Desert Hot Springs City Council
January 18, 2022

1 INTRODUCTION
In August and September 2021, at the request of Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc., CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study on approximately 17 acres of undeveloped land in the City of Desert Hot Springs, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The subject property of the study, Tentative Tract Map No. 38200, consists of three existing parcels, namely Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 656-080-014, 656-080-016, and 656-400-049. It is located on the south side of Camino Campesino between Palm Drive and Avenue Descanso, in the southeast quarter of Section 6, T3S R5E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Figs. 2, 3).

The study is a part of the environmental review process for a proposed development project known as Rancho Descanso, which seeks to create 76 residential lots, a park, and private paved roads. The City of Desert Hot Springs, as the lead agency for the project, required the study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.). The purpose of this study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the project would cause a substantial adverse change to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in the project area.

In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH reviewed recent historical/archaeological resources records search results pertaining to the project location, initiated a Native American Sacred Lands File search, pursued historical background research, and carried out an intensive-level field survey.

The following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and final conclusion of the study.

Personnel who participated in the study are named in the appropriate sections below, and their qualifications are provided in Appendix 1.

Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS San Bernardino and Santa Ana, Calif., 120’x60’ quadrangles [USGS 1969; 1979])

2 Figure 2. Project location. (Based on USGS Desert Hot Springs and Seven Palms Valley, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangles [USGS 1978a; 1978b])

3 Figure 3. Aerial view of the project area.

4 SETTING

NATURAL SETTING
The City of Desert Hot Springs is situated near the northwestern end of the Coachella Valley, a northwest-southeast trending desert valley that constitutes the western end of the Colorado Desert.

Dictated by this geographic setting, the climate and environment of the region are typical of southern California’s desert country, marked by extremes in temperature and aridity. Temperatures in the region reach over 120 degrees in summer, and dip to freezing in winter. Average annual precipitation is less than five inches, and the average annual evaporation rate exceeds three feet.

The project area lies on the southern edge of the City of Desert Hot Springs, surrounded mostly by existing single-family residential neighborhoods and mobile home parks (Fig. 3). Elevations on the property range approximately between 860 and 875 feet above mean sea level, and the terrain is relatively level with a slight incline to the northwest. Surface soils are composed of sand mixed with silt and igneous rocks, including diorite, gabbro, and granite, that range in size from pebble to boulder. The southern half of the project area has been disturbed by past construction activities associated with the adjacent residential neighborhood. Domestic and commercial refuse dumps, including construction debris and piles of rock and soil, were observed along the eastern and northern project boundaries. Several dirt roads run across the project area. Vegetation observed included creosote bush and the typical amalgamation of small desert scrub brushes, weeds, and intrusive grasses (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. Current natural setting of the project area. (Photograph taken on September 3, 2021; view to the north)

5 In its native state, the project area belongs to the Creosote Bush Scrub Plant Community. Native plant species common to this community include creosote bush, prickly pear cactus, cholla, brittlebush, and globemallow. Animals commonly found in this area are reptiles (lizards, snakes, tortoise), small to medium mammals (coyotes, jackrabbits, desert cottontails, rats, mice), native birds (doves, vultures, raptors, quail), and arthropods (beetles, desert tarantula, scorpions).

CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
Numerous investigations on the history of cultural development in southern California have led researchers to propose a number of cultural chronologies for the desert regions. A specific cultural sequence for the Colorado Desert was offered by Schaefer (1994) on the basis of the many archaeological studies conducted in the area. The earliest time period identified is the Paleoindian (ca. 8,000 to 10,000-12,000 years ago), when “small, mobile bands” of hunters and gatherers, who relied on a variety of small and large game animals as well as wild plants for subsistence, roamed the region (ibid.:63). These small groups settled “on mesas and terraces overlooking larger washes” (ibid.:64). Typical artifacts and features from that period include very simple stone tools, “cleared circles, rock rings, [and] some geoglyph types” (ibid.).

The Early Archaic Period follows and dates to ca. 8,000 to 4,000 years ago. It appears that a decrease in population density occurred at this time and that the indigenous groups of the area relied more on foraging than hunting. Very few archaeological remains have been identified to this time period. The ensuing Late Archaic Period (ca. 4,000 to 1,500 years ago) is characterized by continued low population densities and groups of “flexible” sizes that settled near available seasonal food resources and relied on “opportunistic” hunting of game animals. Groundstone artifacts for food processing were prominent during this time period.

The most recent period in Schaefer’s scheme, the Late Prehistoric, dates from ca. 1,500 years ago to the time of the Spanish missions, and saw the continuation of the seasonal settlement pattern.

Peoples of the Late Prehistoric Period were associated with the Patayan cultural pattern and relied more heavily on the availability of seasonal “wild plants and animal resources” (Schaefer 1994:66).

It was during this period that brown and buff ware ceramics were introduced into the region.

The shores of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, during times of its presence, attracted much settlement and resource procurement; but in times of the lake’s desiccation around 1700, according to Schaefer (1994:66), the Native people moved away from its receding shores towards rivers, streams, and mountains. Numerous archaeological sites dating to this time period have been identified along the shoreline of Holocene Lake Cahuilla. Testing and mitigative excavations at these sites have recovered brown and buff ware ceramics, a variety of groundstone and projectile point types, ornaments, and cremations.

Ethnohistoric Context
The Coachella Valley is a historical center of Native American settlement, where U.S. surveyors noted large numbers of Indian villages and rancherías, occupied by the Cahuilla people, in the midPage 474 of 1181 6 19th century. The origin of the name “Cahuilla” is unclear, but may originate from their own word káwiya, meaning master or boss (Bean 1978). The Takic-speaking Cahuilla are generally divided by anthropologists into three groups, according to their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla of the San Gorgonio Pass-Palm Springs area, the Mountain Cahuilla of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilla Valley, and the Desert Cahuilla of the eastern Coachella Valley. The basic written sources on Cahuilla culture and history include Kroeber (1925), Strong (1929), and Bean (1978), based on information provided by such Cahuilla informants as Juan Siva, Francisco Patencio, Katherine Siva Saubel, and Mariano Saubel. The following ethnohistoric discussion is based primarily on these sources.

The Cahuilla did not have a single name that referred to an all-inclusive tribal affiliation. Instead, membership was in terms of lineages or clans. Each lineage or clan belonged to one of two main divisions of the people, known as moieties. Their moieties were named for the Wildcat, or Tuktum, and Coyote, or Istam. Members of clans in one moiety had to marry into clans from the other moiety. Individual clans had villages, or central places, and territories they called their own, for purposes of hunting game, and gathering raw materials for food, medicine, ritual, or tool use. They interacted with other clans through trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies.

Cahuilla subsistence was defined by the surrounding landscape and primarily based on the hunting and gathering of wild and cultivated foods, exploiting nearly all of the resources available in a highly developed seasonal mobility system. They were adapted to the arid conditions of the desert floor, the lacustral cycles of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, and the environments of the nearby mountains.

When the lake was full, or nearly full, the Cahuilla would take advantage of the resources presented by the body of fresh water, building elaborate stone fish traps. Once the lake had desiccated, they relied on the available terrestrial resources. The cooler temperatures and resources available at higher elevations in the nearby mountains were also taken advantage of.

The Cahuilla diet included seeds, roots, wild fruits and berries, acorns, wild onions, piñon nuts, and mesquite and screw beans. Medicinal plants such as creosote, California sagebrush, yerba buena and elderberry were typically cultivated near villages (Bean and Saubel 1972). Common game animals included deer, antelope, big horn sheep, rabbits, wood rats and, when Holocene Lake Cahuilla was present, fish and waterfowl. The Cahuilla hunted with throwing sticks, clubs, nets, traps, and snares, as well as bows and arrow (Bean 1978; CSRI 2002). Common tools included manos and metates, mortars and pestles, hammerstones, fire drills, awls, arrow-straighteners, and stone knives and scrapers. These lithic tools were made from locally sourced material as well as materials procured through trade or travel. They also used wood, horn, and bone spoons and stirrers; baskets for winnowing, leaching, grinding, transporting, parching, storing, and cooking; and pottery vessels for carrying water, storage, cooking, and serving food and drink (ibid.).

As the landscape defined their subsistence practices, the tending and cultivation practices of the Cahuilla helped shape the landscape. Biological studies have recently found evidence that the fan palms found in the Coachella Valley and throughout the southeastern California desert (Washingtonia filifera) may not be relics of palms from a paleo-tropical environment, but instead a relatively recent addition brought to the area and cultivated by native populations (Anderson 2005).

Cahuilla oral tradition tells of a time before there were palms in the area, and how the people, birds, and animals enjoyed the palm fruit once it had arrived (Bean and Saubel 1972). The planting of

7 palms by the Cahuilla is well-documented, as is their enhancement of palm stands through the practice of controlled burning (Bean and Saubel 1972; Anderson 2005). Burning palm stands would increase fruit yield dramatically by eliminating pests such as the palm borer beetle, date scales, and spider mites (Bean and Saubel 1972). Firing palm stands prevented out-of-control wildfires by eliminating dead undergrowth before it accumulated to dangerous levels. The Cahuilla also burned stands of chia to produce higher yields, and deergrass to yield straighter, more abundant stalks for basketry (Bean and Saubel 1972; Anderson 2005).

Population data prior to European contact is almost impossible to obtain, but estimates range from 3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons covering a territory of over 2,400 square miles. During the 19th century, the Cahuilla population was decimated as a result of European diseases, most notably smallpox, for which the Native peoples had no immunity. Today, Native Americans of Pass or Desert Cahuilla heritage are mostly affiliated with one or more of the Indian reservations in and near the Coachella Valley, including Morongo, Agua Caliente, Cabazon, Torres Martinez, and Augustine.

There has been a resurgence of traditional ceremonies in recent years, and the language, songs, and stories are now being taught to the youngest generations.

Historic Context
In 1823-1825, José Romero, José Maria Estudillo, and Romualdo Pacheco became the first noted European explorers to travel through the Coachella Valley when they led a series of expeditions in search of a route to Yuma (Johnston 1987:92-95). Due to its harsh environment, few non-Indians ventured into the desert valley during the Mexican and early American periods, except those who traveled along the established trails. The most important of these trails was the Cocomaricopa Trail, an ancient Indian trading route that was “discovered” in 1862 by William David Bradshaw and known after that as the Bradshaw Trail (Gunther 1984:71; Ross 1992:25). In much of the Coachella Valley, this historic wagon road traversed a similar course to that of present-day Highway 111.

During the 1860s-1870s, the Bradshaw Trail served as the main thoroughfare between coastal southern California and the Colorado River, until the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1876-1877 brought an end to its heyday (Johnston 1987:185).

Non-Indian settlement in the Coachella Valley began in the 1870s with the establishment of railroad stations along the Southern Pacific Railroad, and spread further in the 1880s after public land was opened for claims under the Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, and other federal land laws (Laflin 1998:35-36; Robinson 1948:169-171). Farming became the dominant economic activity in the valley thanks to the development of underground water sources, often in the form of artesian wells. Around the turn of the century, the date palm was introduced into the Coachella Valley, and by the late 1910s dates were the main agricultural crop and the tree an iconic image celebrating the region as the “Arabia of America” (Shields Date Gardens 1957). Then, starting in the 1920s, a new industry featuring equestrian camps, resorts, hotels, and eventually country clubs began to spread throughout the Coachella Valley, transforming it into southern California’s premier winter retreat.

The present-day City of Desert Hot Springs is among the communities that were largely created by the Coachella Valley’s resort industry. Although sporadic settlement took place in the vicinity as early as 1908, the city owes much of its early growth to the abundance of hot mineral water along the San Andreas fault line. L.W. Coffee, who subdivided the Desert Hot Springs townsite in 1933, is

8 also credited with the first successful development of the hot springs for commercial use (Gunther 1984:151). Advertised in the early and mid-20th century primarily for its potential for health spas and convalescent homes, Desert Hot Springs saw sufficient growth by 1944 to warrant the establishment of a post office. After a further growth spurt during the post-WWII boom, Desert Hot Springs incorporated as a city in 1963.

RESEARCH METHODS

RECORDS SEARCH
On August 11, 2021, CRM TECH requested a historical/archaeological resources records search on the project area from the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System. Located on the campus of the University of California, Riverside, the EIC is the State of California’s official repository of cultural resources records for the County of Riverside.

The objective of the records search is to compile a complete inventory of previously identified cultural resources and existing studies within a one-mile radius of the project location.

Due to delays caused by facility closure during the COVID-19 pandemic, as of this time the EIC has not been able to provide the records search results. In order to bridge this data gap, CRM TECH archaeologist Deirdre Encarnación reviewed CRM TECH’s archives for recent studies in a roughly one-mile radius of the project area and the records search results for those studies. From these data, Encarnación was able to construct a complete coverage of existing records pertaining to the one-mile scope of the records search as of March 2020. As the EIC has not updated its collection since the beginning of the pandemic, the coverage was considered adequate for this study.

HISTORICAL RESEARCH
Historical background research for this study was conducted by CRM TECH principal investigator/ historian Bai “Tom” Tang. Sources consulted during the research included published literature in local and regional history, historical maps of the Desert Hot Springs area, and aerial photographs of the project vicinity. Among the maps consulted were U.S. General Land Office (GLO) land survey plat maps dated 1856 and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps dated 1901-1978, which are accessible at the websites of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the USGS. The aerial photographs, taken in 1972-2021, are available at the Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR) Online website and through the Google Earth software.

NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
On August 11, 2021, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a records search in the commission’s Sacred Lands File. The NAHC is the State of California’s trustee agency for the protection of “tribal cultural resources,” as defined by California Public Resources Code §21074, and is tasked with identifying and cataloging properties of Native American cultural value, including places of special religious, spiritual, or social significance and known graves and cemeteries throughout the state. In the

9 meantime, CRM TECH also notified the nearby Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the upcoming archaeological field survey and invited the tribe to participate.

