.8 0.150 0.220 0.135 0.015 0.05 0.00
49 735 12.25 2.5 0.209 0.217 0.188 0.021 0.07 0.00
50 750 12.50 2.6 0.217 0.214 0.196 0.004 0.01 0.00
51 765 12.75 2.8 0.234 0.210 0.211 0.024 0.08 4.74
52 780 13.00 2.9 0.242 0.207 0.218 0.035 0.11 37.95
53 795 13.25 3.4 0.284 0.204 0.256 0.080 0.26 167.35
54 810 13.50 3.4 0.284 0.201 0.256 0.083 0.27 176.26
55 825 13.75 2.3 0.192 0.198 0.173 0.019 0.06 0.00
56 840 14.00 2.3 0.192 0.195 0.173 0.019 0.06 0.00
57 855 14.25 2.7 0.226 0.192 0.203 0.034 0.11 33.74
58 870 14.50 2.6 0.217 0.189 0.196 0.028 0.09 18.10
59 885 14.75 2.6 0.217 0.186 0.196 0.031 0.10 26.42
60 900 15.00 2.5 0.209 0.183 0.188 0.026 0.08 10.54
61 915 15.25 2.4 0.201 0.180 0.181 0.020 0.06 0.00
62 930 15.50 2.3 0.192 0.178 0.173 0.015 0.05 0.00
63 945 15.75 1.9 0.159 0.175 0.143 0.016 0.05 0.00
64 960 16.00 1.9 0.159 0.172 0.143 0.016 0.05 0.00
65 975 16.25 0.4 0.033 0.170 0.030 0.003 0.01 0.00
66 990 16.50 0.4 0.033 0.167 0.030 0.003 0.01 0.00
67 1005 16.75 0.3 0.025 0.165 0.023 0.003 0.01 0.00
Time Loss Rate
in/hr

EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
Plate E-2.2

Page 7 of 14 ends

Item 3.

EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
68 1020 17.00 0.3 0.025 0.162 0.023 0.003 0.01 0.00
69 1035 17.25 0.5 0.042 0.160 0.038 0.004 0.01 0.00
70 1050 17.50 0.5 0.042 0.157 0.038 0.004 0.01 0.00
71 1065 17.75 0.5 0.042 0.155 0.038 0.004 0.01 0.00
72 1080 18.00 0.4 0.033 0.153 0.030 0.003 0.01 0.00
73 1095 18.25 0.4 0.033 0.150 0.030 0.003 0.01 0.00
74 1110 18.50 0.4 0.033 0.148 0.030 0.003 0.01 0.00
75 1125 18.75 0.3 0.025 0.146 0.023 0.003 0.01 0.00
76 1140 19.00 0.2 0.017 0.144 0.015 0.002 0.01 0.00
77 1155 19.25 0.3 0.025 0.142 0.023 0.003 0.01 0.00
78 1170 19.50 0.4 0.033 0.140 0.030 0.003 0.01 0.00
79 1185 19.75 0.3 0.025 0.138 0.023 0.003 0.01 0.00
80 1200 20.00 0.2 0.017 0.136 0.015 0.002 0.01 0.00
81 1215 20.25 0.3 0.025 0.134 0.023 0.003 0.01 0.00
82 1230 20.50 0.3 0.025 0.133 0.023 0.003 0.01 0.00
83 1245 20.75 0.3 0.025 0.131 0.023 0.003 0.01 0.00
84 1260 21.00 0.2 0.017 0.129 0.015 0.002 0.01 0.00
85 1275 21.25 0.3 0.025 0.128 0.023 0.003 0.01 0.00
86 1290 21.50 0.2 0.017 0.126 0.015 0.002 0.01 0.00
87 1305 21.75 0.3 0.025 0.125 0.023 0.003 0.01 0.00
88 1320 22.00 0.2 0.017 0.124 0.015 0.002 0.01 0.00
89 1335 22.25 0.3 0.025 0.122 0.023 0.003 0.01 0.00
90 1350 22.50 0.2 0.017 0.121 0.015 0.002 0.01 0.00
91 1365 22.75 0.2 0.017 0.120 0.015 0.002 0.01 0.00
92 1380 23.00 0.2 0.017 0.119 0.015 0.002 0.01 0.00
93 1395 23.25 0.2 0.017 0.118 0.015 0.002 0.01 0.00
94 1410 23.50 0.2 0.017 0.118 0.015 0.002 0.01 0.00
95 1425 23.75 0.2 0.017 0.117 0.015 0.002 0.01 0.00
96 1440 24.00 0.2 0.017 0.117 0.015 0.002 0.01 0.00

EFFECTIVE RAIN & FLOOD VOLUMES SUMMARY
EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 0.24
FLOOD VOLUME (acft) 0.06
FLOOD VOLUME (cuft) 2799.27
REQUIRED STORAGE (acft) 0.01
REQUIRED STORAGE (cuft) 475.11
PEAK FLOW (cfs) 0.27
Plate E-2.2

Page 8 of 14 ends

Item 3.

PROJECT: ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 10 YEAR
JOB # 0
1 BASIN CHARACTERISTICS

CONTOUR DEPTH AREA VOLUME

INCR TOTAL INCR TOTAL INCR TOTAL
(ft) (ft) (sf) (sf) (cuft) (cuft) (acre-ft)
408 0 0 4560 0 0 0.00
409 1 1 910 5470 5015 5015 0.12
410 1 2 960 6430 5950 10965 0.25
411 1 3 1040 7470 6950 17915 0.41
411.5 0.5 3.5 510 7980 3863 21778 0.50

PERCOLATION CALCULATIONS
PERCOLATION RATE 0.67 in/hr 0.07 cfs

MAXWELL IV DRYWELLS
NUMBER USED 0
RATE/DRYWELL 0 cfs
TOTAL DISSIPATED 0 cfs
TOTAL PERCOLATION RATE 0.07 cfs
Basin Characteristics

Page 9 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 JOB # 0
100 YEAR - 3 HOUR STORM EVENT

FLOW VOLUME TOTAL IN PERC TOTAL IN BASIN
UNIT (min) IN IN BASIN OUT BASIN DEPTH
PERIOD (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) (acre-ft) 1 5 0.05 15 15 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
2 10 0.05 15 15 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
3 15 0.04 13 13 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
4 20 0.06 17 17 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
5 25 0.06 17 17 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
6 30 0.07 21 21 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
7 35 0.06 17 17 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
8 40 0.07 21 21 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
9 45 0.07 21 21 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
10 50 0.06 17 17 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
11 55 0.06 18 18 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
12 60 0.07 21 21 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
13 65 0.09 27 27 21 6 408.00 0.00 6
14 70 0.09 27 33 21 12 408.00 12 0.00
15 75 0.09 27 40 21 18 408.00 18 0.00
16 80 0.01 4 23 21 2 408.00 0.00 2
17 85 0.24 73 75 21 53 408.01 53 0.00
18 90 0.28 84 138 21 117 408.02 117 0.00
19 95 0.17 50 167 21 146 408.03 146 0.00
20 100 0.28 84 230 21 209 408.04 209 0.00
21 105 0.51 153 362 21 341 408.07 341 0.01
22 110 0.43 130 471 21 450 408.09 450 0.01
23 115 0.36 107 557 21 536 408.11 536 0.01
24 120 0.40 119 655 21 633 408.13 633 0.01
25 125 0.43 130 764 21 742 408.15 742 0.02
26 130 0.85 256 998 21 977 408.19 977 0.02
27 135 1.16 347 1,324 21 1,303 408.26 1,303 0.03
28 140 0.59 176 1,479 21 1,458 408.29 1,458 0.03
29 145 1.84 553 2,011 21 1,990 408.40 1,990 0.05
30 150 2.03 610 2,600 21 2,579 408.51 2,579 0.06
31 155 2.38 713 3,292 21 3,270 408.65 3,270 0.08
32 160 1.50 450 3,721 21 3,699 408.74 3,699 0.08
33 165 0.01 4 3,704 21 3,683 408.73 3,683 0.08
34 170 0.07 21 3,703 21 3,682 408.73 3,682 0.08
35 175 0.07 21 3,703 21 3,681 408.73 3,681 0.08
36 180 0.02 7 3,688 21 3,667 408.73 3,667 0.08

BALANCE IN
BASIN
TIME
Basin Depth Analysis

Page 10 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 JOB # 0
100 YEAR - 6 HOUR STORM EVENT

FLOW VOLUME TOTAL IN PERC TOTAL IN BASIN
UNIT (min) IN IN BASIN OUT BASIN DEPTH
PERIOD (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) (acre-ft) 1 5 0.02 7 7 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
2 10 0.03 9 9 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
3 15 0.03 9 9 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
4 20 0.03 9 9 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
5 25 0.03 9 9 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
6 30 0.03 10 10 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
7 35 0.03 10 10 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
8 40 0.03 10 10 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
9 45 0.03 10 10 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
10 50 0.03 10 10 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
11 55 0.03 10 10 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
12 60 0.04 12 12 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
13 65 0.04 12 12 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
14 70 0.04 12 12 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
15 75 0.04 12 12 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
16 80 0.04 12 12 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
17 85 0.04 12 12 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
18 90 0.04 12 12 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
19 95 0.04 12 12 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
20 100 0.04 12 12 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
21 105 0.04 12 12 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
22 110 0.04 12 12 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
23 115 0.04 12 12 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
24 120 0.04 13 13 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
25 125 0.04 12 12 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
26 130 0.04 13 13 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
27 135 0.04 13 13 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
28 140 0.04 13 13 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
29 145 0.04 13 13 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
30 150 0.04 13 13 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
31 155 0.04 13 13 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
32 160 0.04 13 13 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
33 165 0.05 15 15 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
34 170 0.05 15 15 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
35 175 0.05 15 15 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
36 180 0.05 15 15 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
37 185 0.05 15 15 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
38 190 0.05 16 16 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
39 195 0.05 16 16 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
40 200 0.05 16 16 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
41 205 0.06 18 18 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
42 210 0.06 19 19 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
43 215 0.07 21 21 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
44 220 0.07 21 21 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
45 225 0.07 22 22 21 1 408.00 0.00 1
46 230 0.07 22 23 21 2 408.00 0.00 2
47 235 0.05 14 16 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
48 240 0.05 14 14 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
49 245 0.10 29 29 21 7 408.00 0.00 7
50 250 0.14 43 51 21 30 408.01 30 0.00
51 255 0.19 58 88 21 67 408.01 67 0.00
52 260 0.24 73 140 21 119 408.02 119 0.00
53 265 0.29 88 207 21 185 408.04 185 0.00
54 270 0.29 88 273 21 252 408.05 252 0.01
55 275 0.34 103 355 21 334 408.07 334 0.01

TIME BALANCE IN
BASIN
Basin Depth Analysis

Page 11 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 JOB # 0
100 YEAR - 6 HOUR STORM EVENT

FLOW VOLUME TOTAL IN PERC TOTAL IN BASIN
UNIT (min) IN IN BASIN OUT BASIN DEPTH
PERIOD (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) (acre-ft)

TIME BALANCE IN
BASIN
56 280 0.39 118 452 21 430 408.09 430 0.01
57 285 0.44 133 563 21 542 408.11 542 0.01
58 290 0.44 133 674 21 653 408.13 653 0.01
59 295 0.49 147 800 21 779 408.16 779 0.02
60 300 0.54 162 942 21 920 408.18 920 0.02
61 305 0.79 237 1,157 21 1,136 408.23 1,136 0.03
62 310 1.04 311 1,447 21 1,425 408.28 1,425 0.03
63 315 1.19 356 1,781 21 1,760 408.35 1,760 0.04
64 320 1.33 400 2,160 21 2,139 408.43 2,139 0.05
65 325 1.58 474 2,613 21 2,592 408.52 2,592 0.06
66 330 2.03 608 3,200 21 3,179 408.63 3,179 0.07
67 335 0.19 58 3,237 21 3,216 408.64 3,216 0.07
68 340 0.04 13 3,229 21 3,208 408.64 3,208 0.07
69 345 0.03 9 3,217 21 3,196 408.64 3,196 0.07
70 350 0.02 7 3,203 21 3,182 408.63 3,182 0.07
71 355 0.01 4 3,186 21 3,165 408.63 3,165 0.07
72 360 0.01 3 3,168 21 3,147 408.63 3,147 0.07
Basin Depth Analysis

Page 12 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 JOB # 0
100 YEAR - 24 HOUR STORM EVENT

FLOW VOLUME TOTAL IN PERC TOTAL IN BASIN
UNIT (min) IN IN BASIN OUT BASIN DEPTH
PERIOD (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) (acre-ft) 1 15 0.01 5 5 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
2 30 0.01 7 7 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
3 45 0.01 7 7 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
4 60 0.01 10 10 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
5 75 0.01 7 7 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
6 90 0.01 7 7 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
7 105 0.01 7 7 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
8 120 0.01 10 10 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
9 135 0.01 10 10 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
10 150 0.01 10 10 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
11 165 0.01 12 12 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
12 180 0.01 12 12 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
13 195 0.01 12 12 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
14 210 0.01 12 12 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
15 225 0.01 12 12 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
16 240 0.02 14 14 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
17 255 0.02 14 14 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
18 270 0.02 17 17 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
19 285 0.02 17 17 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
20 300 0.02 19 19 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
21 315 0.02 14 14 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
22 330 0.02 17 17 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
23 345 0.02 19 19 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
24 360 0.02 19 19 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
25 375 0.02 22 22 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
26 390 0.02 22 22 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
27 405 0.03 24 24 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
28 420 0.03 24 24 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
29 435 0.03 24 24 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
30 450 0.03 26 26 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
31 465 0.03 29 29 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
32 480 0.03 31 31 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
33 495 0.04 36 36 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
34 510 0.04 36 36 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
35 525 0.04 39 39 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
36 540 0.05 41 41 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
37 555 0.05 46 46 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
38 570 0.05 48 48 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
39 585 0.06 51 51 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
40 600 0.06 53 53 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
41 615 0.04 36 36 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
42 630 0.04 36 36 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
43 645 0.05 48 48 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
44 660 0.05 48 48 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
45 675 0.05 46 46 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
46 690 0.05 46 46 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
47 705 0.05 41 41 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
48 720 0.05 43 43 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
49 735 0.07 60 60 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
50 750 0.01 11 11 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
51 765 0.08 68 68 64 5 408.00 5 0.00
52 780 0.11 102 106 64 43 408.01 43 0.00
53 795 0.26 231 274 64 210 408.04 210 0.00
54 810 0.27 240 450 64 386 408.08 386 0.01
55 825 0.06 55 442 64 378 408.08 378 0.01
56 840 0.06 55 433 64 370 408.07 370 0.01
57 855 0.11 97 467 64 403 408.08 403 0.01
58 870 0.09 82 485 64 422 408.08 422 0.01

TIME BALANCE IN
BASIN
Basin Depth Analysis

Page 13 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 JOB # 0
100 YEAR - 24 HOUR STORM EVENT

FLOW VOLUME TOTAL IN PERC TOTAL IN BASIN
UNIT (min) IN IN BASIN OUT BASIN DEPTH
PERIOD (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) (acre-ft)

TIME BALANCE IN
BASIN
59 885 0.10 90 512 64 448 408.09 448 0.01
60 900 0.08 74 522 64 459 408.09 459 0.01
61 915 0.06 58 517 64 453 408.09 453 0.01
62 930 0.05 42 495 64 432 408.09 432 0.01
63 945 0.05 46 477 64 414 408.08 414 0.01
64 960 0.05 46 459 64 396 408.08 396 0.01
65 975 0.01 10 405 64 342 408.07 342 0.01
66 990 0.01 10 351 64 288 408.06 288 0.01
67 1005 0.01 7 295 64 231 408.05 231 0.01
68 1020 0.01 7 238 64 175 408.03 175 0.00
69 1035 0.01 12 187 64 123 408.02 123 0.00
70 1050 0.01 12 135 64 72 408.01 72 0.00
71 1065 0.01 12 84 64 20 408.00 20 0.00
72 1080 0.01 10 30 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
73 1095 0.01 10 10 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
74 1110 0.01 10 10 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
75 1125 0.01 7 7 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
76 1140 0.01 5 5 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
77 1155 0.01 7 7 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
78 1170 0.01 10 10 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
79 1185 0.01 7 7 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
80 1200 0.01 5 5 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
81 1215 0.01 7 7 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
82 1230 0.01 7 7 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
83 1245 0.01 7 7 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
84 1260 0.01 5 5 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
85 1275 0.01 7 7 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
86 1290 0.01 5 5 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
87 1305 0.01 7 7 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
88 1320 0.01 5 5 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
89 1335 0.01 7 7 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
90 1350 0.01 5 5 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
91 1365 0.01 5 5 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
92 1380 0.01 5 5 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
93 1395 0.01 5 5 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
94 1410 0.01 5 5 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
95 1425 0.01 5 5 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
96 1440 0.01 5 5 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
Basin Depth Analysis

Page 14 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
AB C D

RCFC&WCD SHORTCUT UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD

DATA INPUT SHEET
WORKSHEET PREPARED BY: JAMES R. BAZUA, P.E.

PROJECT NAME ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 100 YEAR
JOB #
CONCENTRATION POINT DESIGNATION 1
AREA DESIGNATION 15000 SF BUILDING

TRIBUTARY AREAS ACRES

COMMERCIAL
PAVING/HARDSCAPE 2.37
SF - 1 ACRE
SF - 1/2 ACRE
SF - 1/4 ACRE

MF - CONDOMINIUMS

MF - APARTMENTS

MOBILE HOME PARK

LANDSCAPING
RETENTION BASIN 0.83

GOLF COURSE

POINT RAIN
3-HOUR 2.04
6-HOUR 2.73
24-HOUR 4.28
BASIN CHARACTERISTICS: ELEVATION AREA
408 4560
409 5470
410 6430
411 7470
411.5 7980
PERCOLATION RATE (in/hr) 0.67

DRYWELL DATA

NUMBER USED
PERCOLATION RATE (cfs)
1074
Item 3.

RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD PROJECT: ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 100 YEAR BASIC DATA CALCULATION FORM JOB # 0
SHORTCUT METHOD BY ES R. BAZUA, P.E. DATE 2/2/2025
[1] SOURCE
[2] FREQUENCY-YEARS 100
[3] DURATION:
[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

POINT AREA AVERAGE POINT AREA AVERAGE POINT AREA AVERAGE

RAIN POINT RAIN POINT RAIN POINT

INCHES RAIN INCHES RAIN INCHES RAIN
(Plate E-5.2) INCHES (Plate E-5.4) INCHES (Plate E-5.6) INCHES

2.04 3.200 1.00 2.04 2.73 3.200 1.00 2.73 4.28 3.200 1.00 4.28

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SUM [5] 3.2 SUM [7] 2.04 SUM [9] 3.20 SUM [11] 2.73 SUM [13] 3.20 SUM [15] 4.28 [16] AREA ADJ FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000
[17] ADJ AVG POINT RAIN 2.04 2.73 4.28
DURATION 3-HOUR 6-HOUR 24-HOUR
EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 1.52 1.71 1.81
FLOOD VOLUME (cu-ft) 17,694 19,871 21,042
(acre-ft) 0.41 0.46 0.48
REQUIRED STORAGE (cu-ft) 16,791 18,216 17,364
(acre-ft) 0.39 0.42 0.40
PEAK FLOW (cfs) 5.87 5.32 1.38
MAXIMUM WSEL (ft) 410.84 411.04 410.92

0.091

65.00 0.000
[12] S^0.5
[13] L*LCA/S^0.5
[14] AVERAGE MANNINGS 'N'
[10] H-FEET 1
[11] S-FEET/MILE

PHYSICAL DATA

RAINFALL DATA
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT 1
15000 SF BUILDING

3.200
480

0.012
412.5
411.5

0.02 1.4

1.4 2.8

11.0 3.32

0.07 STORM EVENT SUMMARY
[17] 100% OF LAG-MINUTES
[18] 200% OF LAG-MINUTES
[24] TOTAL PERCOLATION RATE (cfs)
[19] UNIT TIME-MINUTES (100%-200% OF LAG)
3-HOURS
Plate E-2.1

Page 2 of 14 ends

Item 3.

RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD PROJECT ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 100 YEAR CONCENTRATION POINT: 1BY MES R. BAZUA, P.E. DATE 2/2/2025

ADJUSTED LOSS RATE

SOIL RI PERVIOUS DECIMAL ADJUSTED AREA AVERAGE

GROUP NUMBER AREA PERCENT INFILTRATION ADJUSTED

INFILTRATION OF AREA RATE INFILTRATION

RATE IMPERVIOUS RATE
(in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr)
[Plate C-1] [Plate E-6.1] [Plate E-6.2] [Plate E-6.3]
B 56 0.52 90% 0.10 0.00 0.000 0.0000
B 56 0.52 100% 0.05 2.37 0.741 0.0385
B 56 0.52 20% 0.43 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.52 40% 0.33 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.52 50% 0.29 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.52 65% 0.22 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.52 80% 0.15 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.52 75% 0.17 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.52 0% 0.52 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.52 0% 0.52 0.83 0.259 0.1349B 56 0.52 0% 0.52 0.00 0.000 0.0000 D 93 0.95 90% 0.18 0.00 0.000 0.0000

0.00 0.000 0.0000

0.00 0.000 0.0000
SUM 3.2 SUM 0.1734
VARIABLE LOSS RATE CURVE (24-HOUR STORM ONLY)Fm= 0.08669375C= 0.00161Ft=C(24-(T/60))^1.55 = 0.00161 0.09 in/hr LOW LOSS RATE (80-90 PERCENT) = 90%Where:T=Time in minutes. To get an average value for each unit time period, Use T=1/2 the unit time for the first time period,T=1 1/2 unit time for the second period, etc. (24-(T/60))^1.55 +

LAND USE

COMMERCIAL

PAVING/HARDSCAPE
SF - 1 ACRE
SF - 1/2 ACRESF - 1/4 ACRE
MF - COND0MINIUMS

MF - APARTMENTS

MOBILE HOME PARKS

LANDSCAPING

RETENTION BASINS

GOLF COURSE

MOUNTAINOUS
Plate E-2.1

Page 3 of 14 ends

Item 3.

RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD PROJECT: ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 100 YEAR 100 YEAR - 3 HOUR STORM EVENT CONCENTRATION POINT: 1
BY: MES R. BAZUA, DATE 2/2/2025
DRAINAGE AREA-ACRES 3.20
UNIT TIME-MINUTES 5
LAG TIME - MINUTES 1.38
UNIT TIME-PERCENT OF LAG 362.1
TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN-INCHES 2.04
CONSTANT LOSS RATE-in/hr 0.17
LOW LOSS RATE - PERCENT 90% TOTAL PERCOLATION RATE (cfs) 0.07 cfs Unit Time Pattern Storm Effective Flood Required
Period Minutes Hours Percent Rain Rain Hydrograph Storage in/hr Flow
(Plate E-5.9) Max Low in/hr cfs cf
1 5 0.08 1.3 0.318 0.17 0.29 0.14 0.46 117.84
2 10 0.17 1.3 0.318 0.17 0.29 0.14 0.46 117.84
3 15 0.25 1.1 0.269 0.17 0.24 0.10 0.31 70.84
4 20 0.33 1.5 0.367 0.17 0.33 0.19 0.62 164.84
5 25 0.42 1.5 0.367 0.17 0.33 0.19 0.62 164.84
6 30 0.50 1.8 0.441 0.17 0.40 0.27 0.86 235.35
7 35 0.58 1.5 0.367 0.17 0.33 0.19 0.62 164.84
8 40 0.67 1.8 0.441 0.17 0.40 0.27 0.86 235.35
9 45 0.75 1.8 0.441 0.17 0.40 0.27 0.86 235.35
10 50 0.83 1.5 0.367 0.17 0.33 0.19 0.62 164.84
11 55 0.92 1.6 0.392 0.17 0.35 0.22 0.70 188.34
12 60 1.00 1.8 0.441 0.17 0.40 0.27 0.86 235.35
13 65 1.08 2.2 0.539 0.17 0.48 0.37 1.17 329.35
14 70 1.17 2.2 0.539 0.17 0.48 0.37 1.17 329.35
15 75 1.25 2.2 0.539 0.17 0.48 0.37 1.17 329.35
16 80 1.33 2.0 0.490 0.17 0.44 0.32 1.01 282.35
17 85 1.42 2.6 0.636 0.17 0.57 0.46 1.48 423.35
18 90 1.50 2.7 0.661 0.17 0.59 0.49 1.56 446.85
19 95 1.58 2.4 0.588 0.17 0.53 0.41 1.33 376.35
20 100 1.67 2.7 0.661 0.17 0.59 0.49 1.56 446.85
21 105 1.75 3.3 0.808 0.17 0.73 0.63 2.03 587.86
22 110 1.83 3.1 0.759 0.17 0.68 0.59 1.87 540.86
23 115 1.92 2.9 0.710 0.17 0.64 0.54 1.72 493.85
24 120 2.00 3.0 0.734 0.17 0.66 0.56 1.80 517.36
25 125 2.08 3.1 0.759 0.17 0.68 0.59 1.87 540.86
26 130 2.17 4.2 1.028 0.17 0.93 0.85 2.74 799.36
27 135 2.25 5.0 1.224 0.17 1.10 1.05 3.36 987.37
28 140 2.33 3.5 0.857 0.17 0.77 0.68 2.19 634.86
29 145 2.42 6.8 1.665 0.17 1.50 1.49 4.77 1410.39
30 150 2.50 7.3 1.787 0.17 1.61 1.61 5.16 1527.89
31 155 2.58 8.2 2.007 0.17 1.81 1.83 5.87 1739.40
32 160 2.67 5.9 1.444 0.17 1.30 1.27 4.07 1198.88
33 165 2.75 2.0 0.490 0.17 0.44 0.32 1.01 282.35
34 170 2.83 1.8 0.441 0.17 0.40 0.27 0.86 235.35
35 175 2.92 1.8 0.441 0.17 0.40 0.27 0.86 235.35
36 180 3.00 0.6 0.147 0.17 0.13 0.01 0.05 0.00

EFFECTIVE RAIN & FLOOD VOLUMES SUMMARY
EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 1.52
FLOOD VOLUME (acft) 0.41
FLOOD VOLUME (cuft) 17694.38
REQUIRED STORAGE (acft) 0.39
REQUIRED STORAGE (cuft) 16791.39
PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs) 5.87
Loss Rate
in/hr
Time

EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
Plate E-2.2

Page 4 of 14 ends

Item 3.

RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD PROJECT: ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 100 YEA 100 YEAR - 6 HOUR STORM EVENT CONCENTRATION POINT: 1
BY: JAMES R. BAZ DATE: 2/2/2025
DRAINAGE AREA-ACRES 3.20
UNIT TIME-MINUTES 5
LAG TIME - MINUTES 1.38
UNIT TIME-PERCENT OF LAG 362.1
TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN-INCHES 2.73
CONSTANT LOSS RATE-in/hr 0.173
LOW LOSS RATE - PERCENT 90% TOTAL PERCOLATION RATE (cfs) 0.07 cfs Unit Time Pattern Storm Effective Flood Required
Period Minutes Hours Percent Rain Rain Hydrograph Storage in/hr Flow
(Plate E-5.9) Max Low in/hr cfs cf
1 5 0.08 0.5 0.164 0.17 0.15 0.02 0.05 0.00
2 10 0.17 0.6 0.197 0.17 0.18 0.02 0.07 1.03
3 15 0.25 0.6 0.197 0.17 0.18 0.02 0.07 1.03
4 20 0.33 0.6 0.197 0.17 0.18 0.02 0.07 1.03
5 25 0.42 0.6 0.197 0.17 0.18 0.02 0.07 1.03
6 30 0.50 0.7 0.229 0.17 0.21 0.06 0.18 32.48
7 35 0.58 0.7 0.229 0.17 0.21 0.06 0.18 32.48
8 40 0.67 0.7 0.229 0.17 0.21 0.06 0.18 32.48
9 45 0.75 0.7 0.229 0.17 0.21 0.06 0.18 32.48
10 50 0.83 0.7 0.229 0.17 0.21 0.06 0.18 32.48
11 55 0.92 0.7 0.229 0.17 0.21 0.06 0.18 32.48
12 60 1.00 0.8 0.262 0.17 0.24 0.09 0.28 63.93
13 65 1.08 0.8 0.262 0.17 0.24 0.09 0.28 63.93
14 70 1.17 0.8 0.262 0.17 0.24 0.09 0.28 63.93
15 75 1.25 0.8 0.262 0.17 0.24 0.09 0.28 63.93
16 80 1.33 0.8 0.262 0.17 0.24 0.09 0.28 63.93
17 85 1.42 0.8 0.262 0.17 0.24 0.09 0.28 63.93
18 90 1.50 0.8 0.262 0.17 0.24 0.09 0.28 63.93
19 95 1.58 0.8 0.262 0.17 0.24 0.09 0.28 63.93
20 100 1.67 0.8 0.262 0.17 0.24 0.09 0.28 63.93
21 105 1.75 0.8 0.262 0.17 0.24 0.09 0.28 63.93
22 110 1.83 0.8 0.262 0.17 0.24 0.09 0.28 63.93
23 115 1.92 0.8 0.262 0.17 0.24 0.09 0.28 63.93
24 120 2.00 0.9 0.295 0.17 0.27 0.12 0.39 95.38
25 125 2.08 0.8 0.262 0.17 0.24 0.09 0.28 63.93
26 130 2.17 0.9 0.295 0.17 0.27 0.12 0.39 95.38
27 135 2.25 0.9 0.295 0.17 0.27 0.12 0.39 95.38
28 140 2.33 0.9 0.295 0.17 0.27 0.12 0.39 95.38
29 145 2.42 0.9 0.295 0.17 0.27 0.12 0.39 95.38
30 150 2.50 0.9 0.295 0.17 0.27 0.12 0.39 95.38
31 155 2.58 0.9 0.295 0.17 0.27 0.12 0.39 95.38
32 160 2.67 0.9 0.295 0.17 0.27 0.12 0.39 95.38
33 165 2.75 1.0 0.328 0.17 0.29 0.15 0.49 126.83
34 170 2.83 1.0 0.328 0.17 0.29 0.15 0.49 126.83
35 175 2.92 1.0 0.328 0.17 0.29 0.15 0.49 126.83
36 180 3.00 1.0 0.328 0.17 0.29 0.15 0.49 126.83
37 185 3.08 1.0 0.328 0.17 0.29 0.15 0.49 126.83
38 190 3.17 1.1 0.360 0.17 0.32 0.19 0.60 158.28
39 195 3.25 1.1 0.360 0.17 0.32 0.19 0.60 158.28
40 200 3.33 1.1 0.360 0.17 0.32 0.19 0.60 158.28
41 205 3.42 1.2 0.393 0.17 0.35 0.22 0.70 189.73
42 210 3.50 1.3 0.426 0.17 0.38 0.25 0.81 221.18
43 215 3.58 1.4 0.459 0.17 0.41 0.29 0.91 252.63
44 220 3.67 1.4 0.459 0.17 0.41 0.29 0.91 252.63
45 225 3.75 1.5 0.491 0.17 0.44 0.32 1.02 284.08
46 230 3.83 1.5 0.491 0.17 0.44 0.32 1.02 284.08
47 235 3.92 1.6 0.524 0.17 0.47 0.35 1.12 315.52
48 240 4.00 1.6 0.524 0.17 0.47 0.35 1.12 315.52
49 245 4.08 1.7 0.557 0.17 0.50 0.38 1.23 346.97
50 250 4.17 1.8 0.590 0.17 0.53 0.42 1.33 378.42
51 255 4.25 1.9 0.622 0.17 0.56 0.45 1.44 409.87
52 260 4.33 2.0 0.655 0.17 0.59 0.48 1.54 441.32
53 265 4.42 2.1 0.688 0.17 0.62 0.51 1.65 472.77
54 270 4.50 2.1 0.688 0.17 0.62 0.51 1.65 472.77
55 275 4.58 2.2 0.721 0.17 0.65 0.55 1.75 504.22
56 280 4.67 2.3 0.753 0.17 0.68 0.58 1.86 535.67

EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
Time Loss Rate
in/hr
Plate E-2.2

Page 5 of 14 ends

Item 3.

EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
Time Loss Rate
in/hr
57 285 4.75 2.4 0.786 0.17 0.71 0.61 1.96 567.12
58 290 4.83 2.4 0.786 0.17 0.71 0.61 1.96 567.12
59 295 4.92 2.5 0.819 0.17 0.74 0.65 2.07 598.57
60 300 5.00 2.6 0.852 0.17 0.77 0.68 2.17 630.02
61 305 5.08 3.1 1.016 0.17 0.91 0.84 2.69 787.27
62 310 5.17 3.6 1.179 0.17 1.06 1.01 3.22 944.52
63 315 5.25 3.9 1.278 0.17 1.15 1.10 3.53 1038.87
64 320 5.33 4.2 1.376 0.17 1.24 1.20 3.85 1133.21
65 325 5.42 4.7 1.540 0.17 1.39 1.37 4.37 1290.46
66 330 5.50 5.6 1.835 0.17 1.65 1.66 5.32 1573.51
67 335 5.58 1.9 0.622 0.17 0.56 0.45 1.44 409.87
68 340 5.67 0.9 0.295 0.17 0.27 0.12 0.39 95.38
69 345 5.75 0.6 0.197 0.17 0.18 0.02 0.07 1.03
70 350 5.83 0.5 0.164 0.17 0.15 0.02 0.05 0.00
71 355 5.92 0.3 0.098 0.17 0.09 0.01 0.03 0.00
72 360 6.00 0.2 0.066 0.17 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.00

EFFECTIVE RAIN & FLOOD VOLUMES SUMMARY
EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 1.71
FLOOD VOLUME (acft) 0.46
FLOOD VOLUME (cuft) 19870.59
REQUIRED STORAGE (acft) 0.42
REQUIRED STORAGE (cuft) 18216.39
PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs) 5.32
Plate E-2.2

Page 6 of 14 ends

Item 3.

RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD PROJECT: ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 100 YEAR 100 YEAR - 24 HOUR STORM EVENT CONCENTRATION POINT: 1
BY: JAMES R. BAZ DATE: 2/2/2025
DRAINAGE AREA-ACRES 3.200 CONSTANT LOSS RATE-in/hr n/a
UNIT TIME-MINUTES 15 VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG) in/hr 0.1734 LAG TIME - MINUTES 1.38 MINIMUM LOSS RATE (for var. loss) - in/hr 0.087 UNIT TIME-PERCENT OF LAG 1086.4 LOW LOSS RATE - DECIMAL 0.90 TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN-INCHES 4.28 C 0.00161
PERCOLATION RATE (cfs) 0.07
Unit Time Pattern Storm Effective Flood Required
Period Minutes Hours Percent Rain Rain Hydrograph Storage in/hr Flow
(Plate E-5.9) Max Low in/hr cfs cf
1 15 0.25 0.2 0.034 0.306 0.031 0.003 0.01 0.00
2 30 0.50 0.3 0.051 0.303 0.046 0.005 0.02 0.00
3 45 0.75 0.3 0.051 0.299 0.046 0.005 0.02 0.00
4 60 1.00 0.4 0.068 0.296 0.062 0.007 0.02 0.00
5 75 1.25 0.3 0.051 0.292 0.046 0.005 0.02 0.00
6 90 1.50 0.3 0.051 0.289 0.046 0.005 0.02 0.00
7 105 1.75 0.3 0.051 0.285 0.046 0.005 0.02 0.00
8 120 2.00 0.4 0.068 0.282 0.062 0.007 0.02 0.00
9 135 2.25 0.4 0.068 0.278 0.062 0.007 0.02 0.00
10 150 2.50 0.4 0.068 0.275 0.062 0.007 0.02 0.00
11 165 2.75 0.5 0.086 0.272 0.077 0.009 0.03 0.00
12 180 3.00 0.5 0.086 0.268 0.077 0.009 0.03 0.00
13 195 3.25 0.5 0.086 0.265 0.077 0.009 0.03 0.00
14 210 3.50 0.5 0.086 0.262 0.077 0.009 0.03 0.00
15 225 3.75 0.5 0.086 0.258 0.077 0.009 0.03 0.00
16 240 4.00 0.6 0.103 0.255 0.092 0.010 0.03 0.00
17 255 4.25 0.6 0.103 0.252 0.092 0.010 0.03 0.00
18 270 4.50 0.7 0.120 0.249 0.108 0.012 0.04 0.00
19 285 4.75 0.7 0.120 0.245 0.108 0.012 0.04 0.00
20 300 5.00 0.8 0.137 0.242 0.123 0.014 0.04 0.00
21 315 5.25 0.6 0.103 0.239 0.092 0.010 0.03 0.00
22 330 5.50 0.7 0.120 0.236 0.108 0.012 0.04 0.00
23 345 5.75 0.8 0.137 0.233 0.123 0.014 0.04 0.00
24 360 6.00 0.8 0.137 0.230 0.123 0.014 0.04 0.00
25 375 6.25 0.9 0.154 0.227 0.139 0.015 0.05 0.00
26 390 6.50 0.9 0.154 0.224 0.139 0.015 0.05 0.00
27 405 6.75 1.0 0.171 0.221 0.154 0.017 0.05 0.00
28 420 7.00 1.0 0.171 0.218 0.154 0.017 0.05 0.00
29 435 7.25 1.0 0.171 0.215 0.154 0.017 0.05 0.00
30 450 7.50 1.1 0.188 0.212 0.169 0.019 0.06 0.00
31 465 7.75 1.2 0.205 0.209 0.185 0.021 0.07 0.00
32 480 8.00 1.3 0.223 0.206 0.200 0.016 0.05 0.00
33 495 8.25 1.5 0.257 0.203 0.231 0.054 0.17 90.45
34 510 8.50 1.5 0.257 0.200 0.231 0.056 0.18 98.61
35 525 8.75 1.6 0.274 0.198 0.247 0.076 0.24 156.00
36 540 9.00 1.7 0.291 0.195 0.262 0.096 0.31 213.33
37 555 9.25 1.9 0.325 0.192 0.293 0.133 0.43 319.88
38 570 9.50 2.0 0.342 0.189 0.308 0.153 0.49 377.06
39 585 9.75 2.1 0.360 0.187 0.324 0.173 0.55 434.17
40 600 10.00 2.2 0.377 0.184 0.339 0.193 0.62 491.19
41 615 10.25 1.5 0.257 0.181 0.231 0.075 0.24 153.71
42 630 10.50 1.5 0.257 0.179 0.231 0.078 0.25 161.28
43 645 10.75 2.0 0.342 0.176 0.308 0.166 0.53 415.30
44 660 11.00 2.0 0.342 0.174 0.308 0.169 0.54 422.73
45 675 11.25 1.9 0.325 0.171 0.293 0.154 0.49 380.76
46 690 11.50 1.9 0.325 0.168 0.293 0.157 0.50 388.03
47 705 11.75 1.7 0.291 0.166 0.262 0.125 0.40 296.61
48 720 12.00 1.8 0.308 0.163 0.277 0.145 0.46 353.02
49 735 12.25 2.5 0.428 0.161 0.385 0.267 0.85 705.19
50 750 12.50 2.6 0.445 0.159 0.401 0.286 0.92 761.44
51 765 12.75 2.8 0.479 0.156 0.431 0.323 1.03 866.91
52 780 13.00 2.9 0.496 0.154 0.447 0.343 1.10 923.00
53 795 13.25 3.4 0.582 0.152 0.524 0.431 1.38 1176.23
54 810 13.50 3.4 0.582 0.149 0.524 0.433 1.38 1182.85
55 825 13.75 2.3 0.394 0.147 0.354 0.247 0.79 647.01
56 840 14.00 2.3 0.394 0.145 0.354 0.249 0.80 653.46
57 855 14.25 2.7 0.462 0.143 0.416 0.320 1.02 857.04
58 870 14.50 2.6 0.445 0.140 0.401 0.305 0.98 814.00
59 885 14.75 2.6 0.445 0.138 0.401 0.307 0.98 820.18
60 900 15.00 2.5 0.428 0.136 0.385 0.292 0.93 776.97
61 915 15.25 2.4 0.411 0.134 0.370 0.277 0.89 733.66
62 930 15.50 2.3 0.394 0.132 0.354 0.262 0.84 690.26
63 945 15.75 1.9 0.325 0.130 0.293 0.195 0.63 498.85
64 960 16.00 1.9 0.325 0.128 0.293 0.197 0.63 504.57
65 975 16.25 0.4 0.068 0.126 0.062 0.007 0.02 0.00
66 990 16.50 0.4 0.068 0.124 0.062 0.007 0.02 0.00
67 1005 16.75 0.3 0.051 0.122 0.046 0.005 0.02 0.00
Time Loss Rate
in/hr

EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
Plate E-2.2

Page 7 of 14 ends

Item 3.

EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
68 1020 17.00 0.3 0.051 0.120 0.046 0.005 0.02 0.00
69 1035 17.25 0.5 0.086 0.119 0.077 0.009 0.03 0.00
70 1050 17.50 0.5 0.086 0.117 0.077 0.009 0.03 0.00
71 1065 17.75 0.5 0.086 0.115 0.077 0.009 0.03 0.00
72 1080 18.00 0.4 0.068 0.113 0.062 0.007 0.02 0.00
73 1095 18.25 0.4 0.068 0.112 0.062 0.007 0.02 0.00
74 1110 18.50 0.4 0.068 0.110 0.062 0.007 0.02 0.00
75 1125 18.75 0.3 0.051 0.108 0.046 0.005 0.02 0.00
76 1140 19.00 0.2 0.034 0.107 0.031 0.003 0.01 0.00
77 1155 19.25 0.3 0.051 0.105 0.046 0.005 0.02 0.00
78 1170 19.50 0.4 0.068 0.104 0.062 0.007 0.02 0.00
79 1185 19.75 0.3 0.051 0.103 0.046 0.005 0.02 0.00
80 1200 20.00 0.2 0.034 0.101 0.031 0.003 0.01 0.00
81 1215 20.25 0.3 0.051 0.100 0.046 0.005 0.02 0.00
82 1230 20.50 0.3 0.051 0.099 0.046 0.005 0.02 0.00
83 1245 20.75 0.3 0.051 0.097 0.046 0.005 0.02 0.00
84 1260 21.00 0.2 0.034 0.096 0.031 0.003 0.01 0.00
85 1275 21.25 0.3 0.051 0.095 0.046 0.005 0.02 0.00
86 1290 21.50 0.2 0.034 0.094 0.031 0.003 0.01 0.00
87 1305 21.75 0.3 0.051 0.093 0.046 0.005 0.02 0.00
88 1320 22.00 0.2 0.034 0.092 0.031 0.003 0.01 0.00
89 1335 22.25 0.3 0.051 0.091 0.046 0.005 0.02 0.00
90 1350 22.50 0.2 0.034 0.090 0.031 0.003 0.01 0.00
91 1365 22.75 0.2 0.034 0.089 0.031 0.003 0.01 0.00
92 1380 23.00 0.2 0.034 0.089 0.031 0.003 0.01 0.00
93 1395 23.25 0.2 0.034 0.088 0.031 0.003 0.01 0.00
94 1410 23.50 0.2 0.034 0.087 0.031 0.003 0.01 0.00
95 1425 23.75 0.2 0.034 0.087 0.031 0.003 0.01 0.00
96 1440 24.00 0.2 0.034 0.087 0.031 0.003 0.01 0.00

EFFECTIVE RAIN & FLOOD VOLUMES SUMMARY
EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 1.81
FLOOD VOLUME (acft) 0.48
FLOOD VOLUME (cuft) 21041.77
REQUIRED STORAGE (acft) 0.40
REQUIRED STORAGE (cuft) 17363.74
PEAK FLOW (cfs) 1.38
Plate E-2.2

Page 8 of 14 ends

Item 3.

PROJECT: ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 100 YEAR
JOB # 0
1 BASIN CHARACTERISTICS

CONTOUR DEPTH AREA VOLUME

PERCOLATION CALCULATIONS
PERCOLATION RATE 0.67 in/hr 0.07 cfs

MAXWELL IV DRYWELLS
NUMBER USED 0
RATE/DRYWELL 0 cfs
TOTAL DISSIPATED 0 cfs
TOTAL PERCOLATION RATE 0.07 cfs
Basin Characteristics

Page 9 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 JOB # 0
100 YEAR - 3 HOUR STORM EVENT

FLOW VOLUME TOTAL IN PERC TOTAL IN BASIN
UNIT (min) IN IN BASIN OUT BASIN DEPTH
PERIOD (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) (acre-ft) 1 5 0.46 139 139 21 118 408.02 118 0.00
2 10 0.46 139 257 21 236 408.05 236 0.01
3 15 0.31 92 328 21 307 408.06 307 0.01
4 20 0.62 186 493 21 471 408.09 471 0.01
5 25 0.62 186 657 21 636 408.13 636 0.01
6 30 0.86 257 893 21 872 408.17 872 0.02
7 35 0.62 186 1,058 21 1,036 408.21 1,036 0.02
8 40 0.86 257 1,293 21 1,272 408.25 1,272 0.03
9 45 0.86 257 1,528 21 1,507 408.30 1,507 0.03
10 50 0.62 186 1,693 21 1,672 408.33 1,672 0.04
11 55 0.70 210 1,881 21 1,860 408.37 1,860 0.04
12 60 0.86 257 2,117 21 2,096 408.42 2,096 0.05
13 65 1.17 351 2,446 21 2,425 408.48 2,425 0.06
14 70 1.17 351 2,776 21 2,754 408.55 2,754 0.06
15 75 1.17 351 3,105 21 3,084 408.61 3,084 0.07
16 80 1.01 304 3,387 21 3,366 408.67 3,366 0.08
17 85 1.48 445 3,811 21 3,789 408.76 3,789 0.09
18 90 1.56 468 4,257 21 4,236 408.84 4,236 0.10
19 95 1.33 398 4,634 21 4,613 408.92 4,613 0.11
20 100 1.56 468 5,081 21 5,059 409.01 5,059 0.12
21 105 2.03 609 5,669 21 5,647 409.11 5,647 0.13
22 110 1.87 562 6,209 21 6,188 409.20 6,188 0.14
23 115 1.72 515 6,703 21 6,682 409.28 6,682 0.15
24 120 1.80 539 7,221 21 7,199 409.37 7,199 0.17
25 125 1.87 562 7,761 21 7,740 409.46 7,740 0.18
26 130 2.74 821 8,561 21 8,540 409.59 8,540 0.20
27 135 3.36 1,009 9,548 21 9,527 409.76 9,527 0.22
28 140 2.19 656 10,183 21 10,162 409.87 10,162 0.23
29 145 4.77 1,432 11,593 21 11,572 410.09 11,572 0.27
30 150 5.16 1,549 13,121 21 13,100 410.31 13,100 0.30
31 155 5.87 1,761 14,861 21 14,839 410.56 14,839 0.34
32 160 4.07 1,220 16,060 21 16,038 410.73 16,038 0.37
33 165 1.01 304 16,342 21 16,321 410.77 16,321 0.37
34 170 0.86 257 16,577 21 16,556 410.80 16,556 0.38
35 175 0.86 257 16,813 21 16,791 410.84 16,791 0.39
36 180 0.05 14 16,805 21 16,784 410.84 16,784 0.39

BALANCE IN
BASIN
TIME
Basin Depth Analysis

Page 10 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 JOB # 0
100 YEAR - 6 HOUR STORM EVENT

FLOW VOLUME TOTAL IN PERC TOTAL IN BASIN
UNIT (min) IN IN BASIN OUT BASIN DEPTH
PERIOD (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) (acre-ft) 1 5 0.05 16 16 21 - 408.00 - 0.00
2 10 0.07 22 22 21 1 408.00 0.00 1
3 15 0.07 22 23 21 2 408.00 0.00 2
4 20 0.07 22 24 21 3 408.00 0.00 3
5 25 0.07 22 25 21 4 408.00 0.00 4
6 30 0.18 54 58 21 37 408.01 37 0.00
7 35 0.18 54 90 21 69 408.01 69 0.00
8 40 0.18 54 123 21 102 408.02 102 0.00
9 45 0.18 54 155 21 134 408.03 134 0.00
10 50 0.18 54 188 21 167 408.03 167 0.00
11 55 0.18 54 220 21 199 408.04 199 0.00
12 60 0.28 85 284 21 263 408.05 263 0.01
13 65 0.28 85 348 21 327 408.07 327 0.01
14 70 0.28 85 412 21 391 408.08 391 0.01
15 75 0.28 85 476 21 455 408.09 455 0.01
16 80 0.28 85 540 21 519 408.10 519 0.01
17 85 0.28 85 604 21 583 408.12 583 0.01
18 90 0.28 85 668 21 646 408.13 646 0.01
19 95 0.28 85 732 21 710 408.14 710 0.02
20 100 0.28 85 796 21 774 408.15 774 0.02
21 105 0.28 85 859 21 838 408.17 838 0.02
22 110 0.28 85 923 21 902 408.18 902 0.02
23 115 0.28 85 987 21 966 408.19 966 0.02
24 120 0.39 117 1,083 21 1,062 408.21 1,062 0.02
25 125 0.28 85 1,147 21 1,125 408.22 1,125 0.03
26 130 0.39 117 1,242 21 1,221 408.24 1,221 0.03
27 135 0.39 117 1,337 21 1,316 408.26 1,316 0.03
28 140 0.39 117 1,433 21 1,412 408.28 1,412 0.03
29 145 0.39 117 1,528 21 1,507 408.30 1,507 0.03
30 150 0.39 117 1,624 21 1,602 408.32 1,602 0.04
31 155 0.39 117 1,719 21 1,698 408.34 1,698 0.04
32 160 0.39 117 1,814 21 1,793 408.36 1,793 0.04
33 165 0.49 148 1,941 21 1,920 408.38 1,920 0.04
34 170 0.49 148 2,068 21 2,047 408.41 2,047 0.05
35 175 0.49 148 2,195 21 2,174 408.43 2,174 0.05
36 180 0.49 148 2,322 21 2,300 408.46 2,300 0.05
37 185 0.49 148 2,448 21 2,427 408.48 2,427 0.06
38 190 0.60 179 2,607 21 2,585 408.52 2,585 0.06
39 195 0.60 179 2,765 21 2,744 408.55 2,744 0.06
40 200 0.60 179 2,923 21 2,902 408.58 2,902 0.07
41 205 0.70 211 3,113 21 3,092 408.62 3,092 0.07
42 210 0.81 242 3,334 21 3,313 408.66 3,313 0.08
43 215 0.91 274 3,587 21 3,566 408.71 3,566 0.08
44 220 0.91 274 3,839 21 3,818 408.76 3,818 0.09
45 225 1.02 305 4,123 21 4,102 408.82 4,102 0.09
46 230 1.02 305 4,408 21 4,386 408.87 4,386 0.10
47 235 1.12 337 4,723 21 4,702 408.94 4,702 0.11
48 240 1.12 337 5,039 21 5,017 409.00 5,017 0.12
49 245 1.23 368 5,386 21 5,364 409.06 5,364 0.12
50 250 1.33 400 5,764 21 5,743 409.12 5,743 0.13
51 255 1.44 431 6,174 21 6,153 409.19 6,153 0.14
52 260 1.54 463 6,615 21 6,594 409.27 6,594 0.15
53 265 1.65 494 7,088 21 7,067 409.34 7,067 0.16
54 270 1.65 494 7,561 21 7,540 409.42 7,540 0.17
55 275 1.75 525 8,065 21 8,044 409.51 8,044 0.18

TIME BALANCE IN
BASIN
Basin Depth Analysis

Page 11 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 JOB # 0
100 YEAR - 6 HOUR STORM EVENT

FLOW VOLUME TOTAL IN PERC TOTAL IN BASIN
UNIT (min) IN IN BASIN OUT BASIN DEPTH
PERIOD (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) (acre-ft)

TIME BALANCE IN
BASIN
56 280 1.86 557 8,601 21 8,579 409.60 8,579 0.20
57 285 1.96 588 9,168 21 9,147 409.69 9,147 0.21
58 290 1.96 588 9,735 21 9,714 409.79 9,714 0.22
59 295 2.07 620 10,333 21 10,312 409.89 10,312 0.24
60 300 2.17 651 10,963 21 10,942 410.00 10,942 0.25
61 305 2.69 808 11,751 21 11,730 410.11 11,730 0.27
62 310 3.22 966 12,695 21 12,674 410.25 12,674 0.29
63 315 3.53 1,060 13,734 21 13,713 410.40 13,713 0.31
64 320 3.85 1,154 14,867 21 14,846 410.56 14,846 0.34
65 325 4.37 1,312 16,158 21 16,137 410.74 16,137 0.37
66 330 5.32 1,595 17,731 21 17,710 410.97 17,710 0.41
67 335 1.44 431 18,141 21 18,120 411.03 18,120 0.42
68 340 0.39 117 18,237 21 18,215 411.04 18,215 0.42
69 345 0.07 22 18,238 21 18,216 411.04 18,216 0.42
70 350 0.05 16 18,232 21 18,211 411.04 18,211 0.42
71 355 0.03 9 18,220 21 18,199 411.04 18,199 0.42
72 360 0.02 6 18,205 21 18,184 411.03 18,184 0.42
Basin Depth Analysis

Page 12 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 JOB # 0
100 YEAR - 24 HOUR STORM EVENT

FLOW VOLUME TOTAL IN PERC TOTAL IN BASIN
UNIT (min) IN IN BASIN OUT BASIN DEPTH
PERIOD (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) (acre-ft) 1 15 0.01 10 10 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
2 30 0.02 15 15 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
3 45 0.02 15 15 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
4 60 0.02 20 20 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
5 75 0.02 15 15 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
6 90 0.02 15 15 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
7 105 0.02 15 15 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
8 120 0.02 20 20 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
9 135 0.02 20 20 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
10 150 0.02 20 20 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
11 165 0.03 25 25 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
12 180 0.03 25 25 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
13 195 0.03 25 25 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
14 210 0.03 25 25 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
15 225 0.03 25 25 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
16 240 0.03 30 30 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
17 255 0.03 30 30 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
18 270 0.04 35 35 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
19 285 0.04 35 35 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
20 300 0.04 39 39 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
21 315 0.03 30 30 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
22 330 0.04 35 35 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
23 345 0.04 39 39 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
24 360 0.04 39 39 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
25 375 0.05 44 44 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
26 390 0.05 44 44 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
27 405 0.05 49 49 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
28 420 0.05 49 49 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
29 435 0.05 49 49 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
30 450 0.06 54 54 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
31 465 0.07 59 59 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
32 480 0.05 47 47 64 - 408.00 - 0.00
33 495 0.17 154 154 64 90 408.02 90 0.00
34 510 0.18 162 253 64 189 408.04 189 0.00
35 525 0.24 220 409 64 345 408.07 345 0.01
36 540 0.31 277 622 64 558 408.11 558 0.01
37 555 0.43 384 942 64 878 408.18 878 0.02
38 570 0.49 441 1,319 64 1,255 408.25 1,255 0.03
39 585 0.55 498 1,753 64 1,689 408.34 1,689 0.04
40 600 0.62 555 2,244 64 2,181 408.43 2,181 0.05
41 615 0.24 217 2,398 64 2,334 408.47 2,334 0.05
42 630 0.25 225 2,559 64 2,496 408.50 2,496 0.06
43 645 0.53 479 2,975 64 2,911 408.58 2,911 0.07
44 660 0.54 486 3,397 64 3,334 408.66 3,334 0.08
45 675 0.49 444 3,778 64 3,714 408.74 3,714 0.09
46 690 0.50 452 4,166 64 4,102 408.82 4,102 0.09
47 705 0.40 360 4,463 64 4,399 408.88 4,399 0.10
48 720 0.46 417 4,816 64 4,752 408.95 4,752 0.11
49 735 0.85 769 5,521 64 5,457 409.07 5,457 0.13
50 750 0.92 825 6,282 64 6,219 409.20 6,219 0.14
51 765 1.03 931 7,149 64 7,086 409.35 7,086 0.16
52 780 1.10 987 8,072 64 8,009 409.50 8,009 0.18
53 795 1.38 1,240 9,249 64 9,185 409.70 9,185 0.21
54 810 1.38 1,246 10,431 64 10,368 409.90 10,368 0.24
55 825 0.79 711 11,078 64 11,015 410.01 11,015 0.25
56 840 0.80 717 11,732 64 11,668 410.10 11,668 0.27
57 855 1.02 921 12,589 64 12,525 410.22 12,525 0.29
58 870 0.98 878 13,403 64 13,339 410.34 13,339 0.31

TIME BALANCE IN
BASIN
Basin Depth Analysis

Page 13 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 JOB # 0
100 YEAR - 24 HOUR STORM EVENT

FLOW VOLUME TOTAL IN PERC TOTAL IN BASIN
UNIT (min) IN IN BASIN OUT BASIN DEPTH
PERIOD (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) (acre-ft)

TIME BALANCE IN
BASIN
59 885 0.98 884 14,223 64 14,159 410.46 14,159 0.33
60 900 0.93 841 15,000 64 14,936 410.57 14,936 0.34
61 915 0.89 797 15,734 64 15,670 410.68 15,670 0.36
62 930 0.84 754 16,424 64 16,360 410.78 16,360 0.38
63 945 0.63 563 16,923 64 16,859 410.85 16,859 0.39
64 960 0.63 568 17,427 64 17,364 410.92 17,364 0.40
65 975 0.02 20 17,383 64 17,320 410.91 17,320 0.40
66 990 0.02 20 17,340 64 17,276 410.91 17,276 0.40
67 1005 0.02 15 17,291 64 17,227 410.90 17,227 0.40
68 1020 0.02 15 17,242 64 17,178 410.89 17,178 0.39
69 1035 0.03 25 17,203 64 17,139 410.89 17,139 0.39
70 1050 0.03 25 17,164 64 17,100 410.88 17,100 0.39
71 1065 0.03 25 17,125 64 17,061 410.88 17,061 0.39
72 1080 0.02 20 17,081 64 17,017 410.87 17,017 0.39
73 1095 0.02 20 17,037 64 16,973 410.86 16,973 0.39
74 1110 0.02 20 16,993 64 16,929 410.86 16,929 0.39
75 1125 0.02 15 16,944 64 16,881 410.85 16,881 0.39
76 1140 0.01 16,890 10 64 16,827 410.84 16,827 0.39
77 1155 0.02 15 16,842 64 16,778 410.84 16,778 0.39
78 1170 0.02 20 16,798 64 16,734 410.83 16,734 0.38
79 1185 0.02 15 16,749 64 16,685 410.82 16,685 0.38
80 1200 0.01 10 16,695 64 16,631 410.82 16,631 0.38
81 1215 0.02 15 16,646 64 16,582 410.81 16,582 0.38
82 1230 0.02 15 16,597 64 16,534 410.80 16,534 0.38
83 1245 0.02 15 16,548 64 16,485 410.79 16,485 0.38
84 1260 0.01 10 16,495 64 16,431 410.79 16,431 0.38
85 1275 0.02 15 16,446 64 16,382 410.78 16,382 0.38
86 1290 0.01 10 16,392 64 16,328 410.77 16,328 0.37
87 1305 0.02 15 16,343 64 16,279 410.76 16,279 0.37
88 1320 0.01 10 16,289 64 16,226 410.76 16,226 0.37
89 1335 0.02 15 16,240 64 16,177 410.75 16,177 0.37
90 1350 0.01 10 16,187 64 16,123 410.74 16,123 0.37
91 1365 0.01 10 16,133 64 16,069 410.73 16,069 0.37
92 1380 0.01 10 16,079 64 16,015 410.73 16,015 0.37
93 1395 0.01 10 16,025 64 15,962 410.72 15,962 0.37
94 1410 0.01 10 15,971 64 15,908 410.71 15,908 0.37
95 1425 0.01 10 15,918 64 15,854 410.70 15,854 0.36
96 1440 0.01 10 15,864 64 15,800 410.70 15,800 0.36
Basin Depth Analysis

Page 14 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
AB C D

RCFC&WCD SHORTCUT UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD

DATA INPUT SHEET
WORKSHEET PREPARED BY: JAMES R. BAZUA, P.E.

PROJECT NAME ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 10 YEAR
JOB #
CONCENTRATION POINT DESIGNATION 1
AREA DESIGNATION 3000 SF BUILDING

TRIBUTARY AREAS ACRES

COMMERCIAL
PAVING/HARDSCAPE 0.65
SF - 1 ACRE
SF - 1/2 ACRE
SF - 1/4 ACRE

MF - CONDOMINIUMS

MF - APARTMENTS

MOBILE HOME PARK

LANDSCAPING
RETENTION BASIN 2.03

GOLF COURSE

MOUNTAINOUS
LOW LOSS RATE (PERCENT) 90%
LENGTH OF WATERCOURSE (L) 430
LENGTH TO POINT OPPOSITE CENTROID (Lca) 100
ELEVATION OF HEADWATER 409
ELEVATION OF CONCENTRATION POINT 408
AVERAGE MANNINGS 'N' VALUE 0.02
STORM FREQUENCY (YEAR) 100

POINT RAIN
3-HOUR 0.992
6-HOUR 1.29
24-HOUR 2.09
BASIN CHARACTERISTICS: ELEVATION AREA
404 50322
405 54589
406 58968
407 63461
407.5 65750
PERCOLATION RATE (in/hr) 0

NEGLECTING INFILTRATION IN PARTIALLY

DRYWELL DATA FULL BASIN

NUMBER USED
PERCOLATION RATE (cfs)
1088
Item 3.

POINT AREA AVERAGE POINT AREA AVERAGE POINT AREA AVERAGE

RAIN POINT RAIN POINT RAIN POINT

INCHES RAIN INCHES RAIN INCHES RAIN
(Plate E-5.2) INCHES (Plate E-5.4) INCHES (Plate E-5.6) INCHES

0.99 2.680 1.00 0.99 1.29 2.680 1.00 1.29 2.09 2.680 1.00 2.09

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SUM [5] 2.68 SUM [7] 0.99 SUM [9] 2.68 SUM [11] 1.29 SUM [13] 2.68 SUM [15] 2.09 [16] AREA ADJ FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000
[17] ADJ AVG POINT RAIN 0.99 1.29 2.09
DURATION 3-HOUR 6-HOUR 24-HOUR
EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 0.17 0.16 0.21
FLOOD VOLUME (cu-ft) 1,631 1,522 2,033
(acre-ft) 0.04 0.03 0.05
REQUIRED STORAGE (cu-ft) 1,617 1,509 2,016
(acre-ft) 0.04 0.03 0.05
PEAK FLOW (cfs) 1.15 0.86 0.08
MAXIMUM WSEL (ft) 404.03 404.03 404.04
24-HOURS
[15] LAG TIME-HOURS
[16] LAG TIME-MINUTES

0.00 STORM EVENT SUMMARY
[17] 100% OF LAG-MINUTES
[18] 200% OF LAG-MINUTES
[24] TOTAL PERCOLATION RATE (cfs)
[19] UNIT TIME-MINUTES (100%-200% OF LAG)
3-HOURS 6-HOURS
[6] La-FEET
[7] La-MILES
[8] ELEVATION OF HEADWATER
[9] ELEVATION OF CONCENTRATION POINT
[2] AREA DESIGNATION
[3] AREA - ACRES
[4] L-FEET
[5] L-MILES
5 0.03

1.5 1.5

3.1 12.3

3.50 0.02

PHYSICAL DATA

RAINFALL DATA
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT 1
3000 SF BUILDING

2.680
430

0.019
409
408

0.081
100.00

0.000
[12] S^0.5
[13] L*LCA/S^0.5
[14] AVERAGE MANNINGS 'N'
[10] H-FEET 1
[11] S-FEET/MILE
Plate E-2.1

Page 2 of 14 ends

Item 3.

RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD PROJECT ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 10 YEAR CONCENTRATION POINT: 1BY MES R. BAZUA, P.E. DATE 2/2/2025

ADJUSTED LOSS RATE

SOIL RI PERVIOUS DECIMAL ADJUSTED AREA AVERAGE

GROUP NUMBER AREA PERCENT INFILTRATION ADJUSTED

INFILTRATION OF AREA RATE INFILTRATION

RATE IMPERVIOUS RATE
(in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr)
[Plate C-1] [Plate E-6.1] [Plate E-6.2] [Plate E-6.3]
B 56 0.70 90% 0.13 0.00 0.000 0.0000
B 56 0.70 100% 0.07 0.65 0.243 0.0170
B 56 0.70 20% 0.57 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.70 40% 0.45 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.70 50% 0.39 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.70 65% 0.29 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.70 80% 0.20 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.70 75% 0.23 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.70 0% 0.70 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.70 0% 0.70 2.03 0.757 0.5302B 56 0.70 0% 0.70 0.00 0.000 0.0000 D 93 0.70 90% 0.13 0.00 0.000 0.0000

0.00 0.000 0.0000

0.00 0.000 0.0000
SUM 2.68 SUM 0.5472
VARIABLE LOSS RATE CURVE (24-HOUR STORM ONLY)Fm= 0.273600746C= 0.00507Ft=C(24-(T/60))^1.55 = 0.00507 0.27 in/hr LOW LOSS RATE (80-90 PERCENT) = 90%Where:T=Time in minutes. To get an average value for each unit time period, Use T=1/2 the unit time for the first time period,T=1 1/2 unit time for the second period, etc.

LANDSCAPING

RETENTION BASINS

GOLF COURSE

MOUNTAINOUS
SF - 1 ACRE
SF - 1/2 ACRESF - 1/4 ACRE
MF - COND0MINIUMS

MF - APARTMENTS

MOBILE HOME PARKS
(24-(T/60))^1.55 +

LAND USE

COMMERCIAL

PAVING/HARDSCAPE
Plate E-2.1

Page 3 of 14 ends

Item 3.

RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD PROJECT: ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 10 YEAR 100 YEAR - 3 HOUR STORM EVENT CONCENTRATION POINT: 1
BY: MES R. BAZUA, DATE 2/2/2025
DRAINAGE AREA-ACRES 2.68
UNIT TIME-MINUTES 5
LAG TIME - MINUTES 1.53
UNIT TIME-PERCENT OF LAG 327.3
TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN-INCHES 0.99
CONSTANT LOSS RATE-in/hr 0.55
LOW LOSS RATE - PERCENT 90% TOTAL PERCOLATION RATE (cfs) 0.00 cfs Unit Time Pattern Storm Effective Flood Required
Period Minutes Hours Percent Rain Rain Hydrograph Storage in/hr Flow
(Plate E-5.9) Max Low in/hr cfs cf
1 5 0.08 1.3 0.155 0.55 0.14 0.02 0.04 12.44
2 10 0.17 1.3 0.155 0.55 0.14 0.02 0.04 12.44
3 15 0.25 1.1 0.131 0.55 0.12 0.01 0.04 10.53
4 20 0.33 1.5 0.179 0.55 0.16 0.02 0.05 14.36
5 25 0.42 1.5 0.179 0.55 0.16 0.02 0.05 14.36
6 30 0.50 1.8 0.214 0.55 0.19 0.02 0.06 17.23
7 35 0.58 1.5 0.179 0.55 0.16 0.02 0.05 14.36
8 40 0.67 1.8 0.214 0.55 0.19 0.02 0.06 17.23
9 45 0.75 1.8 0.214 0.55 0.19 0.02 0.06 17.23
10 50 0.83 1.5 0.179 0.55 0.16 0.02 0.05 14.36
11 55 0.92 1.6 0.190 0.55 0.17 0.02 0.05 15.31
12 60 1.00 1.8 0.214 0.55 0.19 0.02 0.06 17.23
13 65 1.08 2.2 0.262 0.55 0.24 0.03 0.07 21.06
14 70 1.17 2.2 0.262 0.55 0.24 0.03 0.07 21.06
15 75 1.25 2.2 0.262 0.55 0.24 0.03 0.07 21.06
16 80 1.33 2.0 0.238 0.55 0.21 0.02 0.06 19.14
17 85 1.42 2.6 0.310 0.55 0.28 0.03 0.08 24.88
18 90 1.50 2.7 0.321 0.55 0.29 0.03 0.09 25.84
19 95 1.58 2.4 0.286 0.55 0.26 0.03 0.08 22.97
20 100 1.67 2.7 0.321 0.55 0.29 0.03 0.09 25.84
21 105 1.75 3.3 0.393 0.55 0.35 0.04 0.11 31.58
22 110 1.83 3.1 0.369 0.55 0.33 0.04 0.10 29.67
23 115 1.92 2.9 0.345 0.55 0.31 0.03 0.09 27.76
24 120 2.00 3.0 0.357 0.55 0.32 0.04 0.10 28.71
25 125 2.08 3.1 0.369 0.55 0.33 0.04 0.10 29.67
26 130 2.17 4.2 0.500 0.55 0.45 0.05 0.13 40.20
27 135 2.25 5.0 0.595 0.55 0.54 0.05 0.13 38.59
28 140 2.33 3.5 0.417 0.55 0.37 0.04 0.11 33.50
29 145 2.42 6.8 0.809 0.55 0.73 0.26 0.70 210.87
30 150 2.50 7.3 0.869 0.55 0.78 0.32 0.86 258.72
31 155 2.58 8.2 0.976 0.55 0.88 0.43 1.15 344.86
32 160 2.67 5.9 0.702 0.55 0.63 0.16 0.42 124.73
33 165 2.75 2.0 0.238 0.55 0.21 0.02 0.06 19.14
34 170 2.83 1.8 0.214 0.55 0.19 0.02 0.06 17.23
35 175 2.92 1.8 0.214 0.55 0.19 0.02 0.06 17.23
36 180 3.00 0.6 0.071 0.55 0.06 0.01 0.02 5.74

EFFECTIVE RAIN & FLOOD VOLUMES SUMMARY
EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 0.17
FLOOD VOLUME (acft) 0.04
FLOOD VOLUME (cuft) 1630.57
REQUIRED STORAGE (acft) 0.04
REQUIRED STORAGE (cuft) 1617.09
PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs) 1.15
Loss Rate
in/hr
Time

EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
Plate E-2.2

Page 4 of 14 ends

Item 3.

RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD PROJECT: ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 10 YEAR 100 YEAR - 6 HOUR STORM EVENT CONCENTRATION POINT: 1
BY: JAMES R. BAZ DATE: 2/2/2025
DRAINAGE AREA-ACRES 2.68
UNIT TIME-MINUTES 5
LAG TIME - MINUTES 1.53
UNIT TIME-PERCENT OF LAG 327.3
TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN-INCHES 1.29
CONSTANT LOSS RATE-in/hr 0.547
LOW LOSS RATE - PERCENT 90% TOTAL PERCOLATION RATE (cfs) 0.00 cfs Unit Time Pattern Storm Effective Flood Required
Period Minutes Hours Percent Rain Rain Hydrograph Storage in/hr Flow
(Plate E-5.9) Max Low in/hr cfs cf
1 5 0.08 0.5 0.077 0.55 0.07 0.01 0.02 6.22
2 10 0.17 0.6 0.093 0.55 0.08 0.01 0.02 7.47
3 15 0.25 0.6 0.093 0.55 0.08 0.01 0.02 7.47
4 20 0.33 0.6 0.093 0.55 0.08 0.01 0.02 7.47
5 25 0.42 0.6 0.093 0.55 0.08 0.01 0.02 7.47
6 30 0.50 0.7 0.108 0.55 0.10 0.01 0.03 8.71
7 35 0.58 0.7 0.108 0.55 0.10 0.01 0.03 8.71
8 40 0.67 0.7 0.108 0.55 0.10 0.01 0.03 8.71
9 45 0.75 0.7 0.108 0.55 0.10 0.01 0.03 8.71
10 50 0.83 0.7 0.108 0.55 0.10 0.01 0.03 8.71
11 55 0.92 0.7 0.108 0.55 0.10 0.01 0.03 8.71
12 60 1.00 0.8 0.124 0.55 0.11 0.01 0.03 9.96
13 65 1.08 0.8 0.124 0.55 0.11 0.01 0.03 9.96
14 70 1.17 0.8 0.124 0.55 0.11 0.01 0.03 9.96
15 75 1.25 0.8 0.124 0.55 0.11 0.01 0.03 9.96
16 80 1.33 0.8 0.124 0.55 0.11 0.01 0.03 9.96
17 85 1.42 0.8 0.124 0.55 0.11 0.01 0.03 9.96
18 90 1.50 0.8 0.124 0.55 0.11 0.01 0.03 9.96
19 95 1.58 0.8 0.124 0.55 0.11 0.01 0.03 9.96
20 100 1.67 0.8 0.124 0.55 0.11 0.01 0.03 9.96
21 105 1.75 0.8 0.124 0.55 0.11 0.01 0.03 9.96
22 110 1.83 0.8 0.124 0.55 0.11 0.01 0.03 9.96
23 115 1.92 0.8 0.124 0.55 0.11 0.01 0.03 9.96
24 120 2.00 0.9 0.139 0.55 0.13 0.01 0.04 11.20
25 125 2.08 0.8 0.124 0.55 0.11 0.01 0.03 9.96
26 130 2.17 0.9 0.139 0.55 0.13 0.01 0.04 11.20
27 135 2.25 0.9 0.139 0.55 0.13 0.01 0.04 11.20
28 140 2.33 0.9 0.139 0.55 0.13 0.01 0.04 11.20
29 145 2.42 0.9 0.139 0.55 0.13 0.01 0.04 11.20
30 150 2.50 0.9 0.139 0.55 0.13 0.01 0.04 11.20
31 155 2.58 0.9 0.139 0.55 0.13 0.01 0.04 11.20
32 160 2.67 0.9 0.139 0.55 0.13 0.01 0.04 11.20
33 165 2.75 1.0 0.155 0.55 0.14 0.02 0.04 12.45
34 170 2.83 1.0 0.155 0.55 0.14 0.02 0.04 12.45
35 175 2.92 1.0 0.155 0.55 0.14 0.02 0.04 12.45
36 180 3.00 1.0 0.155 0.55 0.14 0.02 0.04 12.45
37 185 3.08 1.0 0.155 0.55 0.14 0.02 0.04 12.45
38 190 3.17 1.1 0.170 0.55 0.15 0.02 0.05 13.69
39 195 3.25 1.1 0.170 0.55 0.15 0.02 0.05 13.69
40 200 3.33 1.1 0.170 0.55 0.15 0.02 0.05 13.69
41 205 3.42 1.2 0.186 0.55 0.17 0.02 0.05 14.94
42 210 3.50 1.3 0.201 0.55 0.18 0.02 0.05 16.18
43 215 3.58 1.4 0.217 0.55 0.20 0.02 0.06 17.42
44 220 3.67 1.4 0.217 0.55 0.20 0.02 0.06 17.42
45 225 3.75 1.5 0.232 0.55 0.21 0.02 0.06 18.67
46 230 3.83 1.5 0.232 0.55 0.21 0.02 0.06 18.67
47 235 3.92 1.6 0.248 0.55 0.22 0.02 0.07 19.91
48 240 4.00 1.6 0.248 0.55 0.22 0.02 0.07 19.91
49 245 4.08 1.7 0.263 0.55 0.24 0.03 0.07 21.16
50 250 4.17 1.8 0.279 0.55 0.25 0.03 0.07 22.40
51 255 4.25 1.9 0.294 0.55 0.26 0.03 0.08 23.65
52 260 4.33 2.0 0.310 0.55 0.28 0.03 0.08 24.89
53 265 4.42 2.1 0.325 0.55 0.29 0.03 0.09 26.14
54 270 4.50 2.1 0.325 0.55 0.29 0.03 0.09 26.14
55 275 4.58 2.2 0.341 0.55 0.31 0.03 0.09 27.38
56 280 4.67 2.3 0.356 0.55 0.32 0.04 0.10 28.63

EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
Time Loss Rate
in/hr
Plate E-2.2

Page 5 of 14 ends

Item 3.

EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
Time Loss Rate
in/hr
57 285 4.75 2.4 0.372 0.55 0.33 0.04 0.10 29.87
58 290 4.83 2.4 0.372 0.55 0.33 0.04 0.10 29.87
59 295 4.92 2.5 0.387 0.55 0.35 0.04 0.10 31.11
60 300 5.00 2.6 0.402 0.55 0.36 0.04 0.11 32.36
61 305 5.08 3.1 0.480 0.55 0.43 0.05 0.13 38.58
62 310 5.17 3.6 0.557 0.55 0.50 0.01 0.03 8.10
63 315 5.25 3.9 0.604 0.55 0.54 0.06 0.15 45.44
64 320 5.33 4.2 0.650 0.55 0.59 0.10 0.28 82.78
65 325 5.42 4.7 0.728 0.55 0.65 0.18 0.48 145.01
66 330 5.50 5.6 0.867 0.55 0.78 0.32 0.86 257.02
67 335 5.58 1.9 0.294 0.55 0.26 0.03 0.08 23.65
68 340 5.67 0.9 0.139 0.55 0.13 0.01 0.04 11.20
69 345 5.75 0.6 0.093 0.55 0.08 0.01 0.02 7.47
70 350 5.83 0.5 0.077 0.55 0.07 0.01 0.02 6.22
71 355 5.92 0.3 0.046 0.55 0.04 0.00 0.01 3.73
72 360 6.00 0.2 0.031 0.55 0.03 0.00 0.01 2.49

EFFECTIVE RAIN & FLOOD VOLUMES SUMMARY
EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 0.16
FLOOD VOLUME (acft) 0.03
FLOOD VOLUME (cuft) 1521.72
REQUIRED STORAGE (acft) 0.03
REQUIRED STORAGE (cuft) 1509.13
PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs) 0.86
Plate E-2.2

Page 6 of 14 ends

Item 3.

RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD PROJECT: ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 10 YEAR 100 YEAR - 24 HOUR STORM EVENT CONCENTRATION POINT: 1
BY: JAMES R. BAZ DATE: 2/2/2025
DRAINAGE AREA-ACRES 2.680 CONSTANT LOSS RATE-in/hr n/a
UNIT TIME-MINUTES 15 VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG) in/hr 0.5472 LAG TIME - MINUTES 1.53 MINIMUM LOSS RATE (for var. loss) - in/hr 0.274 UNIT TIME-PERCENT OF LAG 982.0 LOW LOSS RATE - DECIMAL 0.90 TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN-INCHES 2.09 C 0.00507
PERCOLATION RATE (cfs) 0.00
Unit Time Pattern Storm Effective Flood Required
Period Minutes Hours Percent Rain Rain Hydrograph Storage in/hr Flow
(Plate E-5.9) Max Low in/hr cfs cf
1 15 0.25 0.2 0.017 0.966 0.015 0.002 0.00 4.03
2 30 0.50 0.3 0.025 0.955 0.023 0.003 0.01 6.05
3 45 0.75 0.3 0.025 0.944 0.023 0.003 0.01 6.05
4 60 1.00 0.4 0.033 0.933 0.030 0.003 0.01 8.07
5 75 1.25 0.3 0.025 0.922 0.023 0.003 0.01 6.05
6 90 1.50 0.3 0.025 0.911 0.023 0.003 0.01 6.05
7 105 1.75 0.3 0.025 0.900 0.023 0.003 0.01 6.05
8 120 2.00 0.4 0.033 0.889 0.030 0.003 0.01 8.07
9 135 2.25 0.4 0.033 0.878 0.030 0.003 0.01 8.07
10 150 2.50 0.4 0.033 0.868 0.030 0.003 0.01 8.07
11 165 2.75 0.5 0.042 0.857 0.038 0.004 0.01 10.08
12 180 3.00 0.5 0.042 0.847 0.038 0.004 0.01 10.08
13 195 3.25 0.5 0.042 0.836 0.038 0.004 0.01 10.08
14 210 3.50 0.5 0.042 0.826 0.038 0.004 0.01 10.08
15 225 3.75 0.5 0.042 0.815 0.038 0.004 0.01 10.08
16 240 4.00 0.6 0.050 0.805 0.045 0.005 0.01 12.10
17 255 4.25 0.6 0.050 0.795 0.045 0.005 0.01 12.10
18 270 4.50 0.7 0.059 0.785 0.053 0.006 0.02 14.12
19 285 4.75 0.7 0.059 0.775 0.053 0.006 0.02 14.12
20 300 5.00 0.8 0.067 0.765 0.060 0.007 0.02 16.13
21 315 5.25 0.6 0.050 0.755 0.045 0.005 0.01 12.10
22 330 5.50 0.7 0.059 0.745 0.053 0.006 0.02 14.12
23 345 5.75 0.8 0.067 0.735 0.060 0.007 0.02 16.13
24 360 6.00 0.8 0.067 0.726 0.060 0.007 0.02 16.13
25 375 6.25 0.9 0.075 0.716 0.068 0.008 0.02 18.15
26 390 6.50 0.9 0.075 0.706 0.068 0.008 0.02 18.15
27 405 6.75 1.0 0.084 0.697 0.075 0.008 0.02 20.16
28 420 7.00 1.0 0.084 0.687 0.075 0.008 0.02 20.16
29 435 7.25 1.0 0.084 0.678 0.075 0.008 0.02 20.16
30 450 7.50 1.1 0.092 0.669 0.083 0.009 0.02 22.18
31 465 7.75 1.2 0.100 0.660 0.090 0.010 0.03 24.20
32 480 8.00 1.3 0.109 0.651 0.098 0.011 0.03 26.21
33 495 8.25 1.5 0.125 0.642 0.113 0.013 0.03 30.25
34 510 8.50 1.5 0.125 0.633 0.113 0.013 0.03 30.25
35 525 8.75 1.6 0.134 0.624 0.120 0.013 0.04 32.26
36 540 9.00 1.7 0.142 0.615 0.128 0.014 0.04 34.28
37 555 9.25 1.9 0.159 0.606 0.143 0.016 0.04 38.31
38 570 9.50 2.0 0.167 0.598 0.150 0.017 0.04 40.33
39 585 9.75 2.1 0.176 0.589 0.158 0.018 0.05 42.35
40 600 10.00 2.2 0.184 0.581 0.166 0.018 0.05 44.36
41 615 10.25 1.5 0.125 0.572 0.113 0.013 0.03 30.25
42 630 10.50 1.5 0.125 0.564 0.113 0.013 0.03 30.25
43 645 10.75 2.0 0.167 0.556 0.150 0.017 0.04 40.33
44 660 11.00 2.0 0.167 0.548 0.150 0.017 0.04 40.33
45 675 11.25 1.9 0.159 0.540 0.143 0.016 0.04 38.31
46 690 11.50 1.9 0.159 0.532 0.143 0.016 0.04 38.31
47 705 11.75 1.7 0.142 0.524 0.128 0.014 0.04 34.28
48 720 12.00 1.8 0.150 0.516 0.135 0.015 0.04 36.30
49 735 12.25 2.5 0.209 0.508 0.188 0.021 0.06 50.41
50 750 12.50 2.6 0.217 0.501 0.196 0.022 0.06 52.43
51 765 12.75 2.8 0.234 0.493 0.211 0.023 0.06 56.46
52 780 13.00 2.9 0.242 0.486 0.218 0.024 0.06 58.48
53 795 13.25 3.4 0.284 0.478 0.256 0.028 0.08 68.56
54 810 13.50 3.4 0.284 0.471 0.256 0.028 0.08 68.56
55 825 13.75 2.3 0.192 0.464 0.173 0.019 0.05 46.38
56 840 14.00 2.3 0.192 0.457 0.173 0.019 0.05 46.38
57 855 14.25 2.7 0.226 0.450 0.203 0.023 0.06 54.44
58 870 14.50 2.6 0.217 0.443 0.196 0.022 0.06 52.43
59 885 14.75 2.6 0.217 0.436 0.196 0.022 0.06 52.43
60 900 15.00 2.5 0.209 0.430 0.188 0.021 0.06 50.41
61 915 15.25 2.4 0.201 0.423 0.181 0.020 0.05 48.39
62 930 15.50 2.3 0.192 0.417 0.173 0.019 0.05 46.38
63 945 15.75 1.9 0.159 0.410 0.143 0.016 0.04 38.31
64 960 16.00 1.9 0.159 0.404 0.143 0.016 0.04 38.31
65 975 16.25 0.4 0.033 0.398 0.030 0.003 0.01 8.07
66 990 16.50 0.4 0.033 0.392 0.030 0.003 0.01 8.07
67 1005 16.75 0.3 0.025 0.386 0.023 0.003 0.01 6.05
Time Loss Rate
in/hr

EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
Plate E-2.2

Page 7 of 14 ends

Item 3.

EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
68 1020 17.00 0.3 0.025 0.380 0.023 0.003 0.01 6.05
69 1035 17.25 0.5 0.042 0.374 0.038 0.004 0.01 10.08
70 1050 17.50 0.5 0.042 0.369 0.038 0.004 0.01 10.08
71 1065 17.75 0.5 0.042 0.363 0.038 0.004 0.01 10.08
72 1080 18.00 0.4 0.033 0.358 0.030 0.003 0.01 8.07
73 1095 18.25 0.4 0.033 0.352 0.030 0.003 0.01 8.07
74 1110 18.50 0.4 0.033 0.347 0.030 0.003 0.01 8.07
75 1125 18.75 0.3 0.025 0.342 0.023 0.003 0.01 6.05
76 1140 19.00 0.2 0.017 0.337 0.015 0.002 0.00 4.03
77 1155 19.25 0.3 0.025 0.333 0.023 0.003 0.01 6.05
78 1170 19.50 0.4 0.033 0.328 0.030 0.003 0.01 8.07
79 1185 19.75 0.3 0.025 0.324 0.023 0.003 0.01 6.05
80 1200 20.00 0.2 0.017 0.319 0.015 0.002 0.00 4.03
81 1215 20.25 0.3 0.025 0.315 0.023 0.003 0.01 6.05
82 1230 20.50 0.3 0.025 0.311 0.023 0.003 0.01 6.05
83 1245 20.75 0.3 0.025 0.307 0.023 0.003 0.01 6.05
84 1260 21.00 0.2 0.017 0.303 0.015 0.002 0.00 4.03
85 1275 21.25 0.3 0.025 0.300 0.023 0.003 0.01 6.05
86 1290 21.50 0.2 0.017 0.296 0.015 0.002 0.00 4.03
87 1305 21.75 0.3 0.025 0.293 0.023 0.003 0.01 6.05
88 1320 22.00 0.2 0.017 0.290 0.015 0.002 0.00 4.03
89 1335 22.25 0.3 0.025 0.287 0.023 0.003 0.01 6.05
90 1350 22.50 0.2 0.017 0.284 0.015 0.002 0.00 4.03
91 1365 22.75 0.2 0.017 0.282 0.015 0.002 0.00 4.03
92 1380 23.00 0.2 0.017 0.280 0.015 0.002 0.00 4.03
93 1395 23.25 0.2 0.017 0.278 0.015 0.002 0.00 4.03
94 1410 23.50 0.2 0.017 0.276 0.015 0.002 0.00 4.03
95 1425 23.75 0.2 0.017 0.275 0.015 0.002 0.00 4.03
96 1440 24.00 0.2 0.017 0.274 0.015 0.002 0.00 4.03

EFFECTIVE RAIN & FLOOD VOLUMES SUMMARY
EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 0.21
FLOOD VOLUME (acft) 0.05
FLOOD VOLUME (cuft) 2033.24
REQUIRED STORAGE (acft) 0.05
REQUIRED STORAGE (cuft) 2016.43
PEAK FLOW (cfs) 0.08
Plate E-2.2

Page 8 of 14 ends

Item 3.

PROJECT: ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 10 YEAR
JOB # 0
1 BASIN CHARACTERISTICS

CONTOUR DEPTH AREA VOLUME

INCR TOTAL INCR TOTAL INCR TOTAL
(ft) (ft) (sf) (sf) (cuft) (cuft) (acre-ft)
404 0 0 50322 0 0 0.00
405 1 1 4267 54589 52456 52456 1.20
406 1 2 4379 58968 56779 109234 2.51
407 1 3 4493 63461 61215 170449 3.91
407.5 0.5 3.5 2289 65750 32303 202751 4.65

PERCOLATION CALCULATIONS
PERCOLATION RATE 0 in/hr 0.00 cfs

MAXWELL IV DRYWELLS
NUMBER USED 0
RATE/DRYWELL 0 cfs
TOTAL DISSIPATED 0 cfs
TOTAL PERCOLATION RATE 0.00 cfs
Basin Characteristics

Page 9 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 JOB # 0
100 YEAR - 3 HOUR STORM EVENT

FLOW VOLUME TOTAL IN PERC TOTAL IN BASIN
UNIT (min) IN IN BASIN OUT BASIN DEPTH
PERIOD (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) (acre-ft) 1 5 0.04 12 12 0 12 404.00 12 0.00
2 10 0.04 12 25 0 25 404.00 25 0.00
3 15 0.04 11 35 0 35 404.00 35 0.00
4 20 0.05 14 50 0 50 404.00 50 0.00
5 25 0.05 14 64 0 64 404.00 64 0.00
6 30 0.06 17 81 0 81 404.00 81 0.00
7 35 0.05 14 96 0 96 404.00 96 0.00
8 40 0.06 17 113 0 113 404.00 113 0.00
9 45 0.06 17 130 0 130 404.00 130 0.00
10 50 0.05 14 145 0 145 404.00 145 0.00
11 55 0.05 15 160 0 160 404.00 160 0.00
12 60 0.06 17 177 0 177 404.00 177 0.00
13 65 0.07 21 198 0 198 404.00 198 0.00
14 70 0.07 21 219 0 219 404.00 219 0.01
15 75 0.07 21 240 0 240 404.00 240 0.01
16 80 0.06 19 259 0 259 404.00 259 0.01
17 85 0.08 25 284 0 284 404.01 284 0.01
18 90 0.09 26 310 0 310 404.01 310 0.01
19 95 0.08 23 333 0 333 404.01 333 0.01
20 100 0.09 26 359 0 359 404.01 359 0.01
21 105 0.11 32 390 0 390 404.01 390 0.01
22 110 0.10 30 420 0 420 404.01 420 0.01
23 115 0.09 28 448 0 448 404.01 448 0.01
24 120 0.10 29 477 0 477 404.01 477 0.01
25 125 0.10 30 506 0 506 404.01 506 0.01
26 130 0.13 40 546 0 546 404.01 546 0.01
27 135 0.13 39 585 0 585 404.01 585 0.01
28 140 0.11 33 619 0 619 404.01 619 0.01
29 145 0.70 211 829 0 829 404.02 829 0.02
30 150 0.86 259 1,088 0 1,088 404.02 1,088 0.02
31 155 1.15 345 1,433 0 1,433 404.03 1,433 0.03
32 160 0.42 125 1,558 0 1,558 404.03 1,558 0.04
33 165 0.06 19 1,577 0 1,577 404.03 1,577 0.04
34 170 0.06 17 1,594 0 1,594 404.03 1,594 0.04
35 175 0.06 17 1,611 0 1,611 404.03 1,611 0.04
36 180 0.02 6 1,617 0 1,617 404.03 1,617 0.04

BALANCE IN
BASIN
TIME
Basin Depth Analysis

Page 10 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 JOB # 0
100 YEAR - 6 HOUR STORM EVENT

FLOW VOLUME TOTAL IN PERC TOTAL IN BASIN
UNIT (min) IN IN BASIN OUT BASIN DEPTH
PERIOD (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) (acre-ft) 1 5 0.02 6 6 0 6 404.00 0.00 6
2 10 0.02 7 14 0 14 404.00 14 0.00
3 15 0.02 7 21 0 21 404.00 21 0.00
4 20 0.02 7 29 0 29 404.00 29 0.00
5 25 0.02 7 36 0 36 404.00 36 0.00
6 30 0.03 9 45 0 45 404.00 45 0.00
7 35 0.03 9 54 0 54 404.00 54 0.00
8 40 0.03 9 62 0 62 404.00 62 0.00
9 45 0.03 9 71 0 71 404.00 71 0.00
10 50 0.03 9 80 0 80 404.00 80 0.00
11 55 0.03 9 88 0 88 404.00 88 0.00
12 60 0.03 10 98 0 98 404.00 98 0.00
13 65 0.03 10 108 0 108 404.00 108 0.00
14 70 0.03 10 118 0 118 404.00 118 0.00
15 75 0.03 10 128 0 128 404.00 128 0.00
16 80 0.03 10 138 0 138 404.00 138 0.00
17 85 0.03 10 148 0 148 404.00 148 0.00
18 90 0.03 10 158 0 158 404.00 158 0.00
19 95 0.03 10 168 0 168 404.00 168 0.00
20 100 0.03 10 178 0 178 404.00 178 0.00
21 105 0.03 10 188 0 188 404.00 188 0.00
22 110 0.03 10 198 0 198 404.00 198 0.00
23 115 0.03 10 208 0 208 404.00 208 0.00
24 120 0.04 11 219 0 219 404.00 219 0.01
25 125 0.03 10 229 0 229 404.00 229 0.01
26 130 0.04 11 240 0 240 404.00 240 0.01
27 135 0.04 11 251 0 251 404.00 251 0.01
28 140 0.04 11 263 0 263 404.01 263 0.01
29 145 0.04 11 274 0 274 404.01 274 0.01
30 150 0.04 11 285 0 285 404.01 285 0.01
31 155 0.04 11 296 0 296 404.01 296 0.01
32 160 0.04 11 307 0 307 404.01 307 0.01
33 165 0.04 12 320 0 320 404.01 320 0.01
34 170 0.04 12 332 0 332 404.01 332 0.01
35 175 0.04 12 345 0 345 404.01 345 0.01
36 180 0.04 12 357 0 357 404.01 357 0.01
37 185 0.04 12 370 0 370 404.01 370 0.01
38 190 0.05 14 383 0 383 404.01 383 0.01
39 195 0.05 14 397 0 397 404.01 397 0.01
40 200 0.05 14 411 0 411 404.01 411 0.01
41 205 0.05 15 426 0 426 404.01 426 0.01
42 210 0.05 16 442 0 442 404.01 442 0.01
43 215 0.06 17 459 0 459 404.01 459 0.01
44 220 0.06 17 477 0 477 404.01 477 0.01
45 225 0.06 19 495 0 495 404.01 495 0.01
46 230 0.06 19 514 0 514 404.01 514 0.01
47 235 0.07 20 534 0 534 404.01 534 0.01
48 240 0.07 20 554 0 554 404.01 554 0.01
49 245 0.07 21 575 0 575 404.01 575 0.01
50 250 0.07 22 597 0 597 404.01 597 0.01
51 255 0.08 24 621 0 621 404.01 621 0.01
52 260 0.08 25 646 0 646 404.01 646 0.01
53 265 0.09 26 672 0 672 404.01 672 0.02
54 270 0.09 26 698 0 698 404.01 698 0.02
55 275 0.09 27 726 0 726 404.01 726 0.02

TIME BALANCE IN
BASIN
Basin Depth Analysis

Page 11 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 JOB # 0
100 YEAR - 6 HOUR STORM EVENT

FLOW VOLUME TOTAL IN PERC TOTAL IN BASIN
UNIT (min) IN IN BASIN OUT BASIN DEPTH
PERIOD (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) (acre-ft)

TIME BALANCE IN
BASIN
56 280 0.10 29 754 0 754 404.01 754 0.02
57 285 0.10 30 784 0 784 404.01 784 0.02
58 290 0.10 30 814 0 814 404.02 814 0.02
59 295 0.10 31 845 0 845 404.02 845 0.02
60 300 0.11 32 877 0 877 404.02 877 0.02
61 305 0.13 39 916 0 916 404.02 916 0.02
62 310 0.03 8 924 0 924 404.02 924 0.02
63 315 0.15 45 970 0 970 404.02 970 0.02
64 320 0.28 83 1,052 0 1,052 404.02 1,052 0.02
65 325 0.48 145 1,197 0 1,197 404.02 1,197 0.03
66 330 0.86 257 1,454 0 1,454 404.03 1,454 0.03
67 335 0.08 24 1,478 0 1,478 404.03 1,478 0.03
68 340 0.04 11 1,489 0 1,489 404.03 1,489 0.03
69 345 0.02 7 1,497 0 1,497 404.03 1,497 0.03
70 350 0.02 6 1,503 0 1,503 404.03 1,503 0.03
71 355 0.01 4 1,507 0 1,507 404.03 1,507 0.03
72 360 0.01 2 1,509 0 1,509 404.03 1,509 0.03
Basin Depth Analysis

Page 12 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 JOB # 0
100 YEAR - 24 HOUR STORM EVENT

FLOW VOLUME TOTAL IN PERC TOTAL IN BASIN
UNIT (min) IN IN BASIN OUT BASIN DEPTH
PERIOD (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) (acre-ft) 1 15 0.00 4 4 0 4 404.00 4 0.00
2 30 0.01 6 10 0 10 404.00 10 0.00
3 45 0.01 6 16 0 16 404.00 16 0.00
4 60 0.01 8 24 0 24 404.00 24 0.00
5 75 0.01 6 30 0 30 404.00 30 0.00
6 90 0.01 6 36 0 36 404.00 36 0.00
7 105 0.01 6 42 0 42 404.00 42 0.00
8 120 0.01 8 50 0 50 404.00 50 0.00
9 135 0.01 8 58 0 58 404.00 58 0.00
10 150 0.01 8 67 0 67 404.00 67 0.00
11 165 0.01 10 77 0 77 404.00 77 0.00
12 180 0.01 10 87 0 87 404.00 87 0.00
13 195 0.01 10 97 0 97 404.00 97 0.00
14 210 0.01 10 107 0 107 404.00 107 0.00
15 225 0.01 10 117 0 117 404.00 117 0.00
16 240 0.01 12 129 0 129 404.00 129 0.00
17 255 0.01 12 141 0 141 404.00 141 0.00
18 270 0.02 14 155 0 155 404.00 155 0.00
19 285 0.02 14 169 0 169 404.00 169 0.00
20 300 0.02 16 186 0 186 404.00 186 0.00
21 315 0.01 12 198 0 198 404.00 198 0.00
22 330 0.02 14 212 0 212 404.00 212 0.00
23 345 0.02 16 228 0 228 404.00 228 0.01
24 360 0.02 16 244 0 244 404.00 244 0.01
25 375 0.02 18 262 0 262 404.00 262 0.01
26 390 0.02 18 280 0 280 404.01 280 0.01
27 405 0.02 20 300 0 300 404.01 300 0.01
28 420 0.02 20 321 0 321 404.01 321 0.01
29 435 0.02 20 341 0 341 404.01 341 0.01
30 450 0.02 22 363 0 363 404.01 363 0.01
31 465 0.03 24 387 0 387 404.01 387 0.01
32 480 0.03 26 413 0 413 404.01 413 0.01
33 495 0.03 30 444 0 444 404.01 444 0.01
34 510 0.03 30 474 0 474 404.01 474 0.01
35 525 0.04 32 506 0 506 404.01 506 0.01
36 540 0.04 34 540 0 540 404.01 540 0.01
37 555 0.04 38 579 0 579 404.01 579 0.01
38 570 0.04 40 619 0 619 404.01 619 0.01
39 585 0.05 42 661 0 661 404.01 661 0.02
40 600 0.05 44 706 0 706 404.01 706 0.02
41 615 0.03 30 736 0 736 404.01 736 0.02
42 630 0.03 30 766 0 766 404.01 766 0.02
43 645 0.04 40 807 0 807 404.02 807 0.02
44 660 0.04 40 847 0 847 404.02 847 0.02
45 675 0.04 38 885 0 885 404.02 885 0.02
46 690 0.04 38 924 0 924 404.02 924 0.02
47 705 0.04 34 958 0 958 404.02 958 0.02
48 720 0.04 36 994 0 994 404.02 994 0.02
49 735 0.06 50 1,045 0 1,045 404.02 1,045 0.02
50 750 0.06 52 1,097 0 1,097 404.02 1,097 0.03
51 765 0.06 56 1,153 0 1,153 404.02 1,153 0.03
52 780 0.06 58 1,212 0 1,212 404.02 1,212 0.03
53 795 0.08 69 1,280 0 1,280 404.02 1,280 0.03
54 810 0.08 69 1,349 0 1,349 404.03 1,349 0.03
55 825 0.05 46 1,395 0 1,395 404.03 1,395 0.03
56 840 0.05 46 1,442 0 1,442 404.03 1,442 0.03
57 855 0.06 54 1,496 0 1,496 404.03 1,496 0.03
58 870 0.06 52 1,549 0 1,549 404.03 1,549 0.04

TIME BALANCE IN
BASIN
Basin Depth Analysis

Page 13 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 JOB # 0
100 YEAR - 24 HOUR STORM EVENT

FLOW VOLUME TOTAL IN PERC TOTAL IN BASIN
UNIT (min) IN IN BASIN OUT BASIN DEPTH
PERIOD (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) (acre-ft)

TIME BALANCE IN
BASIN
59 885 0.06 52 1,601 0 1,601 404.03 1,601 0.04
60 900 0.06 50 1,651 0 1,651 404.03 1,651 0.04
61 915 0.05 48 1,700 0 1,700 404.03 1,700 0.04
62 930 0.05 46 1,746 0 1,746 404.03 1,746 0.04
63 945 0.04 38 1,785 0 1,785 404.03 1,785 0.04
64 960 0.04 38 1,823 0 1,823 404.03 1,823 0.04
65 975 0.01 8 1,831 0 1,831 404.03 1,831 0.04
66 990 0.01 8 1,839 0 1,839 404.04 1,839 0.04
67 1005 0.01 6 1,845 0 1,845 404.04 1,845 0.04
68 1020 0.01 6 1,851 0 1,851 404.04 1,851 0.04
69 1035 0.01 10 1,861 0 1,861 404.04 1,861 0.04
70 1050 0.01 10 1,871 0 1,871 404.04 1,871 0.04
71 1065 0.01 10 1,881 0 1,881 404.04 1,881 0.04
72 1080 0.01 8 1,889 0 1,889 404.04 1,889 0.04
73 1095 0.01 8 1,897 0 1,897 404.04 1,897 0.04
74 1110 0.01 8 1,906 0 1,906 404.04 1,906 0.04
75 1125 0.01 6 1,912 0 1,912 404.04 1,912 0.04
76 1140 0.00 1,916 4 0 1,916 404.04 1,916 0.04
77 1155 0.01 6 1,922 0 1,922 404.04 1,922 0.04
78 1170 0.01 8 1,930 0 1,930 404.04 1,930 0.04
79 1185 0.01 6 1,936 0 1,936 404.04 1,936 0.04
80 1200 0.00 4 1,940 0 1,940 404.04 1,940 0.04
81 1215 0.01 6 1,946 0 1,946 404.04 1,946 0.04
82 1230 0.01 6 1,952 0 1,952 404.04 1,952 0.04
83 1245 0.01 6 1,958 0 1,958 404.04 1,958 0.04
84 1260 0.00 4 1,962 0 1,962 404.04 1,962 0.05
85 1275 0.01 6 1,968 0 1,968 404.04 1,968 0.05
86 1290 0.00 4 1,972 0 1,972 404.04 1,972 0.05
87 1305 0.01 6 1,978 0 1,978 404.04 1,978 0.05
88 1320 0.00 4 1,982 0 1,982 404.04 1,982 0.05
89 1335 0.01 6 1,988 0 1,988 404.04 1,988 0.05
90 1350 0.00 4 1,992 0 1,992 404.04 1,992 0.05
91 1365 0.00 4 1,996 0 1,996 404.04 1,996 0.05
92 1380 0.00 4 2,000 0 2,000 404.04 2,000 0.05
93 1395 0.00 4 2,004 0 2,004 404.04 2,004 0.05
94 1410 0.00 4 2,008 0 2,008 404.04 2,008 0.05
95 1425 0.00 4 2,012 0 2,012 404.04 2,012 0.05
96 1440 0.00 4 2,016 0 2,016 404.04 2,016 0.05
Basin Depth Analysis

Page 14 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
AB C D

RCFC&WCD SHORTCUT UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD

DATA INPUT SHEET
WORKSHEET PREPARED BY: JAMES R. BAZUA, P.E.

PROJECT NAME ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 100 YEAR
JOB #
CONCENTRATION POINT DESIGNATION 1
AREA DESIGNATION 3000 SF BUILDING

TRIBUTARY AREAS ACRES

COMMERCIAL
PAVING/HARDSCAPE 0.65
SF - 1 ACRE
SF - 1/2 ACRE
SF - 1/4 ACRE

MF - CONDOMINIUMS

MF - APARTMENTS

MOBILE HOME PARK

LANDSCAPING
RETENTION BASIN 2.03

GOLF COURSE

POINT RAIN
3-HOUR 2.04
6-HOUR 2.73
24-HOUR 4.28
BASIN CHARACTERISTICS: ELEVATION AREA
404 50322
405 54589
406 58968
407 63641
407.5 65750
PERCOLATION RATE (in/hr) 0

NEGLECTING INFILTRATION IN

DRYWELL DATA PARTIALLY FULL BASIN

NUMBER USED
PERCOLATION RATE (cfs)
1102
Item 3.

POINT AREA AVERAGE POINT AREA AVERAGE POINT AREA AVERAGE

RAIN POINT RAIN POINT RAIN POINT

INCHES RAIN INCHES RAIN INCHES RAIN
(Plate E-5.2) INCHES (Plate E-5.4) INCHES (Plate E-5.6) INCHES

2.04 2.680 1.00 2.04 2.73 2.680 1.00 2.73 4.28 2.680 1.00 4.28

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SUM [5] 2.68 SUM [7] 2.04 SUM [9] 2.68 SUM [11] 2.73 SUM [13] 2.68 SUM [15] 4.28 [16] AREA ADJ FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000
[17] ADJ AVG POINT RAIN 2.04 2.73 4.28
DURATION 3-HOUR 6-HOUR 24-HOUR
EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 0.91 0.95 0.66
FLOOD VOLUME (cu-ft) 8,823 9,218 6,430
(acre-ft) 0.20 0.21 0.15
REQUIRED STORAGE (cu-ft) 8,750 9,142 6,377
(acre-ft) 0.20 0.21 0.15
PEAK FLOW (cfs) 4.29 3.83 0.62
MAXIMUM WSEL (ft) 404.17 404.17 404.12
24-HOURS
[15] LAG TIME-HOURS
[16] LAG TIME-MINUTES

1.5 1.5

3.1 12.3

3.50 0.02

PHYSICAL DATA

RAINFALL DATA
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT 1
3000 SF BUILDING

2.680
430

0.019
409
408

0.081
100.00

0.000
[12] S^0.5
[13] L*LCA/S^0.5
[14] AVERAGE MANNINGS 'N'
[10] H-FEET 1
[11] S-FEET/MILE
Plate E-2.1

Page 2 of 14 ends

Item 3.

RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD PROJECT ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 100 YEAR CONCENTRATION POINT: 1BY MES R. BAZUA, P.E. DATE 2/2/2025

ADJUSTED LOSS RATE

SOIL RI PERVIOUS DECIMAL ADJUSTED AREA AVERAGE

GROUP NUMBER AREA PERCENT INFILTRATION ADJUSTED

INFILTRATION OF AREA RATE INFILTRATION

RATE IMPERVIOUS RATE
(in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr)
[Plate C-1] [Plate E-6.1] [Plate E-6.2] [Plate E-6.3]
B 56 0.52 90% 0.10 0.00 0.000 0.0000
B 56 0.52 100% 0.05 0.65 0.243 0.0126
B 56 0.52 20% 0.43 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.52 40% 0.33 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.52 50% 0.29 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.52 65% 0.22 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.52 80% 0.15 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.52 75% 0.17 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.52 0% 0.52 0.00 0.000 0.0000B 56 0.52 0% 0.52 2.03 0.757 0.3939B 56 0.52 0% 0.52 0.00 0.000 0.0000 D 93 0.95 90% 0.18 0.00 0.000 0.0000

0.00 0.000 0.0000

0.00 0.000 0.0000
SUM 2.68 SUM 0.4065
VARIABLE LOSS RATE CURVE (24-HOUR STORM ONLY)Fm= 0.203246269C= 0.00376Ft=C(24-(T/60))^1.55 = 0.00376 0.20 in/hr LOW LOSS RATE (80-90 PERCENT) = 90%Where:T=Time in minutes. To get an average value for each unit time period, Use T=1/2 the unit time for the first time period,T=1 1/2 unit time for the second period, etc.

LANDSCAPING

RETENTION BASINS

GOLF COURSE

MOUNTAINOUS
SF - 1 ACRE
SF - 1/2 ACRESF - 1/4 ACRE
MF - COND0MINIUMS

MF - APARTMENTS

MOBILE HOME PARKS
(24-(T/60))^1.55 +

LAND USE

COMMERCIAL

PAVING/HARDSCAPE
Plate E-2.1

Page 3 of 14 ends

Item 3.

RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD PROJECT: ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 100 YEAR 100 YEAR - 3 HOUR STORM EVENT CONCENTRATION POINT: 1
BY: MES R. BAZUA, DATE 2/2/2025
DRAINAGE AREA-ACRES 2.68
UNIT TIME-MINUTES 5
LAG TIME - MINUTES 1.53
UNIT TIME-PERCENT OF LAG 327.3
TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN-INCHES 2.04
CONSTANT LOSS RATE-in/hr 0.41
LOW LOSS RATE - PERCENT 90% TOTAL PERCOLATION RATE (cfs) 0.00 cfs Unit Time Pattern Storm Effective Flood Required
Period Minutes Hours Percent Rain Rain Hydrograph Storage in/hr Flow
(Plate E-5.9) Max Low in/hr cfs cf
1 5 0.08 1.3 0.318 0.41 0.29 0.03 0.09 25.59
2 10 0.17 1.3 0.318 0.41 0.29 0.03 0.09 25.59
3 15 0.25 1.1 0.269 0.41 0.24 0.03 0.07 21.65
4 20 0.33 1.5 0.367 0.41 0.33 0.04 0.10 29.52
5 25 0.42 1.5 0.367 0.41 0.33 0.04 0.10 29.52
6 30 0.50 1.8 0.441 0.41 0.40 0.03 0.09 27.45
7 35 0.58 1.5 0.367 0.41 0.33 0.04 0.10 29.52
8 40 0.67 1.8 0.441 0.41 0.40 0.03 0.09 27.45
9 45 0.75 1.8 0.441 0.41 0.40 0.03 0.09 27.45
10 50 0.83 1.5 0.367 0.41 0.33 0.04 0.10 29.52
11 55 0.92 1.6 0.392 0.41 0.35 0.04 0.10 31.49
12 60 1.00 1.8 0.441 0.41 0.40 0.03 0.09 27.45
13 65 1.08 2.2 0.539 0.41 0.48 0.13 0.35 106.18
14 70 1.17 2.2 0.539 0.41 0.48 0.13 0.35 106.18
15 75 1.25 2.2 0.539 0.41 0.48 0.13 0.35 106.18
16 80 1.33 2.0 0.490 0.41 0.44 0.08 0.22 66.82
17 85 1.42 2.6 0.636 0.41 0.57 0.23 0.62 184.91
18 90 1.50 2.7 0.661 0.41 0.59 0.25 0.68 204.59
19 95 1.58 2.4 0.588 0.41 0.53 0.18 0.49 145.55
20 100 1.67 2.7 0.661 0.41 0.59 0.25 0.68 204.59
21 105 1.75 3.3 0.808 0.41 0.73 0.40 1.08 322.68
22 110 1.83 3.1 0.759 0.41 0.68 0.35 0.94 283.32
23 115 1.92 2.9 0.710 0.41 0.64 0.30 0.81 243.96
24 120 2.00 3.0 0.734 0.41 0.66 0.33 0.88 263.64
25 125 2.08 3.1 0.759 0.41 0.68 0.35 0.94 283.32
26 130 2.17 4.2 1.028 0.41 0.93 0.62 1.67 499.82
27 135 2.25 5.0 1.224 0.41 1.10 0.82 2.19 657.28
28 140 2.33 3.5 0.857 0.41 0.77 0.45 1.21 362.05
29 145 2.42 6.8 1.665 0.41 1.50 1.26 3.37 1011.55
30 150 2.50 7.3 1.787 0.41 1.61 1.38 3.70 1109.96
31 155 2.58 8.2 2.007 0.41 1.81 1.60 4.29 1287.10
32 160 2.67 5.9 1.444 0.41 1.30 1.04 2.78 834.41
33 165 2.75 2.0 0.490 0.41 0.44 0.08 0.22 66.82
34 170 2.83 1.8 0.441 0.41 0.40 0.03 0.09 27.45
35 175 2.92 1.8 0.441 0.41 0.40 0.03 0.09 27.45
36 180 3.00 0.6 0.147 0.41 0.13 0.01 0.04 11.81

EFFECTIVE RAIN & FLOOD VOLUMES SUMMARY
EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 0.91
FLOOD VOLUME (acft) 0.20
FLOOD VOLUME (cuft) 8822.80
REQUIRED STORAGE (acft) 0.20
REQUIRED STORAGE (cuft) 8749.85
PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs) 4.29
Loss Rate
in/hr
Time

EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
Plate E-2.2

Page 4 of 14 ends

Item 3.

RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD PROJECT: ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 100 YEA 100 YEAR - 6 HOUR STORM EVENT CONCENTRATION POINT: 1
BY: JAMES R. BAZ DATE: 2/2/2025
DRAINAGE AREA-ACRES 2.68
UNIT TIME-MINUTES 5
LAG TIME - MINUTES 1.53
UNIT TIME-PERCENT OF LAG 327.3
TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN-INCHES 2.73
CONSTANT LOSS RATE-in/hr 0.406
LOW LOSS RATE - PERCENT 90% TOTAL PERCOLATION RATE (cfs) 0.00 cfs Unit Time Pattern Storm Effective Flood Required
Period Minutes Hours Percent Rain Rain Hydrograph Storage in/hr Flow
(Plate E-5.9) Max Low in/hr cfs cf
1 5 0.08 0.5 0.164 0.41 0.15 0.02 0.04 13.17
2 10 0.17 0.6 0.197 0.41 0.18 0.02 0.05 15.80
3 15 0.25 0.6 0.197 0.41 0.18 0.02 0.05 15.80
4 20 0.33 0.6 0.197 0.41 0.18 0.02 0.05 15.80
5 25 0.42 0.6 0.197 0.41 0.18 0.02 0.05 15.80
6 30 0.50 0.7 0.229 0.41 0.21 0.02 0.06 18.44
7 35 0.58 0.7 0.229 0.41 0.21 0.02 0.06 18.44
8 40 0.67 0.7 0.229 0.41 0.21 0.02 0.06 18.44
9 45 0.75 0.7 0.229 0.41 0.21 0.02 0.06 18.44
10 50 0.83 0.7 0.229 0.41 0.21 0.02 0.06 18.44
11 55 0.92 0.7 0.229 0.41 0.21 0.02 0.06 18.44
12 60 1.00 0.8 0.262 0.41 0.24 0.03 0.07 21.07
13 65 1.08 0.8 0.262 0.41 0.24 0.03 0.07 21.07
14 70 1.17 0.8 0.262 0.41 0.24 0.03 0.07 21.07
15 75 1.25 0.8 0.262 0.41 0.24 0.03 0.07 21.07
16 80 1.33 0.8 0.262 0.41 0.24 0.03 0.07 21.07
17 85 1.42 0.8 0.262 0.41 0.24 0.03 0.07 21.07
18 90 1.50 0.8 0.262 0.41 0.24 0.03 0.07 21.07
19 95 1.58 0.8 0.262 0.41 0.24 0.03 0.07 21.07
20 100 1.67 0.8 0.262 0.41 0.24 0.03 0.07 21.07
21 105 1.75 0.8 0.262 0.41 0.24 0.03 0.07 21.07
22 110 1.83 0.8 0.262 0.41 0.24 0.03 0.07 21.07
23 115 1.92 0.8 0.262 0.41 0.24 0.03 0.07 21.07
24 120 2.00 0.9 0.295 0.41 0.27 0.03 0.08 23.71
25 125 2.08 0.8 0.262 0.41 0.24 0.03 0.07 21.07
26 130 2.17 0.9 0.295 0.41 0.27 0.03 0.08 23.71
27 135 2.25 0.9 0.295 0.41 0.27 0.03 0.08 23.71
28 140 2.33 0.9 0.295 0.41 0.27 0.03 0.08 23.71
29 145 2.42 0.9 0.295 0.41 0.27 0.03 0.08 23.71
30 150 2.50 0.9 0.295 0.41 0.27 0.03 0.08 23.71
31 155 2.58 0.9 0.295 0.41 0.27 0.03 0.08 23.71
32 160 2.67 0.9 0.295 0.41 0.27 0.03 0.08 23.71
33 165 2.75 1.0 0.328 0.41 0.29 0.03 0.09 26.34
34 170 2.83 1.0 0.328 0.41 0.29 0.03 0.09 26.34
35 175 2.92 1.0 0.328 0.41 0.29 0.03 0.09 26.34
36 180 3.00 1.0 0.328 0.41 0.29 0.03 0.09 26.34
37 185 3.08 1.0 0.328 0.41 0.29 0.03 0.09 26.34
38 190 3.17 1.1 0.360 0.41 0.32 0.04 0.10 28.97
39 195 3.25 1.1 0.360 0.41 0.32 0.04 0.10 28.97
40 200 3.33 1.1 0.360 0.41 0.32 0.04 0.10 28.97
41 205 3.42 1.2 0.393 0.41 0.35 0.04 0.11 31.61
42 210 3.50 1.3 0.426 0.41 0.38 0.02 0.05 15.59
43 215 3.58 1.4 0.459 0.41 0.41 0.05 0.14 41.93
44 220 3.67 1.4 0.459 0.41 0.41 0.05 0.14 41.93
45 225 3.75 1.5 0.491 0.41 0.44 0.08 0.23 68.27
46 230 3.83 1.5 0.491 0.41 0.44 0.08 0.23 68.27
47 235 3.92 1.6 0.524 0.41 0.47 0.12 0.32 94.60
48 240 4.00 1.6 0.524 0.41 0.47 0.12 0.32 94.60
49 245 4.08 1.7 0.557 0.41 0.50 0.15 0.40 120.94
50 250 4.17 1.8 0.590 0.41 0.53 0.18 0.49 147.28
51 255 4.25 1.9 0.622 0.41 0.56 0.22 0.58 173.62
52 260 4.33 2.0 0.655 0.41 0.59 0.25 0.67 199.96
53 265 4.42 2.1 0.688 0.41 0.62 0.28 0.75 226.30
54 270 4.50 2.1 0.688 0.41 0.62 0.28 0.75 226.30
55 275 4.58 2.2 0.721 0.41 0.65 0.31 0.84 252.64
56 280 4.67 2.3 0.753 0.41 0.68 0.35 0.93 278.98

EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
Time Loss Rate
in/hr
Plate E-2.2

Page 5 of 14 ends

Item 3.

EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
Time Loss Rate
in/hr
57 285 4.75 2.4 0.786 0.41 0.71 0.38 1.02 305.32
58 290 4.83 2.4 0.786 0.41 0.71 0.38 1.02 305.32
59 295 4.92 2.5 0.819 0.41 0.74 0.41 1.11 331.66
60 300 5.00 2.6 0.852 0.41 0.77 0.45 1.19 358.00
61 305 5.08 3.1 1.016 0.41 0.91 0.61 1.63 489.69
62 310 5.17 3.6 1.179 0.41 1.06 0.77 2.07 621.39
63 315 5.25 3.9 1.278 0.41 1.15 0.87 2.33 700.40
64 320 5.33 4.2 1.376 0.41 1.24 0.97 2.60 779.42
65 325 5.42 4.7 1.540 0.41 1.39 1.13 3.04 911.11
66 330 5.50 5.6 1.835 0.41 1.65 1.43 3.83 1148.17
67 335 5.58 1.9 0.622 0.41 0.56 0.22 0.58 173.62
68 340 5.67 0.9 0.295 0.41 0.27 0.03 0.08 23.71
69 345 5.75 0.6 0.197 0.41 0.18 0.02 0.05 15.80
70 350 5.83 0.5 0.164 0.41 0.15 0.02 0.04 13.17
71 355 5.92 0.3 0.098 0.41 0.09 0.01 0.03 7.90
72 360 6.00 0.2 0.066 0.41 0.06 0.01 0.02 5.27

EFFECTIVE RAIN & FLOOD VOLUMES SUMMARY
EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 0.95
FLOOD VOLUME (acft) 0.21
FLOOD VOLUME (cuft) 9218.15
REQUIRED STORAGE (acft) 0.21
REQUIRED STORAGE (cuft) 9141.94
PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs) 3.83
Plate E-2.2

Page 6 of 14 ends

Item 3.

RCFCD SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD PROJECT: ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 100 YEAR 100 YEAR - 24 HOUR STORM EVENT CONCENTRATION POINT: 1
BY: JAMES R. BAZ DATE: 2/2/2025
DRAINAGE AREA-ACRES 2.680 CONSTANT LOSS RATE-in/hr n/a
UNIT TIME-MINUTES 15 VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG) in/hr 0.4065 LAG TIME - MINUTES 1.53 MINIMUM LOSS RATE (for var. loss) - in/hr 0.203 UNIT TIME-PERCENT OF LAG 982.0 LOW LOSS RATE - DECIMAL 0.90 TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN-INCHES 4.28 C 0.00376
PERCOLATION RATE (cfs) 0.00
Unit Time Pattern Storm Effective Flood Required
Period Minutes Hours Percent Rain Rain Hydrograph Storage in/hr Flow
(Plate E-5.9) Max Low in/hr cfs cf
1 15 0.25 0.2 0.034 0.718 0.031 0.003 0.01 8.26
2 30 0.50 0.3 0.051 0.709 0.046 0.005 0.01 12.39
3 45 0.75 0.3 0.051 0.701 0.046 0.005 0.01 12.39
4 60 1.00 0.4 0.068 0.693 0.062 0.007 0.02 16.52
5 75 1.25 0.3 0.051 0.685 0.046 0.005 0.01 12.39
6 90 1.50 0.3 0.051 0.677 0.046 0.005 0.01 12.39
7 105 1.75 0.3 0.051 0.669 0.046 0.005 0.01 12.39
8 120 2.00 0.4 0.068 0.661 0.062 0.007 0.02 16.52
9 135 2.25 0.4 0.068 0.653 0.062 0.007 0.02 16.52
10 150 2.50 0.4 0.068 0.645 0.062 0.007 0.02 16.52
11 165 2.75 0.5 0.086 0.637 0.077 0.009 0.02 20.65
12 180 3.00 0.5 0.086 0.629 0.077 0.009 0.02 20.65
13 195 3.25 0.5 0.086 0.621 0.077 0.009 0.02 20.65
14 210 3.50 0.5 0.086 0.613 0.077 0.009 0.02 20.65
15 225 3.75 0.5 0.086 0.606 0.077 0.009 0.02 20.65
16 240 4.00 0.6 0.103 0.598 0.092 0.010 0.03 24.78
17 255 4.25 0.6 0.103 0.591 0.092 0.010 0.03 24.78
18 270 4.50 0.7 0.120 0.583 0.108 0.012 0.03 28.91
19 285 4.75 0.7 0.120 0.576 0.108 0.012 0.03 28.91
20 300 5.00 0.8 0.137 0.568 0.123 0.014 0.04 33.03
21 315 5.25 0.6 0.103 0.561 0.092 0.010 0.03 24.78
22 330 5.50 0.7 0.120 0.553 0.108 0.012 0.03 28.91
23 345 5.75 0.8 0.137 0.546 0.123 0.014 0.04 33.03
24 360 6.00 0.8 0.137 0.539 0.123 0.014 0.04 33.03
25 375 6.25 0.9 0.154 0.532 0.139 0.015 0.04 37.16
26 390 6.50 0.9 0.154 0.525 0.139 0.015 0.04 37.16
27 405 6.75 1.0 0.171 0.518 0.154 0.017 0.05 41.29
28 420 7.00 1.0 0.171 0.511 0.154 0.017 0.05 41.29
29 435 7.25 1.0 0.171 0.504 0.154 0.017 0.05 41.29
30 450 7.50 1.1 0.188 0.497 0.169 0.019 0.05 45.42
31 465 7.75 1.2 0.205 0.490 0.185 0.021 0.06 49.55
32 480 8.00 1.3 0.223 0.483 0.200 0.022 0.06 53.68
33 495 8.25 1.5 0.257 0.477 0.231 0.026 0.07 61.94
34 510 8.50 1.5 0.257 0.470 0.231 0.026 0.07 61.94
35 525 8.75 1.6 0.274 0.463 0.247 0.027 0.07 66.07
36 540 9.00 1.7 0.291 0.457 0.262 0.029 0.08 70.20
37 555 9.25 1.9 0.325 0.450 0.293 0.033 0.09 78.46
38 570 9.50 2.0 0.342 0.444 0.308 0.034 0.09 82.59
39 585 9.75 2.1 0.360 0.438 0.324 0.036 0.10 86.72
40 600 10.00 2.2 0.377 0.431 0.339 0.038 0.10 90.85
41 615 10.25 1.5 0.257 0.425 0.231 0.026 0.07 61.94
42 630 10.50 1.5 0.257 0.419 0.231 0.026 0.07 61.94
43 645 10.75 2.0 0.342 0.413 0.308 0.034 0.09 82.59
44 660 11.00 2.0 0.342 0.407 0.308 0.034 0.09 82.59
45 675 11.25 1.9 0.325 0.401 0.293 0.033 0.09 78.46
46 690 11.50 1.9 0.325 0.395 0.293 0.033 0.09 78.46
47 705 11.75 1.7 0.291 0.389 0.262 0.029 0.08 70.20
48 720 12.00 1.8 0.308 0.383 0.277 0.031 0.08 74.33
49 735 12.25 2.5 0.428 0.378 0.385 0.050 0.14 121.68
50 750 12.50 2.6 0.445 0.372 0.401 0.073 0.20 176.61
51 765 12.75 2.8 0.479 0.366 0.431 0.113 0.30 272.68
52 780 13.00 2.9 0.496 0.361 0.447 0.136 0.36 327.29
53 795 13.25 3.4 0.582 0.355 0.524 0.227 0.61 546.91
54 810 13.50 3.4 0.582 0.350 0.524 0.232 0.62 559.90
55 825 13.75 2.3 0.394 0.345 0.354 0.049 0.13 118.49
56 840 14.00 2.3 0.394 0.339 0.354 0.054 0.15 131.15
57 855 14.25 2.7 0.462 0.334 0.416 0.128 0.34 308.80
58 870 14.50 2.6 0.445 0.329 0.401 0.116 0.31 279.82
59 885 14.75 2.6 0.445 0.324 0.401 0.121 0.32 291.95
60 900 15.00 2.5 0.428 0.319 0.385 0.109 0.29 262.62
61 915 15.25 2.4 0.411 0.314 0.370 0.097 0.26 233.10
62 930 15.50 2.3 0.394 0.309 0.354 0.084 0.23 203.41
63 945 15.75 1.9 0.325 0.305 0.293 0.021 0.06 49.65
64 960 16.00 1.9 0.325 0.300 0.293 0.025 0.07 60.87
65 975 16.25 0.4 0.068 0.295 0.062 0.007 0.02 16.52
66 990 16.50 0.4 0.068 0.291 0.062 0.007 0.02 16.52
67 1005 16.75 0.3 0.051 0.287 0.046 0.005 0.01 12.39
Time Loss Rate
in/hr

EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
Plate E-2.2

Page 7 of 14 ends

Item 3.

EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM
68 1020 17.00 0.3 0.051 0.282 0.046 0.005 0.01 12.39
69 1035 17.25 0.5 0.086 0.278 0.077 0.009 0.02 20.65
70 1050 17.50 0.5 0.086 0.274 0.077 0.009 0.02 20.65
71 1065 17.75 0.5 0.086 0.270 0.077 0.009 0.02 20.65
72 1080 18.00 0.4 0.068 0.266 0.062 0.007 0.02 16.52
73 1095 18.25 0.4 0.068 0.262 0.062 0.007 0.02 16.52
74 1110 18.50 0.4 0.068 0.258 0.062 0.007 0.02 16.52
75 1125 18.75 0.3 0.051 0.254 0.046 0.005 0.01 12.39
76 1140 19.00 0.2 0.034 0.251 0.031 0.003 0.01 8.26
77 1155 19.25 0.3 0.051 0.247 0.046 0.005 0.01 12.39
78 1170 19.50 0.4 0.068 0.244 0.062 0.007 0.02 16.52
79 1185 19.75 0.3 0.051 0.240 0.046 0.005 0.01 12.39
80 1200 20.00 0.2 0.034 0.237 0.031 0.003 0.01 8.26
81 1215 20.25 0.3 0.051 0.234 0.046 0.005 0.01 12.39
82 1230 20.50 0.3 0.051 0.231 0.046 0.005 0.01 12.39
83 1245 20.75 0.3 0.051 0.228 0.046 0.005 0.01 12.39
84 1260 21.00 0.2 0.034 0.225 0.031 0.003 0.01 8.26
85 1275 21.25 0.3 0.051 0.223 0.046 0.005 0.01 12.39
86 1290 21.50 0.2 0.034 0.220 0.031 0.003 0.01 8.26
87 1305 21.75 0.3 0.051 0.218 0.046 0.005 0.01 12.39
88 1320 22.00 0.2 0.034 0.215 0.031 0.003 0.01 8.26
89 1335 22.25 0.3 0.051 0.213 0.046 0.005 0.01 12.39
90 1350 22.50 0.2 0.034 0.211 0.031 0.003 0.01 8.26
91 1365 22.75 0.2 0.034 0.209 0.031 0.003 0.01 8.26
92 1380 23.00 0.2 0.034 0.208 0.031 0.003 0.01 8.26
93 1395 23.25 0.2 0.034 0.206 0.031 0.003 0.01 8.26
94 1410 23.50 0.2 0.034 0.205 0.031 0.003 0.01 8.26
95 1425 23.75 0.2 0.034 0.204 0.031 0.003 0.01 8.26
96 1440 24.00 0.2 0.034 0.203 0.031 0.003 0.01 8.26

EFFECTIVE RAIN & FLOOD VOLUMES SUMMARY
EFFECTIVE RAIN (in) 0.66
FLOOD VOLUME (acft) 0.15
FLOOD VOLUME (cuft) 6430.28
REQUIRED STORAGE (acft) 0.15
REQUIRED STORAGE (cuft) 6377.11
PEAK FLOW (cfs) 0.62
Plate E-2.2

Page 8 of 14 ends

Item 3.

PROJECT: ARMTEC DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY - 100 YEAR
JOB # 0
1 BASIN CHARACTERISTICS

CONTOUR DEPTH AREA VOLUME

INCR TOTAL INCR TOTAL INCR TOTAL
(ft) (ft) (sf) (sf) (cuft) (cuft) (acre-ft)
404 0 0 50322 0 0 0.00
405 1 1 4267 54589 52456 52456 1.20
406 1 2 4379 58968 56779 109234 2.51
407 1 3 4673 63641 61305 170539 3.92
407.5 0.5 3.5 2109 65750 32348 202886 4.66

PERCOLATION CALCULATIONS
PERCOLATION RATE 0 in/hr 0.00 cfs

MAXWELL IV DRYWELLS
NUMBER USED 0
RATE/DRYWELL 0 cfs
TOTAL DISSIPATED 0 cfs
TOTAL PERCOLATION RATE 0.00 cfs
Basin Characteristics

Page 9 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 JOB # 0
100 YEAR - 3 HOUR STORM EVENT

FLOW VOLUME TOTAL IN PERC TOTAL IN BASIN
UNIT (min) IN IN BASIN OUT BASIN DEPTH
PERIOD (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) (acre-ft) 1 5 0.09 26 26 0 26 404.00 26 0.00
2 10 0.09 26 51 0 51 404.00 51 0.00
3 15 0.07 22 73 0 73 404.00 73 0.00
4 20 0.10 30 102 0 102 404.00 102 0.00
5 25 0.10 30 132 0 132 404.00 132 0.00
6 30 0.09 27 159 0 159 404.00 159 0.00
7 35 0.10 30 189 0 189 404.00 189 0.00
8 40 0.09 27 216 0 216 404.00 216 0.00
9 45 0.09 27 244 0 244 404.00 244 0.01
10 50 0.10 30 273 0 273 404.01 273 0.01
11 55 0.10 31 305 0 305 404.01 305 0.01
12 60 0.09 27 332 0 332 404.01 332 0.01
13 65 0.35 106 438 0 438 404.01 438 0.01
14 70 0.35 106 545 0 545 404.01 545 0.01
15 75 0.35 106 651 0 651 404.01 651 0.01
16 80 0.22 67 718 0 718 404.01 718 0.02
17 85 0.62 185 902 0 902 404.02 902 0.02
18 90 0.68 205 1,107 0 1,107 404.02 1,107 0.03
19 95 0.49 146 1,253 0 1,253 404.02 1,253 0.03
20 100 0.68 205 1,457 0 1,457 404.03 1,457 0.03
21 105 1.08 323 1,780 0 1,780 404.03 1,780 0.04
22 110 0.94 283 2,063 0 2,063 404.04 2,063 0.05
23 115 0.81 244 2,307 0 2,307 404.04 2,307 0.05
24 120 0.88 264 2,571 0 2,571 404.05 2,571 0.06
25 125 0.94 283 2,854 0 2,854 404.05 2,854 0.07
26 130 1.67 500 3,354 0 3,354 404.06 3,354 0.08
27 135 2.19 657 4,011 0 4,011 404.08 4,011 0.09
28 140 1.21 362 4,373 0 4,373 404.08 4,373 0.10
29 145 3.37 1,012 5,385 0 5,385 404.10 5,385 0.12
30 150 3.70 1,110 6,495 0 6,495 404.12 6,495 0.15
31 155 4.29 1,287 7,782 0 7,782 404.15 7,782 0.18
32 160 2.78 834 8,616 0 8,616 404.16 8,616 0.20
33 165 0.22 67 8,683 0 8,683 404.17 8,683 0.20
34 170 0.09 27 8,711 0 8,711 404.17 8,711 0.20
35 175 0.09 27 8,738 0 8,738 404.17 8,738 0.20
36 180 0.04 12 8,750 0 8,750 404.17 8,750 0.20

BALANCE IN
BASIN
TIME
Basin Depth Analysis

Page 10 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 JOB # 0
100 YEAR - 6 HOUR STORM EVENT

FLOW VOLUME TOTAL IN PERC TOTAL IN BASIN
UNIT (min) IN IN BASIN OUT BASIN DEPTH
PERIOD (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) (acre-ft) 1 5 0.04 13 13 0 13 404.00 13 0.00
2 10 0.05 16 29 0 29 404.00 29 0.00
3 15 0.05 16 45 0 45 404.00 45 0.00
4 20 0.05 16 61 0 61 404.00 61 0.00
5 25 0.05 16 76 0 76 404.00 76 0.00
6 30 0.06 18 95 0 95 404.00 95 0.00
7 35 0.06 18 113 0 113 404.00 113 0.00
8 40 0.06 18 132 0 132 404.00 132 0.00
9 45 0.06 18 150 0 150 404.00 150 0.00
10 50 0.06 18 169 0 169 404.00 169 0.00
11 55 0.06 18 187 0 187 404.00 187 0.00
12 60 0.07 21 208 0 208 404.00 208 0.00
13 65 0.07 21 229 0 229 404.00 229 0.01
14 70 0.07 21 250 0 250 404.00 250 0.01
15 75 0.07 21 271 0 271 404.01 271 0.01
16 80 0.07 21 292 0 292 404.01 292 0.01
17 85 0.07 21 313 0 313 404.01 313 0.01
18 90 0.07 21 335 0 335 404.01 335 0.01
19 95 0.07 21 356 0 356 404.01 356 0.01
20 100 0.07 21 377 0 377 404.01 377 0.01
21 105 0.07 21 398 0 398 404.01 398 0.01
22 110 0.07 21 419 0 419 404.01 419 0.01
23 115 0.07 21 440 0 440 404.01 440 0.01
24 120 0.08 24 464 0 464 404.01 464 0.01
25 125 0.07 21 485 0 485 404.01 485 0.01
26 130 0.08 24 508 0 508 404.01 508 0.01
27 135 0.08 24 532 0 532 404.01 532 0.01
28 140 0.08 24 556 0 556 404.01 556 0.01
29 145 0.08 24 579 0 579 404.01 579 0.01
30 150 0.08 24 603 0 603 404.01 603 0.01
31 155 0.08 24 627 0 627 404.01 627 0.01
32 160 0.08 24 651 0 651 404.01 651 0.01
33 165 0.09 26 677 0 677 404.01 677 0.02
34 170 0.09 26 703 0 703 404.01 703 0.02
35 175 0.09 26 730 0 730 404.01 730 0.02
36 180 0.09 26 756 0 756 404.01 756 0.02
37 185 0.09 26 782 0 782 404.01 782 0.02
38 190 0.10 29 811 0 811 404.02 811 0.02
39 195 0.10 29 840 0 840 404.02 840 0.02
40 200 0.10 29 869 0 869 404.02 869 0.02
41 205 0.11 32 901 0 901 404.02 901 0.02
42 210 0.05 16 916 0 916 404.02 916 0.02
43 215 0.14 42 958 0 958 404.02 958 0.02
44 220 0.14 42 1,000 0 1,000 404.02 1,000 0.02
45 225 0.23 68 1,069 0 1,069 404.02 1,069 0.02
46 230 0.23 68 1,137 0 1,137 404.02 1,137 0.03
47 235 0.32 95 1,231 0 1,231 404.02 1,231 0.03
48 240 0.32 95 1,326 0 1,326 404.03 1,326 0.03
49 245 0.40 121 1,447 0 1,447 404.03 1,447 0.03
50 250 0.49 147 1,594 0 1,594 404.03 1,594 0.04
51 255 0.58 174 1,768 0 1,768 404.03 1,768 0.04
52 260 0.67 200 1,968 0 1,968 404.04 1,968 0.05
53 265 0.75 226 2,194 0 2,194 404.04 2,194 0.05
54 270 0.75 226 2,420 0 2,420 404.05 2,420 0.06
55 275 0.84 253 2,673 0 2,673 404.05 2,673 0.06

TIME BALANCE IN
BASIN
Basin Depth Analysis

Page 11 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 JOB # 0
100 YEAR - 6 HOUR STORM EVENT

FLOW VOLUME TOTAL IN PERC TOTAL IN BASIN
UNIT (min) IN IN BASIN OUT BASIN DEPTH
PERIOD (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) (acre-ft)

TIME BALANCE IN
BASIN
56 280 0.93 279 2,952 0 2,952 404.06 2,952 0.07
57 285 1.02 305 3,257 0 3,257 404.06 3,257 0.07
58 290 1.02 305 3,563 0 3,563 404.07 3,563 0.08
59 295 1.11 332 3,894 0 3,894 404.07 3,894 0.09
60 300 1.19 358 4,252 0 4,252 404.08 4,252 0.10
61 305 1.63 490 4,742 0 4,742 404.09 4,742 0.11
62 310 2.07 621 5,363 0 5,363 404.10 5,363 0.12
63 315 2.33 700 6,064 0 6,064 404.12 6,064 0.14
64 320 2.60 779 6,843 0 6,843 404.13 6,843 0.16
65 325 3.04 911 7,754 0 7,754 404.15 7,754 0.18
66 330 3.83 1,148 8,902 0 8,902 404.17 8,902 0.20
67 335 0.58 174 9,076 0 9,076 404.17 9,076 0.21
68 340 0.08 24 9,100 0 9,100 404.17 9,100 0.21
69 345 0.05 16 9,116 0 9,116 404.17 9,116 0.21
70 350 0.04 13 9,129 0 9,129 404.17 9,129 0.21
71 355 0.03 8 9,137 0 9,137 404.17 9,137 0.21
72 360 0.02 5 9,142 0 9,142 404.17 9,142 0.21
Basin Depth Analysis

Page 12 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 JOB # 0
100 YEAR - 24 HOUR STORM EVENT

FLOW VOLUME TOTAL IN PERC TOTAL IN BASIN
UNIT (min) IN IN BASIN OUT BASIN DEPTH
PERIOD (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) (acre-ft) 1 15 0.01 8 8 0 8 404.00 8 0.00
2 30 0.01 12 21 0 21 404.00 21 0.00
3 45 0.01 12 33 0 33 404.00 33 0.00
4 60 0.02 17 50 0 50 404.00 50 0.00
5 75 0.01 12 62 0 62 404.00 62 0.00
6 90 0.01 12 74 0 74 404.00 74 0.00
7 105 0.01 12 87 0 87 404.00 87 0.00
8 120 0.02 17 103 0 103 404.00 103 0.00
9 135 0.02 17 120 0 120 404.00 120 0.00
10 150 0.02 17 136 0 136 404.00 136 0.00
11 165 0.02 21 157 0 157 404.00 157 0.00
12 180 0.02 21 178 0 178 404.00 178 0.00
13 195 0.02 21 198 0 198 404.00 198 0.00
14 210 0.02 21 219 0 219 404.00 219 0.01
15 225 0.02 21 240 0 240 404.00 240 0.01
16 240 0.03 25 264 0 264 404.01 264 0.01
17 255 0.03 25 289 0 289 404.01 289 0.01
18 270 0.03 29 318 0 318 404.01 318 0.01
19 285 0.03 29 347 0 347 404.01 347 0.01
20 300 0.04 33 380 0 380 404.01 380 0.01
21 315 0.03 25 405 0 405 404.01 405 0.01
22 330 0.03 29 434 0 434 404.01 434 0.01
23 345 0.04 33 467 0 467 404.01 467 0.01
24 360 0.04 33 500 0 500 404.01 500 0.01
25 375 0.04 37 537 0 537 404.01 537 0.01
26 390 0.04 37 574 0 574 404.01 574 0.01
27 405 0.05 41 615 0 615 404.01 615 0.01
28 420 0.05 41 657 0 657 404.01 657 0.02
29 435 0.05 41 698 0 698 404.01 698 0.02
30 450 0.05 45 743 0 743 404.01 743 0.02
31 465 0.06 50 793 0 793 404.02 793 0.02
32 480 0.06 54 847 0 847 404.02 847 0.02
33 495 0.07 62 908 0 908 404.02 908 0.02
34 510 0.07 62 970 0 970 404.02 970 0.02
35 525 0.07 66 1,036 0 1,036 404.02 1,036 0.02
36 540 0.08 70 1,107 0 1,107 404.02 1,107 0.03
37 555 0.09 78 1,185 0 1,185 404.02 1,185 0.03
38 570 0.09 83 1,268 0 1,268 404.02 1,268 0.03
39 585 0.10 87 1,354 0 1,354 404.03 1,354 0.03
40 600 0.10 91 1,445 0 1,445 404.03 1,445 0.03
41 615 0.07 62 1,507 0 1,507 404.03 1,507 0.03
42 630 0.07 62 1,569 0 1,569 404.03 1,569 0.04
43 645 0.09 83 1,652 0 1,652 404.03 1,652 0.04
44 660 0.09 83 1,734 0 1,734 404.03 1,734 0.04
45 675 0.09 78 1,813 0 1,813 404.03 1,813 0.04
46 690 0.09 78 1,891 0 1,891 404.04 1,891 0.04
47 705 0.08 70 1,961 0 1,961 404.04 1,961 0.05
48 720 0.08 74 2,036 0 2,036 404.04 2,036 0.05
49 735 0.14 122 2,157 0 2,157 404.04 2,157 0.05
50 750 0.20 177 2,334 0 2,334 404.04 2,334 0.05
51 765 0.30 273 2,607 0 2,607 404.05 2,607 0.06
52 780 0.36 327 2,934 0 2,934 404.06 2,934 0.07
53 795 0.61 547 3,481 0 3,481 404.07 3,481 0.08
54 810 0.62 560 4,041 0 4,041 404.08 4,041 0.09
55 825 0.13 118 4,159 0 4,159 404.08 4,159 0.10
56 840 0.15 131 4,290 0 4,290 404.08 4,290 0.10
57 855 0.34 309 4,599 0 4,599 404.09 4,599 0.11
58 870 0.31 280 4,879 0 4,879 404.09 4,879 0.11

TIME BALANCE IN
BASIN
Basin Depth Analysis

Page 13 of 14 ends

Item 3.
1 JOB # 0
100 YEAR - 24 HOUR STORM EVENT

FLOW VOLUME TOTAL IN PERC TOTAL IN BASIN
UNIT (min) IN IN BASIN OUT BASIN DEPTH
PERIOD (cfs) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) (acre-ft)

TIME BALANCE IN
BASIN
59 885 0.32 292 5,171 0 5,171 404.10 5,171 0.12
60 900 0.29 263 5,434 0 5,434 404.10 5,434 0.12
61 915 0.26 233 5,667 0 5,667 404.11 5,667 0.13
62 930 0.23 203 5,870 0 5,870 404.11 5,870 0.13
63 945 0.06 50 5,920 0 5,920 404.11 5,920 0.14
64 960 0.07 61 5,981 0 5,981 404.11 5,981 0.14
65 975 0.02 17 5,997 0 5,997 404.11 5,997 0.14
66 990 0.02 17 6,014 0 6,014 404.11 6,014 0.14
67 1005 0.01 12 6,026 0 6,026 404.11 6,026 0.14
68 1020 0.01 12 6,039 0 6,039 404.12 6,039 0.14
69 1035 0.02 21 6,059 0 6,059 404.12 6,059 0.14
70 1050 0.02 21 6,080 0 6,080 404.12 6,080 0.14
71 1065 0.02 21 6,100 0 6,100 404.12 6,100 0.14
72 1080 0.02 17 6,117 0 6,117 404.12 6,117 0.14
73 1095 0.02 17 6,133 0 6,133 404.12 6,133 0.14
74 1110 0.02 17 6,150 0 6,150 404.12 6,150 0.14
75 1125 0.01 12 6,162 0 6,162 404.12 6,162 0.14
76 1140 0.01 6,171 8 0 6,171 404.12 6,171 0.14
77 1155 0.01 12 6,183 0 6,183 404.12 6,183 0.14
78 1170 0.02 17 6,200 0 6,200 404.12 6,200 0.14
79 1185 0.01 12 6,212 0 6,212 404.12 6,212 0.14
80 1200 0.01 8 6,220 0 6,220 404.12 6,220 0.14
81 1215 0.01 12 6,233 0 6,233 404.12 6,233 0.14
82 1230 0.01 12 6,245 0 6,245 404.12 6,245 0.14
83 1245 0.01 12 6,257 0 6,257 404.12 6,257 0.14
84 1260 0.01 8 6,266 0 6,266 404.12 6,266 0.14
85 1275 0.01 12 6,278 0 6,278 404.12 6,278 0.14
86 1290 0.01 8 6,286 0 6,286 404.12 6,286 0.14
87 1305 0.01 12 6,299 0 6,299 404.12 6,299 0.14
88 1320 0.01 8 6,307 0 6,307 404.12 6,307 0.14
89 1335 0.01 12 6,319 0 6,319 404.12 6,319 0.15
90 1350 0.01 8 6,328 0 6,328 404.12 6,328 0.15
91 1365 0.01 8 6,336 0 6,336 404.12 6,336 0.15
92 1380 0.01 8 6,344 0 6,344 404.12 6,344 0.15
93 1395 0.01 8 6,352 0 6,352 404.12 6,352 0.15
94 1410 0.01 8 6,361 0 6,361 404.12 6,361 0.15
95 1425 0.01 8 6,369 0 6,369 404.12 6,369 0.15
96 1440 0.01 8 6,377 0 6,377 404.12 6,377 0.15
Basin Depth Analysis

Page 14 of 14 ends

Item 3.

City of Coachella Armtec Expansion Master Plan
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
G
Appendix G
Noise Impact Analysis
1116
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan

NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS

CITY OF COACHELLA
PREPARED BY:

William Maddux, INCE
[email protected]
(619) 788-1971
Noah Johnson
[email protected]
JULY 26, 2024
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
1117
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
ii

1118
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... III APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ IV LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................................. IV LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... V LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................. VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Site Location .................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 3 2 FUNDAMENTALS ......................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Range of Noise .............................................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Noise Descriptors .......................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Sound Propagation ........................................................................................................................ 8

2.4 Noise Control ................................................................................................................................ 9

2.5 Noise Barrier Attenuation ............................................................................................................. 9

2.6 Land Use Compatibility With Noise ............................................................................................ 10

2.7 Community Response to Noise ................................................................................................... 10

2.8 Exposure to High Noise Levels .................................................................................................... 11

2.9 Vibration ..................................................................................................................................... 11 3 REGULATORY SETTING .............................................................................................................. 15

3.1 State of California Noise Requirements ...................................................................................... 15

3.2 City of Coachella General Plan Noise Element ............................................................................ 15

3.3 Operational Noise Standards ...................................................................................................... 17

3.4 Construction Noise Standards..................................................................................................... 17

3.5 Construction Vibration Standards ............................................................................................... 18

3.6 Aircraft Noise .............................................................................................................................. 18 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ............................................................................................................ 21

4.1 Noise Level Increases (Threshold A) ........................................................................................... 21

4.2 Vibration (Threshold B) ............................................................................................................... 22

4.3 Airport Noise Impacts (Threshold C) ........................................................................................... 22

4.4 Significance Criteria Summary .................................................................................................... 22 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ................................................................................... 25

5.1 Measurement Procedure and Criteria ........................................................................................ 25

5.2 Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................................... 25

5.3 Noise Measurement Results ....................................................................................................... 27 6 TRAFFIC NOISE METHODS AND PROCEDURES ............................................................................ 29

6.1 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model ........................................................................................ 29 7 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS ............................................................................................. 33

7.1 Traffic Noise Level Contours ....................................................................................................... 33

7.2 Existing Condition Project Traffic Noise Levels ........................................................................... 37

7.3 EA 2026 Traffic Noise Level Increases ......................................................................................... 38

7.4 EAC 2026 Traffic Noise Level Increases ....................................................................................... 39 1119
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
iv
8 AIRCRAFT NOISE ....................................................................................................................... 41 9 RECEIVER LOCATIONS................................................................................................................ 43 10 OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 45

10.1 Operational Noise Sources .......................................................................................................... 45

10.2 Reference Noise Levels ............................................................................................................... 45

10.3 CadnaA Noise Prediction Model ................................................................................................. 47

10.4 Operational Noise Levels ............................................................................................................ 48

10.5 Operational Noise Level Compliance .......................................................................................... 49

10.6 Project Operational Noise Contribution ..................................................................................... 50 11 CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 53

11.1 Construction Noise Levels ........................................................................................................... 53

11.2 Construction Reference Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 53

11.3 Construction Noise Analysis ........................................................................................................ 55

11.4 Construction Noise Level Compliance ........................................................................................ 56

11.5 Construction Vibration Analysis .................................................................................................. 57 12 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 59 13 CERTIFICATION .......................................................................................................................... 61

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.1: CITY OF COACHELLA MUNICIPAL CODE
APPENDIX 5.1: STUDY AREA PHOTOS
APPENDIX 5.2: NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.1: OFF-SITE NOISE CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX 10.1: OPERATIONAL NOISE CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX 11.1: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP .............................................................................................................. 4 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN........................................................................................................................ 5 EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS .................................................................................................... 7 EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION ............................................................................. 11 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION .......................................................... 13 EXHIBIT 3-A: LAND USE/NOISE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX .................................................................... 16 EXHIBIT 3-B: JCRA COMPATIBILITY ZONES ......................................................................................... 19 EXHIBIT 3-C: JCRA COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA ..................................................................................... 20 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS OVERVIEW ............................................................. 26 EXHIBIT 8-A: JACQUELINE COCHRAN REGIONAL AIRPORT ALUCP NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS ................ 42 EXHIBIT 9-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS ................................................................................................... 44 EXHIBIT 10-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE LOCATIONS ............................................................................... 46 EXHIBIT 11-A: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS .................................................. 54 1120
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
v

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS .................................................................. 1 TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS ................................................................................... 17 TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY .................................................................................. 23 TABLE 5-1: 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS .......................................................... 27 TABLE 6-1: OFF-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS................................................................................... 30 TABLE 6-2: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................. 30 TABLE 6-3: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS (SECONDARY, COLLECTOR) ................................................. 31 TABLE 6-4: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS (MAJOR, ARTERIAL, URBAN ARTERIAL) ............................... 31 TABLE 6-5: TRAFFIC FLOW BY VEHICLE TYPE (VEHICLE MIX) ............................................................... 31 TABLE 7-1: EXISTING 2024 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS ....................... 34 TABLE 7-2: EXISTING 2024 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS .............................. 34 TABLE 7-3: EA 2026 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS ................................. 35 TABLE 7-4: EA 2026 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS ........................................ 35 TABLE 7-5: EAC 2026 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS ............................... 36 TABLE 7-6: EAC 2026 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS ...................................... 36 TABLE 7-7: EXISTING OFF-SITE PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS ....................................... 37 TABLE 7-8: EXISTING AND AMBIENT OFF-SITE PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS ............... 38 TABLE 7-9: EXISTING, AMBIENT AND CUMULATIVE OFF-SITE PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS ............................................................................................................................................ 39 TABLE 10-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ..................................................................... 47 TABLE 10-2: DAYTIME PROJECT STATIONARY/AREA-SOURCE NOISE LEVELS (dBA LEQ) ........................ 48 TABLE 10-3: NIGHTTIME PROJECT STATIONARY/AREA-SOURCE NOISE LEVEL (dBA LEQ) ...................... 49 TABLE 10-4: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE ...................................................................... 49 TABLE 10-5: DAYTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL CONTRIBUTIONS (DBA LEQ) ................................ 51 TABLE 10-6: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL CONTRIBUTIONS (DBA LEQ) ............................. 52 TABLE 11-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS .................................................................... 55 TABLE 11-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY ................................................... 56 TABLE 11-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE ................................................................... 56 TABLE 11-4: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ...................................... 57 TABLE 11-5: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS ................................................................. 58

1121
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ANSI American National Standards Institute
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA A-weighted decibels
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
FTA Federal Transit Administration
INCE Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Leq Equivalent continuous (average) sound level
Lmax Maximum level measured over the time interval
Lmin Minimum level measured over the time interval
MCL Maximum contaminant levels
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health PPV Peak particle velocity
Project Armtec Master Plan
RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model
VdB Vibration Decibels
1122
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967-02 Noise Study
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This noise study has been prepared to determine the noise exposure and the necessary noise mitigation measures for the proposed Armtec Master Plan Project. The Project is located on the southwest corner of Tyler Street and Avenue 53 in the City of Coachella. The Project is proposed to consist of the expansion of an existing defense technologies facility which currently manufactures combustible ordinance. The purpose of this noise analysis is to ensure that the proposed operational and construction activities within the Project study area are compatible with the existing and future noise environment. The potential noise impacts on the sensitive land uses near the A summary of findings for CEQA significance criteria is shown in Table ES-1.

TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
Analysis Report
Section
Significance Findings
Unmitigated Mitigated
Off-Site Traffic Noise 7 Less Than Significant -
Aircraft Noise 9 Less Than Significant -
Operational Noise 10 Less Than Significant -
Construction Noise
11 Less Than Significant -
Construction Vibration Less Than Significant -

1123
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967-02 Noise Study
2 This page intentionally left blank
1124
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967-02 Noise Study
3 1 INTRODUCTION
This noise analysis has been completed to determine the potential noise impacts related to the development of the proposed Armtec Master Plan (“Project”). This noise study briefly describes the proposed Project, provides information regarding noise fundamentals, describes the local regulatory setting, and evaluates the potential Project-related long-term operational and temporary noise impacts associated with the construction of the.

1.1 SITE LOCATION
The Project is located on the southwest corner of Tyler Street and Avenue 53 in the City of Coachella, as shown on Exhibit 1-A. To the east and north are residential uses and to the south and west are agricultural fields. The closest highway is Highway 111 located .28 miles to the east and the closest airport is the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport, located 1.3 miles to the south.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is proposed to consist of the expansion of an existing defense technologies facility which currently manufactures combustible ordinance and is split by the road Avenue 53. The Project includes the construction and operation of new warehouses totaling 30,000 square feet (SF), new production facilities totaling 18,000 SF, expanding existing warehouses by a total of 6,000 SF as well as two new storage facilities totaling 1,800 SF and a new truck staging area. The site plan is shown on Exhibit 1-B.

1125
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967-02 Noise Study
4 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP

1126
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967-02 Noise Study
5 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN

1127
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967-02 Noise Study
6 This page intentionally left blank
1128
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967-02 Noise Study
7 2 FUNDAMENTALS
Noise has been simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm, or when it has adverse effects on health. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). A-weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Exhibit 2-A presents a summary of the typical noise levels and their subjective loudness and effects that are described in more detail below.

EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Source: Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004) March 1974.

2.1 RANGE OF NOISE
Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (1) The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is at roughly 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA 1129
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967-02 Noise Study
8 at approximately 100 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. (2) Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time.

2.2 NOISE DESCRIPTORS
Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most commonly used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period and is commonly used to describe the “average” noise levels within the environment.

Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment. Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite 24-hour noise level is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time of day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when sound appears louder. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any particular time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. The City of Coachella relies on the 24-hour CNEL level to assess land use compatibility with transportation-related noise sources.

2.3 SOUND PROPAGATION
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors.

2.3.1 GEOMETRIC SPREADING
Sound from a localized source (i.e., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source.

2.3.2 GROUND ABSORPTION
The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receptor is usually very close to the ground.

Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually 1130
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967-02 Noise Study
9 sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 feet. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receptor, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receptor such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source.

2.3.3 ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS
Receptors located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects.

2.3.4 SHIELDING
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receptor can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receptor. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation typically only has an “out of sight, out of mind” effect. That is, the perception of noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the line-of-sight to nearby residents. However, for vegetation to provide a substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide and dense enough to completely obstruct the line-of-sight between the source and the receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to 5 dBA of noise reduction. The FHWA does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise abatement measure.

2.4 NOISE CONTROL
Noise control is the process of obtaining an acceptable noise environment for a particular observation point or receptor by controlling the noise source, transmission path, receptor, or all three. This concept is known as the source-path-receptor concept. In general, noise control measures can be applied to any and all of these three elements.

2.5 NOISE BARRIER ATTENUATION
Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 15 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receptor.

Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the path of the noise source. (3) 1131
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967-02 Noise Study
10 2.6 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH NOISE
Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches and residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial developments and related activities. As ambient noise levels affect the perceived amenity or livability of a development, so too can the mismanagement of noise impacts impair the economic health and growth potential of a community by reducing the area’s desirability as a place to live, shop and work. For this reason, land use compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design process.

The FHWA encourages State and Local government to regulate land development in such a way that noise-sensitive land uses are either prohibited from being located adjacent to a highway, or that the developments are planned, designed, and constructed in such a way that noise impacts are minimized. (4)

2.7 COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO NOISE
Community responses to noise may range from registering a complaint by telephone or letter, to initiating court action, depending upon each individual’s susceptibility to noise and personal attitudes about noise. Several factors are related to the level of community annoyance including:
 Fear associated with noise-producing activities;
 Socio-economic status and educational level;
 Perception that those affected are being unfairly treated;  Attitudes regarding the usefulness of the noise-producing activity;  Belief that the noise source can be controlled.

Approximately ten percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to any noise not of their making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints will occur. Another 25 percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments. Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment. (5) Surveys have shown that about ten percent of the people exposed to traffic noise of 60 dBA will report being highly annoyed with the noise, and each increase of one dBA is associated with approximately two percent more people being highly annoyed. When traffic noise exceeds 60 dBA or aircraft noise exceeds 55 dBA, people may begin to complain. (5) Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, the population can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels as shown on Exhibit 2-B. An increase or decrease of 1 dBA cannot be perceived except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible, and changes of 5 dBA are considered readily perceptible. (3)

1132
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967-02 Noise Study
11 EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION

2.8 EXPOSURE TO HIGH NOISE LEVELS
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets legal limits on noise exposure in the workplace. The permissible exposure limit (PEL) for a worker over an eight-hour day is 90 dBA. The OSHA standard uses a 5 dBA exchange rate. This means that when the noise level is increased by 5 dBA, the amount of time a person can be exposed to a certain noise level to receive the same dose is cut in half. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has recommended that all worker exposures to noise should be controlled below a level equivalent to 85 dBA for eight hours to minimize occupational noise induced hearing loss. NIOSH also recommends a 3 dBA exchange rate so that every increase by 3 dBA doubles the amount of the noise and halves the recommended amount of exposure time. (6) OSHA has implemented requirements to protect all workers in general industry (e.g., the manufacturing and the service sectors) for employers to implement a Hearing Conservation Program where workers are exposed to a time weighted average noise level of 85 dBA or higher over an eight-hour work shift. Hearing Conservation Programs require employers to measure noise levels, provide free annual hearing exams and free hearing protection, provide training, and conduct evaluations of the adequacy of the hearing protectors in use unless changes to tools, equipment, and schedules are made so that they are less noisy and worker exposure to noise is less than the 85 dBA. This noise study does not evaluate the noise exposure of workers within a project or construction site based on CEQA requirements, and instead, evaluates Project-related operational and construction noise levels at the nearby sensitive receiver locations in the Project study area. Further, periodic exposure to high noise levels in short duration, such as Project construction, is typically considered an annoyance and not impactful to human health. It would take several years of exposure to high noise levels to result in hearing impairment. (7)

2.9 VIBRATION
Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment (8), vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-borne noise. Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment).

Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Just Perceptible
Barely Perceptible
Readily Perceptible
Twice as Loud
Noise Level Increase (dBA)
1133
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967-02 Noise Study
12 As is the case with airborne sound, ground-borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency.

There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings, but is not always suitable for evaluating human response (annoyance) because it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Instead, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude often described as the root mean square (RMS). The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal, and is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS.

Decibel notation (VdB) serves to reduce the range of numbers used to describe human response to vibration. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receivers for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and sick), and vibration-sensitive equipment.

The background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is generally 50 VdB. Ground-borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration-velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Exhibit 2-C illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural response to ground-borne vibration.

1134
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967-02 Noise Study
13 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment. 1135
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967-02 Noise Study
14 This page intentionally left blank
1136
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967-02 Noise Study
15 3 REGULATORY SETTING
To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. In most areas, automobile and truck traffic is the major source of environmental noise. Traffic activity generally produces an average sound level that remains constant with time. Air and rail traffic, and commercial and industrial activities are also major sources of noise in some areas.

Federal, state, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise. Federal and state agencies generally set noise standards for mobile sources such as aircraft and motor vehicles, while regulation of stationary sources is left to local agencies.

3.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOISE REQUIREMENTS
The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. State law requires that each county and city adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise Element which is to be prepared according to guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. (9) The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts.

3.2 CITY OF COACHELLA GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT
The City of Coachella has adopted a Noise Element of the General Plan as a tool for local planners to use in achieving and maintaining land uses that are compatible with environmental noise levels. (10) The Noise Element identifies noise goals and policies to protect City of Coachella residents from excessive noise. The goals of the Noise Element are as follows:

Goal 1 Land Use Planning and Design. A community where noise compatibility between differing types of land uses is ensured through land use planning and design strategies.

Goal 2 Stationary Source Noise. A community where excessive noise from stationary sources is minimized.

Goal 3 Mobile Source Noise. A community where excessive noise from mobile sources is minimized.

To ensure noise-sensitive land uses are protected from high levels of noise (Goal 1), Exhibit 3-A identifies exterior noise level guidelines for new developments impacted by transportation noise sources such as arterial roads, freeways, airports and railroads. In addition, Table 1 of the Noise Technical Appendix provides an exterior noise level standard of 65 dBA CNEL and an interior noise level standard of 45 dBA CNEL for new residential developments impacted by transportation noise. The Noise Element also requires the analysis of new developments, as necessary, to identify mitigation measures to reduce noise levels to those found in Exhibit 3-A. 1137
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967-02 Noise Study
16 EXHIBIT 3-A: LAND USE/NOISE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX
Source: City of Coachella General Plan Noise Element, Figure 10-1.

The noise criteria identified in the City of Coachella Noise Element are guidelines to evaluate the land use compatibility of transportation-related noise. The compatibility criteria, shown on Exhibit 3-A, provides the City with a planning tool to gauge the compatibility of land uses relative to existing and future exterior noise levels.

Exhibit 3-A provides guidelines to evaluate the acceptability of the transportation-related noise level impacts. These guidelines are based on the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and are used to assess the long-term traffic noise impacts on land uses. According to the land use compatibility guidelines of the General Plan, the utility/institutional land use of the Project is considered clearly compatible with exterior noise levels approaching 70 dBA CNEL. For 1138
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967-02 Noise Study
17 comparison, noise-sensitive residential land uses are considered clearly compatible with exterior noise levels of 60 dBA CNEL. (10)

3.3 OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from a designated fixed location or private property such as the Armtec Master Plan Project, operational source noise such as the roof top air conditioners and a truck staging/loading area are typically evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code. For noise-sensitive residential properties, the City of Coachella Municipal Code, Section 7.04.030 (A), identifies exterior operational noise level limits for the daytime (6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) hours of 55 dBA Leq and 45 dBA Leq during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) hours. The City of Coachella Municipal Code noise level standards are shown in Table 3-1 and provided in Appendix 3.1.

TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS
Jurisdiction Land
Use
Time
Period
Exterior Noise
Level Standards
(dBA Leq)2
Coachella1 Residential Daytime (6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) 55 Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) 45 1
Source: City of Coachella Municipal Code, Section 7.04.030 (A). 2 Leq represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period.

3.4 CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS
To control noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Project, the City has established limits to the hours of operation. Section 7.04.070 of the City’s Municipal Code, provided in Appendix 3.1, indicates that construction activities shall be limited from October 1st through April 30th, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. From May 1st through September 30th, construction is limited to between 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday to Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. (11) However, neither the City of Coachella General Plan nor Municipal Code establish numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers. Therefore, a numerical construction threshold based on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for analysis of daytime construction impacts, as discussed below.

According to the FTA, local noise ordinances are typically not very useful in evaluating construction noise. They usually relate to nuisance and hours of allowed activity, and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels, but are generally not practical for assessing the impact of a construction project. Project construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land use. Due to the lack of standardized construction noise thresholds, the FTA provides guidelines that can be considered reasonable criteria for 1139
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967-02 Noise Study
18 construction noise assessment. The FTA considers a daytime exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leq as a reasonable threshold for noise sensitive residential land use (12 p. 179).

3.5 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION STANDARDS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. Construction vibration is generally associated with pile driving and rock blasting. Other construction equipment such as air compressors, light trucks, hydraulic loaders, etc., generates little or no ground vibration (12).

To analyze vibration impacts associated with the Project, vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code if such standards exist. The City of Coachella does not identify specific construction vibration level limits.

Therefore, for analysis purposes, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, (13 p. 38) Table 19, vibration damage are used in this noise study to assess potential temporary construction-related impacts at adjacent building locations. The nearest noise sensitive buildings adjacent to the Project site can best be described as “older residential structures” with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec).

3.6 AIRCRAFT NOISE
The County of Riverside is responsible for the management and development of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for each public use and military airport in Riverside County. Each ALUCP identifies land use and noise level compatibility due to operations at airports as well as forecasted noise level contours based on future operations at each airport. These noise level contours and land use compatibility noise levels are used in determining whether a proposed land use is consistent with forecasted noise levels. The ALUCP for the Project site is the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport (JCRA) ALUCP. Exhibits 3-B and 3-C present the JCRA Compatibility Zones and the JCRA Compatibility Criteria, respectively. The Project is located in Zone D as shown on Exhibit 3-B
1140
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967-02 Noise Study
19 EXHIBIT 3-B: JCRA COMPATIBILITY ZONES
1141
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
20 EXHIBIT 3-C: JCRA COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA
1142
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
21 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following significance criteria are based on currently adopted guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14). For the purposes of this report, impacts would be potentially significant if the Project results in or causes:

A. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
B. Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? C. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

4.1 NOISE LEVEL INCREASES (THRESHOLD A)
Noise level increases resulting from the Project are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines described above at the closest sensitive receiver locations. Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing ambient noise levels, and the location of noise-sensitive receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. This approach recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant. (15) This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and differing individual experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise is the comparison of it to the existing environment to which one has adapted—the so-called ambient environment.

In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will typically be judged. The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) (16) developed guidance to be used for the assessment of project-generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level. The FICON recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by aircraft noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these recommendations are often used in environmental noise impact assessments involving the use of cumulative noise exposure metrics, such as the average-daily noise level (CNEL) and equivalent continuous noise level (Leq). The FICON guidance provides an established source of criteria to assess the impacts of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Based on the FICON criteria, the amount to which a given noise level increase is considered acceptable is reduced when the without Project noise levels are already shown to exceed certain land-use specific exterior noise level criteria. The specific levels are based on typical responses to noise level increases of 5 dBA or readily perceptible, 3 dBA or barely perceptible, and 1.5 dBA depending on the underlying without Project noise levels for noisesensitive uses. These levels of increases and their perceived acceptance are consistent with guidance provided by both the Federal Highway Administration (17 p. 9) and Caltrans (1). 1143
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
22 4.2 VIBRATION (THRESHOLD B)
As described in Section 3.5, the vibration impacts originating from the construction of the Project Armtec Master Planare appropriately evaluated using the Caltrans vibration damage thresholds to assess potential temporary construction-related impacts at adjacent building locations. The nearest noise sensitive buildings adjacent to the Project site can best be described as “older residential structures” with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.30 PPV (in/sec).

4.3 AIRPORT NOISE IMPACTS (THRESHOLD C)
CEQA Noise Threshold C applies when there are nearby public and private airports and/or air strips and focuses on land use compatibility of the Project to nearby airports and airstrips. The Project is located approximately 1.3 miles north of the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport (JCRA). As such, the Project site would potentially be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations, and therefore, further noise analysis is conducted in relation to Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, Noise Threshold C.