FIELD SURVEY
On September 3, 2021, CRM TECH field director/archaeologist Daniel Ballester carried out the intensive-level field survey of the project area. The survey was completed on foot by walking a series of parallel north-south transects spaced 15 meters (approximately 50 feet) apart. In this way, the ground surface in the entire project area was systematically and carefully examined for any evidence of human activities dating to the prehistoric or historic period (i.e., 50 years or older).

Ground visibility ranged from fair to good (60-80%) depending on the density of the vegetation growth (Fig. 4).

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

RECORDS SEARCH
According to EIC records, most of the project area, specifically Assessor’s Parcel No. 656-080-016, was previously surveyed for cultural resources during a similar study in 2004 (Brock 2004). As that study is now 17 years old, however, it is considered outdated for statutory compliance purposes today. The results of the records search conducted in 2004 indicated no cultural resources studies within the project area prior to that time, nor any known cultural resources within or adjacent to the project boundaries (Brock 2004:8-9). Only around 5% of the land within a one-mile radius of the project location had been surveyed at that time, and five historical/archaeological sites had been recorded within the one-mile radius (ibid.).

Records searches conducted for studies carried out in 2018-2021 on nearby properties to the north, east, and west identified several additional studies that had been completed within the one-mile radius since 2004. These records searches further indicate that three additional sites had been recorded within the one-mile radius, for a total of eight known cultural resources, as listed in Table

1. Two of these eight sites were of prehistoric (i.e., Native American) origin, both consisting of Table 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Scope of the Records Search Resource
Number
Date
Recorded Description
33-001246/
CA-RIV-1246 1977 Midden and habitation debris with lithic debitage, ceramic sherds, groundstone, fire-affected rocks, burned faunal fragments, and possible hearths/roasting pits 33-008409 1998 Historical segment of Palm Drive
33-008410/
CA-RIV-13015H 1998; 2015 Dillon Highway
33-008412 1998 Dos Palmas Tract Sales Office
33-008413 1998 R.H. McDonald Real Estate Office
33-016938/
CA-RIV-8105 2008 Habitation debris with lithic debitage, ceramic sherds, groundstone fragments, fire-affected rocks, and faunal fragments 33-026629/
CA-RIV-12533H 2016 Historic-period refuse deposit with 64+ steel cans, a metal paint bucket, and three pieces of lumber 33-026684/
CA-RIV-12575H 2016 Historic-period refuse deposit with 103+ steel and aluminum cans, three metal buckets, and a glass coffee jar

10 habitation remains located nearly one mile to the north-northeast. The other six sites dated to the historic period and included refuse scatters, buildings, and roads. Nearest among them is Palm Drive, situated roughly one-tenth of a mile to the west. None of these previously recorded cultural resources were located in the immediate vicinity of the project area. Therefore, none of them require further consideration during this study.

HISTORICAL RESEARCH
Sources consulted for this study suggest that the project area is relatively low in sensitivity for cultural resources of historical origin. Throughout the historic period, no man-made features were observed within the project boundaries (Figs. 6-8; NETR Online 1972). By the mid-1950s, Palm Drive was evident to the west, and a grid of unpaved roads including what is now Avenue Descanso were laid out in the area to the east of the project location, suggesting the beginning of a planned development (Fig. 8). However, as late as 1972 only a few scattered residences had been built in the vicinity despite the presence of a more extensive grid of roads (NETR Online 1972).

Most of the buildings in the neighborhood date to the 1972-1995 era (NETR Online 1972; 1995; Google Earth 1995). Among these was a small complex of buildings in the southern portion of the project area, on Assessor’s Parcel No. 656-400-049, that were constructed between 1983 and 1995 (NETR Online 1983; 1995; Google Earth 1995). Apparently one large residence with associated outbuildings or possibly smaller residential buildings, the entire complex was completely removed sometime between 2006 and 2009 (NETR Online 2005; 2009; Google Earth 2006; 2009). Since Figure 5. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856.
(Source: GLO 1856a-1856d)
Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1940-1941.
(Source: USGS 1940; 1941)

11 then, the entire project area has remained vacant
and undeveloped to the present time (NETR
Online 2009-2018; Google Earth 2009-2021).

NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
In response to CRM TECH’s inquiry, the
NAHC states in a letter dated September 7,
2021, that the Sacred Lands File identified no
Native American cultural resources in the
project vicinity (see App. 2). Noting that the
absence of specific information would not
necessarily indicate the absence of cultural
resources, however, the NAHC recommended
that local Native American groups be consulted
for further information and provided a referral
list of 21 individuals associated with 14 local
Native American groups who may have
knowledge of such resources. The NAHC’s
reply is attached in Appendix 2 for reference by
the City of Desert Hot Springs in future
government-to-government consultations with
the pertinent tribal groups, if necessary.

Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1951-1958.
(Source: USGS 1955; 1958)
As mentioned above, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians was notified of the archaeological fieldwork and invited to participate. On August 27, 2021, Andreas J. Heredia, Cultural Resources Coordinator at the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office, replied by e-mail that the tribe would not be able to participate in the fieldwork and requested to be informed of any archaeological discoveries made during the survey.

FIELD SURVEY
The field survey produced completely negative results for any potential “historical resources” from either the prehistoric or the historic period. Scattered modern refuse was observed on the property, especially along the dirt roads, but none of the items are of any historical or archaeological interest.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study is to identify any cultural resources within the project area and to assist the City of Desert Hot Springs in determining whether such resources meet the official definition of “historical resources,” as provided in the California Public Resources Code, in particular CEQA.

According to PRC §5020.1(j), “‘historical resource’ includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.”

12 More specifically, CEQA guidelines state that the term “historical resources” applies to any such resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, included in a local register of historical resources, or determined to be historically significant by the lead agency (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)-(3)). Regarding the proper criteria for the evaluation of historical significance, CEQA guidelines mandate that “generally a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources” (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1(c))
In summary of the research results presented above, no potential “historical resources” were previously recorded within or adjacent to the project boundaries, and none were found during the present survey. In addition, the Native American Sacred Lands File identified no properties of traditional cultural value in the vicinity, and no notable cultural features were known to be present in the project area prior to the 1980s. Based on these findings, and in light of the criteria listed above, the present report concludes that no historical resources exist within the project area.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CEQA establishes that “a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC §21084.1). “Substantial adverse change,” according to PRC §5020.1(q), “means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired.”
In conclusion, no “historical resource,” as defined by CEQA and associated regulations, were encountered within or adjacent to the project area throughout the course of this study. Therefore, CRM TECH presents the following recommendations to the City of Desert Hot Springs:
• The proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change to any known “historical resources.”
• No further cultural resources investigation will be necessary for the project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. • If any buried cultural materials are encountered during earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.

13 REFERENCES
Anderson, M. Kat
2005 Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Bean, Lowell John
1978 Cahuilla. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8:

California; pp. 575-587. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, Lowell John, and Katherine Siva Saubel
1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian knowledge and usage of plants. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.

Brock, James
2004 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for Tentative Tract No. 31744, City of Desert Hot Springs, Riverside County, California (APN 656-080-016; Aventura Palms II). On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.

CSRI (Cultural Systems Research, Inc.)
2002 The Native Americans of Joshua Tree National Park: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment Study. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/jotr/history6.htm.

GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior 1856a Plat Map: Township No. 2 South Range No. 4 East, SBBM; surveyed in 1855-1856. 1856b Plat Map: Township No. 2 South Range No. 5 East, SBBM; surveyed in 1855-1856. 1856c Plat map: Township No. 3 South Range No. 4 East, SBBM; surveyed in 1855-1856. 1856d Plat map: Township No. 3 South Range No. 5 East, SBBM; surveyed in 1855-1856.

Google Earth
1995-2021 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity; taken in 1995, 1996, 2002-2006, 2009, and 2011-2019, and 2021. Available through the Google Earth software.

Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. J. D.

Gunther, Riverside.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Johnston, Francis J.
1987 The Bradshaw Trail; revised edition. Historical Commission Press, Riverside.

Laflin, Patricia
1998 Coachella Valley California: A Pictorial History. The Donning Company, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research) Online
1972-2018 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity; taken in 1972, 1983, 1995, 1996, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018. http://www.historicaerials.com.

Robinson, W.W.
1948 Land in California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Ross, Delmer G.
1992 Gold Road to La Paz: An Interpretive Guide to the Bradshaw Trail. Tales of the Mojave Road Publishing Company, Essex, California.

14 Schaefer, Jerry
1994 The Challenge of Archaeological Research in the Colorado Desert: Recent Approaches and Discoveries. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16(1):60-80.

Shields Date Gardens
1957 Coachella Valley Desert Trails and the Romance and Sex Life of the Date. Shields Date Gardens, Indio.

Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 26.

USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1940 Map: Palm Springs, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1940. 1941 Map: Edom, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1941. 1955 Map: Desert Hot Springs, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); aerial photographs taken in 1951, fieldchecked in 1955. 1958 Map: Seven Palms Valley, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); aerial photographs taken in 1956, fieldchecked in 1958. 1969 Map: San Bernardino, Calif. (120’x60’; 1:250,000); 1958 edition revised. 1978a Map: Desert Hot Springs, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1955 edition photorevised in 1972, photoinspected 1978.
1978b Map: Seven Palms Valley, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1958 edition photorevised in 1972, photoinspected in 1978.
1979 Map: Santa Ana, Calif. (120’x60’; 1:250,000); 1959 edition revised.

15 APPENDIX 1:

PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/HISTORIAN
Bai “Tom” Tang, M.A.

Education
1988-1993 Graduate Program in Public History/Historic Preservation, University of California, Riverside.
1987 M.A., American History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 1982 B.A., History, Northwestern University, Xi’an, China. 2000 “Introduction to Section 106 Review,” presented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the University of Nevada, Reno.
1994 “Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites,” presented by the Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno.

Professional Experience
2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1993-2002 Project Historian/Architectural Historian, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1993-1997 Project Historian, Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California. 1991-1993 Project Historian, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. 1990 Intern Researcher, California State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 1990-1992 Teaching Assistant, History of Modern World, University of California, Riverside. 1988-1993 Research Assistant, American Social History, University of California, Riverside. 1985-1988 Research Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1985-1986 Teaching Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1982-1985 Lecturer, History, Xi’an Foreign Languages Institute, Xi’an, China.

Cultural Resources Management Reports
Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations Regarding California’s Cultural Resources Inventory System (with Special Reference to Condition 14 of NPS 1990 Program Review Report). California State Office of Historic Preservation working paper, Sacramento, September 1990.

Numerous cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit, Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991.

16 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ARCHAEOLOGIST
Michael Hogan, Ph.D., RPA (Registered Professional Archaeologist) Education
1991 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 1981 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside; with honors. 1980-1981 Education Abroad Program, Lima, Peru.
2002 “Section 106—National Historic Preservation Act: Federal Law at the Local Level,” UCLA Extension Course #888.
2002 “Recognizing Historic Artifacts,” workshop presented by Richard Norwood, Historical Archaeologist.
2002 “Wending Your Way through the Regulatory Maze,” symposium presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals.
1992 “Southern California Ceramics Workshop,” presented by Jerry Schaefer. 1992 “Historic Artifact Workshop,” presented by Anne Duffield-Stoll.

Professional Experience
2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1999-2002 Project Archaeologist/Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1996-1998 Project Director and Ethnographer, Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands, California. 1992-1998 Assistant Research Anthropologist, University of California, Riverside. 1992-1995 Project Director, Archaeological Research Unit, U.C. Riverside. 1993-1994 Adjunct Professor, Riverside Community College, Mt. San Jacinto College, U.C.

Riverside, Chapman University, and San Bernardino Valley College. 1991-1992 Crew Chief, Archaeological Research Unit, U.C. Riverside. 1984-1998 Project Director, Field Director, Crew Chief, and Archaeological Technician for various southern California cultural resources management firms.

Research Interests
Cultural Resource Management, Southern Californian Archaeology, Settlement and Exchange Patterns, Specialization and Stratification, Culture Change, Native American Culture, Cultural Diversity.

Cultural Resources Management Reports
Principal investigator for, author or co-author of, and contributor to numerous cultural resources management study reports since 1986.

Memberships
Society for American Archaeology; Society for California Archaeology; Pacific Coast Archaeological Society; Coachella Valley Archaeological Society.

17 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/REPORT WRITER
Deirdre Encarnación, M.A.

Education
2003 M.A., Anthropology, San Diego State University, California. 2000 B.A., Anthropology, minor in Biology, with honors; San Diego State University, California.
2021 Certificate of Specialization, Kumeyaay Studies, Cuyamaca College, California. 2001 Archaeological Field School, San Diego State University. 2000 Archaeological Field School, San Diego State University.

Professional Experience
2004- Project Archaeologist/Report Writer, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 2001-2003 Part-time Lecturer, San Diego State University, California. 2001 Research Assistant for Dr. Lynn Gamble, San Diego State University. 2001 Archaeological Collection Catalog, SDSU Foundation.

Memberships
Society for California Archaeology; Society for Hawaiian Archaeology; California Native Plant Society.

18 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/FIELD DIRECTOR
Daniel Ballester, M.S., RPA (Registered Professional Archaeologist) Education
2013 M.S., Geographic Information System (GIS), University of Redlands, California. 1998 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino. 1997 Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of California, Riverside.
1994 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico. 2007 Certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), California State University, San Bernardino.
2002 “Historic Archaeology Workshop,” presented by Richard Norwood, Base Archaeologist, Edwards Air Force Base; presented at CRM TECH, Riverside, California.

Professional Experience
2002- Field Director/GIS Specialist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 2011-2012 GIS Specialist for Caltrans District 8 Project, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, California.
2009-2010 Field Crew Chief, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, California. 2009-2010 Field Crew, ECorp, Redlands.
1999-2002 Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego, California. 1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas, California. 1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.

Cultural Resources Management Reports
Field Director, co-author, and contributor to numerous cultural management reports since 2002.