4.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Noise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the proposed Project. Table 4-1 shows the significance criteria summary matrix. 1144
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
23 TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Analysis Land Use Condition(s) Significance Criteria
Daytime Nighttime
Offsite
Noise
NoiseSensitive
if ambient is < 60 dBA Leq1 ≥ 5 dBA Leq Project increase if ambient is 60 - 65 dBA Leq1 ≥ 3 dBA Leq Project increase if ambient is > 65 dBA Leq1 ≥ 1.5 dBA Leq Project increase Aircraft All Exterior Noise Level Standards2 See Exhibit 3-C Operational
Noise
NoiseSensitive
Exterior Noise Level Standards3
55 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq
if ambient is < 60 dBA Leq1 ≥ 5 dBA Leq Project increase if ambient is 60 - 65 dBA Leq1 ≥ 3 dBA Leq Project increase if ambient is > 65 dBA Leq1 ≥ 1.5 dBA Leq Project increase Construction
Noise &
Vibration
Permitted
Construction
Hours4
October 1st to April 30th
6:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Mondays to Fridays
May 1st to September 30th
5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Mondays to Fridays
All Year: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays NoiseSensitive
Noise Level Threshold5
80 dBA Leq n/a
Vibration Level Threshold6 0.30 PPV
(in/sec) n/a
1 Source: FICON, 1992.
2 Source: Riverside County ALUCP, 2004
3 Source: City of Coachella Municipal Code, Section 7.04.030 (A). 4 Source: City of Coachella Municipal Code, Section 7.04.070. 5 Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 6 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. "Daytime" = 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.; "n/a" = No nighttime operation is anticipated at the Project site and no nighttime construction activity is permitted, and therefore, no nighttime noise level thresholds are identified. 1145
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
24 This page intentionally left blank
1146
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
25 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
To assess the existing noise level environment, five 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at sensitive receiver locations in the Project study area. The receiver locations were selected to describe and document the existing noise environment within the Project study area.

Exhibit 5-A provides the boundaries of the Project study area and the noise level measurement locations. To fully describe the existing noise conditions, noise level measurements were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on Thursday, June 13th, 2024. Appendix 5.1 includes study area photos.

5.1 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA
To describe the existing noise environment, the hourly noise levels were measured during typical weekday conditions over a 24-hour period. By collecting individual hourly noise level measurements, it is possible to describe the daytime and nighttime hourly noise levels and calculate the 24-hour CNEL. The long-term noise readings were recorded using Piccolo Type 2 integrating sound level meter and dataloggers. The Piccolo sound level meters were calibrated using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 150. All noise meters were programmed in “slow” mode to record noise levels in “A” weighted form. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (18)

5.2 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
The long-term noise level measurements were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site. Based on recommendations found in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, it is not necessary to collect measurements at each individual building or residence, because each receiver measurement represents a group of buildings that share acoustical equivalence. (8) In other words, the area represented by the receiver shares similar shielding, terrain, and geometric relationship to the reference noise source. Receivers represent a location of noise sensitive areas and are used to estimate the future noise level impacts. Collecting reference ambient noise level measurements at the nearby sensitive receiver locations allows for a comparison of the before and after Project noise levels and is necessary to assess potential noise impacts due to the Project’s contribution to the ambient noise levels.

1147
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
26 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS OVERVIEW
1148
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
27 5.3 NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
To describe the existing ambient noise environment, the noise measurements presented below focus on the average or equivalent sound levels (Leq). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Table 5-1 identifies the average hourly daytime (6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) noise levels at each noise level measurement location. Appendix 5.2 provides a summary of the existing hourly ambient noise levels described below.

Table 5-1 provides the (energy average) noise levels used to describe the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions. These daytime and nighttime energy average noise levels represent the average of all hourly noise levels observed during these time periods expressed as a single number. Appendix 5.2 provides summary worksheets of the noise levels for each hour as well as the minimum, maximum, L1, L2, L5, L8, L25, L50, L90, L95, and L99 percentile noise levels observed during the daytime and nighttime periods.

The background ambient noise levels in the Project study area are dominated by the transportation-related noise associated with the arterial roadway network. This includes auto and heavy truck activities near the noise level measurement locations. The 24-hour existing noise level measurements shown in Table 5-1 present the worst-case existing unmitigated ambient noise conditions.

TABLE 5-1: 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Measurement1 Location
Energy Average Hourly
Noise Level (dBA Leq)2
Daytime Nighttime
L1 Located west of the site near the residence
at 53330 Shady Ln. 49.5 45.3
L2 Located south of the site near the residence
at 85755 Avenue 54. 64.4 62.2
L3 Located east of the site near the residence
at 53460 Tyler St. 64.4 64.0
L4 Located east of the site near the residences
at 53450 Tyler St. 63.0 61.8
L5 Located north of the site near the residence
at 85925 Avenida Raylynn. 65.5 63.6

1149
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
28 This page intentionally left blank
1150
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
29 6 TRAFFIC NOISE METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The following section outlines the methods and procedures used to estimate and analyze the future traffic noise environment. Consistent with the City of Coachella Land Use Compatibility guidelines, all transportation-related noise levels are presented in terms of the 24-hour CNEL.

6.1 FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
The expected roadway noise level increases from vehicular traffic were calculated by Urban Crossroads, Inc. using a computer program that replicates the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108. (19) The FHWA Model arrives at a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL). In California, the national REMELs are substituted with the California Vehicle Noise (Calveno) Emission Levels. (20) Adjustments are then made to the REMEL to account for:
the roadway classification (e.g., collector, secondary, major, or arterial), the roadway active width (i.e., the distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway), the total average daily traffic (ADT), the travel speed, the percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks in the traffic volume, the roadway grade, the angle of view (e.g., whether the roadway view is blocked), the site conditions ("hard" or "soft" relates to the absorption of the ground, pavement, or landscaping), and the percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period. Research conducted by Caltrans has shown that the use of soft site conditions is appropriate for the application of the FHWA traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis. (21)

6.1.1 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL INPUTS
Table 6-1 presents the roadway parameters used to assess the Project’s off-site transportation noise impacts. Table 6-1 identifies the eight off-site study area roadway segments, the distance from the centerline to adjacent receiving land use based on the functional roadway classifications per the City of Coachella General Plan Circulation Element, and the posted vehicle speeds. The ADT volumes used in this study are presented in Table 6-2 are based on the Armtec Master Plan Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (22) for the following traffic conditions:
 Existing 2024 Without Project Conditions
 Existing 2024 With Project Conditions
 Existing Plus Ambient Growth (EA) 2026 Without Project Conditions  EA 2026 With Project Conditions
 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative (EAC) 2026 Without Project Conditions  EAC 2026 With Project Conditions
1151
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
30 TABLE 6-1: OFF-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS
ID Roadway Segment Classification1 Distance from Centerline to Receiving Land Use (Feet)3
Vehicle
Speed
(mph)
1 Tyler St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. Primary Arterial 40' 50 2 Tyler St. s/o Avenue 53 Primary Arterial 40' 50
3 Tyler St. s/o Armtec Entrance Primary Arterial 40' 50 4 Palm St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. Local 30' 40
5 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Tyler St. Major Arterial 30' 50
6 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Palm St. Major Arterial 30' 50
7 Grapefruit Blvd. e/o Palm St. Major Arterial 30' 50
8 Airport Blvd. w/o Palm St. Major Arterial 46' 45 1
City of Coachella and City General Plan Circulation Element 2 Distance to receiving land use is based upon the right-of-way distances.

TABLE 6-2: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ID Roadway Segment
Average Daily Traffic Volumes1
Existing Existing Plus Ambient
Growth
Existing Plus Ambient
Growth Plus Cumulative
Without
Project With Project Without Project With Project Without Project With Project 1 Tyler St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. 2,090 2,190 2,170 2,270 2,250 2,350 2 Tyler St. s/o Avenue 53 1,700 1,810 1,770 1,880 1,830 1,940 3 Tyler St. s/o Armtec Entrance 1,330 1,340 1,380 1,390 1,440 1,450 4 Palm St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. 1,510 1,540 1,580 1,610 2,170 2,200 5 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Tyler St. 7,970 8,000 8,290 8,320 8,410 8,440 6 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Palm St. 6,050 6,060 6,300 6,310 6,970 6,980 7 Grapefruit Blvd. e/o Palm St. 3,100 3,110 3,220 3,230 3,610 3,620 8 Airport Blvd. w/o Palm St. 3,420 3,460 3,560 3,600 3,730 3,770 1 Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis, Urban Crossroads. 1152
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
31 The ADT volumes vary for each roadway segment based on the existing traffic volumes and the combination of Project traffic distributions. Tables 6-3 and 6-4 provide the time of day (daytime, evening, and nighttime) vehicle splits and Table 6-5 presents the traffic flow distributions (vehicle mix) used for this analysis. The vehicle mix provides the hourly distribution percentages of automobile, medium trucks, and heavy trucks for input into the FHWA noise prediction model.

TABLE 6-3: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS (SECONDARY, COLLECTOR) Time Period Vehicle Type
Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks
Daytime (7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.) 75.5% 48.9% 47.3%
Evening (7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.) 14.0% 2.2% 5.4%
Nighttime (10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.) 10.5% 48.9% 47.3%
Total: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: County of Riverside Office of Industrial Hygiene - Secondary, Collector TABLE 6-4: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS (MAJOR, ARTERIAL, URBAN ARTERIAL) Time Period Vehicle Type
Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks
Daytime (7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.) 75.5% 48.0% 48.0%
Evening (7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.) 14.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Nighttime (10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.) 10.5% 50.0% 50.0%
Total: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: County of Riverside Office of Industrial Hygiene - Major, Arterial, Urban Arterial TABLE 6-5: TRAFFIC FLOW BY VEHICLE TYPE (VEHICLE MIX)
Roadway
Total % Traffic Flow
Total
Autos Medium
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks
Expressway, Arterial, Major1 92.00% 3.00% 5.00% 100.00% Secondary, Collector1 97.42% 1.84% 0.74% 100.00% 1
Source: County of Riverside Office of Industrial Hygiene, 2017.

1153
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
32 This page intentionally left blank
1154
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
33 7 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS
To assess the off-site traffic CNEL noise level impacts associated with development of the proposed Project, noise level contours were developed based on Armtec Master Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. (23) Noise level contour boundaries represent the equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway. Noise level contours were developed for the following traffic scenarios:
 Existing 2024 Without Project Conditions
 Existing 2024 With Project Conditions
 Existing Plus Ambient Growth (EA) 2026 Without Project Conditions  EA 2026 With Project Conditions
 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative (EAC) 2026 Without Project Conditions  EAC 2026 With Project Conditions

7.1 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS
Noise contours were used to assess the Project’s incremental 24-hour dBA CNEL traffic-related noise impacts at land uses adjacent to roadways conveying Project traffic. The noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of a constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL noise levels. The noise contours do not consider the effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may attenuate ambient noise levels.

In addition, because the noise contours reflect modeling of vehicular noise on area roadways, they appropriately do not reflect noise contributions from the surrounding stationary noise sources within the Project study area.

Tables 7-1 through 7-6 present a summary of the exterior dBA CNEL traffic noise levels. Roadway segments are analyzed in each of the following timeframes: Existing with and without Project conditions, EA with and without Project conditions, EAC with and without Project conditions.

Appendix 7.1 includes a summary of the dBA CNEL traffic noise level contours for each of the traffic scenarios.
1155
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
34 TABLE 7-1: EXISTING 2024 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS ID Road Segment
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Tyler St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. 70.2 41 88 190
2 Tyler St. s/o Avenue 53 69.3 36 77 166
3 Tyler St. s/o Armtec Entrance 68.2 30 65 141
4 Palm St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. 62.5 9 20 44
5 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Tyler St. 76.4 81 174 374
6 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Palm St. 75.2 67 145 312
7 Grapefruit Blvd. e/o Palm St. 72.3 43 93 200
8 Airport Blvd. w/o Palm St. 72.0 62 134 289 1
The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.

TABLE 7-2: EXISTING 2024 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS ID Road Segment
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Tyler St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. 70.4 42 91 196
2 Tyler St. s/o Avenue 53 69.5 37 80 173
3 Tyler St. s/o Armtec Entrance 68.2 30 66 142
4 Palm St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. 62.6 10 21 45
5 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Tyler St. 76.5 81 174 375
6 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Palm St. 75.3 67 145 312
7 Grapefruit Blvd. e/o Palm St. 72.4 43 93 200
8 Airport Blvd. w/o Palm St. 72.0 63 135 292 1
The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. 1156
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
35 TABLE 7-3: EA 2026 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS ID Road Segment
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Tyler St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. 70.3 42 91 195
2 Tyler St. s/o Avenue 53 69.4 37 79 170
3 Tyler St. s/o Armtec Entrance 68.4 31 67 144
4 Palm St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. 62.7 10 21 45
5 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Tyler St. 76.6 83 178 384
6 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Palm St. 75.4 69 149 320
7 Grapefruit Blvd. e/o Palm St. 72.5 44 95 205
8 Airport Blvd. w/o Palm St. 72.2 64 138 297 1
The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.

TABLE 7-4: EA 2026 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS ID Road Segment
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Tyler St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. 70.5 43 93 201
2 Tyler St. s/o Avenue 53 69.7 38 82 177
3 Tyler St. s/o Armtec Entrance 68.4 31 67 145
4 Palm St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. 62.8 10 21 46
5 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Tyler St. 76.6 83 179 385
6 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Palm St. 75.4 69 149 320
7 Grapefruit Blvd. e/o Palm St. 72.5 44 95 205
8 Airport Blvd. w/o Palm St. 72.2 64 139 299 1
The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. 1157
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
36 TABLE 7-5: EAC 2026 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS ID Road Segment
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Tyler St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. 70.5 43 93 200
2 Tyler St. s/o Avenue 53 69.6 38 81 174
3 Tyler St. s/o Armtec Entrance 68.5 32 69 148
4 Palm St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. 64.1 12 26 56
5 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Tyler St. 76.7 84 180 388
6 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Palm St. 75.9 74 159 342
7 Grapefruit Blvd. e/o Palm St. 73.0 48 103 221
8 Airport Blvd. w/o Palm St. 72.4 66 142 307 1
The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.

TABLE 7-6: EAC 2026 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS ID Road Segment
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Tyler St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. 70.7 44 96 206
2 Tyler St. s/o Avenue 53 69.8 39 84 181
3 Tyler St. s/o Armtec Entrance 68.6 32 69 149
4 Palm St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. 64.1 12 26 57
5 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Tyler St. 76.7 84 181 389
6 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Palm St. 75.9 74 159 343
7 Grapefruit Blvd. e/o Palm St. 73.0 48 103 221
8 Airport Blvd. w/o Palm St. 72.4 67 143 309 1
The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. 1158
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
37 7.2 EXISTING CONDITION PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Table 7-1 presents the Existing 2024 without Project conditions, expected to range from 62.5 to

76.4 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-2 shows the Existing 2024 with Project conditions will range from 62.6 to

76.5 dBA CNEL. As shown in Table 7-7, the addition of the Project will generate a noise level increase of up to 0.2 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments. Based on the significance criteria in Section 4.2 for off-site traffic noise impacts, the Project-related noise level increases are considered less than significant under Existing conditions at the land uses adjacent to roadways conveying Project traffic.

TABLE 7-7: EXISTING OFF-SITE PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS ID Road Segment
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold2
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Tyler St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. 70.2 70.4 0.2 1.5 No
2 Tyler St. s/o Avenue 53 69.3 69.5 0.2 1.5 No
3 Tyler St. s/o Armtec Entrance 68.2 68.2 0.0 1.5 No
4 Palm St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. 62.5 62.6 0.1 3.0 No
5 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Tyler St. 76.4 76.5 0.1 1.5 No
6 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Palm St. 75.2 75.3 0.1 1.5 No
7 Grapefruit Blvd. e/o Palm St. 72.3 72.4 0.1 1.5 No
8 Airport Blvd. w/o Palm St. 72.0 72.0 0.0 1.5 No 1
The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 2 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? 1159
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
38 7.3 EA 2026 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Table 7-3 presents the EA 2026 without Project conditions, expected to range from 62.7 to 76.6 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-4 shows the EA 2026 with Project conditions will range from 62.8 to 76.6 dBA CNEL. As shown in Table 7-8, the addition of the Project will generate noise level increases of up to 0.3 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Section 4.2 for off-site traffic noise impacts, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases due to unmitigated EA 2026 Project-related traffic noise levels.

TABLE 7-8: EXISTING AND AMBIENT OFF-SITE PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS ID Road Segment
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold2
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Tyler St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. 70.3 70.5 0.2 1.5 No
2 Tyler St. s/o Avenue 53 69.4 69.7 0.3 1.5 No
3 Tyler St. s/o Armtec Entrance 68.4 68.4 0.0 1.5 No
4 Palm St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. 62.7 62.8 0.1 3.0 No
5 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Tyler St. 76.6 76.6 0.0 1.5 No
6 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Palm St. 75.4 75.4 0.0 1.5 No
7 Grapefruit Blvd. e/o Palm St. 72.5 72.5 0.0 1.5 No
8 Airport Blvd. w/o Palm St. 72.2 72.2 0.0 1.5 No 1
The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 2 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? 1160
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
39 7.4 EAC 2026 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Table 7-5 presents the EAC 2026 without Project conditions, expected to range from 64.1 to 76.7 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-6 shows the EAC 2026 with Project conditions will range from 64.1 to 76.7 dBA CNEL. As shown in Table 7-9, the addition of the Project will generate noise level increases up to 0.2 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Section 4.4 for off-site traffic noise impacts, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases due to unmitigated EAC 2026 Project-related traffic noise levels.

TABLE 7-9: EXISTING, AMBIENT AND CUMULATIVE OFF-SITE PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE

IMPACTS
ID Road Segment
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold2
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Tyler St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. 70.5 70.7 0.2 1.5 No
2 Tyler St. s/o Avenue 53 69.6 69.8 0.2 1.5 No
3 Tyler St. s/o Armtec Entrance 68.5 68.6 0.1 1.5 No
4 Palm St. s/o Grapefruit Blvd. 64.1 64.1 0.0 3.0 No
5 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Tyler St. 76.7 76.7 0.0 1.5 No
6 Grapefruit Blvd. w/o Palm St. 75.9 75.9 0.0 1.5 No
7 Grapefruit Blvd. e/o Palm St. 73.0 73.0 0.0 1.5 No
8 Airport Blvd. w/o Palm St. 72.4 72.4 0.0 1.5 No 1
The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 2 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? 1161
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
40 This page intentionally left blank
1162
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
41 8 AIRCRAFT NOISE
The Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport (JCRA) is located approximately 1.3 miles south of the Project site. The Project is within Zone D of the Riverside County ALUCP compatibility zones and, as can be seen in Exhibit 3-C, the ALUCP stipulates that so long as the density of the Project is restricted to 100 people/acre the potential conflict can be abated for non-residential uses within the zone. As shown in Exhibit 8-A, the Project lies outside of the 55 dBA CNEL contour for JCRA.

This is below the compatibility standards of 55 dBA CNEL as shown on the significance criteria matrix in Table 4-1. Therefore, impacts due to aircraft noise would be less than significant.

1163
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
42 EXHIBIT 8-A: JACQUELINE COCHRAN REGIONAL AIRPORT ALUCP NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS 1164
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
43 9 RECEIVER LOCATIONS
To assess the potential for long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts, the following sensitive receiver locations, as shown on Exhibit 9-A, were identified as representative locations for analysis. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land.

Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include schools, hospitals, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, and recreation areas. Moderately noisesensitive land uses typically include multi-family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, outpatient clinics, cemeteries, golf courses, country clubs, athletic/tennis clubs, and equestrian clubs. Land uses that are considered relatively insensitive to noise include business, commercial, and professional developments. Land uses that are typically not affected by noise include:
industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture, undeveloped land, parking lots, warehousing, liquid and solid waste facilities, salvage yards, and transit terminals.

To describe the potential off-site Project noise levels, five receiver locations in the vicinity of the Project site were identified. The selection of receiver locations is based on FHWA guidelines and is consistent with additional guidance provided by Caltrans and the FTA, as previously described in Section 5.2. Other sensitive land uses in the Project study area that are located at greater distances than those identified in this noise study will experience lower noise levels than those presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures. Distance is measured in a straight line from the Project boundary to each receiver location.

R1: Location R1 represents the private residence at 53330 Shady Lane, approximately 1,363 feet west of the Project site. R1 is placed in the residence’s outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R2: Location R2 represents the private residence at 85755 Avenue 54, approximately 1,403 feet south of the Project site. Receiver R2 is placed at the façade facing the Project site.

A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R3: Location R3 represents the private residence at 53460 Tyler Street, approximately 100 feet east of the Project site. Receiver R3 is placed at the façade facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L3, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R4: Location R4 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 53450 Tyler Street, approximately 114 feet east of the Project site. Receiver R4 is placed at the façade facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L4, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R5: Location R5 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 85925 Avenida Raylynn, approximately 102 feet north of the Project site. Receiver R5 is placed in the outdoor living area (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L5, to describe the existing ambient noise environment. 1165
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
44 EXHIBIT 9-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS

1166
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
45 10 OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS
This section analyzes potential impacts resulting from the activities associated with the operation of the Project, including roof top air conditioners and a truck staging/loading area.

10.1 OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCES
This operational noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with the expected typical daytime and nighttime activities at the Project site. The on-site Project-related noise sources are expected to include: roof top air conditioners and a truck staging/loading area.

10.2 REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To estimate the Project operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities or taken from manufacturer’s specification sheets to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the proposed Project. This section provides a detailed description of the reference noise levels shown in Table 10-1 used to estimate the Project operational noise impacts. It is important to note that the following projected noise levels assume the worst-case noise environment with the roof top air conditioners and a truck staging/loading area all operating at the same time. These sources of noise activity will likely vary throughout the day.

10.2.1 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES
Unless noted in the following descriptions, the reference noise level measurements presented in this section were collected using a Larson Davis LxT Type 1 precision sound level meter (serial number 01146). The LxT sound level meter was calibrated using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 200, which was programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form and was located at approximately five feet above the ground elevation for each measurement. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements.

All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (18)

1167
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
46 EXHIBIT 10-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE LOCATIONS
1168
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
47 TABLE 10-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Noise Source
Noise Source
Height
(Feet)
Min./Hour1 Reference
Noise Level
@50 feet
(dBA Leq)
Sound
Power
Level
(dBA) Day Night 2
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 5' 39 28 57.2 88.9
Staging/Loading Activities 5' 60 0 71.8 103.7 1
Anticipated duration (minutes within the hour) of noise activity during typical hourly conditions expected at the Project site.
2 Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings. Sound power levels calculated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source.
"Day" = 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; "Evening" = 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Night" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

10.2.2 ROOF-TOP AIR CONDITIONING UNITS
To assess the noise levels created by the roof-top air conditioning units, reference noise level measurements were collected from a Lennox SCA120 series 10-ton model packaged air conditioning unit. At the uniform reference distance of 50 feet, the reference noise levels are

57.2 dBA Leq. Based on the typical operating conditions observed over a four-day measurement period, the roof-top air conditioning units are estimated to operate for an average of 39 minutes per hour during the daytime hours, and 28 minutes per hour during the nighttime hours. For this noise analysis, the air conditioning units are expected to be located on the roof of the proposed building. This reference noise level describes the expected roof-top air conditioning units located 5 feet above the roof.

10.2.3 TRUCK STAGING/LOADING ACTIVITIES
To represent the noise levels associated with truck staging/loading activities, Urban Crossroads collected a reference noise level measurement of a loaded semi-truck parking. The measured reference noise level at the uniform 50-foot reference distance is 71.8 dBA Leq for truck staging and loading. The truck staging and loading noise levels include opening/closing doors, engines revving, brakes engaging, transferring cargo, and engines idling. Noise associated with truck staging is expected to occur for the entire hour (60 minutes) during the daytime hours.

10.3 CADNAANOISE PREDICTION MODEL
To fully describe the exterior operational noise levels from the Project, Urban Crossroads, Inc. developed a noise prediction model using the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program. CadnaA can analyze multiple types of noise sources using the spatially accurate Project site plan, georeferenced Nearmap aerial imagery, topography, buildings, and barriers in its calculations to predict outdoor noise levels.

Using the ISO 9613-2 protocol, CadnaA will calculate the distance from each noise source to the noise receiver locations, using the ground absorption, distance, and barrier/building attenuation inputs to provide a summary of noise level at each receiver and the partial noise level 1169
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
48 contributions by noise source. Consistent with the ISO 9613-2 protocol, the CadnaA noise prediction model relies on the reference sound power level (Lw) to describe individual noise sources. While sound pressure levels (e.g., Leq) quantify in decibels the intensity of given sound sources at a reference distance, sound power levels (Lw) are connected to the sound source and are independent of distance. Sound pressure levels vary substantially with distance from the source and diminish because of intervening obstacles and barriers, air absorption, wind, and other factors. Sound power is the acoustical energy emitted by the sound source and is an absolute value that is not affected by the environment. The operational noise level calculations provided in this noise study account for the distance attenuation provided due to geometric spreading, when sound from a localized stationary source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. A default ground attenuation factor of 0.5 was used in the noise analysis to account for mixed ground representing a combination of hard and soft surfaces.

10.4 OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Based upon the reference noise levels, it is possible to estimate the Project operational stationary/area-source noise levels at each of the sensitive receiver locations. The daytime project stationary/area-source noise level calculations shown in Tables 10-2 through 10-4 account for the distance attenuation provided due to geometric spreading, when sound from a localized stationary source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. With geometric spreading, sound levels attenuate (or decrease) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source (roof-top air conditioning units) and 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance from an area source (parking lot vehicle movements). Table 10-2 indicates that the hourly noise levels associated with the roof top air conditioners and a truck staging/loading area are expected to range from 41.0 to 48.4 dBA Leq at the nearby sensitive receiver locations for the daytime. Table 10-3 indicates a range of 17.2 to 37.2 dBA Leq for the nighttime.

TABLE 10-2: DAYTIME PROJECT STATIONARY/AREA-SOURCE NOISE LEVELS (DBA LEQ) Noise Source1 Daytime Noise Level (dBA Leq)
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 19.6 21.7 36.8 39.6 24.2 Staging/Loading Activities 48.4 40.9 43.6 45.5 46.8
Total (All Noise Sources) 48.4 41.0 44.4 46.5 46.8 1
See Exhibit 10-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 10.1. 1170
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
49 TABLE 10-3: NIGHTTIME PROJECT STATIONARY/AREA-SOURCE NOISE LEVEL (DBA LEQ) Noise Source1 Daytime Noise Level (dBA Leq)
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 17.1 19.3 34.4 37.2 21.8 Staging/Loading Activities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total (All Noise Sources) 17.2 19.4 34.4 37.2 21.8 1
See Exhibit 10-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 10.1.

10.5 OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
The operational noise levels related to the roof top air conditioners and a truck staging/loading area associated with the Project are considered exempt from the City of Coachella Municipal Code noise standards. However, to demonstrate compliance with CEQA Guidelines, this analysis evaluates the potential operational noise levels against the City of Coachella Municipal Code exterior noise standards at the closest noise-sensitive receiver locations.

Table 10-4 shows that the Project-related operational noise levels at the closest sensitive receiver locations will range from 17.2 to 48.4 dBA Leq and will satisfy the residential daytime 55 dBA Leq and nighttime 45 dBA Leq noise level standards of the City of Coachella Municipal Code.

Appendix 10.1 includes the operational noise level calculations.

TABLE 10-4: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level
Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Threshold
Exceeded?4
Day Night Day Night Day Night
R1 48.4 17.2 55 45 No No
R2 41.0 19.4 55 45 No No
R3 44.4 34.4 55 45 No No
R4 46.5 37.2 55 45 No No
R5 46.8 21.8 55 45 No No 1
See Exhibit 8-A for the receiver locations.
2 Proposed Project operational noise level calculations included in Appendix 10.1. 3 City of Coachella exterior noise level standards by land use, as shown in Table 3-1. 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards?
"Day" = 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; "Evening" = 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Night" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

The Project-related operational noise levels will still satisfy the City of Coachella Municipal Code noise level standards at nearby sensitive receiver locations, and therefore, the operational noise impacts will be less than significant. No exterior noise mitigation measures are required since there is not a significant noise impact.
1171
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
50 10.6 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE CONTRIBUTION
To describe the Project operational noise level contributions, the Project operational noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the off-site receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources. Since the units used to measure noise, decibels (dB), are logarithmic units, the Project-related operational and existing ambient noise levels cannot be combined using standard arithmetic equations. (1) Instead, they must be logarithmically added using the following base equation:

SPLTotal = 10log10[10SPL1/10 + 10SPL2/10 + … 10SPLn/10] Where “SPL1,” “SPL2,” etc. are equal to the sound pressure levels being combined, or in this case, the Project-related operational and existing ambient noise levels. The difference between the combined Project and ambient noise levels describe the Project noise level contributions. Noise levels that would be experienced at receiver locations when Project-source noise is added to the ambient daytime and nighttime conditions are presented in Tables 10-5 and 10-6, respectively.

As indicated in Table 10-5, the Project will contribute an operational noise level increase of up to

2.5 Leq during the daytime hours at the closest sensitive receiver locations. Table 10-6 shows that the nighttime Project-related operational noise level increases will approach less than 0.01 dBA Leq. Since the Project-related operational noise level contributions will satisfy the significance criteria discussed in Section 4, the increases at the sensitive receiver locations will be less than significant. On this basis, Project operational stationary-source noise would not result in a substantial temporary/periodic, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project and impacts in these regards will be less than significant.
1172
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
51 TABLE 10-5: DAYTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL CONTRIBUTIONS (DBA LEQ) Receiver
Location1
Total Project Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined Project
and Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase Criteria
Exceeded?7
R1 48.4 L1 49.5 52.0 2.5 5.0 No R2 41.0 L2 64.4 64.4 0.0 3.0 No R3 44.4 L3 64.4 64.4 0.0 3.0 No R4 46.5 L4 63.0 63.1 0.1 3.0 No R5 46.8 L5 65.5 65.6 0.1 1.5 No 1 See Exhibit 8-A for the receiver locations. 2 Total Project operational noise levels as shown in Table 10-5. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown in Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance Criteria as defined in Section 4. 1173
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
52 TABLE 10-6: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL CONTRIBUTIONS (DBA LEQ) Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined Project
and Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase Criteria
Exceeded?7
R1 17.2 L1 45.3 45.3 0.0 5.0 No R2 19.4 L2 62.2 62.2 0.0 3.0 No R3 34.4 L3 64.0 64.0 0.0 3.0 No R4 37.2 L4 61.8 61.8 0.0 3.0 No R5 21.8 L5 63.6 63.6 0.0 3.0 No 1 See Exhibit 8-A for the receiver locations. 2 Total Project operational noise levels as shown in Table 10-5. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown in Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance Criteria as defined in Section 4. 1174
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
53 11 CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS
This section analyzes potential impacts resulting from the temporary activities associated with the construction of the Project. Exhibit 11-A shows the construction noise source locations in relation to the nearest sensitive receiver locations previously described in Section 8. To control noise impacts associated with the construction of the Project, the City has established limits to the hours of operation. Section 7.04.070 of the City’s Municipal Code, provided in Appendix 3.1, indicates that construction activities shall be limited from October 1st through April 30th, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. From May 1st through September 30th, construction is limited to between 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday to Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. (11)

11.1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual recognizes that construction projects are accomplished in several different stages and outlines the procedures for assessing noise impacts during construction. Each stage has a specific equipment mix, depending on the work to be completed during that stage. As a result of the equipment mix, each stage has its own noise characteristics - some stages have higher continuous noise levels than others, and some have higher impact noise levels than others. The Project construction activities are expected to occur in the following stages:
 Site Preparation
 Grading
 Building Construction
 Paving
 Architectural Coating

11.2 CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To describe construction noise activities, this construction noise analysis was prepared using reference construction equipment noise levels published in the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), which includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emission levels. (24) The RCNM equipment database provides a comprehensive list of the noise generating characteristics for specific types of construction equipment. In addition, the database provides an acoustical usage factor to estimate the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation. 1175
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
54 EXHIBIT 11-A: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS 1176
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
55 11.3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. For construction noise assessment, construction equipment can be considered to operate in two modes: stationary and mobile. As defined, stationary equipment operates in a single location for one or more days at a time, with either fixed-power operation (e.g., pumps, generators, and compressors) or variable-power operation (e.g., pile drivers, rock drills, and pavement breakers). Mobile equipment moves around the construction site with power applied in cyclic fashion, such as bulldozers, graders, and loaders (FTA 2018). The FTA and FHWA recommend noise impacts from stationary equipment be assessed from the center of the equipment location, while noise impacts from mobile construction equipment should be assessed from the center of the equipment activity area (e.g., construction site). Thus, to assess a more realistic and reasonable worst-case construction scenario while accounting for the dynamic nature of construction activities, this Project construction noise analysis models the equipment combination with the highest reference combined level as a moving point within the construction area (Project site boundary).

TABLE 11-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction Activity
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
1 Combined
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
2 Combined Sound
Power Level
(PWL)3
Site
Preparation
Crawler Tractors 78.0
Hauling Trucks 72.0 80.0 111.6
Rubber Tired Dozers 75.0
Grading
Graders 81.0
Excavators 77.0 83.0 114.6
Compactors 76.0
Building
Construction
Cranes 73.0
Tractors 80.0 81.0 112.6
Welders 70.0
Paving
Pavers 74.0
Paving Equipment 82.0 83.0 114.6
Rollers 73.0
Architectural
Coating
Cranes 73.0
Air Compressors 74.0 77.0 108.6
Generator Sets 70.0 1
FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).
2 Represents the combined noise level for all equipment assuming they operate at the same time consistent with FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance.
3 Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings. Sound power levels calibrated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source. 1177
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
56 Construction impacts are based on the highest noise level calculated at each receiver location.

As shown in Table 11-2, the construction noise levels are expected to range from 41.5 to 58.6 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations. Appendix 11.1 includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs.

TABLE 11-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating Highest
Levels2
R1 45.6 48.6 46.6 48.6 42.6 48.6
R2 44.5 47.5 45.5 47.5 41.5 47.5
R3 55.1 58.1 56.1 58.1 52.1 58.1
R4 55.3 58.3 56.3 58.3 52.3 58.3
R5 55.6 58.6 56.6 58.6 52.6 58.6 1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction activity, which is measured from the Project site boundary to the nearest receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 11.1.

11.4 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will satisfy the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities as shown in Table 11-3. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise are considered less than significant at all receiver locations.

TABLE 11-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2 Threshold3 Threshold Exceeded?4
R1 48.6 80 No
R2 47.5 80 No
R3 58.1 80 No
R4 58.3 80 No
R5 58.6 80 No 1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A. 2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the nearest receiver locations as shown in Table 10-2.
3 Construction noise level thresholds as shown in Table 4-1. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? 1178
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
57 11.5 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized in Table 11-4. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential for human response (annoyance) and building damage using the following vibration assessment methods defined by Caltrans. To calculate vibration levels at distance, Caltrans provides the following equation: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5 TABLE 11-4: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment PPV (in/sec)
at 25 feet
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual Table 11-5 presents the expected Project-related vibration levels at the nearby receiver building façade locations. At distances ranging from 100 to 1,403 feet from the building façade to the Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from less than 0.01 up to 0.03 (in/sec). Based on the maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.30 PPV (in/sec), the typical Project construction vibration levels will fall below the building damage thresholds at all noise sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, the Projectrelated vibration impacts are considered less than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site. Moreover, the vibration levels reported at the sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter. 1179
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
58 TABLE 11-5: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS
Location1
Distance
to
Const.

Activity
(Feet)2
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
PPV (in/sec)3 Thresholds
PPV
(in/sec)4
Thresholds
Exceeded?5
Small
Bulldozer Jackhammer Loaded Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
Vibratory
Roller
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 1,363' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 No
R2 1,403' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 No
R3 100' 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.30 No
R4 114' 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.30 No
R5 102' 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.30 No 1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A. 2 Distance from receiver building facade to Project construction boundary (Project site boundary). 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (Table 11-4). 4 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020, Table 19, p. 38. 5 Does the peak vibration exceed the acceptable vibration thresholds? "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity
1180
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
59 12 REFERENCES

1. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program. Technical Noise Supplement - A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA : s.n., September 2013.

2. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requiste to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March, 1974. EPA/ONAC 550/9/74-004.

3. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. June, 1995.

4. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise in the United States, Problem and Response. April 2000. p. 3.

5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Noise Effects Handbook-A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. October 1979 (revised July 1981).

EPA 550/9/82/106.

6. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Standard 29 CRF, Part 1910.

7. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. About Hearing Loss. [Online] [Cited: 04 15, 2016.] http://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/noise/signs.htm.

8. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May 2006. FTA-VA-90-1003-06.

9. Office of Planning and Research. State of California General Plan Guidlines 2003. October 2003.

10. City of Coachella. General Plan Noise Element. April 2015.

11. —. Municipal Code, Title 7 Noise Control.

12. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.

13. California Department of Transportation. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April 2020.

14. State of California. California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G. 2018.

15. California Court of Appeal. Gray v. County of Madera, F053661. 167 Cal.App.4th 1099; - Cal.Rptr.3d, October 2008.

16. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August 1992.

17. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. December 2011.

18. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Specification for Sound Level Meters ANSI S1.4- 2014/IEC 61672-1:2013.

19. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. December 1978. FHWA-RD-77-108.

20. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program, Office of Environmental Engineering. Use of California Vehicle Noise Reference Energy Mean Emission Levels (Calveno REMELs) in FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction. September 1995. TAN 95-03. 1181
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
60 21. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Attenuation as a Function of Ground and Vegetation Final Report. June 1995. FHWA/CA/TL-95/23.

22. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis. 2022.

23. Urban Crossroads. Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis. 2024.

24. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model. January, 2006. 1182
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
61 13 CERTIFICATION
The contents of this noise study report represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the proposed Armtec Master Plan. The information contained in this noise study report is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (619) 788-1971.

William Maddux, INCE
Senior Associate
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
(619) 788-1971

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science in Urban and Regional Planning
California Polytechnic State University, Pomona • June 2000

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
ASA – Acoustical Society of America
AEP – Association of Environmental Planners
AWMA – Air and Waste Management Association
INCE – Institute of Noise Control Engineers

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Approved Acoustical Consultant • County of San Diego
FHWA Traffic Noise Model of Training • November 2004
CadnaA Basic and Advanced Training Certificate • January 2024 1183
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
62 This page intentionally left blank
1184
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
APPENDIX 3.1:

CITY OF COACHELLA MUNICIPAL CODE

63 1185
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
This page intentionally left blank
64 1186
Item 3.
11/8/2016 Coachella, CA Code of Ordinances
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/coachella/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT7NOCO_CH7.04NOCO_7.04.100NOLEME 1/15 A.

Title 7 - NOISE CONTROL
Chapters:

Chapter 7.04 - NOISE CONTROL
Sections:

Footnotes:
--- (1) ---
Editor's note—Ord. No. 1022, adopted Nov. 17, 2010, amended ch. 7.04 in its entirety to read as herein set out. Former ch. 7.04 pertained to similar subject matter, consisted of §§ 7.04.010—7.04.140, and derived from Ord. 940.

7.24.010 - Purpose.

The city council 毸nds and declares that:

Inadequately controlled noise presents a growing danger to the health and welfare of the residents of the city of Coachella;
The making and creation of excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noises within the limits of the city of Coachella is a condition that has existed for some time, however, the extent and volume of such noises is increasing;
The making, creation or maintenance of such excessive, unnecessary, unnatural or unusually loud noises that are prolonged, unusual and unnatural in their time, place and use a裤ect and are a detriment to public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare and prosperity of the residents of the city of Coachella;
Every person is entitled to an environment in which the noise is not detrimental to his life, health, or enjoyment of property; and
The necessity in the public interest for the provisions and prohibitions hereinafter contained and enacted, is declared as a matter of legislative determination and public policy, and it is further declared that the provisions and prohibitions hereinafter contained and enacted are in pursuance of and for the purpose of securing and promoting the public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare and prosperity and the peace and quiet of the residents of the city of Coachella. (Ord. No. 1022, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1024, 11-17-10)

7.04.020 - De毸nitions.
[As used in this chapter, the following terms have the meanings given:] [1]
65 1187
Item 3.
11/8/2016 Coachella, CA Code of Ordinances
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/coachella/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT7NOCO_CH7.04NOCO_7.04.100NOLEME 2/15 "A-weighted sound level" means the sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting network. The level to read is designated db(A) or dBA. "Ambient noise level" means the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given environment, being a composite of sounds from all sources, excluding the alleged o裤ensive noise, at the location and approximate time at which a comparison with the alleged o裤ensive noise is to be made. "Ampli毸ed music" means instrumental and/or vocal music ampli毸ed through electronic means. "Average sound level" means a sound level typical of the sound levels at a certain place during a given period of time; also, means an equivalent continuous sound level. "Commercial establishments" includes, but is not limited to, any nightclub, restaurant, sports bar, industrial, retail or business establishment or combination thereof. "Construction equipment" means any tools, machinery or equipment used in connection with construction operations, including all types of "special construction" equipment as de毸ned in the pertinent sections of the California Vehicle Code when used in the construction process on any construction site, home improvement site or property maintenance site, regardless of whether such site be located onhighway or o裤-highway. "Cumulative period" means an additive period of time composed of individual time segments which may be continuous or interrupted.
"Decibel" means a unit measure of sound level noise.
"Disturbance" means any disturbance of the peace as de毸ned by California Penal Code Section 415 or as otherwise de毸ned herein.
"Disturbing, excessive or o裤ensive noise" means any sound or noise from any source in excess of the sound level or noise level set forth in Section 7.04.030. "Emergency machinery," "vehicle" or "work" means any machinery, vehicle or work used, employed or performed in an e裤ort to protect, provide or restore safe conditions in the community or for the citizenry, or work by private or public utilities when restoring utility service. "Fixed noise source" means a stationary device which creates sounds which are 毸xed or motionless including, but not limited to, industrial and commercial machinery and equipment, pumps, fans, compressors, generators, air conditioners and refrigeration equipment. "Gathering" means any convergence of 毸ve or more persons. "Impact noise" means the noise produced by the collision of one mass in motion with a second mass which may be either in motion or in rest.
66 1188
Item 3.
11/8/2016 Coachella, CA Code of Ordinances
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/coachella/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT7NOCO_CH7.04NOCO_7.04.100NOLEME 3/15 A.
"Noise level" means the same as "sound level." The terms may be used interchangeably herein. "Peace o鼲cer" means a duly appointed o鼲cer of the city, as de毸ned in California Penal Code, Sections 830, et seq.
"Person" means a person, 毸rm, association, copartnership, joint venture, corporation or any entity, public or private in nature.
"Portable powered blower" means any mechanically powered device, regardless of the source of power, which is not stationary, and used for the purpose of blowing leaves, dirt or other debris o裤 sidewalks, lawns or other surfaces.
"Premises" means any real property or location at which a gathering may be held. "Sound level" (noise level) in decibels is the quantity measured using the frequency weighting of A of a sound level meter as de毸ned herein.
"Sound level meter" means an instrument meeting American National Standard Institute's Standard SL. 4-1974 for type 1 or type 2 sound level meters or an instrument and the associated recording and analyzing equipment which will provide equivalent data.
(Ord. No. 1022, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1024, 11-17-10)

7.04.030 - Sound level limits as related to 毸xed noise sources.