19 APPENDIX 2

SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH RESULTS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

September 7, 2021
Nina Gallardo

CRM TECH
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Proposed Rancho Descanso Project, Riverside County
Dear Ms. Gallardo:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Julie TumamaitStenslie
Chumash

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6907
Fax: (760) 699-6924
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6800
Fax: (760) 699-6919
Cahuilla
Augustine Band of Cahuilla
Mission Indians
Amanda Vance, Chairperson
P.O. Box 846
Coachella, CA, 92236
Phone: (760) 398 - 4722
Fax: (760) 369-7161
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Cabazon Band of Mission
Indians
Doug Welmas, Chairperson
84-245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio, CA, 92203
Phone: (760) 342 - 2593
Fax: (760) 347-7880
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Daniel Salgado, Chairperson
52701 U.S. Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 5549
Fax: (951) 763-2808
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla
and Cupeño Indians
Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson
P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189
Phone: (760) 782 - 0711
Fax: (760) 782-0712
Cahuilla
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Robert Martin, Chairperson
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5110
Fax: (951) 755-5177
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Ann Brierty, THPO
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5259
Fax: (951) 572-6004
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (928) 750 - 2516
[email protected]
Quechan
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (760) 572 - 2423
historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan
1 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Proposed Rancho Descanso Project, Riverside County.

PROJ-2021-
004710
09/07/2021 11:06 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
9/7/2021

Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson
P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
John Gomez, Environmental
Coordinator
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
[email protected]
Cahuilla
San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians
Jessica Mauck, Director of
Cultural Resources
26569 Community Center Drive
Highland, CA, 92346
Phone: (909) 864 - 8933
Jessica.Mauck@sanmanuelnsn.gov
Serrano
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians
Mark Cochrane, Co-Chairperson
P. O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
Phone: (909) 528 - 9032
[email protected]
Serrano
Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians
Wayne Walker, Co-Chairperson
P. O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
Phone: (253) 370 - 0167
[email protected]
Serrano
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
Michael Mirelez, Cultural
Resource Coordinator
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
Phone: (760) 399 - 0022
Fax: (760) 397-8146
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Twenty-Nine Palms Band of
Mission Indians
Darrell Mike, Chairperson
46-200 Harrison Place
Coachella, CA, 92236
Phone: (760) 863 - 2444
Fax: (760) 863-2449
29chairman@29palmsbominsn.gov
Chemehuevi
Twenty-Nine Palms Band of
Mission Indians
Anthony Madrigal, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
46-200 Harrison Place
Coachella, CA, 92236
Phone: (760) 775 - 3259
[email protected]
Chemehuevi
2 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Proposed Rancho Descanso Project, Riverside County.

PROJ-2021-
004710
09/07/2021 11:06 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
9/7/2021

RANCHO DESCANSO

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 23, 2021
Prepared for:

Mr. Mario Gonzales
GHA Companies
30875 Date Palm Dr. Ste. C-2
Cathedral City, CA 92234

Prepared by:

Scott Sato, P.E.
4225 Oceanside Blvd., #354 H
Oceanside, CA 92056
(949) 244-2436
TRAMES SOLUTIONS INC. TRAMES SOLUTIONS INC.
(0224-0004-03)

RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ............................................................................... 1 A. Purpose of the TIA and Study Objectives
B. Site Location and Study Area
C. Development Project Identification

1. Project Size and Description

2. Existing Land Use

3. Proposed Land Use

4. Site Plan of Proposed Project

5. Proposed Project Opening Year

6. Proposed Project Phasing

2.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES ................................................................... 7

A. Level of Service Definition
B. City of Desert Hot Springs Level of Service Criteria C. Intersection Operations Analysis Methodology

3.0 AREA CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................... 11 A. Study Area Intersections
B. Area Roadway System
C. Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
D. Existing (2021) Delay and Level of Service
E. Transit Service

4.0 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC ................................................................................. 19 A. Project Traffic

1. Ambient Growth Rate

2. Project Trip Generation

3. Project Trip Distribution and Assignment

4. Project Peak Hour Turning Movement Traffic
B. Cumulative Traffic (Background)

1. Method of Projection

2. Other Approved or Proposed Development Projects

3. Other Approved Projects Trip Generation

4. Other Approved Development Trip Distribution and Assignment

5. Total Background Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes

RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC) TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

SECTION PAGE

5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 31 A. Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project (E+A+P) Conditions (E+A+P 2023) Conditions
B. Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Plus Cumulative (E+A+P+C) Conditions

6.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 35 A. Traffic Impacts and Level of Service Analysis
B. Recommended Off-Site Improvements
C. Circulation Recommendations

1. On-Site

RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC)

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE
1-A Study Area ....................................................................................................................... 3 1-B Site Plan .......................................................................................................................... 5 3-A Existing Traffic Controls and Intersection Geometrics ................................................... 12 3-B City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan Roadway Classification ................................ 13 3-C City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan Roadway Cross-Sections ............................. 14 3-D Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................... 15 4-A Project Trip Distribution ................................................................................................... 22 4-B Project Only Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................... 23 4-C Cumulative Developments Location Map ...................................................................... 25 4-D Cumulative Developments Only Traffic Volumes .......................................................... 27 4-E Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project (2023) Traffic Volumes .......................................... 28 4-F Existing Plus Ambient Plus Cumulative Plus Project (2023) Traffic Volumes .............. 29 6-A E+A+P AND E+A+P+C (2023) Recommended Improvements .................................... 36 6-B Circulation Recommendations ....................................................................................... 38

RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC)

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE
3-1 Intersection Analysis for Existing (2021) Conditions...................................................... 17 4-1 Project Trip Generation Rates ........................................................................................ 18 4-2 Project Trip Generation Summary ................................................................................. 18 4-3 Cumulative Development Trip Generation Summary ................................................... 26 5-1 Intersection Analysis for
Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project (EAP 2023) Conditions .......................................... 32 5-2 Intersection Analysis for
Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Plus Cumulative (EAPC 2023) Conditions ........... 34

RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC)

LIST OF APPENDICES
Scoping Agreement .................................................................................................................... A Traffic Count Worksheets ........................................................................................................... B Existing (2021) Conditions Intersection Analysis Calculation Worksheets .............................. C Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project (EAP 2023) Conditions Intersection Analysis Calculation Worksheets ............................................................................ D Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Plus Cumulative (EAPC 2023) Conditions Intersection Analysis Calculation Worksheets ............................................................................ E

RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC)

RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
A. Purpose of the TIA and Study Objectives
The purpose of this traffic impact analysis (TIA) is to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed Rancho Descanso development. The project is proposed to be developed with 76 single family residential units. The site is located on the southwest corner of Ave Descanso and Camino Campesino in the City of Desert Hot Springs.

It should be noted that the City has adopted the County of Riverside’s Traffic Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service and Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020). Based on these guidelines, the project would be exempt from a level of service analysis based on the amount of vehicle trips generated during the peak hours. However, to ensure that the traffic impacts have been evaluated, the City has requested that a traffic study be prepared.

Study objectives include the following:

Existing (2021) Traffic. Existing traffic will be counted to determine current conditions.

This constitutes the environmental setting for a CEQA analysis at the time that the hearing body reviews the project. Traffic count data shall be new or recent. In some cases, data up to one year old may be acceptable with the approval of the City of Desert Hot Springs Engineering Department. Any exception to this must be requested prior to approval of the scoping agreement
Existing + Ambient + Project (EAP 2023). Traffic conditions prior to the time that the proposed development is completed will be estimated by increasing the existing traffic counts by an appropriate growth rate to be provided by City of Desert Hot Springs Engineering Department staff, projected to the year that the project is estimated to be completed. Traffic generated by the proposed project will then be added, and the impacts on the circulation system will be analyzed. This will be the basis for determining project-specific impacts, mitigation, and conditions of approval. 1

RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC) Existing + Ambient + Project + Cumulative (EAPC 2023). Traffic generated by other approved projects in the study area shall be identified and added to the Project Completion traffic identified in Scenario 3. This may also include projects that are proposed and in the review process, but not yet fully approved. This scenario will be analyzed, and a determination made if improvements funded through an approved funding mechanism (TUMF, DIF, CFD, RBBD etc.) can accommodate the cumulative traffic at the target Level of Service (LOS) identified in the General Plan. If the “funded” improvements can provide the target LOS, payment into the fee program will be considered as cumulative mitigation through the conditions of approval. Other improvements needed beyond the “funded” improvements (such as localized improvements to non-TUMF facilities) should be identified as such.

B. Site Location and Study Area
The site is located on the southwest corner of Ave Descanso and Camino Campesino in the City of Desert Hot Springs. Figure 1-A illustrates the site location and the traffic analysis study area.

In general, the study area shall include any intersection of Collector or higher classification street with another Collector roadway or higher classification street, at which the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips. Pursuant to the attached scoping agreement (see Appendix “A”), the study area includes the following intersections:

Study Area Intersections

1. Palm Dr./Camino Campanero

2. Palm Dr./Camino Campesino

3. Palm Dr./Camino Aventura

4. Project Driveway/Camino Campesino
C. Development Project Identification

1. Project Size and Description
The Rancho Descanso Site is proposed to be developed in a single development phase by 2023. The following uses are proposed as indicated below:
 76 single family residential units
2

3

RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC)

2. Existing Land Use
The project site is currently vacant. Adjacent uses include the following:
 North – Residential
 South – Residential
 East – Residential
 West – Residential/Vacant

3. Proposed Land Use
Proposed Land Use: Single Family Residential

4. Site Plan of Proposed Project
Figure 1-B illustrates the conceptual land use plan. As shown in Figure 1-B, the project is proposed to have a driveway along Camino Campesino.

5. Proposed Project Opening Year
The proposed project is anticipated to be completed by 2023. Future traffic analysis has assumed a background (ambient) growth of 2% per year, along with traffic generated by other future developments in the surrounding area.

6. Proposed Project Phasing
The project is expected to be completed in a single phase. Therefore, all traffic recommendations included in this report have been based on the buildout of the proposed project.
4

SCALE:

H: V:
1"=50' N/A
HEI

C O N S U L T I N G
TEC
w w w . h e i t e c i n c . c o m
Suite 309
777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
Phone: 760.340.9060
"RANC
DES

TENTATI
PROP. 8" V.C.P.

SEWER MAIN

OUTH OR

WEST R/W
T.

MPACTED
BGRADE
SOUTH
R/W
EX. 8" D.I.P.

WATER MAIN
A.C.

PVMT.

BASE COURSE
PROP. 6" CURB
& 24" GUTTER
PROP. 6'

BLOCK WALL
8" V.C.P.

WER MAIN
.

EAST
R/W
EX. 8" D.I.P.

WATER MAIN
EX. GROUND
5

TTM 37743 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC)

THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
6

RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC)

2.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES
Traffic operations are quantified through the determination of "Level of Service" (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions, whereby a letter grade "A" through "F" is assigned to an infrastructure facility (intersection) representing progressively worsening traffic conditions. This section presents the LOS definition, LOS criteria and methodologies for the Intersection Operations.

A. Level of Service Definition
The definitions of Level of Service for uninterrupted flow (flow unrestrained by the existence of traffic control devices) are:
 LOS "A": Completely free-flow conditions. The operation of vehicles is virtually unaffected by the presence of other vehicles, and operations are constrained only by the geometric features of the highway and by driver preferences.

Maneuverability within the traffic stream is good. Minor disruptions to flow are easily absorbed without a change in travel speed.
 LOS "B": Free flow conditions, although the presence of other vehicles becomes noticeable. Average travel speeds are the same as in LOS "A", but drivers have slightly less freedom to maneuver. Minor disruptions are still easily absorbed, although local deterioration in LOS will be more obvious.  LOS "C": The influence of traffic density on operations becomes marked. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is clearly affected by other vehicles.

Minor disruptions can cause serious local deterioration in service, and queues will form behind any significant traffic disruption.
 LOS "D": The ability to maneuver is restricted due to traffic congestion. Travel speed is reduced by the increasing volume. Only minor disruptions can be absorbed without extensive queues forming and the service deteriorating.  LOS "E": Operations at or near capacity, an unstable level. Vehicles are operating with the minimum spacing for maintaining uniform flow.
 LOS "F": Forced or breakdown flow. It occurs either when vehicles arrive at a rate greater than the rate at which they are discharged or when the forecast demand exceeds the computed capacity of a planned facility. Although operations at these points – and on sections immediately downstream – appear to be at capacity, queues form behind these breakdowns. Operations within queues are highly unstable, with vehicles experiencing brief periods of movement followed by stoppages.
7

RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC) B. City of Desert Hot Springs Level of Service Criteria The City of Desert Hot Springs has established Level of Service (LOS) “D” as the citywide target along all City maintained roads and conventional state highways. Therefore, LOS “E” or “F” is considered unacceptable and requires improvements measures.

C. Intersection Operations Analysis Methodology
The City of Desert Hot Springs requires the use of the Transportation Research Board - Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 6th Edition. The HCM defines level of service as a qualitative measure, which describes operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. The criteria used to evaluate Level of Service (LOS) conditions vary based on the type of roadway and whether the traffic flow is considered interrupted or uninterrupted. The HCM methodology expresses the level of service at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches.

The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control.

The level of service is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway. The HCM methodology expresses the level of service at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control. The Levels of Service results in this study are determined using the HCM methodology.

For signalized intersections, average total delay per vehicle for the overall intersection is used to determine level of service.

The study area intersections which are stop sign controlled with stop control on the minor street only have been analyzed using the unsignalized intersection methodology of the HCM. For these intersections, the calculation of level of service is dependent on the occurrence of gaps occurring in the traffic flow of the main street. Using data collected describing the intersection configuration and traffic volumes at the study area locations; the level of service has been calculated. The level of service criteria for this type of intersection analysis is based on average total delay per vehicle for the worst minor street movement(s).