Regardless of whether an objective measurement by sound level meter is involved, it shall be unlawful for any person to make, continue, or cause to be made or continued, within the city limits any disturbing excessive or o裤ensive noise or vibration which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivity residing in the area or that is plainly audible at a distance greater than 毸fty (50) feet from the sources point for any purpose. The following ten-minute average sound level limits, unless otherwise speci毸cally indicated, shall apply as indicated in the following table as it relates to a 毸xed noise source or leaf blowers pursuant to Section 7.04.075.

Zone Time Applicable Ten-Minute
Average Decibel Limit (Aweighted)
Residential—All zones 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
55 45
67 1189
Item 3.
11/8/2016 Coachella, CA Code of Ordinances
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/coachella/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT7NOCO_CH7.04NOCO_7.04.100NOLEME 4/15 B.

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

Commercial—All zones 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
65 55
If the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable limit as noted in the table in subsection (A) of this section, the allowable average sound level shall be the ambient noise level. The ambient noise level shall be measured when the alleged noise violation sources are not operating.

The sound level limit between two zoning districts shall be measured at the higher allowable district. (Ord. No. 1022, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1024, 11-17-10)

7.04.040 - Prohibited noise generally.

It is unlawful for any person or property owner within the city of Coachella to make, cause, or continue to make or cause, loud, excessive, impulsive or intrusive sound or noise that annoys or disturbs persons of ordinary sensibilities.

The factors, standards, and conditions that may be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section has been committed, include, but are not limited to, the following:

The level of the noise;
The level and intensity of the background (ambient) noise, if any; The proximity of the noise to residential or commercial sleeping areas; The nature, density and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates; The density of inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates; The time of day and night the noise occurs;
The duration of the noise;
Whether the nature of the noise is natural or unnatural; Whether the noise is constant, recurrent or intermittent; and Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity. (Ord. No. 1022, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1024, 11-17-10)

7.04.050 - Disturbing, excessive, o裤ensive noises—Declaration of certain acts constituting.

The following activities, are declared to be deemed disturbing, excessive or o裤ensive noises and any of the following shall constitute prima facie evidence of a violation:
68 1190
Item 3.
11/8/2016 Coachella, CA Code of Ordinances
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/coachella/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT7NOCO_CH7.04NOCO_7.04.100NOLEME 5/15

1. 2.

Horns, Signaling Devices, Mu朆er Systems, Car Alarms, Etc. Unnecessary use or operation of horns, signaling devices, uncontrolled mu朆er noises, car alarms on vehicles of all types, including motorcycles, and other equipment.

The operation of any such sound production or reproduction device, radio receiving set, musical instrument, drum, phonograph, television set, machine, loudspeaker and sound ampli毸er or similar machine or device in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of 毸fty (50) feet or more from the building, structure or vehicle in which located, or from the source point.

The operation of any sound ampli毸er, which is part of, or connected to, any radio, stereo receiver, compact disc player, cassette tape player, or other similar device when operated in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of 毸fty (50) feet from the source point or when operated in such a manner as to cause a person to be aware of vibration at a distance of 毸fty (50) feet or more from the source point.

Uses Restricted. The use, operation, or permitting to be played, used or operated, any sound production or reproduction device, radio receiving set, musical instrument, drums, phonograph, television set, loudspeakers and sound ampli毸ers or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound in such a manner as to disturb the peace, quiet, and comfort of any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness.

Prima Facie Violations. Any of the following shall constitute evidence of a prima facie violation of this section:

The operation of any such sound production or reproduction device, radio receiving set, musical instrument, drum, phonograph, television set, machine, loudspeaker and sound ampli毸er or similar machine or device in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of 毸fty (50) feet from the building, structure or vehicle in which located, or from the source point.

Enforcement of Prima Facie Violations. Any peace o鼲ce, as de毸ned in California Penal Code, Sections 830, et seq., and/or the city manager or his or her designees, who are authorized to enforce the provisions of this chapter and who encounters evidence of a prima facie violation of this section whereby the component(s) amplifying or transmitting the sound in such a manner as to disturb the peace, quiet, or comfort of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity in any area of the city shall be empowered to issue a citation and/or to con毸scate and impound as evidence, any or all of the components amplifying or transmitting the sound. (Ord. No. 1022, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1024, 11-17-10) 69 1191
Item 3.
11/8/2016 Coachella, CA Code of Ordinances
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/coachella/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT7NOCO_CH7.04NOCO_7.04.100NOLEME 6/15 A.

7.04.060 - Special provisions—Exemptions.

The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter:

School bands, school athletic and school entertainment events; Outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows and sporting and entertainment events; provided, the events are authorized by the city;
Activities conducted in public parks and public playgrounds; Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment used, related to or connected with emergency machinery, vehicle or work;
All mechanical devices, apparatus or equipment which are utilized for the protection or salvage of agricultural crops during periods of potential or actual frost damage or other adverse weather conditions;
Mobile noise sounds associated with agricultural operations provided such operations do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturdays, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday;
Mobile noise sources associated with agricultural pest control through pesticide application; Carillon chimes between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; For noise sources associated with property maintenance, refer to Section 7.04.075, "property maintenance activities";
For noise sources associated with construction activities, refer to Section 7.04.070, "construction activities"; and
The provisions of this regulation shall not preclude the construction, operation, maintenance and repairs of equipment, apparatus or facilities of park and recreation departments, public work projects or essential public services and facilities, including those of public utilities subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. (Ord. No. 1022, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1024, 11-17-10)

7.04.070 - Construction activities.

No person shall perform, nor shall any person be employed, nor shall any person cause any other person to be employed to work for which a building permit is required by the city in any work of construction, erection, demolition, alteration, repair, addition to or improvement of any building, structure, road or improvement to realty except between the hours as set forth as follows:

October 1st through April 30th
Monday—Friday: 6:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
70 1192
Item 3.
11/8/2016 Coachella, CA Code of Ordinances
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/coachella/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT7NOCO_CH7.04NOCO_7.04.100NOLEME 7/15 A.

Saturday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Sunday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Holidays: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

May 1st through September 30th
Monday—Friday: 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Saturday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Sunday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Holidays: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Emergency work and/or unusual conditions may cause work to be permitted with the consent of the city manager, or his or her designee, upon recommendation of the building director or the city engineer. (Ord. No. 1022, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1024, 11-17-10)

7.04.075 - Property maintenance activities.

Noise sources associated with property maintenance activity and all portable blowers, lawnmowers, edgers or similar devices shall be prohibited except during the following hours:

October 1st through April 30th
Monday—Sunday: 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Holidays: Not allowed.

May 1st through September 30th
Monday—Friday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Saturday and Sunday: 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Holidays: Not allowed.

Notwithstanding the hours of permitted operations, such equipment that constitutes a public nuisance may be abated as otherwise provided in this Code.

No person shall willfully make or continue, or willfully cause to be made or continued, any noise from any portable powered blower at a level which exceeds seventy (70) decibels dBA measured at the midpoint of a wall area twenty (20) feet long and ten (10) feet high and at the horizontal distance 毸fty (50) feet away from the midpoint of the wall, or not more than seventy-six (76) decibels dBA at a horizontal distance of twenty-four (24) feet using a sound level meter. 71 1193
Item 3.
11/8/2016 Coachella, CA Code of Ordinances
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/coachella/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT7NOCO_CH7.04NOCO_7.04.100NOLEME 8/15 C.

No portable powered blower shall be operated in a manner which will permit dirt, dust, debris, leaves, grass clippings, cuttings, or trimmings from trees or shrubs to be blown or deposited onto neighboring property or public right-of-way. All waste shall be removed and disposed of in a sanitary manner by the use or property occupant.

Leaf blowers shall not be operated within a horizontal distance of ten (10) feet of any operable window, door, or mechanical air intake opening or duct.
(Ord. No. 1022, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1024, 11-17-10)

7.04.080 - Schools, hospitals and churches—Special provisions.

It is unlawful for any person to create any noise which causes the noise level at any school, hospital or church while the same is in use, to exceed the noise limits, as speci毸ed in subsection (A) of Section 7.04.030, prescribed for the assigned noise zone in which the school, hospital or church is located, or which noise level unreasonably disturbs or annoys patients in the hospital. (Ord. No. 1022, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1024, 11-17-10)

7.04.090 - Air conditioning, refrigeration and pool equipment.

The noise standards enumerated in Section 7.04.030 shall be increased by eight dBA when the alleged o裤ensive noise source is an air conditioning or refrigeration system or associated equipment which was installed prior to the e裤ective date of the ordinance codi毸ed in this chapter. Installation of new equipment must be certi毸ed to be within the provisions of this chapter. Installation of new equipment must be certi毸ed to be within the provisions of this chapter for night and day operation noise level. (Ord. No. 1022, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1024, 11-17-10)

7.04.100 - Noise level measurement.

The location selected for measuring exterior noise levels between residential properties shall be at the property line of the a裤ected residential property. A裤ected residential property shall be the address from which the complaint was received. Interior noise measurement shall be made within the a裤ected residential unit. The measurement shall be made at a point at least four feet from the wall, ceiling or ⌊oor nearest the noise source.

The location selected for measuring exterior noise levels between nonresidential properties shall be at the property line of the a裤ected property.

The location selected for measuring exterior noise levels between two zoning districts shall be at the boundary of the two districts.
(Ord. No. 1022, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1024, 11-17-10) 72 1194
Item 3.
11/8/2016 Coachella, CA Code of Ordinances
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/coachella/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT7NOCO_CH7.04NOCO_7.04.100NOLEME 9/15

7.04.110 - Interference with authorized personnel is prohibited.

No person shall interfere with, oppose or resist any authorized person charged with enforcement of this chapter while such person is engaged in the performance of his duty. (Ord. No. 1022, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1024, 11-17-10)

7.04.120 - Pre-existing noise source—Time extension.

Those commercial and/or industrial noise sources in existence prior to the date of adoption of the ordinance codi毸ed in this chapter, which noise sources are an integral part of a building, structure or similar 毸xed and permanent installation if in compliance with local zoning structures, shall be granted a three-year period from the date of adoption with which to comply with the provisions of the chapter. If, at the end of the three-year period, it can be shown that compliance with the provisions herein constitutes a hardship in terms of technical and economic feasibility, the time to comply may be extended on an annual basis until such time as compliance may be a裤ected.
(Ord. No. 1022, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1024, 11-17-10)

7.04.130 - Violation—Infractions.

Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of an infraction. (Ord. No. 1022, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1024, 11-17-10)

7.04.140 - Continuing or subsequent violations—Misdemeanor.

Any person having been convicted of a violation of any provisions of this chapter who thereafter commits a violation of the same provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (Ord. No. 1022, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1024, 11-17-10)

7.04.150 - Severability.

If any provision of this chapter is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this chapter shall not be invalidated. (Ord. No. 1022, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1024, 11-17-10) Chapter 7.05 - MULTIPLE RESPONSES TO LOUD OR UNRULY PARTIES, GATHERINGS OR OTHER SIMILAR EVENTS

7.05.010 - Declaration of 毸ndings and policy.
73 1195
Item 3.
11/8/2016 Coachella, CA Code of Ordinances
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/coachella/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT7NOCO_CH7.04NOCO_7.04.100NOLEME 10/15 A.

It is hereby found and declared that:

Due to inadequate supervision, some large gatherings of people, such as parties, frequently become loud and unruly to the point that they constitute a threat to the peace, health, safety, or general welfare of the public as a result of conduct such as one or more of the following: excessive noise, excessive tra鼲c, obstruction of public streets or crowds who have spilled over into public streets, public drunkenness, the service of alcohol to minors, 毸ghts, disturbances of the peace, and litter.

The city of Coachella is required to make multiple responses to such unruly gatherings in order to restore and maintain the peace and protect public safety. Such gatherings are a burden on scarce city resources and can result in police responses to regular and emergency calls being delayed and police protection to the rest of the city being reduced.

In order to discourage the occurrence of repeated loud and unruly gatherings, the persons responsible for the public nuisance created by these gatherings should be 毸ned. (Ord. No. 1023, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1025, 11-17-10)

7.05.020 - Loud or unruly gatherings—Public nuisance.

It shall be unlawful and a public nuisance to conduct a gathering of ten (10) or more persons on any private property in a manner which constitutes a substantial disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of private or public property in a signi毸cant segment of a neighborhood, as a result of conduct constituting a violation of law. Illustrative of such unlawful conduct is excessive noise or tra鼲c, obstruction of public streets by crowds or vehicles, public drunkenness, the service of alcohol to minors, 毸ghts, disturbances of the peace, litter. A gathering constituting a public nuisance may be abated by the city by all reasonable means including, but not limited to, an order requiring the gathering to be disbanded and citation and/or arrest of any law violators under any applicable local laws and state statutes. (Ord. No. 1023, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1025, 11-17-10)

7.05.030 - Notice of unruly gatherings—Posting, mail.

When the city intervenes at a gathering which constitutes a public nuisance under this chapter, the premises at which such nuisance occurred shall be posted with a notice substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" stating that a public nuisance under this chapter was caused by a gathering at the premises, the date and time of the police intervention, and that any subsequent or second police intervention with respect to a nuisance under this chapter at said premises, including a second intervention that same day or night, within sixty (60) days of the 毸rst intervention, shall result in the joint and several liability of any guests causing the public nuisance, persons who are residents or in control of the property at which the public nuisance occurred, persons who sponsored the gathering constituting the public nuisance, and owners of the premises as more fully set forth in Sections 74 1196
Item 3.
11/8/2016 Coachella, CA Code of Ordinances
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/coachella/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT7NOCO_CH7.04NOCO_7.04.100NOLEME 11/15 B.

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 7.05.040—7.05.060, below. The residents and persons in control of such property, and the sponsors of the event, shall be responsible for ensuring that such notice is not removed or defaced and shall be liable for a civil penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) in addition to any other penalties which may be due under this chapter, if such notice is removed or defaced, provided, however, that the residents of the premises or sponsor of the event, if present, shall be consulted as to the location in which such notice is posted in order to achieve both the security of the notice and its prominent display. The notice shall remain posted for the entire 60-day period.

Notice of the police intervention shall also be mailed to any property owner at the address shown on the city's property tax assessment records and shall advise the property owner that any subsequent gathering resulting in a public nuisance within sixty (60) days on the same premises necessitating city intervention shall result in liability of the property owner for all penalties associated with such intervention as more particularly set forth below.

EXHIBIT A

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING

PUBLIC NUISANCE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT, pursuant to Coachella Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 7.05, on:

Date: ____________/____________/____________, 20____________, at ____________ a.m./p.m.

The Coachella Police Department found that a gathering, at the below-listed premises caused a public nuisance as de毸ned by CMC Chapter 7.05 (e.g., disturbance of the peace, threat to public safety, etc.):

Address: ____________, Coachella, California.

WARNING

IF THE POLICE RESPOND TO ANOTHER DISTURBANCE CONSTITUTING A NUISANCE (AS DEFINED BY CMC CHAPTER 7.05) AT THE ABOVE PREMISES WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THIS NOTICE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A DISTURBANCE LATER TODAY OR TONIGHT, A SUBSEQUENT RESPONSE FEE WILL BE IMPOSED UPON:

ALL GUESTS CAUSING THE NUISANCE;
ALL SPONSORS OF THE GATHERING;
ALL RESIDENTS OF THE PREMISES;
ALL PERSONS IN CONTROL OF THE PREMISES; AND

ALL OWNERS OF THE PREMISES THAT RESIDE ON OR ADJACENT TO THE PREMISES, OR ARE PRESENT AT THE PREMISES WHEN THIS NOTICE IS FIRST POSTED.

Property owners who do not reside on or adjacent to the above premises, and who are not present when this Notice is 毸rst posted, are also jointly and severally liable for said fee, if the next disturbance occurs after two weeks after this Notice is mailed to said owner.
75 1197
Item 3.
11/8/2016 Coachella, CA Code of Ordinances
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/coachella/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT7NOCO_CH7.04NOCO_7.04.100NOLEME 12/15 A.
(1)
(2)
(3)
B.

THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED ON THE PREMISES FOR 60 DAYS $100 FINE FOR UNAUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF THIS NOTICE
____________
(Name and Signature of the O鼲cer Issuing This Notice)
____________
(O鼲cer's Phone Number)
Date: ____________
Case Number: ____________
(Ord. No. 1023, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1025, 11-17-10)

7.05.040 - Persons liable for subsequent response to a gathering constituting a public nuisance.

If the city is required to intervene as to a gathering constituting a public nuisance on the same premises more than once in any 60-day period, including a second intervention during the same day or night as the 毸rst intervention, the following persons shall be jointly and severally liable for civil penalties as set forth in Section 7.05.050, below, in addition to liability for any injuries to city personnel or damage to city property.

The person or persons who own the premises where the gathering constituting a public nuisance took place if any of the following are the case:

Said owner resides on or adjacent to the premises;
Said owner was present when the notice described in Exhibit "A" was 毸rst posted; or The notice described in Exhibit "A" was mailed to said owner and fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the date of said mailing.

For purposes of this subsection, where a gathering takes place within the con毸nes of a single unit in a building owned by a housing cooperative, the owner of the property shall be deemed to be the owner of the single unit and not the members of the housing cooperative in general. Where the gathering took place in the common area of a building owned by a housing cooperative, only the members of the cooperative owning units in the building where the gathering took place shall be deemed the owners of the property for purposes of this subsection. Other members of the housing cooperative may still be liable if they fall within the categories of person made liable by Section 7.05.040, subsections (B), (C), or (D), below.

The person or persons residing on or otherwise in control of the property where such gathering took place.

The person or persons who organized or sponsored such gathering.

All persons attending such gathering who engaged in any activity resulting in the public nuisance. 76 1198
Item 3.
11/8/2016 Coachella, CA Code of Ordinances
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/coachella/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT7NOCO_CH7.04NOCO_7.04.100NOLEME 13/15 E.

1. 2.

3. B.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose liability on the resident or owners of the premises or sponsor of the gathering, for the conduct of persons who are present without the express or implied consent of the resident or sponsor, as long as the resident and sponsor have taken all steps reasonably necessary to exclude such uninvited participants from the premises.

Where an invited guest engages in conduct which the sponsor or resident could not reasonably foresee and the conduct is an isolated instance of a guest at the event violating the law which the sponsor is unable to reasonably control without the intervention of the police, the unlawful conduct of the individual guest shall not be attributable to the sponsor, owner, or resident for the purposes of determining whether the event constitutes a public nuisance under this section.

There shall be no liability for civil penalties under this chapter for a subsequent intervention during the same day or night as the prior intervention, unless a reasonable time has been provided to abate the public nuisance, taking into account the size of the gathering, the time of day, and other relevant factors.

There shall be no liability for civil penalties under this chapter for a second response during the same day or night as the 毸rst response when a person who would otherwise be liable under subsection (A) seeks assistance from the police department to abate a public nuisance under this chapter, and the person cooperates fully with the police while taking reasonable action to abate the public nuisance.

If the city is required to intervene at a gathering constituting a public nuisance on the same premises more than once in any 60-day period, excluding a second intervention during the same day or night as the 毸rst intervention, the 60-day period shall be extended by another sixty (60) days from the date of the second intervention.
(Ord. No. 1023, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1025, 11-17-10)

7.05.050 - Recovery of subsequent response fee.

After given proper notice pursuant to Section 7.05.030 and a reasonable opportunity to abate a gathering constituting a public nuisance, a subsequent response fee shall be assessed against all persons liable for the city's intervention. The subsequent response fee shall include:

The actual cost to the city of law enforcement services incurred as a result of a subsequent response;
The actual cost of any medical treatment required by a police o鼲cer for injuries sustained during a subsequent response; and
The cost of repairing or replacing any city equipment or property damaged or destroyed during a subsequent response.

Except as provided in subsection (A) of this section, the subsequent response fee shall not exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for any subsequent response. 77 1199
Item 3.
11/8/2016 Coachella, CA Code of Ordinances
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/coachella/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT7NOCO_CH7.04NOCO_7.04.100NOLEME 14/15 D.

The remedies set forth in this chapter shall be in addition to any other penalties imposed by law for particular violations of law committed during the course of an event which is a public nuisance under this chapter, provided however, that if the only violation of law which constituted the public nuisance under this chapter is excessive noise, the remedies provided under this chapter shall be exclusive of any other remedies provided by law to the city for such excessive noise.

The city shall bill all persons liable for subsequent response fees by mail by sending a letter in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit "B." Payment of the fees shall be due within thirty (30) days of the date the bill is deposited in the mail. If full payment is not received within the required time for payment, the bill will be delinquent, and all persons liable for the fees shall be charged interest at the maximum legal rate from the date the payment period expires and a further civil penalty in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00).

EXHIBIT B
Date:

To:

Dear:

The City of Coachella was required to abate the public nuisance caused by a gathering of 10 or more persons at (location of property), which substantially disrupted the quiet enjoyment of property in a signi毸cant segment of the adjacent neighborhood. This is the (second/third/fourth, etc.) such public nuisance at this property within the last 60 days, and thus, a fee of ____________/____________/____________ is imposed on you. If you fail to remit this 毸ne to the City of Coachella by (30 days from the date of this noti毸cation) you will be liable for an additional $100 penalty, plus interest. The payment should be remitted to the address listed below. Your liability is based on the fact that you were:
[ ] An owner of the property to whom was sent prior notice of a public nuisance at the property within the previous 60 days; and/or
[ ] An owner of the property who resided on or adjacent to the property when the public nuisance took place; and/or
[ ] An owner of the property who was present when a Notice of a public nuisance was 毸rst posted at the property; and/or
[ ] A person who resided on or was otherwise in control of the property when the public nuisance took place there; and/or
[ ] A person who organized or sponsored the event that created the public nuisance at such property; and/or
78 1200
Item 3.
11/8/2016 Coachella, CA Code of Ordinances
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/coachella/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT7NOCO_CH7.04NOCO_7.04.100NOLEME 15/15 [ ] A person who attended the event constituting the public nuisance at such property and engaged in the conduct which resulted in the public nuisance.

If you believe that you are not liable you may defend this claim in the civil action which the City of Coachella will 毸le against you upon your failure to remit the fee. You should be aware, however, that if you fail to prevail in that action you will be liable for the additional penalty of $100 and interest on the total fee.

Sincerely yours,
(Name, title, address and phone number of signatory)
(Ord. No. 1023, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1025, 11-17-10)

7.05.060 - Collection of delinquent costs for a subsequent city response.

The penalties assessed as a result of a subsequent city response to a loud or unruly gathering shall constitute a debt of all persons liable for the penalties in favor of the city and may be collected in any manner authorized by law and are recoverable in a civil action 毸led by the city in a court of competent jurisdiction. The remedies provided by this chapter are in addition to all other civil and criminal remedies available to the city with respect to the unlawful conduct constituting the public nuisance which gave rise to the need for the city response under this chapter.
(Ord. No. 1023, § 1, 11-17-10; Ord. No. 1025, 11-17-10) 79 1201
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
This page intentionally left blank
80 1202
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
APPENDIX 5.1:

STUDY AREA PHOTOS

81 1203
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
This page intentionally left blank
82 1204
Item 3.
15967 - Armtec Master Plan
15967_L1_East 15967_L1_North
15967_L1_South 15967_L1_West
83 1205
Item 3.
15967 - Armtec Master Plan
15967_L2_East 15967_L2_North
15967_L2_South 15967_L2_West
84 1206
Item 3.
15967 - Armtec Master Plan
15967_L3_East 15967_L3_North
15967_L3_South 15967_L3_West
85 1207
Item 3.
15967 - Armtec Master Plan
15967_L4_East 15967_L4_North
15967_L4_South 15967_L4_West
86 1208
Item 3.
15967 - Armtec Master Plan
15967_L5_East 15967_L5_North
15967_L5_South 15967_L5_West
87 1209
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
This page intentionally left blank
88 1210
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
APPENDIX 5.2:

NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS

89 1211
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
This page intentionally left blank
90 1212
Item 3.

Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 15967
Project: Armtec Master Plan Source: Analyst: N. Johnson Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 41.0 44.3 39.1 43.8 43.5 42.8 42.5 41.4 40.7 39.6 39.4 39.2 41.0 10.0 51.0 1 42.2 45.5 39.4 45.2 44.8 44.3 44.0 42.9 42.1 40.0 39.9 39.5 42.2 10.0 52.2 2 39.5 47.1 36.6 46.8 46.3 44.3 42.8 38.9 38.0 37.1 36.9 36.7 39.5 10.0 49.5 3 46.1 48.6 43.2 48.4 48.2 47.8 47.6 46.8 46.1 44.0 43.7 43.3 46.1 10.0 56.1 4 44.9 47.5 43.1 47.2 47.0 46.5 46.2 45.3 44.6 43.7 43.5 43.2 44.9 10.0 54.9 5 46.7 50.4 44.9 49.9 49.5 48.6 48.2 47.1 46.3 45.4 45.2 45.0 46.7 10.0 56.7 6 47.5 51.9 45.3 51.4 50.9 50.3 49.9 47.9 46.9 45.8 45.6 45.4 47.5 10.0 57.5 7 45.4 51.2 41.5 50.8 50.5 49.8 49.0 45.7 43.8 42.2 41.9 41.6 45.4 0.0 45.4 8 47.2 56.6 38.1 55.6 54.8 53.2 52.3 47.8 42.5 38.9 38.6 38.3 47.2 0.0 47.2 9 43.8 51.2 36.6 50.8 50.4 49.3 48.5 44.1 41.3 37.8 37.3 36.8 43.8 0.0 43.8 10 47.9 56.4 37.5 55.9 55.4 54.3 53.4 48.5 43.3 38.6 38.1 37.7 47.9 0.0 47.9 11 40.6 46.9 36.5 46.5 46.1 45.0 43.9 41.3 39.1 37.2 37.0 36.7 40.6 0.0 40.6 12 41.2 48.0 37.6 47.4 46.6 44.9 44.1 41.7 40.1 38.3 38.0 37.7 41.2 0.0 41.2 13 40.1 45.2 37.1 44.7 44.1 42.9 42.3 40.6 39.5 37.9 37.5 37.2 40.1 0.0 40.1 14 42.9 49.0 38.4 48.4 47.9 46.9 46.3 44.0 41.5 39.3 38.9 38.6 42.9 0.0 42.9 15 39.6 45.6 36.9 45.0 44.2 43.2 42.6 39.8 38.6 37.5 37.3 37.0 39.6 0.0 39.6 16 43.3 49.6 39.5 49.1 48.4 47.2 46.4 44.0 42.2 40.2 40.0 39.7 43.3 0.0 43.3 17 45.4 50.3 42.4 49.5 49.0 48.0 47.5 46.0 44.8 43.2 42.9 42.5 45.4 0.0 45.4 18 47.1 51.3 44.0 51.0 50.6 49.9 49.4 47.8 46.5 44.9 44.5 44.2 47.1 0.0 47.1 19 59.4 73.9 43.5 73.4 72.1 66.8 61.6 49.0 46.1 44.2 43.9 43.6 59.4 5.0 64.4 20 47.9 53.6 44.8 53.1 52.4 50.8 49.9 48.4 47.2 45.5 45.2 44.9 47.9 5.0 52.9 21 47.5 52.6 44.3 52.1 51.5 50.4 49.8 48.2 46.9 45.1 44.8 44.4 47.5 5.0 52.5 22 47.1 52.8 44.0 52.4 52.1 50.6 49.5 47.5 46.3 44.7 44.4 44.1 47.1 10.0 57.1 23 45.9 50.9 42.6 50.5 50.0 49.0 48.4 46.5 45.1 43.3 43.0 42.7 45.9 10.0 55.9 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 39.6 45.2 36.5 44.7 44.1 42.9 42.3 39.8 38.6 37.2 37.0 36.7 Max 59.4 73.9 44.8 73.4 72.1 66.8 61.6 49.0 47.2 45.5 45.2 44.9

49.5 51.6 50.9 49.5 48.5 45.1 42.9 40.7 40.4 40.0
Min 39.5 44.3 36.6 43.8 43.5 42.8 42.5 38.9 38.0 37.1 36.9 36.7 Max 47.5 52.8 45.3 52.4 52.1 50.6 49.9 47.9 46.9 45.8 45.6 45.4

45.3 48.4 48.0 47.1 46.5 44.9 44.0 42.6 42.4 42.1
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, June 13, 2024 L1 - Located west of the site near the residence at 53330 Shady Ln.

Night
Day
Leq (dBA) 24-Hour
Day CNEL
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

54.3 49.5 45.3 41.0 42.2 39.5 46.1 44.9 46.7 47.5 45.4 47.2 43.8 47.9 40.6 41.2 40.1 42.9 39.6 43.3 45.4 47.159.4 47.9 47.5 47.1 45.9

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA) Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_15600-16000\_15900\15967\04_Noise\fieldwork\measurements\15967_L1_A 91 1213
Item 3.

Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 15967
Project: Armtec Master Plan Source: Analyst: N. Johnson Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 58.0 70.0 41.0 69.7 69.1 66.4 63.2 54.2 44.3 41.6 41.4 41.1 58.0 10.0 68.0 1 51.4 62.8 41.3 62.6 62.1 59.7 57.0 47.1 43.9 42.1 41.9 41.5 51.4 10.0 61.4 2 54.0 66.5 40.0 66.3 65.8 62.5 59.2 45.9 41.9 40.7 40.5 40.2 54.0 10.0 64.0 3 58.0 70.7 44.3 70.4 69.6 66.3 62.9 50.7 46.7 45.1 44.8 44.5 58.0 10.0 68.0 4 61.7 72.3 47.5 72.0 71.5 69.2 67.5 60.3 53.7 48.8 48.3 47.8 61.7 10.0 71.7 5 66.9 77.0 53.7 76.6 75.7 73.8 72.4 67.0 61.0 55.6 54.9 54.0 66.9 10.0 76.9 6 67.4 77.2 52.1 76.8 76.3 74.1 72.7 67.8 61.6 53.8 52.9 52.3 67.4 10.0 77.4 7 66.3 76.1 48.2 75.8 75.2 73.4 71.9 66.6 60.1 50.5 49.2 48.4 66.3 0.0 66.3 8 65.6 77.6 44.5 77.1 76.0 72.6 70.7 64.5 56.3 46.7 45.7 44.8 65.6 0.0 65.6 9 64.3 75.5 43.1 75.2 74.5 71.7 69.9 63.0 55.4 46.3 44.6 43.5 64.3 0.0 64.3 10 64.5 74.9 44.6 74.6 74.0 71.9 70.2 64.1 56.2 47.0 46.0 44.9 64.5 0.0 64.5 11 63.7 74.5 41.5 74.2 73.6 71.2 69.4 62.9 53.6 43.5 42.8 41.9 63.7 0.0 63.7 12 64.9 75.7 44.2 75.4 74.8 72.2 70.5 64.2 56.3 46.6 45.6 44.5 64.9 0.0 64.9 13 65.0 75.9 44.3 75.6 75.0 72.2 70.3 64.4 56.1 46.2 45.2 44.5 65.0 0.0 65.0 14 65.9 76.6 45.8 76.1 75.1 72.4 70.8 66.4 60.0 48.5 47.1 46.1 65.9 0.0 65.9 15 65.9 75.8 43.2 75.6 75.0 72.6 70.9 66.6 60.4 46.7 44.8 43.5 65.9 0.0 65.9 16 64.5 74.2 45.6 73.9 73.2 71.1 70.1 65.1 58.6 48.0 46.8 45.9 64.5 0.0 64.5 17 63.9 74.8 50.0 74.3 73.4 70.6 68.8 63.7 58.8 52.5 51.4 50.4 63.9 0.0 63.9 18 63.1 73.5 51.4 73.0 72.2 69.3 67.4 63.1 59.3 53.8 52.9 51.8 63.1 0.0 63.1 19 62.0 73.5 49.5 72.9 71.8 68.5 66.7 61.0 56.7 51.7 50.8 49.8 62.0 5.0 67.0 20 62.2 72.6 51.4 72.1 71.2 68.5 66.6 62.1 58.4 53.5 52.7 51.6 62.2 5.0 67.2 21 60.8 70.6 50.5 70.3 69.6 67.3 65.4 60.7 57.1 52.6 51.7 50.7 60.8 5.0 65.8 22 59.5 70.1 48.7 69.8 69.3 67.0 64.9 58.0 54.2 50.3 49.6 48.9 59.5 10.0 69.5 23 56.9 68.1 46.8 67.8 67.1 64.2 61.8 54.8 51.3 48.0 47.5 46.9 56.9 10.0 66.9 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 60.8 70.6 41.5 70.3 69.6 67.3 65.4 60.7 53.6 43.5 42.8 41.9 Max 66.3 77.6 51.4 77.1 76.0 73.4 71.9 66.6 60.4 53.8 52.9 51.8

64.4 74.4 73.6 71.0 69.3 63.9 57.5 48.9 47.8 46.8
Min 51.4 62.8 40.0 62.6 62.1 59.7 57.0 45.9 41.9 40.7 40.5 40.2 Max 67.4 77.2 53.7 76.8 76.3 74.1 72.7 67.8 61.6 55.6 54.9 54.0

62.2 70.2 69.6 67.0 64.6 56.2 51.0 47.3 46.9 46.4
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, June 13, 2024 L2 - Located south of the site near the residence at 85755 Avenue 54
Night
Day
Leq (dBA) 24-Hour
Day CNEL
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

69.2 64.4 62.2 58.0 51.4 54.058.0 61.766.9 67.4 66.3 65.6 64.3 64.5 63.7 64.9 65.0 65.9 65.9 64.5 63.9 63.1 62.0 62.2 60.8 59.5 56.9

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 15967
Project: Armtec Master Plan Source: Analyst: N. Johnson Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 57.1 68.0 52.0 67.6 66.8 63.8 61.4 54.4 53.0 52.4 52.3 52.1 57.1 10.0 67.1 1 56.0 66.5 51.7 66.0 65.1 62.4 59.9 53.8 52.6 52.0 51.9 51.8 56.0 10.0 66.0 2 57.9 69.6 52.6 69.2 68.1 64.7 61.5 54.7 53.7 52.9 52.8 52.6 57.9 10.0 67.9 3 61.5 72.4 57.2 72.1 71.1 67.9 65.0 59.2 58.4 57.6 57.4 57.2 61.5 10.0 71.5 4 63.3 74.2 57.7 73.7 72.7 69.6 67.4 61.8 59.5 58.1 57.9 57.8 63.3 10.0 73.3 5 67.6 78.1 59.7 77.5 76.5 73.8 72.2 67.1 63.1 60.4 60.1 59.8 67.6 10.0 77.6 6 68.0 78.4 60.1 77.9 77.1 74.6 72.9 67.5 63.0 60.6 60.3 60.1 68.0 10.0 78.0 7 66.7 76.6 59.4 76.1 75.2 73.1 71.6 66.5 62.2 59.9 59.7 59.5 66.7 0.0 66.7 8 65.4 75.8 58.4 75.4 74.6 72.3 70.4 64.2 60.5 58.9 58.7 58.5 65.4 0.0 65.4 9 64.7 75.3 57.6 74.9 74.0 71.2 69.4 63.6 59.9 58.1 57.9 57.7 64.7 0.0 64.7 10 63.7 74.5 55.4 74.1 73.2 70.7 69.1 62.2 57.7 55.9 55.7 55.5 63.7 0.0 63.7 11 63.6 75.0 53.2 74.5 73.6 71.0 69.2 61.5 55.8 53.9 53.6 53.3 63.6 0.0 63.6 12 64.9 77.3 51.9 76.8 75.8 72.4 70.0 61.7 55.4 52.6 52.3 52.0 64.9 0.0 64.9 13 63.0 74.1 50.8 73.7 72.7 70.3 68.8 61.6 54.5 51.5 51.2 50.9 63.0 0.0 63.0 14 64.6 75.0 48.8 74.5 73.6 71.2 69.8 65.0 58.7 50.1 49.4 48.9 64.6 0.0 64.6 15 65.9 76.6 48.5 76.2 75.5 73.2 71.4 65.5 58.3 50.0 49.3 48.7 65.9 0.0 65.9 16 65.4 76.1 53.8 75.5 74.6 71.9 70.4 65.3 59.9 54.8 54.3 54.0 65.4 0.0 65.4 17 63.3 72.8 55.0 72.3 71.5 69.4 68.0 63.4 59.4 55.9 55.5 55.1 63.3 0.0 63.3 18 64.1 74.5 55.1 74.0 73.1 70.6 68.7 63.7 60.0 56.3 55.8 55.2 64.1 0.0 64.1 19 62.2 72.2 54.0 71.6 70.6 68.3 66.9 62.0 58.5 55.2 54.7 54.2 62.2 5.0 67.2 20 63.5 74.3 54.2 73.8 73.1 69.7 67.6 62.7 59.5 55.7 55.0 54.3 63.5 5.0 68.5 21 61.7 70.4 54.7 69.9 69.1 67.2 66.0 62.1 59.2 55.9 55.4 54.8 61.7 5.0 66.7 22 61.2 70.9 54.5 70.4 69.7 67.4 65.8 60.1 57.4 55.3 54.9 54.6 61.2 10.0 71.2 23 66.3 79.9 52.5 79.3 77.8 75.5 68.2 59.2 55.1 53.2 52.9 52.6 66.3 10.0 76.3 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 61.7 70.4 48.5 69.9 69.1 67.2 66.0 61.5 54.5 50.0 49.3 48.7 Max 66.7 77.3 59.4 76.8 75.8 73.2 71.6 66.5 62.2 59.9 59.7 59.5

64.4 74.2 73.3 70.8 69.1 63.4 58.6 55.0 54.6 54.2
Min 56.0 66.5 51.7 66.0 65.1 62.4 59.9 53.8 52.6 52.0 51.9 51.8 Max 68.0 79.9 60.1 79.3 77.8 75.5 72.9 67.5 63.1 60.6 60.3 60.1

64.0 72.6 71.7 68.9 66.0 59.8 57.3 55.8 55.6 55.4
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, June 13, 2024 L3 - Located east of the site near the residence at 53460 Tyler St.