For all way stop (AWS) controlled intersections, the ability of vehicles to enter the intersection is not controlled by the occurrence of gaps in the flow of the main street. The AWS controlled intersections have been evaluated using the HCM methodology for this type of multi-way stop controlled intersection configuration. The level of service criteria for this type of intersection analysis is based on average total delay per vehicle. 8

RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC) The levels of service are defined for the various analysis methodologies as follows:

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

AVERAGE TOTAL DELAY PER VEHICLE
(SECONDS)

SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED
A 0 to 10.00 0 to 10.00
B 10.01 to 20.00 10.01 to 15.00
C 20.01 to 35.00 15.01 to 25.00
D 35.01 to 55.00 25.01 to 35.00
E 55.01 to 80.00 35.01 to 50.00
F 80.01 and up 50.01 and up
Levels of service at the study area intersections have been evaluated using the following HCM intersection analysis program: Synchro.

Peak hour factors (PHF), where known from existing traffic counts, have been used to assess intersection operations.
9

TTM 37743 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC)

THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
10

RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC)

3.0 AREA CONDITIONS
A. Study Area Intersections
In general, the minimum area to be studied shall include any intersection of “Collector” or higher classification street, with “Collector” or higher classification streets, at which the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour. The City of Desert Hot Springs Engineering Department may require deviation from these requirements based on area conditions. The study area includes the following intersections (shown previously on Figure 1-A):

Study Area Intersections

1. Palm Dr./Camino Campanero

2. Palm Dr./Camino Campesino

3. Palm Dr./Camino Aventura

4. Project Driveway/Camino Campesino

5. Palm Dr./Camino Campanero
B. Area Roadway System
Figure 3-A identifies the existing roadway conditions for study area roadways. The existing intersection traffic controls and geometrics are identified.

The City of Desert Hot Springs Circulation Element and Roadway Cross-Sections are shown on Figures 3-B and 3-C, respectively.

C. Existing (2021) Traffic Volumes
Existing intersection level of service calculations are based upon manual AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts made for Trames Solutions, Inc. in August 2021. Existing (2021) AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 3-D.

The traffic count worksheets are included in Appendix "B".

D. Existing (2021) Delay and Level of Service
The City of Desert Hot Springs has established Level of Service (LOS) “D” as the maximum allowable threshold for the intersection operations. Therefore, LOS “E” or “F” is considered unacceptable and requires improvements measures. 11

12

Little Morongo
Creek
Mission Creek
Whitewater River
Morongo Wash
Big Morongo
Creek

PALM DR

INDIAN CANYON AVE

DILLON RD

WORSLEY RD

VARNER RD

PIERSON BLVD

MOUNTAIN VIEW RD

DILLON RD
Joshua Tree
National Park
Little San Bernardino Mountains
15TH AVE
18TH AVE
20TH AVE

LITTLE MORONGO RD

PALM DR

ATLANTIC AVE

INDIAN AVE

TWO BUNCH PALMS TRAIL

KAREN AVE

HACIENDA AVE

MISSION LAKES BLVD

BUBBLING WELLS RD

LONG CANYON RD
North
Palm Springs
Cathedral City
Sand to Snow
National Monument
nt
t
Fig
Ro
DES
Road C
Base M
Date: J
Little Morongo
Creek
Morongo
Big Morongo
Creek

INDIAN CANYON AVE

PIERSON BLVD
Joshua Tree
National Park
Little San Bernardino Mountains
15TH AVE

ONGO RD

PALM DR
AVE

TWO BUNCH PALMS TRAIL

KAREN AVE

HACIENDA AVE

MISSION LAKES BLVD
YON RD
Sand to Snow
National Monument
Figure MI-7:

Roadways Plan

DESERT HOT SPRINGS GENERAL PLA
Road Classifications
Urban Arterial
Primary I
Primary II
Secondary I
Secondary II
Collector
Local Collector
Base Map Features
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Water Courses
13

Urban Arterial
8-Lanes DividedNo ParkingWith Protected Bike LanePrimary I6-Lanes DividedNo ParkingWith or Without Protected Bike LanePrimary II4-Lanes DividedNo ParkingWith or Without Protected Bike LaneSecondary I4-Lanes DividedNo ParkingWith Protected Bike LaneSecondary II4-Lanes UndividedOn-Street ParkingWith or Without Dedicated Bike LaneCollector2-Lanes UndividedOn-Street ParkingWith or Without Dedicated Bike LaneLocal Collector2-Lanes UndividedOn-Street ParkingWith or Without Dedicated Bike Lane Figure MI-8: Cross Sections
14

15

RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC) The results of the existing conditions intersection analysis are summarized in Table 3-1.

The existing condition operations analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix "C". The study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable levels of service (LOS “D” or better) during the peak hours with the existing geometry and traffic controls.

E. Transit Service
The Sunline Transit Routes 2 and 5 currently services the study area. 16

TABLE 3-1
Traffic
Control 1 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Palm Dr. / Camino Campanero TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 14.9 10.5 B B 2 Palm Dr. / Camino Campesino - - - - -
3 Palm Dr. / Camino Aventura TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 13.9 8.1 B A 4 Project Dwy. / Camino Campesino - - - - -
1 TS = Traffic Signal
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.

L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; 1! = Shared Left-Through-Right Lane 3 Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Synchro 10 HCM6 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS
ID
Delay 3
(secs.)
Level of
Service3
Intersection
Intersection Approach Lanes 2
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
G:\TRAMES\0224-0004\Excel\0224-0004_03 - Report.xlsx/3-1 17

TTM 37743 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC)

THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
18

TTM 37743 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC)

4.0 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
This section of the report quantifies the number of trips generated by the proposed project and other known developments in the area.

A. Project Traffic

1. Ambient Growth Rate
Some traffic volume increases on roadways can be attributed to vehicles originating outside of the study area. These types of trips either end up within the study area or pass-through onto an outside destination. Therefore, to account for these trips (termed “ambient growth”), a growth rate can be applied to existing traffic volumes.

A 2% ambient growth rate that has been used in this study to account for traffic not attributed to the project or other planned developments within the study area. The City of Desert Hot Springs Transportation Department staff has previously reviewed and approved this rate.

2. Project Trip Generation
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is attracted and produced by a development. The trip generation for the project is based upon the specific land use which has been planned for this development. For the purpose of this analysis, the following land use assumption is evaluated:
 76 single family residential units
Trip generation rates for the proposed development are shown in Table 4-1. The trip generation rates are based upon data collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).

The daily and peak hour trip generations for the proposed project are shown on Table 4-2. The project is estimated to generate a total of approximately 717 new trip-ends per day with 57 new vehicle trips per hour during the AM peak hour and 75 new vehicle trips per hour during the PM peak hour.

3. Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. The project’s trip distribution patterns are based on the proximity of the 19

ITE
Code IN OUT Total IN OUT Total
Single Fam. Detached 210 76 DU 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.62 0.37 0.99 9.44 ITE
Code In Out Total In Out Total
Single Fam. Detached 210 76 DU 14 43 57 47 28 75 717
1 DU = Dwelling Units
AM PM
Land Use Quantity1
Peak Hour
Daily
TABLE 4-2

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
TABLE 4-1
2 DU = Dwelling Units
AM PM
Land Use Quantity2
Peak Hour Trip Rates
Daily
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES1
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017).

G:\TRAMES\0224-0004\Excel\0224-0004_03 - Report.xlsx
20

TTM 37743 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC) residential units to the proposed driveway locations, the surrounding trip attractors (recreational facilities, commercial opportunities, etc.), and the regional freeway interchanges. The trip distribution pattern for the project is illustrated on Figure 4-A.

4. Project Peak Hour Turning Movement Traffic
The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the site's trip generation, trip distribution, proposed arterial highway and local street systems, which would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the site. Based on the identified project traffic generation and distribution, Project only traffic volumes are shown on Figure 4-B.

5. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Evaluation
The passage of SB 743 requires that projects be evaluated based on the vehicle miles traveled. This approach replaces automobile delay and LOS as the basis of determining CEQA impacts. However, a jurisdiction can still require a project to identify its potential vehicle impacts. As indicated previously, the City of Desert Hot Springs has adopted the County of Riverside’s Traffic Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service and Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020). The guidelines provide an evaluation criterion to determine if a project can be determined to have a less than significant impact.

Figure 3 of the County’s Guidelines provide a Screening Criteria for Development Projects. For Small Projects, a single family housing project with less than or equal to 110 dwelling units can be presumed to cause a less-than-significant impact.

Since the Rancho Descanso project is comprised of 76 units, a less-than-significant impact can be made. Therefore, no further VMT analysis is required.

B. Cumulative Traffic (Background)

1. Method of Projection
To assess existing plus ambient plus cumulative plus project traffic conditions, project traffic is combined with existing traffic, area-wide growth and other future developments which are approved or being processed concurrently in the study area. Developments which are being processed concurrently in the study area have been provided by the City of Desert Hot Springs staff. 21

22

23

TTM 37743 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC) Other Approved or Proposed Development Projects
The cumulative developments have been included along with the land use associated with each project. The location of the cumulative projects provided by the City are shown on Figure 4-C.

3. Other Approved Projects Trip Generation
Table 4-3 presents the cumulative development land uses and trip generation summary. As presented in Table 4-3 Cumulative developments are projected to generate a total of approximately 404 trip-ends per day with 565 vehicle trips per hour during the AM peak hour and 9,757 vehicle trips per hour during the PM peak hour.

4. Total Background Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
Based on the identified trip distribution for the cumulative development on arterial highways throughout the study area, cumulative development only traffic volumes are shown on Figure 4-D.

Existing plus Ambient plus Project (E+A+P) AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 4-E.

Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (E+A+P+C) AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 4-F. 24

25

TABLE 4-3

IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
1 Marbella Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise 1-2 floors) 402 DU 44 141 185 141 84 225 2,943 2 Airstream RV Park2 Campground/Recreational Vehicle Park 4.61 AC 1 1 2 3 1 4 32 Gasoline/Service Station w/Conven. Mkt. 4.85 TSF 188 181 369 219 210 429 6,984 Fast Food w/o Drive Thru 2.83 TSF 43 28 71 40 40 80 980 High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 2.83 TSF 15 13 28 17 10 27 317 Automated Car Wash 4.90 TSF - - - 35 35 70 696
Subtotal 246 222 468 311 295 606 8,977
Gas Station Pass-by Reduction
(Daily: 25%, AM: 62% PM: 56%) -114 -114 -228 -120 -120 -240 -1,746 Internal Capture (5%) -12 -11 -23 -15 -15 -30 -449
Fueling Station Subtotal 120 97 217 176 160 336 6,782
165 239 404 320 245 565 9,757
1 TSF = Thousand Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Units; AC = Acres 2 Daily has been estimated based on peak to daily relationship for ITE Land Use Code 411 (Public Park).

ID PROJECT NAME LAND USE QUANTITY 1

PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM PM

CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
3 Fueling Station
Total Cumulative Trips
G:\TRAMES\0224-0004\Excel\0224-0004_03 - Report.xlsx
26

27

28

29

TTM 37743 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC)

THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
30

TTM 37743 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC)

5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Peak hour intersection analysis has been performed at the study area intersections for each of the project scenarios and for projected future conditions. Improvements are recommended to satisfy the level of service requirements of the City of Desert Hot Springs and if the following impacts are identified:
1) When existing traffic conditions (Analysis Scenario 1) exceed the General Plan target LOS.
2) When project traffic, when added to existing traffic (Analysis Scenario 2), will deteriorate the LOS to below the target LOS, and impacts cannot be mitigated through project conditions of approval.
3) When cumulative traffic (Analysis Scenario 3) exceeds the target LOS, and impacts cannot be mitigated through existing infrastructure funding mechanisms.

A. Existing plus Ambient plus Project (EAP) Conditions
The results of the EAP conditions intersection analysis are summarized in Table 5-1. The EAP condition operations analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix "D". The study area intersections are projected to continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS “D” or better) during the peak hours with the existing geometry and traffic controls.

The following improvements are assumed in place for Project access purposes:
 Construct Camino Campesino as a two-lane roadway from Avenida Descanso (easterly Project site boundary) to Palm Drive.
 #2 – Palm Drive/ Camino Campesino
o Install stop control on the westbound approach.
o Provide one shared westbound left/right lane.
 #4 - Project Driveway/Camino Campesino
o Install stop control on the northbound approach.
o Provide one shared northbound left/right lane.
o Provide one eastbound through/right lane.
o Provide one westbound left/through lane.
31

TABLE 5-1
Traffic
Control 1

L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Palm Dr. / Camino Campanero TS 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 15.6 10.7 B B 2 Palm Dr. / Camino Campesino CSS 0 2 0 1* 2 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 16.8 21.8 C C 3 Palm Dr. / Camino Aventura TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 14.6 8.3 B A 4 Project Dwy. / Camino Campesino CSS 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 8.8 8.9 A A 1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street 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.

L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; 1! = Shared Left-Through-Right Lane; 0.5 = Shared Lane; 1 = Improvement; * = Left turn within existing two-way left-turn lane median striping 3 Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Synchro 10 HCM6

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT (2023) CONDITIONS ID Intersection
Intersection Approach Lanes 2 Delay 3 Level of
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service3 C:\Users\Owner\Documents\Trames\Jobs\Current Jobs\1429_Rancho Descanso_Desert Hot Springs\FM JC\0224-0004_03 - Report/5-1 32 Page 529 of 1181
TTM 37743 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC) B. Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) Conditions The results of the EAPC conditions intersection analysis are summarized in Table 5-2. The EAPC condition operations analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix "E". The study area intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the peak hours with existing configuration .

It should be noted that for EAPC conditions, the following improvements are anticipated to be in place by nearby cumulative projects for access purposes:
 #1 – Palm Drive/ Camino Campanero
o Modify existing traffic signal to include the new west leg. o Provide one northbound left turn lane.
o Provide one shared eastbound left/through/right lane. o Modify existing westbound right turn lane to a shared through/right lane. 33

TABLE 5-2
Traffic
Control 1

L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM
1 Palm Dr. / Camino Campanero TS 1! 2 0 1 2 0 0 1! 0 1 1 0 24.9 16.6 C B 2 Palm Dr. / Camino Campesino CSS 0 2 0 1* 2 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 18.3 24.6 C C 3 Palm Dr. / Camino Aventura TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 15.1 8.9 B A 4 Project Dwy. / Camino Campesino CSS 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 8.8 8.9 A A 1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross Street 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.

L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; 1! = Shared Left-Through-Right Lane; 0.5 = Shared Lane; 1 = Improvement; * = Left turn within existing two-way left-turn lane median striping 3 Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Synchro 10 HCM6

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
FOR EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT PLUS CUMULATIVE (2023) CONDITIONS ID Intersection
Intersection Approach Lanes 2 Delay 3 Level of
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service3 34

TTM 37743 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC)

6.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Traffic Impacts and Level of Service Intersections Analysis For Existing (2021) traffic conditions, the study area intersections are operating at an acceptable level of service during the peak hours with existing geometry. For E+A+P (2023) and E+A+P+C (2023) conditions, improvements are recommended for Project and cumulative project access purposes.

B. Recommended Off-Site Improvements
Figure 6-A illustrates the recommended improvements for near-term 2023 conditions.

For with EAP & EAPC conditions, the following off-site improvements are assumed in place for Project access purposes:
 Construct Camino Campesino as a two-lane roadway from Avenida Descanso to Palm Drive.
 #2 – Palm Drive/ Camino Campesino
o Install stop control on the westbound approach.
o Provide one shared westbound left/right lane.

For with EAPC conditions, the following off-site improvements are assumed in place for nearby cumulative project access purposes:
 #1 – Palm Drive/ Camino Campanero
o Modify existing traffic signal to include the new west leg. o Provide one northbound left turn lane.
o Provide one eastbound shared left turn/through/right lane. o Modify existing westbound right turn lane to a shared through/right lane.

Funding Mechanisms
In order to address the cumulate traffic impacts from the proposed project and other developments in the area, the County has the following funding mechanisms available.

Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program was established to assist in funding the Regional System of Highways and Arterials throughout Riverside County. 35

36

TTM 37743 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRAMES SOLUTIONS, INC.

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS (JN0224-0004-03_RANCHO DESCANSO TRAFFIC STUDY.DOC) TUMF allows developers to contribute toward sustaining the regional transportation system on a “fair share” basis. Managed by the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the program is not designed to be the only source of revenue but would complement funds generated by Measure A, local transportation fee programs, etc.

Development Impact Fees (DIF)
The development impact fee (DIF) is intended to construct or acquire needed facilities, preserve open space, and habitat needed to serve new developments. The transportation facilities include roads, bridges, and traffic signals.

C. Circulation Recommendations
On-Site
Figure 6-B illustrates the on-site recommended lane improvements. Construction of on-site improvements shall occur in conjunction with adjacent project development activity or as needed for project access purposes.

The recommended on-site roadway improvements are described below.  Construct Camino Campesino as a two-lane roadway from Avenida Descanso to Palm Drive.
 Provide stop sign control at the project driveway
 On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project.
 Verify that minimum sight distance is provided at the project access point. 37

SCALE:

H: V:
1"=50' N/A
HEI

C O N S U L T I N G
TEC
w w w . h e i t e c i n c . c o m
Suite 309
777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
Phone: 760.340.9060
"RANCHO DE

DESERT HOT

TENTATIVE TRA
JUNE 23, 2
PROP. 8" V.C.P.

SEWER MAIN
OR
W

SOUTH OR

WEST R/W
A.C.

PVMT.
.

COMPACTED

SUBGRADE
SOUTH
R/W
EX. 8" D.I.P.

WATER MAIN
A.C.

PVMT.

BASE COURSE

OMPACTED

UBGRADE
PROP. 6" CURB
& 24" GUTTER
PROP. 6'

BLOCK WALL
EX. 8" V.C.P.

SEWER MAIN
EX. A.C.

PVMT.

EAST
R/W
EX. 8" D.I.P.

WATER MAIN
PROP. A.C.

PVMT.

COMPACTED

SUBGRADE
EX. GROUND
LOT #
38

Rancho Descanso

NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS
PREPARED BY:

Bill Lawson, PE, INCE
[email protected]
(949) 336-5979
Abdul Azeem Khan
[email protected]
(909) 509-2644
SEPTEMBER 20, 2021
14330-02 Noise Study

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
ii Page 584 of 1181
Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................................III APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................... IV LIST OF EXHIBITS .............................................................................................................................. IV LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ IV LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS............................................................................................................ V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................1 1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................5

1.1 Site Location.................................................................................................................................. 5

1.2 Project Description........................................................................................................................ 5 2 FUNDAMENTALS .......................................................................................................................9

2.1 Range of Noise .............................................................................................................................. 9

2.2 Noise Descriptors........................................................................................................................ 10

2.3 Sound Propagation...................................................................................................................... 10

2.4 Noise Control .............................................................................................................................. 11

2.5 Noise Barrier Attenuation........................................................................................................... 11

2.6 Land Use Compatibility With Noise ............................................................................................ 12

2.7 Community Response to Noise................................................................................................... 12

2.8 Vibration ..................................................................................................................................... 13 3 REGULATORY SETTING.............................................................................................................15

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

3.2 State of California Building Code ................................................................................................ 15

3.2 City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan Safety & Noise Element .............................................. 16

3.3 Construction Noise Standards .................................................................................................... 17

3.4 Construction Vibration Standards............................................................................................... 17 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA...........................................................................................................19 5 TRAFFIC NOISE METHODS AND PROCEDURES...........................................................................21

5.1 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model ........................................................................................ 21

5.2 On-Site Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs ........................................................................... 21 6 ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS ............................................................................................23

6.1 Exterior Noise Analysis................................................................................................................ 23

6.2 Interior Noise Analysis................................................................................................................ 24 7 SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS..............................................................................................27 8 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS........................................................................................................29

8.1 Construction Noise Levels........................................................................................................... 29

8.2 Construction Reference Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 29

8.3 CadnaA Noise Prediction Model ................................................................................................. 31

8.4 Construction Noise Analysis........................................................................................................ 32

8.5 Construction Noise Level Compliance ........................................................................................ 32

8.6 Construction Vibration Analysis.................................................................................................. 33 9 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................35 10 CERTIFICATION........................................................................................................................37

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
iv

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.1: CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE APPENDIX 5.1: SITE PLAN
APPENDIX 6.1: ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX 8.1: CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL INPUTS

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT ES-A: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................3 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP.............................................................................................................6 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN......................................................................................................................7 EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS...................................................................................................9 EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION ............................................................................13 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION..........................................................14 EXHIBIT 3-A: COMMUNITY NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY....................................................16 EXHIBIT 7-A: SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS..................................................................................28 EXHIBIT 8-A: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS ................................................................30

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS .................................................................1 TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY.................................................................................20 TABLE 5-1: ON-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS ..................................................................................22 TABLE 5-2: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS..........................................................................................22 TABLE 5-3: DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW BY VEHICLE TYPE (VEHICLE MIX)...................................22 TABLE 6-1: EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS (CNEL) .........................................................................23 TABLE 6-2: FIRST FLOOR INTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS(CNEL) ......................................................25 TABLE 6-3: SECOND FLOOR INTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS(CNEL)..................................................25 TABLE 8-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS .....................................................................31 TABLE 8-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY ....................................................32 TABLE 8-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE ....................................................................33 TABLE 8-5: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT........................................33 TABLE 8-6: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS ............................................................34

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
v

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
ANSI American National Standards Institute
Calveno California Vehicle Noise
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA A-weighted decibels
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
Hz Hertz
INCE Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Leq Equivalent continuous (average) sound level
mph Miles per hour
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PPV Peak particle velocity
Project Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs
REMEL Reference Energy Mean Emission Level
RMS Root-mean-square
VdB Vibration Decibels

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
vi Page 588 of 1181
Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has prepared this noise study to determine the potential noise impacts and the necessary noise mitigation measures, if any, for the proposed Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs development (“Project”). The Project site is located south of Camino Campesino and west of Avenida Descanso in the City of Desert Hot Springs. The Project is proposed to consist of 76 residential lots. The Project is anticipated to be constructed in a single phase by the year 2023.

The results of this Noise Impact Analysis are summarized below based on the significance criteria in Section 4 of this report consistent with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (1) Table ES-1 shows the findings of significance for each potential noise and/or vibration impact under CEQA before and after any required mitigation measures.

TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
Analysis Report
Section
Significance Findings
Unmitigated Mitigated
On-Site Traffic Noise 6 Less Than Significant -
Construction Noise
8 Less Than Significant -
Construction Vibration Less Than Significant -
This noise impact analysis was prepared to satisfy the City of Desert Hot Springs noise level standards and ensure that adequate noise abatement measures are incorporated into the Project’s development. In addition, recommendations for exterior and interior noise abatement are identified based on the Project site plans.

EXTERIOR NOISE ABATEMENT
To satisfy the City of Desert Hot Springs exterior noise level standards for residential land use, the construction of the planned minimum 6-foot-high noise barrier is required for the private outdoor living area (backyards) of units adjacent to Palm Drive, Camino Campesino and Ave Descanso. With the planned noise barriers shown on Exhibit ES-A, the future exterior noise levels will range from 54.4 to 60.2 dBA CNEL. This noise analysis shows that the planned noise barrier will satisfy the City of Desert Hot Springs 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards for residential land use.

The recommended noise control barriers shall be constructed so that the top of each wall and /or berm combination extends to the planned height above the pad elevation of the lot it is shielding. When the road is elevated above the pad elevation, the barrier shall extend to the recommended height above the highest point between the residential home and the road. The barrier shall provide a weight of at least 4 pounds per square foot of face area with no decorative cutouts or line-of-sight openings between shielded areas and the roadways. (2)

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
2 INTERIOR NOISE ABATEMENT
To satisfy the City of Desert Hot Springs 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level criteria, all units a windows-closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning).

Typical building construction will provide a Noise Reduction (NR) of approximately 12 dBA with "windows open" and a minimum 25 dBA noise reduction with "windows closed." (3) (4) To meet the City of Desert Hot Springs 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards for residential land use the Project shall provide the following or equivalent noise abatement measures:
• Windows & Glass Doors: All lots require windows and glass doors with well-fitted, well-weatherstripped assemblies and shall have minimum STC rating of 27. • Doors (Non-Glass): All exterior doors shall be well weather-stripped and have minimum STC ratings of 27. Well-sealed perimeter gaps around the doors are essential to achieve the optimal STC rating. (5)
• Walls: At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts, or conduits shall be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal. • Roof: Roof sheathing of wood construction shall be per manufacturer’s specification or caulked plywood of at least one-half inch thick. Ceilings shall be per manufacturer’s specification or wellsealed gypsum board of at least one-half inch thick. Insulation with at least a rating of R-19 shall be used in the attic space.
• Ventilation: Arrangements for any habitable room shall be such that any exterior door or window can be kept closed when the room is in use and still receive circulated air. A forced air circulation system (e.g. air conditioning) or active ventilation system (e.g. fresh air supply) shall be provided which satisfies the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. • Furnishings: All bedrooms, when in use, are expected to contain furniture or other materials that absorb sound equivalent to the absorption provided by wall-to-wall carpeting over a conventional pad.

With the interior noise abatement measures provided in this study, the proposed Project is expected to satisfy the City of Desert Hot Springs 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standards for residential development.

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
3 EXHIBIT ES-A: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
4 This page intentionally left blank

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
5 1 INTRODUCTION
This noise analysis has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs (“Project”). This noise study briefly describes the proposed Project, provides information regarding noise fundamentals, describes the local regulatory setting, provides the study methods and procedures for transportation related CNEL traffic noise analysis, and evaluates the future exterior noise environment. In addition, this study includes an analysis of the potential Project-related construction noise and vibration impacts.

1.1 SITE LOCATION
The proposed Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs site is located south of Camino Campesino and west of Avenida Descanso in the City of Desert Hot Springs, as shown on Exhibit 1-A. The Project site is currently vacant. Existing land uses near the site include noise-sensitive residential homes located: north, east, south, and west of the Project site. Vacant, residential-designated land use is located immediately west of the Project site.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project is to consist of 76 residential lots as shown on Exhibit 1-B. The Project is anticipated to be constructed in a single phase by the year 2023.

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
6 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
7 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
8 This page intentionally left blank

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
9 2 FUNDAMENTALS
Noise is 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). Aweighted 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. (6) The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
10 at approximately 1,000 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. (7) 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 used metric is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in Aweighted 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 noise can become more intrusive. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. The City of Desert Hot Springs 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 way 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. (6)

2.3.2 GROUND ABSORPTION
The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receiver 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

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
11 expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 ft. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, 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 receiver 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. (3)

2.3.3 ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS
Receivers 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. (6)

2.3.4 SHIELDING
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver. 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 Federal Highway Administration (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 an observation point or receiver by controlling the noise source, transmission path, receiver, or all three. This concept is known as the source-path-receiver concept. In general, noise control measures can be applied to 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 receiver. (3) Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must block the line-of-sight path of sound from the noise source.

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
12 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. (8)

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 everyone’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 sixteen 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 may occur. Twenty to thirty percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments. (9 pp. 8-6) Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment.

Surveys have shown that community response to noise varies from no reaction to vigorous action for newly introduced noises averaging from 10 dB below existing to 25 dB above existing. (3) According to research originally published in the Noise Effects Handbook (9), the percentage of high annoyance ranges from approximately 0 percent at 45 dB or less, 10 percent are highly annoyed around 60 dB, and increases rapidly to approximately 70 percent being highly annoyed at approximately 85 dB or greater. 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. A change of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible, and changes of 5 dBA are considered readily perceptible. (3)

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
13 EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION

2.8 VIBRATION
Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (10) , 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. 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 and/or activities.

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. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Just Perceptible
Barely Perceptible
Readily Perceptible
Twice as Loud
Noise Level Increase (dBA)

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
14 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 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. (11) 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 STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
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 per guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). (12) 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.

3.2.1 RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
The State of California’s noise insulation standards for all residential units are codified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Chapter 12, Section 1206. These noise standards are applied to new construction that contains dwelling units or sleeping units, such as residential and hotel or motel uses, in California for controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. For new buildings, the acceptable interior noise limit is 45 dBA CNEL in habitable rooms (13).