Night
Day
Leq (dBA) 24-Hour
Day CNEL
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

70.7 64.4 64.0 57.1 56.0 57.9 61.5 63.367.6 68.0 66.7 65.4 64.7 63.7 63.6 64.9 63.0 64.6 65.9 65.4 63.3 64.1 62.2 63.5 61.7 61.266.3

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 15967
Project: Armtec Master Plan Source: Analyst: N. Johnson Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 55.5 67.4 47.1 67.0 66.3 63.1 60.1 52.0 49.1 47.8 47.6 47.2 55.5 10.0 65.5 1 54.9 66.0 47.2 65.7 65.0 62.2 60.0 52.0 49.2 47.6 47.5 47.3 54.9 10.0 64.9 2 55.1 67.4 46.4 67.1 66.3 62.8 59.5 50.3 48.0 46.9 46.7 46.5 55.1 10.0 65.1 3 58.9 70.3 52.5 69.9 68.8 65.1 62.2 57.3 55.0 53.0 52.8 52.6 58.9 10.0 68.9 4 62.7 73.6 53.9 73.3 72.5 69.6 67.4 61.1 57.6 54.6 54.3 54.0 62.7 10.0 72.7 5 66.0 76.1 55.9 75.6 74.8 72.5 71.1 65.8 61.4 56.8 56.3 56.0 66.0 10.0 76.0 6 66.7 77.0 56.2 76.6 75.8 73.3 71.8 66.5 61.7 57.1 56.7 56.3 66.7 10.0 76.7 7 64.6 74.7 52.3 74.3 73.5 71.5 70.1 64.5 58.1 53.1 52.7 52.4 64.6 0.0 64.6 8 63.6 74.3 50.2 74.0 73.2 70.9 69.3 62.5 55.8 51.1 50.7 50.3 63.6 0.0 63.6 9 62.9 74.4 49.8 73.9 73.0 69.7 68.0 61.9 55.8 50.9 50.4 49.9 62.9 0.0 62.9 10 62.0 72.8 48.5 72.4 71.6 69.3 67.8 61.1 54.2 49.4 49.0 48.6 62.0 0.0 62.0 11 63.2 74.8 48.7 74.5 73.7 71.0 68.7 60.6 53.6 49.6 49.2 48.8 63.2 0.0 63.2 12 62.0 73.1 49.3 72.7 71.8 69.4 67.5 60.9 53.9 50.0 49.7 49.4 62.0 0.0 62.0 13 61.7 72.9 46.6 72.5 71.6 69.2 67.5 60.4 51.8 47.5 47.1 46.7 61.7 0.0 61.7 14 64.4 75.3 46.2 74.9 74.0 71.1 69.4 64.4 57.5 48.2 47.2 46.4 64.4 0.0 64.4 15 64.2 74.4 46.8 73.9 73.2 71.0 69.6 64.6 57.6 48.4 47.5 47.0 64.2 0.0 64.2 16 64.8 74.7 49.0 74.3 73.6 71.1 69.8 65.5 59.4 50.7 49.9 49.2 64.8 0.0 64.8 17 64.6 73.6 51.7 73.3 72.7 70.9 69.9 65.4 59.9 53.7 53.0 52.0 64.6 0.0 64.6 18 63.0 74.1 51.6 73.4 72.3 69.4 67.9 62.5 57.5 52.8 52.3 51.7 63.0 0.0 63.0 19 59.9 71.4 48.2 70.8 69.8 66.8 65.0 58.6 53.8 49.2 48.8 48.3 59.9 5.0 64.9 20 59.4 70.8 49.5 70.3 69.1 65.9 64.1 58.4 53.8 50.5 50.1 49.7 59.4 5.0 64.4 21 59.8 71.6 50.2 71.2 70.2 66.7 64.1 58.0 54.2 51.2 50.8 50.3 59.8 5.0 64.8 22 58.0 70.2 49.4 69.6 68.5 64.5 62.0 55.4 52.5 50.4 50.0 49.6 58.0 10.0 68.0 23 58.6 71.0 48.3 70.3 69.2 65.9 64.2 55.2 51.2 49.1 48.8 48.5 58.6 10.0 68.6 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 59.4 70.8 46.2 70.3 69.1 65.9 64.1 58.0 51.8 47.5 47.1 46.4 Max 64.8 75.3 52.3 74.9 74.0 71.5 70.1 65.5 59.9 53.7 53.0 52.4

63.0 73.1 72.2 69.6 67.9 62.0 55.8 50.4 49.9 49.4
Min 54.9 66.0 46.4 65.7 65.0 62.2 59.5 50.3 48.0 46.9 46.7 46.5 Max 66.7 77.0 56.2 76.6 75.8 73.3 71.8 66.5 61.7 57.1 56.7 56.3

61.8 70.6 69.7 66.6 64.3 57.3 54.0 51.5 51.2 50.9
Night
Day
Leq (dBA) 24-Hour
Day CNEL
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

68.6 63.0 61.8
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, June 13, 2024 L4 - Located east of the site near the residences at 53450 Tyler St. 55.5 54.9 55.158.9 62.7 66.0 66.7 64.6 63.6 62.9 62.0 63.2 62.0 61.7 64.4 64.2 64.8 64.6 63.0 59.9 59.4 59.8 58.0 58.6

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 15967
Project: Armtec Master Plan Source: Analyst: N. Johnson Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 54.8 68.8 36.4 68.3 67.2 62.6 58.9 45.2 39.2 37.0 36.7 36.4 54.8 10.0 64.8 1 52.2 65.6 36.1 65.2 64.2 60.5 57.0 42.6 38.4 36.6 36.4 36.2 52.2 10.0 62.2 2 61.5 75.7 34.9 75.0 73.9 68.7 64.6 56.1 46.8 36.1 35.3 35.0 61.5 10.0 71.5 3 56.0 67.1 44.9 66.8 66.3 64.1 61.7 52.6 48.6 45.7 45.3 45.0 56.0 10.0 66.0 4 57.4 68.6 48.8 68.2 67.5 64.6 62.2 55.1 52.1 49.6 49.3 48.9 57.4 10.0 67.4 5 61.7 72.6 52.4 72.3 71.6 68.8 66.6 59.9 56.4 53.4 53.0 52.5 61.7 10.0 71.7 6 66.1 79.9 48.5 79.4 78.2 73.8 69.8 60.4 54.2 49.5 49.0 48.6 66.1 10.0 76.1 7 67.9 81.8 44.1 81.1 80.2 75.9 71.9 60.2 52.7 45.5 44.9 44.3 67.9 0.0 67.9 8 62.9 75.6 40.2 75.1 74.0 70.8 68.2 59.3 51.1 41.6 40.9 40.4 62.9 0.0 62.9 9 61.1 74.0 38.9 73.6 72.9 69.2 66.2 55.6 46.7 40.2 39.6 39.0 61.1 0.0 61.1 10 64.6 77.5 42.8 76.9 76.2 72.9 69.2 59.5 52.7 44.6 43.7 43.0 64.6 0.0 64.6 11 64.0 77.8 42.1 77.1 75.9 71.4 68.5 58.2 49.2 43.0 42.6 42.2 64.0 0.0 64.0 12 63.4 77.1 44.8 76.5 75.3 71.1 67.9 57.1 49.4 45.8 45.4 45.0 63.4 0.0 63.4 13 60.1 72.7 42.7 72.2 71.1 68.0 65.8 56.3 48.0 43.5 43.2 42.8 60.1 0.0 60.1 14 66.2 79.8 43.9 79.1 77.9 73.5 70.2 62.1 53.5 45.6 44.7 44.1 66.2 0.0 66.2 15 68.3 83.3 44.2 82.3 80.6 75.3 71.3 61.4 52.7 45.7 45.0 44.4 68.3 0.0 68.3 16 64.0 76.2 43.6 75.7 74.8 71.7 69.2 61.5 54.1 45.6 44.6 43.8 64.0 0.0 64.0 17 68.5 82.1 44.6 81.4 79.9 75.9 73.0 64.5 57.1 47.0 45.6 44.8 68.5 0.0 68.5 18 64.4 76.9 46.5 76.4 75.3 72.0 69.4 61.9 54.3 47.9 47.1 46.6 64.4 0.0 64.4 19 64.3 77.2 44.9 76.6 75.5 71.9 69.3 60.8 52.8 46.5 45.8 45.1 64.3 5.0 69.3 20 68.1 82.0 45.5 81.4 80.2 75.8 72.1 61.7 53.3 46.7 46.1 45.6 68.1 5.0 73.1 21 63.9 76.8 45.5 76.2 75.1 71.4 68.9 60.6 53.8 47.1 46.4 45.7 63.9 5.0 68.9 22 69.0 82.9 43.7 82.3 81.5 76.5 72.2 61.5 51.8 45.5 44.4 43.8 69.0 10.0 79.0 23 66.3 79.9 41.5 79.5 78.6 74.4 70.0 57.6 51.8 42.4 42.1 41.6 66.3 10.0 76.3 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 60.1 72.7 38.9 72.2 71.1 68.0 65.8 55.6 46.7 40.2 39.6 39.0 Max 68.5 83.3 46.5 82.3 80.6 75.9 73.0 64.5 57.1 47.9 47.1 46.6

65.5 77.4 76.3 72.4 69.4 60.1 52.1 45.1 44.4 43.8
Min 52.2 65.6 34.9 65.2 64.2 60.5 57.0 42.6 38.4 36.1 35.3 35.0 Max 69.0 82.9 52.4 82.3 81.5 76.5 72.2 61.5 56.4 53.4 53.0 52.5

63.6 73.0 72.1 68.2 64.8 54.6 48.8 44.0 43.5 43.1
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, June 13, 2024 L5 - Located north of the site near the residence at 85925 Avenida Raylynn
Night
Day
Leq (dBA) 24-Hour
Day CNEL
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

70.7 65.5 63.6 54.8 52.261.5 56.0 57.461.766.1 67.9 62.9 61.1 64.6 64.0 63.4 60.166.2 68.3 64.068.5 64.4 64.368.1 63.969.0 66.3

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
This page intentionally left blank
96 1218
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
APPENDIX 7.1:

OFF-SITE NOISE CALCULATIONS
97 1219
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
This page intentionally left blank
98 1220
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Grapefruit Blvd.

Road Name: Tyler St.

Scenario: Existing
2,090

8.25%

40.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 172 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 49 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-10.29
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

2.80 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -25.16 2.86 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -22.94 2.85 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.59
-4.87
-5.56
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

32.012

31.734

31.761
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.5 60.5 59.0 53.0 61.5 62.1

57.5 64.1

54.4 46.6 55.8 61.9 62.0

60.9 53.2 62.4 68.5 68.6
Vehicle Noise: 66.6 64.2 60.2 63.6 70.0 70.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
40 87 187 403
41 88 190 410
Friday, July 26, 2024
99 1221
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Avenue 53
Road Name: Tyler St.

Scenario: Existing
1,700

8.25%

40.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 140 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 49 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-11.19
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

2.80 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -26.05 2.86 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -23.84 2.85 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.59
-4.87
-5.56
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

32.012

31.734

31.761
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

60.6 59.6 58.1 52.1 60.6 61.2

56.6 63.2

53.5 45.7 54.9 61.0 61.1

60.1 52.3 61.5 67.6 67.7
Vehicle Noise: 65.7 63.3 59.3 62.7 69.1 69.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
35 76 163 351
36 77 166 357
Friday, July 26, 2024
100
1222
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Armtec Entrance
Road Name: Tyler St.

Scenario: Existing
1,330

8.25%

40.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 110 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 49 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-12.25
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

2.80 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -27.12 2.86 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -24.90 2.85 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.59
-4.87
-5.56
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

32.012

31.734

31.761
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

59.6 58.5 57.1 51.1 59.5 60.1

55.5 62.1

52.4 44.6 53.8 60.0 60.0

59.0 51.2 60.4 66.6 66.6
Vehicle Noise: 64.6 62.2 58.3 61.7 68.1 68.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
30 64 138 298
30 65 141 303
Friday, July 26, 2024
101
1223
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Grapefruit Blvd.

Road Name: Palm St.

Scenario: Existing
1,510

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 125 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-10.49
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -27.72 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -31.68 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

58.1 56.9 55.6 49.6 58.0 58.6

52.1 53.4

49.1 41.6 50.3 56.5 56.5

50.2 46.8 51.5 57.7 57.8
Vehicle Noise: 60.1 58.3 56.3 55.3 62.2 62.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
9 20 42 91
9 20 44 95
Friday, July 26, 2024
102
1224
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: w/o Tyler St.

Road Name: Grapefruit Blvd.

Scenario: Existing
7,970

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 658 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-4.48
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -19.34 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -17.13 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

67.8 66.7 65.3 59.3 67.8 68.4

63.8 70.4

60.6 52.9 62.1 68.2 68.3

67.2 59.4 68.7 74.8 74.8
Vehicle Noise: 72.9 70.5 66.5 69.9 76.3 76.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
79 171 368 792
81 174 374 807
Friday, July 26, 2024
103
1225
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: w/o Palm St.

Road Name: Grapefruit Blvd.

Scenario: Existing
6,050

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 499 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-5.68
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -20.54 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -18.32 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

66.6 65.5 64.1 58.1 66.6 67.2

62.6 69.2

59.4 51.7 60.9 67.0 67.1

66.0 58.3 67.5 73.6 73.6
Vehicle Noise: 71.7 69.3 65.3 68.7 75.1 75.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
66 142 306 659
67 145 312 671
Friday, July 26, 2024
104
1226
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: e/o Palm St.

Road Name: Grapefruit Blvd.

Scenario: Existing
3,100

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 256 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-8.58
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -23.45 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -21.23 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

63.7 62.6 61.2 55.2 63.7 64.3

59.7 66.3

56.5 48.8 58.0 64.1 64.2

63.1 55.3 64.6 70.7 70.7
Vehicle Noise: 68.8 66.4 62.4 65.8 72.2 72.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
42 91 196 422
43 93 200 430
Friday, July 26, 2024
105
1227
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: w/o Palm St.

Road Name: Airport Blvd.

Scenario: Existing
3,420

8.25%

46.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 282 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 46.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 71 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-7.69
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.29 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -22.56 3.36 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -20.34 3.35 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.63
-4.87
-5.47
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.677

29.378

29.407
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

62.9 61.8 60.4 54.4 62.8 63.4

59.0 66.1

55.9 48.1 57.3 63.5 63.5

62.9 55.1 64.3 70.5 70.5
Vehicle Noise: 68.3 65.9 61.7 65.5 71.9 72.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
61 132 284 613
62 134 289 623
Friday, July 26, 2024
106
1228
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Grapefruit Blvd.

Road Name: Tyler St.

Scenario: E + P
2,190

8.25%

40.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 181 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 49 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-10.09
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

2.80 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -24.95 2.86 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -22.74 2.85 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.59
-4.87
-5.56
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

32.012

31.734

31.761
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.7 60.7 59.2 53.2 61.7 62.3

57.7 64.3

54.6 46.8 56.0 62.1 62.2

61.2 53.4 62.6 68.7 68.8
Vehicle Noise: 66.8 64.4 60.4 63.8 70.2 70.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
42 89 193 415
42 91 196 423
Friday, July 26, 2024
107
1229
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Avenue 53
Road Name: Tyler St.

Scenario: E + P
1,810

8.25%

40.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 149 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 49 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-10.92
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

2.80 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -25.78 2.86 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -23.56 2.85 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.59
-4.87
-5.56
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

32.012

31.734

31.761
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

60.9 59.8 58.4 52.4 60.9 61.5

56.9 63.5

53.7 46.0 55.2 61.3 61.3

60.3 52.5 61.7 67.9 67.9
Vehicle Noise: 66.0 63.6 59.6 63.0 69.4 69.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
37 79 170 366
37 80 173 373
Friday, July 26, 2024
108
1230
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Armtec Entrance
Road Name: Tyler St.

Scenario: E + P
1,340

8.25%

40.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 111 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 49 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-12.22
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

2.80 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -27.09 2.86 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -24.87 2.85 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.59
-4.87
-5.56
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

32.012

31.734

31.761
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

59.6 58.5 57.1 51.1 59.6 60.2

55.6 62.2

52.4 44.6 53.9 60.0 60.0

59.0 51.2 60.4 66.6 66.6
Vehicle Noise: 64.6 62.3 58.3 61.7 68.1 68.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
30 64 139 299
30 66 142 305
Friday, July 26, 2024
109
1231
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Grapefruit Blvd.

Road Name: Palm St.

Scenario: E + P
1,540

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 127 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-10.40
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -27.64 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -31.59 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

58.2 57.0 55.7 49.7 58.1 58.7

52.2 53.5

49.1 41.6 50.4 56.6 56.6

50.3 46.9 51.6 57.8 57.9
Vehicle Noise: 60.2 58.4 56.4 55.4 62.3 62.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
9 20 43 92
10 21 45 96
Friday, July 26, 2024
110
1232
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: w/o Tyler St.

Road Name: Grapefruit Blvd.

Scenario: E + P
8,000

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 660 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-4.46
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -19.33 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -17.11 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

67.8 66.7 65.3 59.3 67.8 68.4

63.8 70.4

60.7 52.9 62.1 68.2 68.3

67.2 59.5 68.7 74.8 74.9
Vehicle Noise: 72.9 70.5 66.5 69.9 76.3 76.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
79 171 369 794
81 174 375 809
Friday, July 26, 2024
111
1233
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: w/o Palm St.

Road Name: Grapefruit Blvd.

Scenario: E + P
6,060

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 500 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-5.67
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -20.53 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -18.32 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

66.6 65.5 64.1 58.1 66.6 67.2

62.6 69.2

59.5 51.7 60.9 67.0 67.1

66.0 58.3 67.5 73.6 73.7
Vehicle Noise: 71.7 69.3 65.3 68.7 75.1 75.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
66 142 306 660
67 145 312 672
Friday, July 26, 2024
112
1234
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: e/o Palm St.

Road Name: Grapefruit Blvd.

Scenario: E + P
3,110

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 257 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-8.57
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -23.43 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -21.21 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

63.7 62.6 61.2 55.2 63.7 64.3

59.7 66.3

56.6 48.8 58.0 64.1 64.2

63.1 55.4 64.6 70.7 70.8
Vehicle Noise: 68.8 66.4 62.4 65.8 72.2 72.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
42 91 196 423
43 93 200 431
Friday, July 26, 2024
113
1235
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: w/o Palm St.

Road Name: Airport Blvd.

Scenario: E + P
3,460

8.25%

46.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 285 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 46.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 71 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-7.64
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.29 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -22.51 3.36 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -20.29 3.35 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.63
-4.87
-5.47
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.677

29.378

29.407
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

62.9 61.8 60.4 54.4 62.9 63.5

59.1 66.1

56.0 48.2 57.4 63.5 63.6

63.0 55.2 64.4 70.6 70.6
Vehicle Noise: 68.4 65.9 61.8 65.5 71.9 72.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
62 133 287 617
63 135 292 628
Friday, July 26, 2024
114
1236
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Grapefruit Blvd.

Road Name: Tyler St.

Scenario: EA
2,170

8.25%

40.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 179 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 49 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-10.13
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

2.80 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -24.99 2.86 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -22.78 2.85 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.59
-4.87
-5.56
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

32.012

31.734

31.761
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.7 60.6 59.2 53.2 61.6 62.3

57.7 64.3

54.5 46.7 55.9 62.1 62.1

61.1 53.3 62.5 68.7 68.7
Vehicle Noise: 66.7 64.4 60.4 63.8 70.2 70.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
41 89 192 413
42 91 195 420
Friday, July 26, 2024
115
1237
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Avenue 53
Road Name: Tyler St.

Scenario: EA
1,770

8.25%

40.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 146 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 49 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-11.01
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

2.80 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -25.88 2.86 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -23.66 2.85 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.59
-4.87
-5.56
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

32.012

31.734

31.761
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

60.8 59.7 58.3 52.3 60.8 61.4

56.8 63.4

53.6 45.9 55.1 61.2 61.3

60.2 52.4 61.7 67.8 67.8
Vehicle Noise: 65.9 63.5 59.5 62.9 69.3 69.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
36 78 167 360
37 79 170 367
Friday, July 26, 2024
116
1238
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Armtec Entrance
Road Name: Tyler St.

Scenario: EA
1,380

8.25%

40.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 114 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 49 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-12.09
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

2.80 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -26.96 2.86 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -24.74 2.85 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.59
-4.87
-5.56
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

32.012

31.734

31.761
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

59.7 58.6 57.2 51.2 59.7 60.3

55.7 62.3

52.6 44.8 54.0 60.1 60.2

59.1 51.4 60.6 66.7 66.8
Vehicle Noise: 64.8 62.4 58.4 61.8 68.2 68.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
31 66 142 305
31 67 144 311
Friday, July 26, 2024
117
1239
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Grapefruit Blvd.

Road Name: Palm St.

Scenario: EA
1,580

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 130 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-10.29
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -27.53 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -31.48 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

58.3 57.1 55.8 49.8 58.2 58.8

52.3 53.6

49.3 41.8 50.5 56.7 56.7

50.4 47.0 51.7 57.9 58.0
Vehicle Noise: 60.3 58.5 56.5 55.5 62.4 62.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
9 20 43 94
10 21 45 98
Friday, July 26, 2024
118
1240
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: w/o Tyler St.

Road Name: Grapefruit Blvd.

Scenario: EA
8,290

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 684 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-4.31
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -19.17 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -16.96 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

68.0 66.9 65.5 59.5 67.9 68.6

64.0 70.5

60.8 53.0 62.2 68.4 68.4

67.4 59.6 68.8 75.0 75.0
Vehicle Noise: 73.0 70.6 66.7 70.1 76.5 76.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
81 175 377 813
83 178 384 828
Friday, July 26, 2024
119
1241
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: w/o Palm St.

Road Name: Grapefruit Blvd.

Scenario: EA
6,300

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 520 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-5.50
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -20.37 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -18.15 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

66.8 65.7 64.3 58.3 66.7 67.4

62.8 69.4

59.6 51.8 61.0 67.2 67.2

66.2 58.4 67.6 73.8 73.8
Vehicle Noise: 71.8 69.5 65.5 68.9 75.3 75.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
68 146 314 677
69 149 320 690
Friday, July 26, 2024
120
1242
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: e/o Palm St.

Road Name: Grapefruit Blvd.

Scenario: EA
3,220

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 266 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-8.41
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -23.28 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -21.06 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

63.9 62.8 61.4 55.4 63.8 64.4

59.8 66.4

56.7 48.9 58.1 64.3 64.3

63.3 55.5 64.7 70.9 70.9
Vehicle Noise: 68.9 66.5 62.6 66.0 72.4 72.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
43 93 201 433
44 95 205 441
Friday, July 26, 2024
121
1243
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: w/o Palm St.

Road Name: Airport Blvd.

Scenario: EA
3,560

8.25%

46.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 294 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 46.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 71 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-7.52
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.29 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -22.39 3.36 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -20.17 3.35 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.63
-4.87
-5.47
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.677

29.378

29.407
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

63.0 62.0 60.6 54.5 63.0 63.6

59.2 66.2

56.1 48.3 57.5 63.7 63.7

63.1 55.3 64.5 70.7 70.7
Vehicle Noise: 68.5 66.0 61.9 65.7 72.0 72.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
63 136 292 629
64 138 297 640
Friday, July 26, 2024
122
1244
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Grapefruit Blvd.

Road Name: Tyler St.

Scenario: EAP
2,270

8.25%

40.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 187 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 49 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-9.93
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

2.80 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -24.80 2.86 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -22.58 2.85 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.59
-4.87
-5.56
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

32.012

31.734

31.761
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.9 60.8 59.4 53.4 61.8 62.5

57.9 64.5

54.7 46.9 56.1 62.3 62.3

61.3 53.5 62.7 68.9 68.9
Vehicle Noise: 66.9 64.6 60.6 64.0 70.4 70.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
43 92 197 425
43 93 201 433
Friday, July 26, 2024
123
1245
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Avenue 53
Road Name: Tyler St.

Scenario: EAP
1,880

8.25%

40.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 155 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 49 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-10.75
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

2.80 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -25.62 2.86 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -23.40 2.85 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.59
-4.87
-5.56
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

32.012

31.734

31.761
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.1 60.0 58.6 52.6 61.0 61.6

57.0 63.6

53.9 46.1 55.3 61.5 61.5

60.5 52.7 61.9 68.1 68.1
Vehicle Noise: 66.1 63.7 59.8 63.2 69.6 69.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
38 81 174 375
38 82 177 382
Friday, July 26, 2024
124
1246
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Armtec Entrance
Road Name: Tyler St.

Scenario: EAP
1,390

8.25%

40.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 115 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 49 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-12.06
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

2.80 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -26.93 2.86 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -24.71 2.85 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.59
-4.87
-5.56
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

32.012

31.734

31.761
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

59.7 58.7 57.3 51.2 59.7 60.3

55.7 62.3

52.6 44.8 54.0 60.2 60.2

59.2 51.4 60.6 66.8 66.8
Vehicle Noise: 64.8 62.4 58.5 61.9 68.3 68.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
31 66 142 307
31 67 145 312
Friday, July 26, 2024
125
1247
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Grapefruit Blvd.

Road Name: Palm St.

Scenario: EAP
1,610

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 133 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-10.21
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -27.44 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -31.40 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

58.4 57.2 55.9 49.9 58.3 58.9

52.4 53.7

49.3 41.8 50.6 56.8 56.8

50.5 47.1 51.8 58.0 58.1
Vehicle Noise: 60.4 58.6 56.6 55.6 62.5 62.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
9 20 44 95
10 21 46 99
Friday, July 26, 2024
126
1248
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: w/o Tyler St.

Road Name: Grapefruit Blvd.

Scenario: EAP
8,320

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 686 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-4.29
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -19.16 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -16.94 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

68.0 66.9 65.5 59.5 67.9 68.6

64.0 70.6

60.8 53.0 62.3 68.4 68.4

67.4 59.6 68.8 75.0 75.0
Vehicle Noise: 73.0 70.7 66.7 70.1 76.5 76.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
82 176 378 815
83 179 385 830
Friday, July 26, 2024
127
1249
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: w/o Palm St.

Road Name: Grapefruit Blvd.

Scenario: EAP
6,310

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 521 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-5.49
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -20.36 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -18.14 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

66.8 65.7 64.3 58.3 66.7 67.4

62.8 69.4

59.6 51.8 61.1 67.2 67.2

66.2 58.4 67.6 73.8 73.8
Vehicle Noise: 71.8 69.5 65.5 68.9 75.3 75.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
68 146 315 678
69 149 320 690
Friday, July 26, 2024
128
1250
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: e/o Palm St.

Road Name: Grapefruit Blvd.

Scenario: EAP
3,230

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 266 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-8.40
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -23.27 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -21.05 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

63.9 62.8 61.4 55.4 63.8 64.5

59.9 66.5

56.7 48.9 58.1 64.3 64.3

63.3 55.5 64.7 70.9 70.9
Vehicle Noise: 68.9 66.6 62.6 66.0 72.4 72.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
43 93 201 434
44 95 205 442
Friday, July 26, 2024
129
1251
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: w/o Palm St.

Road Name: Airport Blvd.

Scenario: EAP
3,600

8.25%

46.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 297 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 46.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 71 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-7.47
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.29 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -22.34 3.36 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -20.12 3.35 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.63
-4.87
-5.47
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.677

29.378

29.407
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

63.1 62.0 60.6 54.6 63.1 63.7

59.3 66.3

56.1 48.3 57.6 63.7 63.7

63.1 55.4 64.6 70.7 70.8
Vehicle Noise: 68.5 66.1 61.9 65.7 72.1 72.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
63 137 294 634
64 139 299 645
Friday, July 26, 2024
130
1252
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Grapefruit Blvd.

Road Name: Tyler St.

Scenario: EAC
2,250

8.25%

40.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 186 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 49 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-9.97
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

2.80 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -24.84 2.86 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -22.62 2.85 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.59
-4.87
-5.56
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

32.012

31.734

31.761
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.8 60.8 59.4 53.3 61.8 62.4

57.8 64.4

54.7 46.9 56.1 62.3 62.3

61.3 53.5 62.7 68.8 68.9
Vehicle Noise: 66.9 64.5 60.6 64.0 70.4 70.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
42 91 196 423
43 93 200 431
Friday, July 26, 2024
131
1253
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Avenue 53
Road Name: Tyler St.

Scenario: EAC
1,830

8.25%

40.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 151 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 49 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-10.87
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

2.80 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -25.73 2.86 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -23.52 2.85 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.59
-4.87
-5.56
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

32.012

31.734

31.761
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

60.9 59.9 58.5 52.4 60.9 61.5

56.9 63.5

53.8 46.0 55.2 61.4 61.4

60.4 52.6 61.8 68.0 68.0
Vehicle Noise: 66.0 63.6 59.7 63.1 69.5 69.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
37 79 171 368
38 81 174 375
Friday, July 26, 2024
132
1254
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Armtec Entrance
Road Name: Tyler St.

Scenario: EAC
1,440

8.25%

40.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 119 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 49 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-11.91
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

2.80 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -26.78 2.86 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -24.56 2.85 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.59
-4.87
-5.56
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

32.012

31.734

31.761
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

59.9 58.8 57.4 51.4 59.9 60.5

55.9 62.5

52.7 45.0 54.2 60.3 60.4

59.3 51.5 60.8 66.9 66.9
Vehicle Noise: 65.0 62.6 58.6 62.0 68.4 68.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
31 68 146 314
32 69 148 320
Friday, July 26, 2024
133
1255
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Grapefruit Blvd.

Road Name: Palm St.

Scenario: EAC
2,170

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 179 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-8.91
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -26.15 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -30.10 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

59.7 58.5 57.2 51.2 59.6 60.2

53.7 55.0

50.6 43.1 51.9 58.1 58.1

51.8 48.4 53.1 59.3 59.3
Vehicle Noise: 61.7 59.9 57.9 56.9 63.8 64.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
12 25 54 116
12 26 56 121
Friday, July 26, 2024
134
1256
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: w/o Tyler St.

Road Name: Grapefruit Blvd.

Scenario: EAC
8,410

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 694 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-4.24
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -19.11 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -16.89 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

68.0 67.0 65.5 59.5 68.0 68.6

64.0 70.6

60.9 53.1 62.3 68.5 68.5

67.5 59.7 68.9 75.0 75.1
Vehicle Noise: 73.1 70.7 66.7 70.1 76.6 76.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
82 177 381 821
84 180 388 836
Friday, July 26, 2024
135
1257
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: w/o Palm St.

Road Name: Grapefruit Blvd.

Scenario: EAC
6,970

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 575 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-5.06
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -19.93 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -17.71 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

67.2 66.1 64.7 58.7 67.2 67.8

63.2 69.8

60.1 52.3 61.5 67.6 67.7

66.6 58.9 68.1 74.2 74.3
Vehicle Noise: 72.3 69.9 65.9 69.3 75.7 75.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
72 156 336 724
74 159 342 738
Friday, July 26, 2024
136
1258
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: e/o Palm St.

Road Name: Grapefruit Blvd.

Scenario: EAC
3,610

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 298 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-7.92
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -22.78 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -20.57 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

64.4 63.3 61.9 55.9 64.3 64.9

60.3 66.9

57.2 49.4 58.6 64.8 64.8

63.8 56.0 65.2 71.4 71.4
Vehicle Noise: 69.4 67.0 63.1 66.5 72.9 73.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
47 101 217 467
48 103 221 476
Friday, July 26, 2024
137
1259
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: w/o Palm St.

Road Name: Airport Blvd.

Scenario: EAC
3,730

8.25%

46.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 308 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 46.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 71 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-7.32
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.29 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -22.18 3.36 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -19.97 3.35 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.63
-4.87
-5.47
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.677

29.378

29.407
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

63.2 62.2 60.8 54.7 63.2 63.8

59.4 66.4

56.3 48.5 57.7 63.9 63.9

63.3 55.5 64.7 70.9 70.9
Vehicle Noise: 68.7 66.2 62.1 65.9 72.2 72.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
65 140 301 649
66 142 307 660
Friday, July 26, 2024
138
1260
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Grapefruit Blvd.

Road Name: Tyler St.

Scenario: EACP
2,350

8.25%

40.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 194 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 49 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-9.78
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

2.80 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -24.65 2.86 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -22.43 2.85 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.59
-4.87
-5.56
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

32.012

31.734

31.761
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

62.0 61.0 59.5 53.5 62.0 62.6

58.0 64.6

54.9 47.1 56.3 62.4 62.5

61.5 53.7 62.9 69.0 69.1
Vehicle Noise: 67.1 64.7 60.7 64.1 70.6 70.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
44 94 202 435
44 96 206 443
Friday, July 26, 2024
139
1261
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Avenue 53
Road Name: Tyler St.

Scenario: EACP
1,940

8.25%

40.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 160 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 49 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-10.61
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

2.80 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -25.48 2.86 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -23.26 2.85 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.59
-4.87
-5.56
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

32.012

31.734

31.761
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

61.2 60.1 58.7 52.7 61.2 61.8

57.2 63.8

54.0 46.3 55.5 61.6 61.6

60.6 52.8 62.1 68.2 68.2
Vehicle Noise: 66.3 63.9 59.9 63.3 69.7 69.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
38 83 178 383
39 84 181 390
Friday, July 26, 2024
140
1262
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Armtec Entrance
Road Name: Tyler St.

Scenario: EACP
1,450

8.25%

40.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 120 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 49 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-11.88
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

2.80 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -26.75 2.86 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -24.53 2.85 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.59
-4.87
-5.56
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

32.012

31.734

31.761
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

59.9 58.9 57.5 51.4 59.9 60.5

55.9 62.5

52.8 45.0 54.2 60.4 60.4

59.4 51.6 60.8 66.9 67.0
Vehicle Noise: 65.0 62.6 58.6 62.0 68.5 68.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
32 68 146 315
32 69 149 321
Friday, July 26, 2024
141
1263
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: s/o Grapefruit Blvd.

Road Name: Palm St.

Scenario: EACP
2,200

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 182 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 40 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-8.85
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%

48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%

47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -26.09 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -30.04 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

59.7 58.6 57.2 51.2 59.6 60.3

53.8 55.1

50.7 43.2 51.9 58.1 58.2

51.9 48.5 53.1 59.3 59.4
Vehicle Noise: 61.8 59.9 57.9 56.9 63.8 64.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
12 25 54 117
12 26 57 122
Friday, July 26, 2024
142
1264
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: w/o Tyler St.

Road Name: Grapefruit Blvd.

Scenario: EACP
8,440

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 696 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-4.23
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -19.10 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -16.88 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

68.0 67.0 65.6 59.5 68.0 68.6

64.0 70.6

60.9 53.1 62.3 68.5 68.5

67.5 59.7 68.9 75.1 75.1
Vehicle Noise: 73.1 70.7 66.8 70.2 76.6 76.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
82 177 382 823
84 181 389 838
Friday, July 26, 2024
143
1265
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: w/o Palm St.

Road Name: Grapefruit Blvd.

Scenario: EACP
6,980

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 576 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-5.05
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -19.92 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -17.70 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

67.2 66.2 64.7 58.7 67.2 67.8

63.2 69.8

60.1 52.3 61.5 67.6 67.7

66.7 58.9 68.1 74.2 74.3
Vehicle Noise: 72.3 69.9 65.9 69.3 75.7 75.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
72 156 336 725
74 159 343 739
Friday, July 26, 2024
144
1266
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: e/o Palm St.

Road Name: Grapefruit Blvd.

Scenario: EACP
3,620

8.25%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 299 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-7.91
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.26 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -22.77 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -20.55 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.816

29.518

29.547
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

64.4 63.3 61.9 55.9 64.3 65.0

60.4 66.9

57.2 49.4 58.6 64.8 64.8

63.8 56.0 65.2 71.4 71.4
Vehicle Noise: 69.4 67.0 63.1 66.5 72.9 73.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
47 101 217 468
48 103 221 477
Friday, July 26, 2024
145
1267
Item 3.

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Armtec Master Plan
Job Number: 15967
Road Segment: w/o Palm St.

Road Name: Airport Blvd.

Scenario: EACP
3,770

8.25%

46.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 311 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 46.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 71 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-7.27
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 14.0% 10.5% 92.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 3.00%

48.0% 2.0% 50.0% 5.00%

3.29 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -22.14 3.36 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -19.92 3.35 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.63
-4.87
-5.47
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

29.677

29.378

29.407
Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL

63.3 62.2 60.8 54.8 63.3 63.9

59.5 66.5

56.3 48.5 57.8 63.9 63.9

63.3 55.6 64.8 70.9 71.0
Vehicle Noise: 68.7 66.3 62.1 65.9 72.3 72.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
65 141 303 654
67 143 309 665
Friday, July 26, 2024
146
1268
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
APPENDIX 10.1:

OPERATIONAL NOISE CALCULATIONS
147
1269
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
This page intentionally left blank
148
1270
Item 3.
15967 - ARMTEC Master Plan
CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 15967-02_Operation.cna
Date: 18.07.24
Analyst: B. Maddux
Calculation Configuration
Configuration
Parameter Value
General
Max. Error (dB) 0.00
Max. Search Radius (#(Unit,LEN)) 2000.01
Min. Dist Src to Rcvr 0.00
Partition
Raster Factor 0.50
Max. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 999.99
Min. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 1.01
Min. Length of Section (%) 0.00
Proj. Line Sources On
Proj. Area Sources On
Ref. Time
Daytime Penalty (dB) 0.00
Recr. Time Penalty (dB) 5.00
Night-time Penalty (dB) 10.00
DTM
Standard Height (m) 0.00
Model of Terrain Triangulation
Reflection
max. Order of Reflection 2
Search Radius Src 100.00
Search Radius Rcvr 100.00
Max. Distance Source - Rcvr 1000.00 1000.00
Min. Distance Rvcr - Reflector 1.00 1.00
Min. Distance Source - Reflector 0.10
Industrial (ISO 9613)
Lateral Diffraction some Obj
Obst. within Area Src do not shield On
Screening Incl. Ground Att. over Barrier
Dz with limit (20/25)
Barrier Coefficients C1,2,3 3.0 20.0 0.0
Temperature (#(Unit,TEMP)) 10
rel. Humidity (%) 70
Ground Absorption G 0.50
Wind Speed for Dir. (#(Unit,SPEED)) 3.0
Roads (TNM)
Railways (FTA/FRA)
Aircraft (???)
Strictly acc. to AzB
Receiver Noise Levels
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night CNEL Day Night CNEL Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) R1 R1 49.4 17.1 46.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 x Total 5.00 r 6585073.32 2184562.33 5.00 R2 R2 41.9 19.3 39.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 x Total 5.00 r 6586635.42 2182498.12 5.00 R3 R3 45.2 34.4 44.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 x Total 5.00 r 6587815.97 2184101.16 5.00 R4 R4 47.3 37.2 46.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 x Total 5.00 r 6587831.34 2184343.17 5.00 R5 R5 47.8 21.8 44.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 x Total 5.00 r 6586989.15 2185845.43 5.00 Point Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Lw / Li Operating Time Height Coordinates Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) AC1 AC1 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 5.00 g 6587488.39 2184737.82 25.00 AC2 AC2 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 5.00 g 6587574.68 2184369.07 25.00 AC3 AC3 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 5.00 g 6587574.68 2184342.68 25.00 AC4 AC4 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 5.00 g 6587574.68 2184315.60 25.00 Line Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL' Lw / Li Operating Time Moving Pt. Src Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night Number Speed (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) Day Evening Night (mph) (ft) Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
149
1271
Item 3.

Area Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL'' Lw / Li Operating Time Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night (ft) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) LOAD1 LOAD1 115.8 103.7 103.7 78.3 66.2 66.2 Lw 103.7 900.00 0.00 0.00 8 a Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
LOAD1 LOAD1 8.00 a 6586539.39 2185434.87 8.00 0.00
6586981.23 2185438.34 8.00 0.00
6586980.36 2185301.19 8.00 0.00
6586537.66 2185298.58 8.00 0.00
Barrier(s)
Name Sel. M. ID Absorption Z-Ext. Cantilever Height Coordinates left right horz. vert. Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Building(s)
Name Sel. M. ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates Begin x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
BUILDING BUILDING00001 x 0 20.00 a 6586673.71 2185548.42 20.00 0.00 6586983.61 2185551.89 20.00 0.00
6586982.74 2185445.12 20.00 0.00
6586671.11 2185442.52 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00002 x 0 20.00 a 6586585.17 2184941.65 20.00 0.00 6586632.91 2184943.38 20.00 0.00
6586632.91 2184899.11 20.00 0.00
6586581.70 2184899.11 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00003 x 0 20.00 a 6586735.35 2184942.52 20.00 0.00 6586786.56 2184944.25 20.00 0.00
6586786.56 2184899.98 20.00 0.00
6586734.48 2184898.25 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00004 x 0 20.00 a 6586731.00 2184472.03 20.00 0.00 6586830.83 2184474.63 20.00 0.00
6586831.70 2184339.22 20.00 0.00
6586729.27 2184339.22 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00005 x 0 20.00 a 6587395.39 2184093.34 20.00 0.00 6587637.06 2184095.42 20.00 0.00
6587637.06 2183993.34 20.00 0.00
6587394.70 2183990.56 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00006 x 0 20.00 a 6587522.48 2184457.92 20.00 0.00 6587630.81 2184458.62 20.00 0.00
6587629.42 2184222.51 20.00 0.00
6587520.39 2184217.65 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00007 x 0 20.00 a 6587456.09 2184753.62 20.00 0.00 6587514.42 2184756.40 20.00 0.00
6587514.42 2184721.67 20.00 0.00
6587455.39 2184721.67 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00008 x 0 20.00 a 6587409.40 2185126.71 20.00 0.00 6587494.47 2185121.50 20.00 0.00
6587497.94 2185085.04 20.00 0.00
6587411.14 2185078.10 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00009 x 0 20.00 a 6587199.33 2185119.76 20.00 0.00 6587374.68 2185121.50 20.00 0.00
6587374.68 2184999.97 20.00 0.00
6587308.71 2185005.18 20.00 0.00
6587308.71 2185034.70 20.00 0.00
6587201.07 2185038.17 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00010 x 0 20.00 a 6587270.51 2184927.06 20.00 0.00 6587381.62 2184925.32 20.00 0.00
6587379.89 2184828.10 20.00 0.00
6587301.76 2184831.57 20.00 0.00
6587305.23 2184864.56 20.00 0.00
6587275.72 2184864.56 20.00 0.00
6587270.51 2184829.83 20.00 0.00
6587242.73 2184829.83 20.00 0.00
6587239.26 2184906.22 20.00 0.00
6587270.51 2184909.70 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00011 x 0 20.00 a 6587414.61 2184890.60 20.00 0.00 6587473.64 2184894.07 20.00 0.00
6587477.11 2184850.67 20.00 0.00
6587412.87 2184848.93 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00012 x 0 20.00 a 6587135.09 2185107.61 20.00 0.00 6587136.83 2185074.63 20.00 0.00
6587089.96 2185072.89 20.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
150
1272
Item 3.

Name Sel. M. ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates Begin x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
6587084.75 2185093.72 20.00 0.00
6587107.32 2185095.46 20.00 0.00
6587110.79 2185105.88 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00013 x 0 20.00 a 6587140.30 2185020.81 20.00 0.00 6587147.25 2184854.14 20.00 0.00
6587072.59 2184850.67 20.00 0.00
6587065.65 2184930.53 20.00 0.00
6587095.16 2184932.26 20.00 0.00
6587096.90 2185022.54 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00014 x 0 20.00 a 6586603.84 2184803.79 20.00 0.00 6586629.89 2184807.26 20.00 0.00
6586628.15 2184776.01 20.00 0.00
6586600.37 2184774.28 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00015 x 0 20.00 a 6586765.30 2184809.00 20.00 0.00 6586791.34 2184810.74 20.00 0.00
6586794.82 2184781.22 20.00 0.00
6586765.30 2184779.49 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00016 x 0 20.00 a 6586758.36 2184642.33 20.00 0.00 6586789.61 2184649.28 20.00 0.00
6586787.87 2184609.35 20.00 0.00
6586760.09 2184609.35 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00017 x 0 20.00 a 6586596.90 2184645.81 20.00 0.00 6586622.94 2184649.28 20.00 0.00
6586624.68 2184614.56 20.00 0.00
6586595.16 2184611.08 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00018 x 0 20.00 a 6586631.62 2184171.85 20.00 0.00 6586692.39 2184178.79 20.00 0.00
6586694.12 2184126.71 20.00 0.00
6586635.09 2184126.71 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00019 x 0 20.00 a 6586860.79 2184180.53 20.00 0.00 6586916.34 2184180.53 20.00 0.00
6586914.61 2184126.71 20.00 0.00
6586860.79 2184131.92 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00020 x 0 20.00 a 6587076.07 2184272.54 20.00 0.00 6587112.53 2184270.81 20.00 0.00
6587112.53 2184225.67 20.00 0.00
6587072.59 2184225.67 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00021 x 0 20.00 a 6587084.75 2184157.96 20.00 0.00 6587185.44 2184152.75 20.00 0.00
6587187.18 2184086.78 20.00 0.00
6587086.48 2184086.78 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00022 x 0 20.00 a 6587247.94 2183940.95 20.00 0.00 6587244.47 2184074.63 20.00 0.00
6587286.14 2184072.89 20.00 0.00
6587284.40 2183940.95 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00023 x 0 20.00 a 6587223.64 2184178.79 20.00 0.00 6587260.09 2184178.79 20.00 0.00
6587267.04 2184156.22 20.00 0.00
6587237.53 2184157.96 20.00 0.00
6587237.53 2184145.81 20.00 0.00
6587223.64 2184145.81 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00024 x 0 20.00 a 6587527.46 2184171.85 20.00 0.00 6587553.50 2184175.32 20.00 0.00
6587556.97 2184137.13 20.00 0.00
6587530.93 2184131.92 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00025 x 0 20.00 a 6587600.37 2184171.85 20.00 0.00 6587624.68 2184171.85 20.00 0.00
6587626.41 2184133.65 20.00 0.00
6587598.64 2184137.13 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00026 x 0 20.00 a 6587287.87 2184446.15 20.00 0.00 6587404.19 2184439.21 20.00 0.00
6587411.14 2184277.75 20.00 0.00
6587294.82 2184282.96 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00027 x 0 20.00 a 6587428.50 2184496.50 20.00 0.00 6587291.34 2184494.76 20.00 0.00
6587277.46 2184611.08 20.00 0.00
6587192.39 2184626.71 20.00 0.00
6587187.18 2184708.31 20.00 0.00
6587291.34 2184704.83 20.00 0.00
6587286.14 2184746.50 20.00 0.00
6587386.83 2184755.18 20.00 0.00
6587390.30 2184654.49 20.00 0.00
6587421.55 2184654.49 20.00 0.00
BUILDING BUILDING00028 x 0 20.00 a 6587018.78 2184673.58 20.00 0.00 6587055.23 2184673.58 20.00 0.00
6587050.03 2184612.82 20.00 0.00
6587013.57 2184616.29 20.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
151
1273
Item 3.