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
16 3.2 CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGSGENERAL PLAN SAFETY & NOISE ELEMENT The purpose of the City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan Safety & Noise Element is to establish the framework for identifying noise sources and conditions that affect land use. (14) To protect City of Desert Hot Springs residents from excessive noise levels, the Safety & Noise Element contains the following goal:

Goal A noise environment that provides peace and quiet that complements the City’s SPA Resort Character.

The noise policies and programs specified in the City of Desert Hot Springs Safety & Noise Element provide the guidelines necessary to satisfy this goal. The General Plan indicates that a CNEL of 65 dBA is used as a standard for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas. Further, the noise criteria identified in the City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan (Table SN-2) are guidelines to evaluate the land use compatibility of transportation-related noise. The compatibility guidelines, 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. The Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines indicates that noise sensitive residential land uses, such as the Project site, are considered normally acceptable with exterior noise levels below 60 dBA CNEL, and conditionally acceptable with noise levels below 65 dBA CNEL. For conditionally acceptable land uses, new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. (14) In addition, the Noise Element states that in California and Desert Hot Springs specifically, a CNEL of 65 dBA is used as a standard for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas.

EXHIBIT 3-A: COMMUNITY NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
17 3.3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS
To control noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Project, the City of Desert Hot Springs has established limits to the hours of operation. Section 9.04.030 of the City’s Municipal code indicates that noise associated with any construction, erection, alteration, or repair, addition to or improvement of any building, structure, road or improvement to realty between the hours of 5:00 p.m. of each day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day, except when daylight savings time is in effect. During such time as daylight savings time is in effect in the City, no such activities shall be permitted between the hours of 6:00 p.m. of each day and 6:00 a.m. of the next day. No such activities shall be permitted on Sundays. (15) Neither the City’s General Plan nor Municipal Code establish numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers for CEQA analysis purposes.

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 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. (10 p. 179)

3.4 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. (10)
To analyze vibration impacts originating from the operation and construction of the Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs, vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code, if such standards exist. However, the City of Desert Hot Springs does not identify specific vibration level limits. Therefore, for analysis purposes, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, (16 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).

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
18 This page intentionally left blank

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
19 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. (1) 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? While the City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan Guidelines provide direction on noise compatibility that are sufficient to assess the significance of noise impacts, they do not define the levels at which increases are considered substantial for use under Guideline A. CEQA Appendix G Guideline C applies to nearby public and private airports, if any, and the Project’s land use compatibility. Table 4-1 shows the significance criteria summary matrix.

ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE
• If the on-site noise levels:
o exceed the of 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise levels in residential areas (City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan Safety and Noise Element); and
o exceed an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL for residential uses within the Project site (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2 as discussed in Section 3.2).

CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION
• If Project-related construction activities:
o occur between the hours of 5:00 p.m. of each day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day, except when daylight savings time is in effect. During such time as daylight savings time is in effect in the City, no such activities shall be permitted between the hours of 6:00 p.m. of each day and 6:00 a.m. of the next day. No such activities shall be permitted on Sundays (City of Desert Hot Springs Municipal Code, Section 9.04.030); or o create noise levels which exceed the 80 dBA Leq at the nearby single-family residential land uses (Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018).
• If short-term Project generated construction vibration levels could exceed the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec).

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
20 TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Analysis Condition(s)
Significance Criteria
Daytime Nighttime
On-Site
Traffic
Exterior Noise Level Criteria1 65 dBA CNEL
Interior Noise Level Standard2 45 dBA CNEL
Construction
Noise Level Threshold3 80 dBA Leq
Vibration Level Threshold4 0.3 PPV (in/sec)
1 City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan Noise and Safety Element. 2 California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2. 3 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 4 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
21 5 TRAFFIC NOISE METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The following section outlines the methods and procedures used to model and analyze the future traffic noise environment. Consistent with the City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan Community Noise and Land Use Compatibility guidelines outlined on Exhibit 3-A, all transportation related noise levels are presented in terms of the 24-hour CNEL’s.

5.1 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. (17) 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. (18) 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.

5.2 ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL INPUTS
The on-site roadway parameters including the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes used for this study are presented on Table 5-1. Based on the City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan Mobility Element (Figure MI-7) Palm Drive is classified as a Primary 1 roadway. Camino Campesino and Ave Descanso are unclassified local roadways. (19)
The traffic volumes shown on Table 5-1 reflect future long-range traffic conditions needed to assess the future on-site traffic noise environment and to identify potential mitigation measures (if any) that address the worst-case future conditions. According to the General Plan Table MI-1, Primary 1 is considered a six-lane divided highway with Level of Service E capacity of 54,000 vehicles per day. The unclassified local roadways are estimated to serve less than 13,000 vehicles per day. For the purposes of this analysis, soft site conditions were used to analyze the on-site traffic noise impacts for the Project study area. Soft site conditions account for the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation. 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. (20)

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
22 TABLE 5-1: ON-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS
Roadway Lanes Classification1
Design
Capacity
(ADT)2
Speeds
(MPH)
Site
Conditions
Palm Drive 6 Primary I 54,000 45 Soft
Camino Campesino 2 Local Collector 13,000 35 Soft
Ave Descanso 2 Local Collector 13,000 35 Soft
1 City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan Mobility Element Figure MI-7. 2 City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan Mobility Element Table MI-1.

Table 5-2 presents the time-of-day vehicle splits by vehicle type, and Table 5-3 presents the total traffic flow distributions (vehicle mixes) used for this analysis. The vehicle mix provides the hourly distribution percentages of automobile, medium trucks, and heavy trucks for input into the FHWA Model based on roadway types.

TABLE 5-2: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS
Vehicle Type
Time of Day Splits1
Total of Time of
Daytime Evening Nighttime Day Splits
Autos 77.50% 12.90% 9.60% 100.00%
Medium Trucks 84.80% 4.90% 10.30% 100.00%
Heavy Trucks 86.50% 2.70% 10.80% 100.00%
1 Typical Southern California Mix
"Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; "Evening" = 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

TABLE 5-3: DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW BY VEHICLE TYPE (VEHICLE MIX) Roadway
Total % Traffic Flow1
Total
Autos Medium
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks
All Roadways 97.42% 1.84% 0.74% 100.00%
1 Typical Southern California Vehicle Mix
To predict the future noise environment at each lot within the Project site, coordinate information was collected to identify the noise transmission path between the noise source and receiver. The coordinate information is based on the Project site plan showing each lot in relationship to the adjacent roadways, as shown in Appendix 5.1. The site plan is used to identify the relationship between the roadway centerline elevation, the pad elevation and the centerline distance to the noise barrier, and the building façade. The first-floor exterior noise level receivers were placed five feet above the pad elevation. Second-floor receiver locations were placed at fourteen feet above the finished floor elevation.

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
23 6 ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS
An on-site exterior noise impact analysis has been completed to determine the noise exposure levels that would result from adjacent traffic noise sources in the Project study area, and to identify potential noise mitigation measures that would achieve acceptable Project exterior and interior noise levels. The primary source of traffic noise affecting the Project site is anticipated to be from Palm Drive, Camino Campesino and Ave Descanso. The Project will also experience some background traffic noise impacts from the Project’s internal local streets, however, due to the distance, topography and low traffic volume/speed, traffic noise from these roads will not make a significant contribution to the noise environment.

6.1 EXTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS
Using the FHWA traffic noise prediction model and the parameters outlined in Tables 5-1 to 5-3, the expected future exterior noise levels were calculated at the private outdoor living spaces (backyards) and at the residential building façades. Table 6-1 presents a summary of future exterior noise levels at the private outdoor living spaces (backyards). The on-site transportation analysis indicates that the unmitigated exterior noise levels for private outdoor living spaces are estimated to range from 60.0 to 66.6 dBA CNEL. The exterior traffic noise analysis calculations are provided in Appendix 6.1.

TABLE 6-1: EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS (CNEL)
Tract Lot Roadway
Unmitigated
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)1
Mitigated
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)1
Barrier
Height
(Feet)2
38200 5 Camino Campesino 66.5 60.2 6.0
38200 3 Camino Campesino 66.5 60.2 6.0
38200 76 Camino Campesino 66.5 59.7 6.0
38200 72 Camino Campesino 66.5 59.5 6.0
38200 69 Ave Descanso 66.6 59.2 6.0
38200 65 Ave Descanso 66.6 59.1 6.0
38200 61 Ave Descanso 66.6 59.8 6.0
38200 7 Palm Drive 60.0 54.4 6.0
38200 11 Palm Drive 60.0 54.4 6.0
38200 15 Palm Drive 60.0 54.4 6.0
1 Exterior noise level calculations are included Appendix 6.1. 2 Planned 6-foot-high perimeter wall.

To satisfy the City of Desert Hot Springs 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards for residential land use, the planned construction of a minimum 6-foot-high noise barrier is required for the outdoor living areas (backyards) of lots adjacent to Palm Drive, Camino Campesino and Ave Descanso. With the recommended noise barriers shown on Exhibit ES-A, the future exterior noise levels will range from 54.4 to 60.2 dBA CNEL. This noise analysis shows that the recommended

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
24 noise barrier will satisfy the City of Desert Hot Springs 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards for residential land use. The effective noise barrier height recommendations represent the minimum wall and/or berm combination height required to satisfy the City of Desert Hot Springs exterior noise level standards. As such, the future on-site traffic noise impacts at the private outdoor living spaces are considered less than significant impacts.

6.2 INTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS
To ensure that the interior noise levels comply with the City of Desert Hot Springs interior noise level standards, future noise levels were calculated at the estimated building façade locations.

6.2.1 NOISE REDUCTION METHODOLOGY
The interior noise level is the difference between the predicted exterior noise level at the building façade and the noise reduction of the structure. Typical building construction will provide a Noise Reduction (NR) of approximately 12 dBA with "windows open" and a minimum 25 dBA noise reduction with "windows closed." (3) (4) However, sound leaks, cracks and openings within the window assembly can greatly diminish its effectiveness in reducing noise. Several methods are used to improve interior noise reduction, including: [1] weather-stripped solid core exterior doors; [2] upgraded dual glazed windows; [3] mechanical ventilation/air conditioning; and [4] exterior wall/roof assembles free of cut outs or openings.

6.2.2 INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL ASSESSMENT
Tables 6-2 and 6-3 show that the residential units require a windows-closed condition and a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g., air conditioning). Table 6-2 shows that the future first floor interior noise levels are expected to range from 29.5 to 35.2 dBA CNEL. The first-floor interior noise level analysis shows that the City of Desert Hot Springs 45 dBA CNEL with windowsclosed interior noise standards can be satisfied using standard windows with a minimum STC rating of 27 for all lots, based on the minimum estimated interior noise reduction. Table 5-3 shows that the future potential second floor interior noise levels are expected to range from 34.8 to 41.3 dBA CNEL through the usage of standard windows with a minimum STC rating of 27 for all lots with a second floor based on the minimum estimated interior noise reduction.

The interior noise analysis shows that with the recommended interior noise abatement measures described in the Executive Summary, the Project will satisfy the City of Desert Hot Springs 45 dBA CNEL windows closed interior noise level standards for residential development. Therefore, the future on-site interior traffic noise impacts will be less than significant.

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
25 TABLE 6-2: FIRST FLOOR INTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS(CNEL) Lot
Noise Level
at Façade1
Required
Interior
NR2
Estimated
Interior
NR3
Upgraded
Windows4
Interior
Noise
Level5
Threshold Threshold
Exceeded?
5 60.2 15.2 25.0 No 35.2 45 No
3 60.2 15.2 25.0 No 35.2 45 No
76 59.7 14.7 25.0 No 34.7 45 No
72 59.5 14.5 25.0 No 34.5 45 No
69 59.2 14.2 25.0 No 34.2 45 No
65 59.1 14.1 25.0 No 34.1 45 No
61 59.8 14.8 25.0 No 34.8 45 No
7 54.5 9.5 25.0 No 29.5 45 No
11 54.5 9.5 25.0 No 29.5 45 No
15 54.5 9.5 25.0 No 29.5 45 No
1 Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). 2 Noise reduction required to satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards. 3 A minimum 25 dBA of interior noise reduction is assumed with standard building construction and a windows closed condition. 4 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 5 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows. "NR" = Noise reduction
TABLE 6-3: SECOND FLOOR INTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS(CNEL) Lot
Noise Level
at Façade1
Required
Interior
NR2
Estimated
Interior
NR3
Upgraded
Windows4
Interior
Noise
Level5
Threshold Threshold
Exceeded?
5 66.3 21.3 25.0 No 41.3 45 No
3 66.3 21.3 25.0 No 41.3 45 No
76 66.3 21.3 25.0 No 41.3 45 No
72 66.2 21.2 25.0 No 41.2 45 No
69 66.2 21.2 25.0 No 41.2 45 No
65 66.2 21.2 25.0 No 41.2 45 No
61 66.3 21.3 25.0 No 41.3 45 No
7 59.8 14.8 25.0 No 34.8 45 No
11 59.8 14.8 25.0 No 34.8 45 No
15 59.8 14.8 25.0 No 34.8 45 No
1 Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). 2 Noise reduction required to satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards. 3 A minimum 25 dBA of interior noise reduction is assumed with standard building construction and a windows closed condition. 4 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 5 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows. "NR" = Noise reduction

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
26 This page intentionally left blank

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
27 7 SENSITIVE 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 7-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.

To describe the potential off-site Project noise levels, five receiver locations in the vicinity of the Project site were identified. All distances are measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., private backyards) or at the building façade, whichever is closer to the Project site. 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 existing noise sensitive residence at 15300 Palm Drive, approximately 33 feet north of the Project site. R1 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site.

R2: Location R2 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 15666 Ave Descanso, approximately 52 feet east of the Project site. R2 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site.

R3: Location R3 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 66705 El Dorado Place, approximately 51 feet south of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R3 is placed at the residential building façade.

R4: Location R4 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 66623 El Dorado Place, approximately 50 feet south of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R4 is placed at the residential building façade.

R5: Location R5 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 15685 Palm Drive, approximately 470 feet west of the Project site. R2 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site.

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
28 EXHIBIT 7-A: SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
29 8 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
This section analyzes potential impacts resulting from the short-term construction activities associated with the development of the Project. Exhibit 8-A shows the construction noise source locations in relation to the nearest sensitive receiver locations previously described in Section 7.

According the City of Desert Hot Springs Municipal Code Section 9.04.030, noise associated with any construction, erection, alteration, or repair, addition to or improvement of any building, structure, road or improvement to realty between the hours of 5:00 p.m. of each day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day, except when daylight savings time is in effect. During such time as daylight savings time is in effect in the City, no such activities shall be permitted between the hours of 6:00 p.m. of each day and 6:00 a.m. of the next day. No such activities shall be permitted on Sundays. (15)
In addition, since neither the City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan or Municipal Code establish numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers for CEQA analysis purposes. 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. The FTA considers a daytime exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leq as a reasonable threshold for noise sensitive residential land use. (10 p. 179)

8.1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
Noise generated by the Project construction equipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. The number and mix of construction equipment are expected to occur in the following stages:
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating

8.2 CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To describe peak construction noise activities, this construction noise analysis was prepared using reference noise level measurements published in the Update of Noise Database for Prediction of Noise on Construction and Open Sites by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (21). The DEFRA database provides the most recent and comprehensive source of reference construction noise levels. Table 8-1 provides a summary of the DEFRA construction reference noise level measurements expressed in hourly average dBA Leq using the estimated FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) usage factors (22) to describe the construction activities for each stage of Project construction.

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
30 EXHIBIT 8-A: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
31 TABLE 8-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction Activity1
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
1 Highest Reference
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation
Crawler Tractors 77
Hauling Trucks 71 77
Rubber Tired Dozers 71
Grading
Graders 79
Excavators 64 79
Compactors 67
Building
Construction
Cranes 67
Tractors 72 72
Welders 65
Paving
Pavers 70
Paving Equipment 69 70
Rollers 69
Architectural
Coating
Cranes 67
Air Compressors 67 67
Generator Sets 67
1 Update of Noise Database for Prediction of Noise on Construction and Open Sites by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) expressed in hourly average Leq based on estimated usage factors from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).

8.3 CADNAANOISE PREDICTION MODEL
To describe the construction 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 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.

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
32 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.

8.4 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 nearest sensitive receiver locations were completed. To assess the worst-case construction noise levels, the Project construction noise analysis relies on the highest noise level impacts when the equipment with the highest reference noise level is operating at the closest point from the edge of primary construction activity (Project site boundary) to each receiver location. As shown on Table 8-2, the construction noise levels are expected to range from 55.5 to 76.3 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. Appendix 8.1 includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs.

TABLE 8-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation Grading BuildingConstruction Paving ArchitecturalCoating Highest
Levels2
R1 74.3 76.3 69.3 67.3 64.3 76.3
R2 73.3 75.3 68.3 66.3 63.3 75.3
R3 73.0 75.0 68.0 66.0 63.0 75.0
R4 72.6 74.6 67.6 65.6 62.6 74.6
R5 65.5 67.5 60.5 58.5 55.5 67.5
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-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 8.1.

8.5 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearest receiver locations, per FTA guidance cited previously, 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 on Table 8-3. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise is considered less than significant at all receiver locations.

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
33 TABLE 8-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2
Threshold3
Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1 76.3 80 No
R2 75.3 80 No
R3 75.0 80 No
R4 74.6 80 No
R5 67.5 80 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-A.
2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the nearest receiver locations as shown on Table 8-2.
3 Construction noise level thresholds as shown on Table 4-1. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold?

8.6 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 on Table 8-5. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential for building damage using the following vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA. To describe the vibration impacts the FTA provides the following equation: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5 TABLE 8-5: 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
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual Table 8-6 presents the expected Project related vibration levels at the nearest receiver locations.

At distances ranging from 12 to 473 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from 0.001 to 0.268 PPV (in/sec). Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec) for older residential buildings, the typical Project construction vibration levels will satisfy the building damage thresholds at all receiver locations. In addition, the typical construction vibration levels at the nearest sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
34 period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site boundaries.

TABLE 8-6: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS
Receiver1
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
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 33' 0.002 0.023 0.050 0.059 0.059 0.3 No
R2 52' 0.001 0.012 0.025 0.030 0.030 0.3 No
R3 51' 0.001 0.012 0.026 0.031 0.031 0.3 No
R4 50' 0.001 0.012 0.027 0.031 0.031 0.3 No
R5 470' 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.3 No
1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-A.
2 Distance from receiver location to Project construction boundary. 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (Table 8-4). 4 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020, Tables 19, p. 38. 5 Does the peak vibration exceed the acceptable vibration thresholds? "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
35 9 REFERENCES

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

2. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Acoustical Consideration. Noise Barrier Design Handbook. [Online] [Cited: November 28, 2016.] https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/noise_barriers/design_construction/design/design0

3.cfm.

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. December 2011.

4. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. April 2020.

5. Harris, Cyril M. Noise Control in Buildings. s.l. : McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994.

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

7. 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. March 1974. EPA/ONAC 550/9/74-004.

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

9. 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.

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

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

12. —. State of California General Plan Guidelines. October 2017.

13. State of California. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1, Chapter 12, Section 1206.4, Allowable Interior Noise Level. ICC Digital Coes. [Online] 2019. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CABCV12019/chapter-12-interior-environment.

14. City of Desert Hot Springs. General Plan Safety and Noise Element. May 2020.

15. —. Municipal Code, Section 9.04.030 Construction - Hours of work permitted.

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

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

18. 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.

19. City of Desert Hot Springs. General Plan Mobility Element. May 2020.

20. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Attenuation as a Function of Ground and Vegetation Final Report. June 1995. FHWA/CA/TL-95/23.

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
36 21. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affiars (Defra). Update of Noise Database for Prediction of Noise on Construction and Open Sites. 2004.

22. FHWA. Roadway Construction Noise Model. January 2006.

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
37 10 CERTIFICATION
The contents of this noise study report represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the proposed Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Project. 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 (949) 584-3148.

Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE
Principal
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
1133 Camelback #8329
Newport Beach, CA 92658
(949) 581-3148
[email protected]

EDUCATION
Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo • December, 1993 Bachelor of Science in City and Regional Planning
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo • June, 1992

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS
PE – Registered Professional Traffic Engineer – TR 2537 • January, 2009 AICP – American Institute of Certified Planners – 013011 • June, 1997–January 1, 2012 PTP – Professional Transportation Planner • May, 2007 – May, 2013 INCE – Institute of Noise Control Engineering • March, 2004

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
ASA – Acoustical Society of America
ITE – Institute of Transportation Engineers

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Certified Acoustical Consultant – County of San Diego • March, 2018 Certified Acoustical Consultant – County of Orange • February, 2011 FHWA-NHI-142051 Highway Traffic Noise Certificate of Training • February, 2013

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
38

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
APPENDIX 3.1:

CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE
39

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
40

9/17/21, 9:48 AM Chapter 8.12 NOISE CONTROL
https://www.qcode.us/codes/deserthotsprings/ 1/6
Desert Hot Springs Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Collapse Search Print No Frames
Title 8 HEALTH AND SAFETY
Chapter 8.12 NOISE CONTROL

8.12.010 Purpose.

It is the purpose of this chapter to implement regulations and general administrative procedure to control and abate unnecessary, excessive and annoying noise and vibration. It is the further purpose of this chapter to recognize that the existence of excessive noise and vibration within the City is a condition that is detrimental to the peace, health, safety, welfare and quality of life of the citizens and shall be regulated in the public interest. (Prior code § 90A.01)

8.12.020 Definitions.

As used in this chapter, the following terms have the meanings given:
“Construction” means any site preparation, assembly, erection, substantial repair, alteration, or similar action. “Demolition” means any dismantling, intentional destruction or removal of structures, utilities, public or private rightof-way surfaces, or similar property. “Leaf blower” means any portable, handheld or backpack, engine-powered device with a nozzle that creates a direct airstream capable of and intended for moving leaves and light materials. “Noise” is interchangeable with the term “sound.”
“Noise disturbance” means any sound that:

1. Endangers the safety or health of any person;

2. Disturbs a reasonable person of normal sensitivities; or

3. Endangers personal or real property.
“Noise sensitive zone” means all parcels upon which noise sensitive activities are conducted, including, but not limited to, operations of schools, libraries open to the public, spas, hotels as defined in the transient occupancy tax provisions of the municipal code, churches, hospitals, and nursing homes.

Permitted hours of operation. Where sound is restricted to “permitted hours of operation,” the term means:

1. Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m.

2. Saturday, 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m.

3. Sunday, 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m.
“Powered model vehicle” means any self-propelled airborne, waterborne, or land-borne plane, vessel, or vehicle, which is not designed to carry persons, including, but not limited to any model airplane, boat, car, or rocket. “Real property boundary” means an imaginary line along the ground surface, and its vertical extension, which separates the real property owned by one person or entity from that owned by an other, but not including intra-building real property divisions.
“Sound” means an oscillation in pressure, particle displacement, particle velocity or other physical parameter, in a medium with internal forces that causes compression and rarefaction of that medium. The description of sound may include any characteristic of such sound, including duration, intensity and frequency. “Sound amplifying equipment” means any machine or device for the amplification of the human voice, music or any other sound. Sound amplifying equipment shall not be construed as including a standard automobile radio when used and heard only by the occupants of the vehicle in which it is installed or warning devices on authorized emergency vehicles. “Sound truck” means any motor vehicle or other vehicle, regardless of motive power, whether in motion or stationary, having mounted thereon, built-in or attached thereto, any sound amplifying equipment. (Prior code § 90A.02)

8.12.030 Noise disturbances prohibited.
41

9/17/21, 9:48 AM Chapter 8.12 NOISE CONTROL
https://www.qcode.us/codes/deserthotsprings/ 2/6
It is unlawful for any person to make, suffer, permit, allow, continue, or cause to be made, suffered, permitted, allowed, or continued, within the City limits or within 200 feet thereof, any noise disturbance. (Prior code § 90A.03)

8.12.040 Other specific prohibitions.

A. No person shall cause, suffer, allow, or permit to be made verbally or mechanically any sound prohibited pursuant to Section 8.12.030.

B. The following acts, and the causing thereof, are declared to be in violation of this chapter:

1. The sounding of any horn or other auditory signaling devices on or in any motor vehicle except as a warning of danger.

2. The use or operation of any sound production or reproduction device, radio receiving set, musical instrument, drums, phonograph, television set, loud speakers, sound amplifier, public address system or other similar machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound:
a. Between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. the following day in such a manner as to create a noise disturbance across a real property boundary;
b. In such a manner as to be plainly audible within any noise sensitive zone; c. In such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet from the source; d. In such a manner as to create a noise disturbance to any person other than the operator of the device, when operated by any passenger on a common carrier.

3. The use or operation of a leaf blower:
a. Between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Monday through Friday; and b. Between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Saturday and/or Sunday.

4. Yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling or singing on the public streets or on any publicly owned property between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., or at any time or place so as to disturb the quiet comfort or repose of persons in any office, or in any dwelling, hotel or other type of residence or persons in the close proximity.

5. Owning, possessing or harboring any animal or bird which frequently or for continued duration, howls, barks, squawks, or makes other sounds which create a noise disturbance across a residential real property boundary or which are audible within a noise sensitive zone. (Prior code § 90A.04)

8.12.050 Burglar alarms.

A. Audible burglar alarms for structures or motor vehicles are prohibited unless the operation of such burglar alarm will be terminated within ten minutes of being activated.

B. Notwithstanding the requirements of this chapter, any member of the Police Department of the City shall have the right to take such steps as may be reasonable and necessary to disconnect any such alarm installed in any building, dwelling, or motor vehicle at any time during the period of its activation. This section does not preclude the towing and storage of vehicles in accordance with the procedures set forth in the California Vehicle Code. (Prior code § 90A.05)

8.12.060 Sound trucks.

A. No person shall use, or cause to be used, a sound truck with its sound amplifying equipment in operation, for commercial or noncommercial purposes, in the City, before filing a written sound truck registration statement with the City Business Licensing Department.

B. Preexisting sound trucks operating in the City prior to the date of adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall be granted a 60-day period from the date of adoption within which to comply with the provisions of this chapter and file a sound truck registration statement with the City Business Licensing Clerk.

C. The sound truck registration statement shall be filed in duplicate and shall state the following:

1. Name and home address of the registrant;
42

9/17/21, 9:48 AM Chapter 8.12 NOISE CONTROL
https://www.qcode.us/codes/deserthotsprings/ 3/6

2. Address of place of business of registrant;

3. License number and motor number of the sound truck to be used by the registrant;

4. Name and address of person who owns the sound truck;

5. Name and address of person having direct charge of the sound truck;

6. Names and addresses of all persons who will use or operate the sound truck;

7. The purpose for which the sound truck will be used;

8. A general statement as to the section or sections of the City in which the sound truck will be used;

9. The proposed hours of operation of the sound truck;

10. The number of days of proposed operation of the sound truck;

11. Proof of current liability insurance;

12. A general description of the sound amplifying equipment that is to be used; and

13. The maximum sound producing power of the sound amplifying equipment to be used in or on the sound truck as follows:
a. The wattage to be used;
b. The volume in decibels of the sound that will be produced; c. The approximate maximum distance which sound will be thrown from the sound truck.

D. All persons using, or causing to be used, sound trucks shall amend any registration statement filed pursuant to this section within 48 hours after any change in the information therein furnished.

E. The Business Licensing Clerk shall return to the registrant one copy of the registration statement duly certified as a correct copy of the registration statement. The certified copy of the registration statement shall be in the possession of any person operating the sound truck at all times while the sound truck’s sound amplifying equipment is in operation and the copy shall be presented to any enforcement officer of the City upon request.