Ground Absorption(s)
Name Sel. M. ID G Coordinates
x y
(ft) (ft)
Contour(s)
Name Sel. M. ID OnlyPts Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Vertical Area Source(s)
Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Rail
Name Sel. M. ID Lw' Train Class Correct. Vmax
Day Night Track
(dBA) (dBA) (dB) (km(mph)
Sound Level Spectra
Name ID Type Oktave Spectrum (dB) Source
Weight. 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 A lin
Roads
Name Sel. M. ID Lme Count Data exact Count Data Speed Limit SCS Surface Gradient Mult. Reflection Day Evening Night DTV Str.class. M p (%) Auto Truck Dist. Dstro Type Drefl Hbuild Dist. (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night (mph) (mph) (dB) (%) (dB) (ft) (ft) RoadsGeo
Name Height Coordinates Dist LSlope
Begin End x y z Ground (ft) (%)
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
152
1274
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
APPENDIX 11.1:

CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS
153
1275
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Noise Impact Analysis
15967_02 Noise Study.docx
This page intentionally left blank
154
1276
Item 3.
15967 - ARMTEC Master Plan
CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 15967-02_Construction.cna Date: 18.07.24
Analyst: B. Maddux
Calculation Configuration
Configuration
Parameter Value
General
Max. Error (dB) 0.00
Max. Search Radius (#(Unit,LEN)) 2000.01
Min. Dist Src to Rcvr 0.00
Partition
Raster Factor 0.50
Max. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 999.99
Min. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 1.01
Min. Length of Section (%) 0.00
Proj. Line Sources On
Proj. Area Sources On
Ref. Time
Daytime Penalty (dB) 0.00
Recr. Time Penalty (dB) 5.00
Night-time Penalty (dB) 10.00
DTM
Standard Height (m) 0.00
Model of Terrain Triangulation
Reflection
max. Order of Reflection 2
Search Radius Src 100.00
Search Radius Rcvr 100.00
Max. Distance Source - Rcvr 1000.00 1000.00
Min. Distance Rvcr - Reflector 1.00 1.00
Min. Distance Source - Reflector 0.10
Industrial (ISO 9613)
Lateral Diffraction some Obj
Obst. within Area Src do not shield On
Screening Incl. Ground Att. over Barrier
Dz with limit (20/25)
Barrier Coefficients C1,2,3 3.0 20.0 0.0
Temperature (#(Unit,TEMP)) 10
rel. Humidity (%) 70
Ground Absorption G 0.50
Wind Speed for Dir. (#(Unit,SPEED)) 3.0
Roads (TNM)
Railways (FTA/FRA)
Aircraft (???)
Strictly acc. to AzB
Receiver Noise Levels
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night CNEL Day Night CNEL Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) R1 R1 48.6 -51.4 45.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 x Total 5.00 r 6585073.32 2184562.33 5.00 R2 R2 47.5 -52.5 44.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 x Total 5.00 r 6586635.42 2182498.12 5.00 R3 R3 58.1 -41.9 55.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 x Total 5.00 r 6587815.97 2184101.16 5.00 R4 R4 58.3 -41.7 55.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 x Total 5.00 r 6587831.34 2184343.17 5.00 R5 R5 58.6 -41.4 55.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 x Total 5.00 r 6586989.15 2185845.43 5.00 Point Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Lw / Li Operating Time Height Coordinates Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Line Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL' Lw / Li Operating Time Moving Pt. Src Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night Number Speed (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) Day Evening Night (mph) (ft) Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Area Source(s)
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
155
1277
Item 3.

Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL'' Lw / Li Operating Time Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night (ft) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) Construction1 Construction1 116.6 16.6 16.6 63.2 -36.8 -36.8 PWL-Pt 116.6 8 a Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Construction1 Construction1 8.00 a 6586454.60 2185732.41 8.00 0.00 6587700.61 2185758.78 8.00 0.00
6587724.56 2185735.63 8.00 0.00
6587722.64 2185247.07 8.00 0.00
6587722.52 2185177.94 8.00 0.00
6587714.64 2183918.24 8.00 0.00
6586425.54 2183897.12 8.00 0.00
Barrier(s)
Name Sel. M. ID Absorption Z-Ext. Cantilever Height Coordinates left right horz. vert. Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Building(s)
Name Sel. M. ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates Begin x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Ground Absorption(s)
Name Sel. M. ID G Coordinates
x y
(ft) (ft)
Contour(s)
Name Sel. M. ID OnlyPts Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Vertical Area Source(s)
Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Rail
Name Sel. M. ID Lw' Train Class Correct. Vmax
Day Night Track
(dBA) (dBA) (dB) (km(mph)
Sound Level Spectra
Name ID Type Oktave Spectrum (dB) Source
Weight. 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 A lin
Roads
Name Sel. M. ID Lme Count Data exact Count Data Speed Limit SCS Surface Gradient Mult. Reflection Day Evening Night DTV Str.class. M p (%) Auto Truck Dist. Dstro Type Drefl Hbuild Dist. (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night (mph) (mph) (dB) (%) (dB) (ft) (ft) RoadsGeo
Name Height Coordinates Dist LSlope
Begin End x y z Ground (ft) (%)
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
156
1278
Item 3.

City of Coachella Armtec Expansion Master Plan
May 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
H
Appendix H
Traffic Impact Analysis
1279
Item 3.

ARMTEC MASTER PLAN

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Reference Number Agency Date
15967-04 TA Report.docx City of Coachella July 3, 2024
PREPARED BY: Janette Cachola | [email protected] Marlie Whiteman, P.E. | [email protected]
John Kain, AICP | [email protected]
1280
Item 3.
15967-04 TA Report.docx
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................... ii Appendices ......................................................................................................................................................... iv List of Exhibits ..................................................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... vi List of Abbreviated Terms ............................................................................................................................... vii 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Overview........................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Analysis Scenarios......................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Study Area..................................................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Analysis Findings........................................................................................................................... 3 2 Methodologies .......................................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Level of Service ............................................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis ...................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology............................................................................... 9

2.4 Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service (LOS)............................................................................. 10 3 Area Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Existing Circulation Network....................................................................................................... 11

3.2 City of Coachella General Plan Circulation Element ................................................................... 11

3.3 Transit Service............................................................................................................................. 11

3.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................. 11

3.5 Existing (2024) Traffic Counts ..................................................................................................... 16

3.6 Intersection Operations Analysis................................................................................................ 16

3.7 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis.................................................................................................. 19 4 Projected Future Traffic ......................................................................................................................... 21

4.1 Project Trip Generation............................................................................................................... 22

4.2 Project Trip Distribution.............................................................................................................. 22

4.3 Modal Split.................................................................................................................................. 22

4.4 Project Trip Assignment.............................................................................................................. 24

4.5 Background Traffic ...................................................................................................................... 24 5 EAP (2026) Traffic Conditions ................................................................................................................ 29

5.1 EAP Traffic Volume Forecasts ..................................................................................................... 29

5.2 Intersection Operations Analysis................................................................................................ 29 1281
Item 3.
15967-04 TA Report.docx
iii

5.3 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis.................................................................................................. 29 6 EAPC (2026) Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................................. 33

6.1 EAPC (2026) Traffic Volume Forecasts........................................................................................ 33

6.2 Intersection Operations Analysis................................................................................................ 33

6.3 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis.................................................................................................. 33

6.4 Cumulative Improvements.......................................................................................................... 36 7 Cumulative and Site Access Improvements and VMT ....................................................................... 37

7.1 Recommended Cumulative Improvement.................................................................................. 37

7.2 Site‐Adjacent Improvements...................................................................................................... 37

7.3 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening .................................................................................... 38 8 References ............................................................................................................................................... 39 1282
Item 3.
15967-04 TA Report.docx
iv

APPENDICES
Appendix 1.1: Traffic Study Scope
Appendix 3.1: Traffic Counts –2024
Appendix 3.2: Existing (2024) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 3.3: Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Appendix 5.1: EAP (2026) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 6.1: EAPC (2026) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 7.1: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening
1283
Item 3.
15967-04 TA Report.docx
v

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1-1: Armtec Master Plan ....................................................................................................................... 2 Exhibit 1-2: Study Area ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Exhibit 3-1: Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls ............................................. 12 Exhibit 3-2: City of Coachella General Plan Circulation Element ............................................................... 13 Exhibit 3-3: City of Coachella General Plan Roadway Cross-Sections ....................................................... 14 Exhibit 3-4: Existing Pedestrian and Bike Facilities ...................................................................................... 15 Exhibit 3-5: Existing (2024) Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................. 17 Exhibit 4-1: Project Trip Distribution .............................................................................................................. 25 Exhibit 4-2: Project Only Traffic volumes ...................................................................................................... 26 Exhibit 4-3: Cumulative Development Location Map .................................................................................. 27 Exhibit 5-1: EAP (2026) Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................... 30 Exhibit 6-1: EAPC (2026) Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................... 34 1284
Item 3.
15967-04 TA Report.docx
vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Intersection Analysis Locations ...................................................................................................... 3 Table 1-2: Level of Service Summary ............................................................................................................... 5 Table 2-1: Signalized Intersection LOS Thresholds ........................................................................................ 8 Table 2-2: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Thresholds ................................................................................... 9 Table 2-3: Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Locations ................................................................................... 10 Table 3-1: Intersection Analysis for Existing (2024) Conditions ................................................................. 18 Table 4-1: Project Trip Generation Summary ............................................................................................... 23 Table 4-2: Cumulative Development Land Use Summary .......................................................................... 28 Table 5-1: Intersection Analysis for EAP (2026) Conditions ........................................................................ 31 Table 6-1: Intersection Analysis for EAPC (2026) Conditions ...................................................................... 35 Table 7-1: Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Plus Cumulative (EAPC) Fair Share Calculations ............ 37

1285
Item 3.
15967-04 TA Report.docx
vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
CAMUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Caltrans California Department of Transportation
EAP Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project
EAPC Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Plus Cumulative HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
PHF Peak Hour Factor
Project Armtec Master Plan
sf Square Feet
TA Traffic Analysis

1286
Item 3.
15967-04 TA Report.docx
viii
This page intentionally left blank
1287
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
1 1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the traffic analysis (TA) for Armtec Master Plan (“Project”), located at the southwest corner of Tyler Street and Avenue 53 in the City of Coachella, as shown on Exhibit 1-

1. The purpose of this TA is to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the proposed Project, and recommend improvements to achieve acceptable circulation system operational conditions. This TA has been prepared based in accordance with the County of Riverside’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service & Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020), as the City of Coachella utilizes the County guidelines. (1) Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a traffic study scoping package for review by City staff prior to the preparation of this report.

The Scope (included in Appendix 1.1) provides an outline of the Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology.

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project is proposed to consist of the expansion of an existing defense technologies facility. It is anticipated that the Project would be operational by year 2026. A preliminary master plan of the proposed Project is shown in Exhibit 1-1. Access to the Project will be provided via the Armtec Entrance, which is an existing full access driveway to Tyler Street (located south of Avenue 53).

The Project total addition to the existing site includes:
 15,000 SF of Production Facility (Manufacturing)
 37,800 SF Storage Facilities (Warehousing)
 3,000 SF of Research & Development
In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed Project, trip-generation rates provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (11th Edition, 2021) are utilized.

The Project is anticipated to generate a total of 169 trip-ends per day with 21 AM peak hour trips and 20 PM peak hour trips. The assumptions and methods used to estimate the Project’s trip generation characteristics are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.1 Project Trip Generation of this report.

1.2 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
For the purposes of this traffic study, potential deficiencies to traffic and circulation have been assessed for each of the following conditions:
 Existing (2024) Conditions
 Existing plus Ambient plus Project (EAP) (2026) Conditions  Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2026) Conditions 1 1288
Item 3.
2 1289
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
3 For the existing study area intersections, traffic count data has been collected in January and June, 2024 during the AM peak period of 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and PM peak period of 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM.

The Existing plus Ambient plus Project (EAP) conditions analysis determines the potential near-term cumulative circulation system deficiencies with the Project but without known cumulative projects.

To account for background traffic growth, an ambient growth factor from Existing conditions of 4.04% (2% per year, compounded annually over 2 years) is included for EAP (2026) traffic conditions. The ambient growth is consistent with the growth used by other projects within the City of Coachella.

The Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2026) traffic conditions analysis determines the potential cumulative circulation system deficiencies, including the Project and other known cumulative projects. The cumulative project list was compiled from information provided by the City of Coachella.

1.3 STUDY AREA
The Project study area was defined in coordination with the City of Coachella. Exhibit 1-2 presents the study area and intersection analysis locations. The intersections listed in Table 1-1 were selected for this TA with City of Coachella technical staff concurrence.

TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
# Intersection # Intersection
1 Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) / Tyler St. 4 Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) / Palm St. 2 Tyler St. / Avenue 53 5 Palm St. / Airport Bl.
3 Tyler St. / Armtec Entrance

1.4 ANALYSIS FINDINGS
This section provides a summary of the analysis results for Existing (2024), EAP (2026), and EAPC (2026) conditions. Table 1-2 presents a summary of study area LOS conditions for each analysis scenario.

1.4.1 EXISTING (2024) CONDITIONS
For Existing (2024) traffic conditions, study area intersections operate at an acceptable LOS during AM and PM peak hours.

The unsignalized study area intersection of Tyler Street at Grapefruit Boulevard / Highway 111 (#1) meets traffic volume warrants for installation of a traffic signal based upon existing traffic counts. 3 1290
Item 3.
4 1291
Item 3.
# Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) / Tyler St.
- With Improvements N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 Tyler St. / Avenue 53
3 Tyler St. / Armtec Entrance
4 Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) / Palm St.
5 Palm St. / Airport Bl.

Legend:
= A - D = E = F
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Excel\[15967 - Report.xlsx]1-2 - LOS Summary TABLE 1-2: LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY
Existing
(2024)
EAP
(2026)
EAPC
(2026)
5 1292
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
6 1.4.2 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT (EAP) (2026) CONDITIONS For EAP (2026) traffic conditions, study area intersections continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during peak hours. For EAP conditions, no additional study area intersections meet the volume warrants for installation of a traffic signal (beyond the Tyler Street at Grapefruit Boulevard / Highway 111 intersection, which meets volume warrants for a signal based upon existing counts).

1.4.3 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT PLUS CUMULATIVE (EAPC) (2026) CONDITIONS For EAPC (2026) traffic conditions, the study area intersection of Tyler Street at Grapefruit Boulevard / Highway 111 (#1) is found to operate at an unacceptable LOS (i.e., LOS “E” or worse) during peak hours, without installation of the traffic signal that is currently warranted for existing conditions. For EAPC conditions, no additional study area intersections meet the volume warrants for installation of a traffic signal (beyond the Tyler Street at Grapefruit Boulevard / Highway 111 intersection, which meets volume warrants for a signal based upon existing counts).

The traffic signal improvement discussed in Section 7.1 for the off-site intersection of Tyler Street at Grapefruit Boulevard / Highway 111 (#1) addresses intersection operational deficiencies for EAPC (2026) conditions.

Detailed Project fair share calculations, for each peak hour, are provided in Table 7-1 for this intersection.

Site-adjacent improvements included in the Project description are also listed Section 7.2.

1.4.4 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) SCREENING
A VMT screening assessment of Armtec Master Plan is documented in Section 7.3. The small project screening criteria is met, so a full analysis of VMT associated with site employment is not required.

The Project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT.

6 1293
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
7 2 METHODOLOGIES
This section of the report presents the methodologies used to perform the traffic analyses summarized in this report. The methodologies described are consistent with the County of Riverside TIA Guidelines. (1)

2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE
Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described using the term “Level of Service” (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on several factors, such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are typically defined ranging from LOS A, representing completely free-flow conditions, to LOS F, representing breakdown in flow resulting in stop-and-go conditions.

LOS E represents operations at or near Capacity, an unstable level where vehicles are operating with the minimum spacing for maintaining uniform flow.

2.2 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The definitions of LOS for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control. The LOS is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway. The 7th Edition Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. (2)The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control.

2.2.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Coachella requires signalized intersection operations analysis based on the methodology described in the HCM. (2) Intersection LOS operations are based on an intersection’s average control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. For signalized intersections LOS is related to the average control delay per vehicle and is correlated to a LOS designation as described on Table 2-1.

The traffic modeling and signal timing optimization software package Synchro (Version 11) has been utilized to analyze signalized intersections. Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program that is based on the signalized intersection capacity analysis as specified in the HCM. Macroscopic level models represent traffic in terms of aggregate measures for each movement at the study intersections. Equations are used to determine measures of effectiveness such as delay and queue length. The level of service and Capacity analysis performed by Synchro takes into consideration optimization and coordination of signalized intersections within a network.

The peak hour traffic volumes are adjusted using a peak hour factor (PHF) to reflect peak 15-minute volumes. Common practice for LOS analysis is to use a peak 15-minute rate of flow. However, flow rates are typically expressed in vehicles per hour.
7 1294
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
8 The PHF is the relationship between the peak 15-minute flow rate and the full hourly volume (e.g. PHF = [Hourly Volume] / [4 x Peak 15-minute Flow Rate]). The use of a 15-minute PHF produces a more detailed analysis as compared to analyzing vehicles per hour. Existing PHFs have been used for all analysis scenarios. Per the HCM, PHF values over 0.95 often are indicative of high traffic volumes with capacity constraints on peak hour flows while lower PHF values are indicative of greater variability of flow during the peak hour. (2)
TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS

2.2.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Coachella requires the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using the methodology described in the HCM. (2) The LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (see Table 2-2). At two-way or side-street stop-controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled movement and for the left turn movement from the major street, as well as for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. Delay for the intersection is reported for the worst individual movement at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.

Average Control Delay Level of Serice,
(Seconds), V/C < 1.0 V/C < 1.01
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length.
0 to 10.00 A
Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths.

10.01 to 20.00 B
Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.

20.01 to 35.00 C
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and indvidual cycle failures are noticeable.

35.01 to 55.00 D
Operations with high delay values indicating poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.

Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.

55.01 to 80.00 E
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers
occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.

80.01 and up F
Source: HCM, 7th Edition
1 if V/C is greater than 1.0 then LOS is F per HCM
Description
8 1295
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
9 TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS

2.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The term “signal warrants” refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or determine the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. This TA uses the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest edition of the Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). (3) The signal warrant criteria for Existing study area intersections are based upon several factors, including volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, and location of school areas. The CA MUTCD indicates that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or more of the signal warrants are met. (3) Specifically, this TA utilizes the Peak Hour Volume-based Warrant 3 as the appropriate representative traffic signal warrant analysis for existing traffic conditions and for all future analysis scenarios for existing unsignalized intersections. Warrant 3 is appropriate to use for this TA because it provides specialized warrant criteria for intersections with rural characteristics. For the purposes of this study, the speed limit was the basis for determining whether Urban or Rural warrants were used for a given intersection. Urban warrants have been used as posted speed limits on the major roadways with unsignalized intersections are 40 miles per hour or below and rural warrants have been used on roadways with speeds greater than 40 miles per hour.

Future intersections that do not currently exist have been assessed regarding the potential need for new traffic signals based on future average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, using the Caltrans planning level ADT-based signal warrant analysis worksheets. Similarly, the speed limit has been used as the basis for determining the use of Urban and Rural warrants.

Traffic signal warrant analyses were performed for the following unsignalized study area intersections shown in Table 2-3:

Average Control Delay Level of Serice,
(Seconds), V/C < 1.0 V/C < 1.01
Little or no delays. 0 to 10.00 A
Short traffic delays. 10.01 to 15.00 B
Average traffic delays. 15.01 to 25.00 C
Long traffic delays. 25.01 to 35.00 D
Very long traffic delays. 35.01 to 50.00 E
Extreme traffic delays with intersections capacity exceeded. >50.00 F Source: HCM, 7th Edition
1 if V/C is greater than 1.0 then LOS is F per HCM
Description
9 1296
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
10 TABLE 2-3: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS # Intersection # Intersection
1 Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) / Tyler St. 3 Tyler St. / Armtec Entrance 2 Tyler St. / Avenue 53
The Existing conditions traffic signal warrant analysis is presented in the subsequent section, Section 3 Area Conditions of this report. The traffic signal warrant analyses for future conditions are presented in Section 5 EAP (2026) Traffic Conditions and Section 6 EAPC (2026) Traffic Conditions of this report.

It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. Meeting this threshold condition does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified. It should also be noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with LOS. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above acceptable LOS or operate below acceptable LOS and not meet a signal warrant.

2.4 MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)
For the purposes of this analysis, the following thresholds of significance have been applied to study area intersections located within the City of Coachella to identify significant impacts through a comparison of Existing and EAP traffic conditions:
 If an intersection is projected to operate at an acceptable level of service (i.e., LOS D or better) under Existing traffic conditions and the addition of project traffic is expected to cause the intersection to operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS E or F), the impact is considered significant;  If an intersection is projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F under Existing, and the addition of project traffic, the impact is considered significant.

Cumulative traffic impacts are deficiencies that are not directly caused by the Project, but occur as a result of regional growth combined with that or other nearby cumulative development projects. The Project’s contribution to a particular cumulative transportation deficiency is deemed cumulatively considerable if the Project adds significant traffic to the forecasted deficiency. A Project’s contribution to a cumulatively considerable impact can be reduced to less than significant if the Project is required to implement or fund its fair share of improvements designed to alleviate the potential cumulative impact. If full funding of future cumulative improvements is not reasonably assured, a temporary unmitigated cumulative impact may occur until the needed improvement is fully funded and constructed.

10 1297
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
11 3 AREA CONDITIONS
This section provides a summary of the existing circulation network, the City of Coachella General Plan Circulation Network, and a review of existing peak hour intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.

3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
Pursuant to the Project scope (Appendix 1.1), the study area includes 5 existing intersections as shown previously on Exhibit 1-2, which have been agreed upon with City staff. Exhibit 3-1 illustrates the number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and traffic controls for study area intersections.

3.2 CITY OF COACHELLA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
As noted previously, the Project site is located at the southwest corner of Tyler Street and Avenue 53 in the City of Coachella. Exhibit 3-2 shows the City of Coachella General Plan Circulation Element, with planned roadway classifications. Exhibit 3-3 illustrates the City of Coachella General Plan roadway cross-sections.

Tyler Street is classified as a Primary Arterial with Bicycle Facility in the study area.

Grapefruit Boulevard is classified as a Major Arterial with Bicycle Facility in the study area.

Avenue 53 is classified as a Collector with Bicycle Facility in the study area.

Airport Boulevard is classified as a Major Arterial with Bicycle Facility in the study area.

3.3 TRANSIT SERVICE
The City of Coachella is currently served by the SunLine Transit Agency; currently, Route 8 is located along Airport Boulevard in the study area. Transit service is reviewed and updated by Sunline periodically to address ridership, budget and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate.

3.4 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
The existing pedestrian facilities within the study area are shown on Exhibit 3-4. As shown on Exhibit 3-4, existing on-street bike lanes are located along the west side of Tyler Street from Grapefruit Boulevard to Avenue 53. Sidewalks exist along the west side of Tyler Street from Grapefruit Boulevard to Armtec Entrance, the southwest side of Grapefruit Boulevard north of Tyler Street, and on Airport Boulevard from west of Palm Street to east of Grapefruit Boulevard. A bike lane is currently existing along the west side of Tyler Street from Grapefruit Boulevard to Avenue 53, the southwest side of Grapefruit Boulevard north of Tyler Street, and both sides on Avenue 53 east of Tyler Street. 11 1298
Item 3.
12 1299
Item 3.
13 1300
Item 3.
14 1301
Item 3.
15 1302
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
16 3.5 EXISTING (2024) TRAFFIC COUNTS
The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected in January and June, 2024. The City of Coachella experiences seasonal population variations over the course of the year, with relatively higher populations during the winter months from January to the end of March. To compensate for the discrepancy, counts not taken during this peak winter period (January 2 to March 31) require seasonal adjustments. A 15% increase is applied to counts taken in June to estimate peak season. This factor is consistent with other nearby jurisdictions within the Coachella Valley area.

The following peak hours were selected for analysis:
 Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM)  Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM) The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix 3.1.

The weekday AM and PM peak hour count data are representative of typical peak hour traffic conditions in the study area. There were no observations made in the field that would indicate atypical traffic conditions on the count dates, such as construction activity that would prevent or limit roadway access and detour routes. These raw turning volumes have been flow conserved between intersections with limited access, no access and where there are currently no uses generating traffic.

Existing weekday peak hour intersection volumes are shown on Exhibit 3-5.

Existing weekday ADT volumes are also shown on Exhibit 3-5. Where actual 24-hour tube count data was not available, Existing ADT volumes were based upon factored intersection peak hour counts collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. using the following formula for each intersection leg:

Weekday PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) x 11.905 = Leg Volume A comparison of the PM peak hour and daily traffic volumes of various roadway segments within the study area indicated that the peak-to-daily relationship is approximately 8.40 percent. As such, the above equation utilizing a factor of 11.905 estimates the ADT volumes on the study area roadway segments assuming a peak-to-daily relationship of approximately 8.40 percent (i.e., 1/0.0840 = 11.905) and was assumed to sufficiently estimate average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for planning-level analyses.

3.6 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis of this report. The intersection operations analysis results are summarized on Table 3-1, which indicates that no study area intersections operate at unacceptable LOS (LOS “E” or worse). The intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 3.2 of this TA.

16 1303
Item 3.
17 1304
Item 3.

Delay3 Level of
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service # Intersection Control1 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) / Tyler St. AWS 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 1! 0 0 0 0 15.7 27.9 C D 2 Tyler St. / Avenue 53 CSS 11002d101000 11.9 13.7 B B
3 Tyler St. / Armtec Entrance CSS 11002d101000 10.5 11.4 B B 4 Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) / Palm St. TS 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 7.1 9.1 A A 5 Palm St. / Airport Bl. TS 000101120020 11.8 12.4 B B
1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-street Stop; AWS = All-way-stop 2 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
3 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (7th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 12 analysis software.

F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Excel\[15967 - Report.xlsx]3-1 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 0.5 = Shared Lane; 1! = Shared Left/Through/Right lane TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2024) CONDITIONS Intersection Approach Lanes2
18 1305
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
19 3.7 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants for Existing traffic conditions are based on 2024 peak hour intersection turning volumes (see Appendix 3.3). For Existing (2024) traffic conditions, the unsignalized study area intersection of Grapefruit Boulevard at Highway 111 currently meets traffic volume warrants for installation of a traffic signal.
19 1306
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
20 This page intentionally left blank

20 1307
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
21 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
This section presents the traffic volumes estimated to be generated by the Project, as well as the Project’s trip assignment onto the study area roadway network. The Project is proposed to consist of the expansion of an existing defense technologies facility.

The project includes the construction of new and expanded buildings within the existing footprint of the Armtec facility, which occupies the southwest corner of the intersection of Tyler Street at Avenue 53. The facility consists of two parcels totaling approximately 52.65 acres in size, identified by assessor's parcel numbers (APNs) 778-420-013 (14.96 acres) and 778- 390-008 (37.69 acres) located at 85091 Avenue 53.

Pursuant to the City’s 2035 General Plan, the land use designation of the northern parcel (APN:
778- 420-013) is "Industrial District," while the southern parcel (APN: 778-390-008) is "Public Facilities". The underlying zoning for the north parcel is Urban Employment (U-E), whereas the south parcel is zoned as Heavy Industrial (M-H).

On the northern parcel (APN: 778-420-013), north of the Armtec entry at Tyler Street, a new 15,000 SF warehouse will be constructed for storage purposes, adjacent to a truck staging area. This facility will remain unoccupied except when goods are moved in and out.

Armtec's existing operations, utilized for industrial and manufacturing purposes, are located on the southern parcel (APN: 778-390-008). South of the Armtec entry at Tyler Street, the Project will include the construction of:
 A 3,000 SF facility, focusing on research and development activities;  A 15,000 SF production/manufacturing facility
 Storage facilities (warehousing):
o A new 15,000 SF warehouse
o Two new storage buildings of 900 SF each
o A 6,000 SF warehouse expansion.

The Project total addition to the existing site includes:
 15,000 SF of Production Facility (Manufacturing)
 37,800 SF Storage Facilities (Warehousing)
 3,000 SF of Research & Development

21 1308
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
22 The project description incorporates the following adjacent improvements:
 Expansion of vehicle lanes on the east side of Tyler Street between the Armtec north boundary and south boundary within the City’s right-of-way.
 Installation of concrete curbing on the east side of Tyler Street between the Armtec north boundary and south boundary within the City’s right-of-way.
 Installation of a 5-foot sidewalk on the east side of Tyler Street between the Armtec north boundary and south boundary within the City’s right-of-way.
 Installation of a 5-foot sidewalk along a separate parcel owned by Armtec (APN: 778-420- 014) that is west of the northern parcel, currently not a part of the Armtec campus and is leased to the City for its use as a soccer park.

It is anticipated that the Project will be operational by year 2026. Access to the Project will be provided via the Armtec Entrance, which is an existing full access driveway to Tyler Street (located south of Avenue 53).

4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the specific land uses being proposed for a given development.

In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed project, the trip generation rates provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (11th Edition, 2021) have been utilized (4).

Table 4-1 shows the vehicle trip generation rates for the Project, as well as the vehicle trip generation summary with daily and peak hour trip generation estimates. As shown on Table 4-1, the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 169 trip-ends per day with 21 AM peak hour trips and 20 PM peak hour trips.

4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The Project trip distribution and assignment process represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the Project site. The trip distribution pattern is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of surrounding uses, and proximity to the surrounding highway network. Trip distribution patterns proposed for the Project are illustrated on Exhibit 4-1.

4.3 MODAL SPLIT
The potential for Project trips to be reduced by the use of public transit, walking or bicycling have not been included as part of the Project’s estimated trip generation. Essentially, the Project’s traffic projections are “conservative” in that these alternative travel modes would reduce the forecasted traffic volumes.
22 1309
Item 3.

In Out Total In Out Total
Warehousing 150 37.8 TSF 0.13 0.04 0.17 0.05 0.13 0.18 1.71 Manufacturing 140 15 TSF 0.52 0.16 0.68 0.23 0.51 0.74 4.75 Research and Development Center 760 3 TSF 0.84 0.19 1.03 0.16 0.82 0.98 11.08 In Out Total In Out Total
Warehousing 150 37.8 TSF 5 2 7 2 5 7 65
Manufacturing 140 15 TSF 8 2 10 3 8 11 71
Research and Development Center 760 3 TSF 3 1 4 0 2 2 33 16 5 21 5 15 20 169
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Excel\[15967 - Report.xlsx]4-1 - TG Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Trip Generation Results
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021). 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet
TOTAL
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
TABLE 4-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates1
23 1310
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
24 4.4 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project weekday ADT and weekday peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4-2.

4.5 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
Future year traffic forecasts have been based upon background (ambient) growth at 2% per year for 2026 traffic conditions. The total ambient growth is 4.04% for 2026 traffic conditions. This ambient growth rate is added to existing traffic volumes to account for area-wide growth not reflected by cumulative development projects. Ambient growth has been added to daily and peak hour traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, in conjunction with traffic generated by the development of future projects that have been approved but not yet built and/or for which development applications have been filed and are under consideration by governing agencies.

Exhibit 4-3 illustrates the cumulative development location map. The cumulative projects listed are those that would generate traffic and would contribute traffic to study area intersections. A summary of cumulative development projects and their proposed land uses are shown on Table 4-2. If applicable, the traffic generated by individual cumulative projects was manually added to the EAP forecasts to ensure that traffic generated by the listed cumulative development projects on Table 4-2 are reflected as part of the background traffic.

The near-term traffic analysis includes the following traffic conditions, with the various traffic components:
 EAP (2026)
o Existing (2024) volumes
o Ambient growth traffic (4.04% over 2 years)
o Project traffic
 EAPC (2026)
o Existing (2024) volumes
o Ambient growth traffic (4.04% over 2 years)
o Project traffic
o Cumulative development traffic

24 1311
Item 3.
25 1312
Item 3.
26 1313
Item 3.
27 1314
Item 3.

TAZ Project Land Use Quantity Units1
1 Coachella Residences Single Family Residential 188 DU 2 JJWR Industrial Industrial Building
(Warehouse, office, and RV Storage)

51.50 TSF
Retail Cannabis 1.839 TSF
Bar/Pub 1.432 TSF
Supermarket 20.422 TSF
Fast-Food Restaurant 2.6 TSF
Coffee Shop w/ Restaurant 2.1 TSF
5 Placita Dolores Huerta Multifamily Residential 110 DU Resort casitas/bungalows 620 RM
Hotel 130 RM
Restaurant 3.6 TSF
Retail Cannabis 3.12 TSF
General Store 2.5 TSF
Coffee shop with drive thru 2.5 TSF
7 Rancho Flores 2 Single Family Residential 124 DU
8 Mariposa Pointe Single Family Residential 155 DU
9 Polo Community Senior & Single Family Residential 560 DU 10 Bellissima (Tract 31978) Single Family Residential 111 DU 2027 (Phase I) Land Uses:

Industrial Park 204.8 TSF
Self Storage 63.7 TSF
Fast Food Restaurant w/ DT 4.65 TSF
Service Station with Convenience Store 10 VFP
2045 (Phase I to III) Land Uses:

Industrial Park 486.9 TSF
Self Storage 128.6 TSF
Fast Food Restaurant w/ DT 4.65 TSF
Service Station with Convenience Store 10 VFP
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Excel\[15967 - Report.xlsx]4-2 - Cumulatives TABLE 4-2: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
HOTN/Sinsemilla
Dispensary & Pub
3 2
For purposes of 2026 analysis conditions, the 2027 (Phase I) land uses of the Coachella Airport Business Park are utilized. 1 DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; RM = Rooms; VFP = Vehicle Fueling Position Fountainhead Plaza
(NEC 1st St. & Cesar Chavez St.)
4 6 Glenroy Hotel Project
11 Coachella
Airport Business Park2
28 1315
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
29 5 EAP (2026) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the traffic forecasts for Existing plus Ambient plus Project (EAP) conditions and the resulting intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.

The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for EAP (2026) conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3-1, with the exception driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the project to provide site access are assumed to be in place for EAP (2026) conditions (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements at the projects’ frontage and driveways).

5.1 EAP TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus an ambient growth factor of 4.04% and the addition of project traffic.

The weekday ADT and weekday peak hour intersection turning movement volumes which can be expected for EAP (2026) traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 5-1.

5.2 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
EAP peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TA.

The intersection analysis results summarized in Table 5-1, indicate that study area intersections continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during peak hours under EAP conditions without improvements.

The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAP traffic conditions are included in Appendix

5.1 of this TA.

5.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
The traffic signal warrant analysis for EAP (2026) traffic conditions provided in Appendix 3.3. For EAP conditions, no additional study area intersections meet the volume warrants for installation of a traffic signal (beyond the Tyler Street at Grapefruit Boulevard / Highway 111 intersection, which meets volume warrants for a signal based upon existing counts) (see Appendix 3.3).

29 1316
Item 3.
30 1317
Item 3.

Delay3 Level of
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service # Intersection Control1 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) / Tyler St. AWS 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 1! 0 0 0 0 17.1 34.0 C D 2 Tyler St. / Avenue 53 CSS 11002d101000 12.3 14.5 B B
3 Tyler St. / Armtec Entrance CSS 11002d101000 10.7 11.7 B B 4 Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) / Palm St. TS 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 7.4 9.4 A A 5 Palm St. / Airport Bl. TS 000101120020 12.0 12.6 B B
1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-street Stop; AWS = All-way-stop 2 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
3 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (7th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 12 analysis software.

F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Excel\[15967 - Report.xlsx]5-1 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 0.5 = Shared Lane; 1! = Shared Left/Through/Right lane; 1 = Improvement TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2026) CONDITIONS Intersection Approach Lanes2
31 1318
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
32 This page intentionally left blank

32 1319
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
33 6 EAPC (2026) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2026) traffic forecasts, and the resulting intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.

The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for EAPC (2026) conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3-1, with the exception of the following:
 Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along the Project’s frontage and driveways).
 If applicable, driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by cumulative developments to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along the cumulative development’s frontages and driveways).

6.1 EAPC (2026) TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario consists of existing traffic volumes plus an ambient growth factor of 4.04% plus traffic from pending and approved but not yet constructed known development projects in the area plus the Project.

The weekday ADT and weekday peak hour volumes which can be expected for EAPC (2026) traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 6-1.

6.2 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
The intersection analysis results for EAPC conditions are summarized in Table 6-1, which indicates that the study area intersection of Tyler Street at Grapefruit Boulevard / Highway 111 (#1) is found to operate at an unacceptable LOS (i.e., LOS “E” or worse) during peak hours, without installation of the traffic signal that is currently warranted for existing conditions.

The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC traffic conditions are included in Appendix

6.1 of this TA.

6.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
The traffic signal warrant analysis worksheets for EAPC (2026) traffic conditions are provided in Appendix 3.3. For EAPC conditions, no additional study area intersections meet the volume warrants for installation of a traffic signal (beyond the Tyler Street at Grapefruit Boulevard / Highway 111 intersection, which meets volume warrants for a signal based upon existing counts) (see Appendix

3.3).

33 1320
Item 3.
34 1321
Item 3.

Delay3 Level of
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service # Intersection Control1 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) / Tyler St. AWS 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 1! 0 0 0 0 23.9 39.9 C E - With Improvements TS 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 1 0 1! 0 0 0 0 10.3 9.2 B A 2 Tyler St. / Avenue 53 CSS 11002d101000 12.5 14.7 B B
3 Tyler St. / Armtec Entrance CSS 11002d101000 10.8 11.8 B B 4 Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) / Palm St. TS 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 8.6 11.0 A B 5 Palm St. / Airport Bl. TS 000101120020 13.0 13.2 B B
1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-street Stop; AWS = All-way-stop 2 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
3 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (7th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 12 analysis software.

F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Excel\[15967 - Report.xlsx]6-1 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 0.5 = Shared Lane; 1! = Shared Left/Through/Right lane; 1 = Improvement TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2026) CONDITIONS Intersection Approach Lanes2
35 1322
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
36 6.4 CUMULATIVE IMPROVEMENTS
The provision of traffic signal control addresses the off-site intersection operational deficiency for EAPC (2026) conditions at the intersection of Tyler Street at Grapefruit Boulevard / Highway 111 (#1).

The effectiveness of this recommended signal improvement at the intersection of Tyler Street at Grapefruit Boulevard / Highway 111 (#1) is presented in Table 6-1 for EAPC (2026) traffic conditions.

The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC (2026) traffic conditions, with this traffic signal improvement, are included in Appendix 6.1 of this TA. 36 1323
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
37 7 CUMULATIVE AND SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS AND VMT

7.1 RECOMMENDED CUMULATIVE IMPROVEMENT
A traffic signal improvement at the off-site intersection of Tyler Street at Grapefruit Boulevard / Highway 111 (#1) address intersection operational deficiencies for EAPC (2026) conditions.

The provision of traffic signal control addresses the off-site intersection operational deficiency for EAPC (2026) conditions at the intersection of Tyler Street at Grapefruit Boulevard / Highway 111 (#1).

The effectiveness of this recommended signal improvement at the intersection of Tyler Street at Grapefruit Boulevard / Highway 111 (#1) is presented in Table 6-1 for EAPC (2026) traffic conditions.

Detailed fair share calculations, for each peak hour, are provided in Table 7-1 for this intersection. For the intersection of Tyler Street at Grapefruit Boulevard / Highway 111 (#1), the Project Fair Share is

10.5%.

TABLE 7-1: EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT PLUS CUMULATIVE (EAPC)

FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS
# Intersection
Existing
(2024)
Traffic
EAPC
(2026)
Traffic3
Project
Only
Traffic
Total
New
Traffic1
Project
Fair Share
(%)2
1 Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) / Tyler St.
• AM Peak Hour 979 1,171 15 192 7.8%
• PM Peak Hour 1,387 1,511 13 124 10.5%
1 Total New Traffic = (EAPC 2026 - Existing Traffic)
2 Project Fair Share % = (Project Only Traffic / Total New Traffic) 3 Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Plus Cumulative (2026) Conditions F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Excel\[15967 - Report.xlsx]FairShare

7.2 SITE-ADJACENT IMPROVEMENTS
The project description incorporates the following adjacent improvements:
 Expansion of vehicle lanes on the east side of Tyler Street between the Armtec north boundary and south boundary within the City’s right-of-way.
 Installation of concrete curbing on the east side of Tyler Street between the Armtec north boundary and south boundary within the City’s right-of-way.
 Installation of a 5-foot sidewalk on the east side of Tyler Street between the Armtec north boundary and south boundary within the City’s right-of-way.
 Installation of a 5-foot sidewalk along a separate parcel owned by Armtec (APN: 778-420- 014) that is west of the northern parcel, currently not a part of the Armtec campus and is leased to the City for its use as a soccer park.
37 1324
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
38 Access to the Project is provided via the existing full access intersection at Tyler Street / Armtec Entrance. At this intersection, the existing striping and signage for stop sign control on the west leg should be upgraded.

7.3 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) SCREENING
A VMT screening assessment of Armtec Master Plan has been prepared in accordance with SB743 and consistent with the methodology and thresholds outlined in the County of Riverside Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service Vehicle Miles Traveled (December of 2020). Attachment 7.1 contains the VMT screening assessment that has been reviewed & accepted by the City of Coachella.

The small project screening criteria is met, so a full analysis of VMT associated with site employment is not required. The Project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT.

38 1325
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
39 8 REFERENCES

1. Riverside County. Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service & Vehicle Miles Traveled.

Riverside County : s.n., December 2020.

2. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 7th Edition. s.l. : National Academy of Sciences, 2022.

3. California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). [book auth.] California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). 2014, Updated March 30, 2021 (Revision 6).

4. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. 11th Edition, 2021.

39 1326
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
40 This page intentionally left blank
40 1327
Item 3.

APPENDIX 1.1: TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPE
1328
Item 3.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
1329
Item 3.

DATE: June 24, 2024
TO: Mr. Andrew Simmons, P.E., City of Coachella
FROM: John Kain and Marlie Whiteman, Urban Crossroads, Inc.

JOB NO: 15926-02 VMT TG SA.docx
ARMTEC MASTER PLAN – LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS SCOPE Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit the following LOS traffic study scope for the proposed Armtec Master Plan development (Project). The Project is located at the southwest corner of Tyler Street and Avenue 53 in the City of Coachella. The following evaluation is based on the County of Riverside’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service & Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020), as the City of Coachella utilizes the County guidelines.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
It is our understanding that the Project is to consist of the expansion of an existing defense technologies facility. A preliminary master plan for the proposed Project is shown on Exhibit 1.

Access to the Project is provided via the Armtec Entrance, which is a full access driveway to Tyler Street (located south of Avenue 53).

The facility consists of two parcels totaling approximately 52.65 acres in size, identified by assessor's parcel numbers (APNs) 778-420-013 (14.96 acres) and 778- 390-008 (37.69 acres).

1.1-1
1330
Item 3.

1.1-2
1331
Item 3.

Mr. Andrew Simmons, P.E., City of Coachella
June 24, 2024

Page 3 of 13 ends

Coachella City CouncilJune 4, 2025

Coachella City Council
June 4, 2025