F. Use of sound trucks in the City with sound amplifying equipment in operation shall be subject to the following regulations.

1. The only sounds permitted are music or human speech;

2. Operations are permitted during daylight hours each day. No sound amplifying equipment shall be used during hours of darkness. Darkness is defined as any time from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise and any other time when visibility is not sufficient to render clearly discernable any person or vehicle on the roadway at a distance of 1,000 feet;

3. Sound amplification equipment shall not be operated within 100 yards of a noise sensitive zone or polling place;

4. The human speech and music amplified shall not be profane, lewd, indecent, or slanderous;

5. The volume of sound shall be controlled so that it will not be plainly audible for a distance in excess of 100 yards from the sound truck and so that the volume is not unreasonably loud, raucous, jarring, disturbing, or a nuisance to persons within the area of audibility. (Prior code § 90A.06)

8.12.070 Prohibited conduct for food vendors and others.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, it is unlawful for any person including, but not limited to vending truck operators, to sound, blow or operate any music, chimes or bells, or any similar sound device, amplified or otherwise, that can be heard for a distance greater than 50 feet, for any purpose. (Prior code § 90A.07)

8.12.080 Standing motor vehicles.

No person shall operate or permit the operation of any motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating in excess of 10,000 pounds, or any auxiliary equipment attached to such a vehicle, including but not limited to refrigerated truck compressors, for a period longer than 15 minutes in any hour while the vehicle is stationary, on a public right-of-way or 43

9/17/21, 9:48 AM Chapter 8.12 NOISE CONTROL
https://www.qcode.us/codes/deserthotsprings/ 4/6
public space, and within 150 feet of a residential dwelling or noise sensitive zone, between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., for reasons other than traffic congestion. (Prior code § 90A.08)

8.12.090 Limiting noises or vibration created by vehicles, tools or machinery to permitted hours of operation.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to cause, suffer, allow, or permit any of the following except during permitted hours of operation:

A. Operation or use of powered model vehicles/planes.

B. Loading and unloading of vehicles, operating of fork lifts or cranes within 1,000 feet of a residence or noise sensitive zone.

C. Loading, unloading, opening, closing or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or similar objects in such a manner as to cause a noise disturbance across a residential real property boundary.

D. Repairing, rebuilding, modifying, or resting any motor vehicle, motorcycle, or motorboat in such a manner as to cause a noise disturbance across a residential real property boundary.

E. Operating any mechanically powered saw, sander, drill, grinder, lawn or garden tool, or similar device so as to cause a noise disturbance across a residential real property boundary. (Prior code § 90A.09)

8.12.100 Construction—Hours of work permitted.

It is unlawful for any person to cause, suffer, allow or permit any construction, drilling or demolition work, or the use of tools or equipment therefor, during those times and on those days that such activities are prohibited pursuant to Section

9.04.030 of this code. (Prior code § 90A.10)

8.12.110 Special provisions—Exemptions.

A. The following activities shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter:

1. Those noise events in the community (e.g., arterial traffic noise) that are more accurately measured by application of the general plan noise element policy;

2. School bands, school athletic and school entertainment events;

3. Outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows and sporting and entertainment events provided such events are authorized by the City via permit, or previously approved development agreement;

4. Activities conducted in public parks and public playgrounds with a valid City permit;

5. Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment used, related to or connected with emergency machinery, vehicle or work;

6. The emission of sound for the purpose of alerting persons to the existence of any emergency.

B. The provisions of this chapter 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 trash collection and those activities of public utilities subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission.

C. The provisions of this chapter shall not preclude activities reasonably required to comply with any federal, state, County or local law.

D. If at the time the enforcement officer investigates a burglar alarm or noisy animal(s) complaint, and determines that the cause of the noise is the result of a person, other than the animal’s owner or caretaker, committing or attempting to commit an illegal act, such as trespass or theft, no violation of this chapter shall have taken place. (Prior code § 90A.11)

8.12.120 Enforcement procedures.
44

9/17/21, 9:48 AM Chapter 8.12 NOISE CONTROL
https://www.qcode.us/codes/deserthotsprings/ 5/6
The City may enforce this chapter as follows:

A. Upon receiving a complaint of a violation of this chapter the City shall cause the following to be performed:

1. The enforcement officer shall respond to the complainant’s location and verify if the disruptive noise is still occurring. If the disruptive noise is present, the enforcement officer shall serve as a witness to the violation. The enforcement officer will advise the owner or person causing or allowing the noise that he or she is in violation of the City of Desert Hot Springs Noise Ordinance.

2. The enforcement officer will issue a written noise warning notice to abate the disturbing noise. The Noise Warning Notice will be in writing and will substantially correspond to the following:

NOTICE: Noise Complaint Response By The City Of Desert Hot Springs. This notice of violation given to (NAME) (DOB) at (LOCATION) on (DATE) (TIME) (PHONE NUMBER) is the result of a disruptive noise complaint in accordance with the City of Desert Hot Springs Noise Ordinance. You are asked to cease and desist from making any disruptive noises in violation of the City of Desert Hot Springs Noise Ordinance. A second response to this location within the next thirty days for the same violation may result in a citation being issued and can also result in a service charge to you for the City’s actual costs expended in personnel and equipment for a subsequent return to the location.

3. If the problem has been resolved there shall be no further action and the noise warning notice shall be kept on file for a period of 30 days.

4. If after issuing the noise warning notice, an enforcement officer is required to respond to the same location a second time for the same violation within 30 days, the owner or person causing or allowing the disturbing noise shall be issued a citation. The owner or person causing or allowing the disturbing noise may be held liable for the service fee charge of the City’s actual costs expended in personnel and equipment for the second and subsequent responses.

B. The costs for the second response may include damage to City property or injuries to City personnel, and shall be computed pursuant to the schedules adopted by the City, as may be amended from time to time, but shall in no case be less than $100. The costs charged pursuant to this section shall be a personal obligation of the owner or person causing or allowing the disturbing noise, or if that person is a minor, then the parent(s) or guardian(s) of the minor. (Prior code § 90A.12)

8.12.130 Enforcement authority.

The Code Enforcement Department, Police Department, the Building Department, the Business Licensing Department, and/or the Animal Control Department, shall have the power and authority to enforce any and all provisions of this chapter. (Prior code § 90A.13)

8.12.140 Violation—Infractions.

Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of an infraction. (Prior code § 90A.14)

8.12.150 Continuing or subsequent violation—Misdemeanor.

A. If a violation of this chapter is of a continuing nature, each day during which it occurs shall constitute an additional, separate, and distinct offense.

B. A violation of the same provision of this chapter, by any person having been previously convicted of a violation of this chapter, may be prosecuted, at the discretion of the City Attorney, as either an infraction or as a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment in the County Jail for a term not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. (Prior code § 90A.15)

8.12.160 Other code enforcement remedies.
45

9/17/21, 9:48 AM Chapter 8.12 NOISE CONTROL
https://www.qcode.us/codes/deserthotsprings/ 6/6
Notwithstanding any other provision herein, a violation of this chapter may be enforced pursuant to any applicable provisions of Title 4 of this code. (Prior code § 90A.16)

8.12.170 Cumulative remedies.

All remedies set forth in this chapter shall be cumulative and in addition to any and all other remedies, civil, equitable, or criminal, afforded to the City under the law. (Prior code § 90A.17) View the mobile version.
46

9/17/21, 9:51 AM 17.40.180 Noise.
https://www.qcode.us/codes/deserthotsprings/ 1/1
Desert Hot Springs Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames
Title 17 ZONING
Chapter 17.40 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

17.40.180 Noise.

No loudspeaker, bells, gongs, buzzers, mechanical equipment or other sounds, attention attracting, or communication device associated with any use shall be discernible beyond any boundary line of the parcel, except fire protection devices, burglar alarms and church bells. The following provisions shall apply:

A. In residential areas, no exterior noise level shall exceed 65dBA and no interior noise level shall exceed 45dBA.

B. All residential developments shall incorporate the following standards to mitigate noise levels:

1. Increase the distance between the noise source and receiver.

2. Locate land uses not sensitive to noise (i.e., parking lots, garages, maintenance facilities, utility areas, etc.) between the noise source and the receiver.

3. Bedrooms should be located on the side of the structure away from major rights-of-way.

4. Quiet outdoor spaces may be provided next to a noisy right-of-way by creating a U-shaped development which faces away from the right-of-way.

C. The minimum acceptable surface weight for a noise barrier is 4 pounds per square foot (equivalent to 3/4-inch plywood). The barrier shall be of a continuous material which is resistant to sound including: (1) masonry block; (2) precast concrete; or (3) earth berm or a combination of earth berm with block concrete.

D. Noise barriers shall interrupt the line of sight between noise source and receiver. (Prior code § 159.20.030(15)) View the mobile version.
47

9/17/21, 9:52 AM 9.04.030 Construction—Hours of work permitted. https://www.qcode.us/codes/deserthotsprings/ 1/1
Desert Hot Springs Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames
Title 9 PUBLIC PEACE AND WELFARE
Chapter 9.04 GENERAL OFFENSES
Article I. General Provisions

9.04.030 Construction—Hours of work permitted.

A. 1. Except as herein otherwise provided, no person shall be engaged or employed nor shall any person cause any other person to be engaged or employed in any work of construction, erection, alteration, or repair, addition to or improvement of any building, structure, road or improvement to realty between the hours of 5:00 p.m. of each day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day, except when daylight savings time is in effect.

2. During such time as daylight savings time is in effect in the City, no such activities shall be permitted between the hours of 6:00 p.m. of each day and 6:00 a.m. of the next day.

3. No such activities shall be permitted on Sundays.

B. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an infraction offense. (Prior code § 130.03) View the mobile version.
48

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
APPENDIX 5.1:

SITE PLAN
49

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
50

30' WIDE

SEWER &
WATER

EASEMENT
30' WIDE EVA ACCESS
6 5 4 3 2 1
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 17
16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RETENTION BASIN
35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27
36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45
54 55 56 PARK 57 58 59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 76 75 74 73 72 71 70
PARCEL "B"
LLA 21-
PARCEL "C"
LLA 21-

CAMINO CAMPESINO
PROP. 6" CURB
& GUTTER
PROP. 5' WIDE

SIDEWALK
EX. 8" VCP TO BE
REPLACED W/ 8" D.I.P. PROP. 6' GARDEN WALL
PROP. 6'

GARDEN WALL
EXIST. BOUNDARY
PROP. BOUNDARY PROP. 6' GARDEN WALL PROP. 6" CURB & GUTTER PROP. 5' WIDE SIDEWALK EXIST. BOUNDARY PROP. BOUNDARY PROP. 6' GARDEN WALL 60' 120'
SCALE:

H: V:

OF SHTS
1"=50' N/A
HEI

C O N S U L T I N G
TEC
w w w . h e i t e c i n c . c o m
Suite 309
777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
Phone: 760.340.9060
"RANCHO DESCANSO"

DESERT HOT SPRINGS
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38200
AUGUST 2, 2021
PROP. 8" V.C.P.

SEWER MAIN

NORTH OR

EAST R/W

SOUTH OR

WEST R/W
A.C.

PVMT.

PROP. 8" D.I.P.

WATER MAIN
PROP.

WEDGE

CURB BASE COURSE

COMPACTED

SUBGRADE
NORTH
R/W
SOUTH
R/W
WEST
R/W
EX. 8" P.V.C. TO BE
REPLACED W/ 8" D.I.P.

WATER MAIN
A.C.

PVMT.

BASE COURSE

COMPACTED

SUBGRADE
PROP. 6" CURB
& 24" GUTTER
PROP. 6'

BLOCK WALL
EXIST.

BLOCK WALL
EX. 8" V.C.P.

SEWER MAIN
EX. A.C.

PVMT.

EAST
R/W
EX. 8" D.I.P.

WATER MAIN
PROP. A.C.

PVMT.

PROP. 6" CURB
& 24" GUTTER

BASE COURSE

COMPACTED

SUBGRADE
PROP. 6'
BLOCK
WALL
EX. GROUND
LOT #
5' 10' 20'
5'
PROP. 6" CURB
& 24" GUTTER
51

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
52

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
APPENDIX 6.1:

ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE CALCULATIONS
53

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
54

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 5 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Camino Campesino
Scenario: Backyard With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 75.0
Barrier Elevation: 73.2
Pad Elevation: 73.2
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.39 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-6.870 -9.870
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.43 -1.20 -6.000 -9.000
-20.91 1.40 -1.20 -4.900 -7.900

0.21 0.10

0.00 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.000

77.297

83.006

39.742

39.505

39.689
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

65.6 63.7 61.9 55.9 64.5 65.1

58.1 59.3

56.6 50.2 48.7 57.1 57.4

57.9 48.9 50.1 58.5 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 67.1 65.3 62.4 57.5 66.1 66.5
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

58.7 56.8 55.0 49.0 57.6 58.2

52.1 54.4

50.6 44.2 42.7 51.1 51.4

53.0 44.0 45.2 53.6 53.7
Vehicle Noise: 60.7 59.0 55.7 51.2 59.7 60.2

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 3 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Camino Campesino
Scenario: Backyard With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 75.0
Barrier Elevation: 73.2
Pad Elevation: 73.2
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.39 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-6.870 -9.870
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.43 -1.20 -6.000 -9.000
-20.91 1.40 -1.20 -4.900 -7.900

0.21 0.10

0.00 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.000

77.297

83.006

39.742

39.505

39.689
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

65.6 63.7 61.9 55.9 64.5 65.1

58.1 59.3

56.6 50.2 48.7 57.1 57.4

57.9 48.9 50.1 58.5 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 67.1 65.3 62.4 57.5 66.1 66.5
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

58.7 56.8 55.0 49.0 57.6 58.2

52.1 54.4

50.6 44.2 42.7 51.1 51.4

53.0 44.0 45.2 53.6 53.7
Vehicle Noise: 60.7 59.0 55.7 51.2 59.7 60.2

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 76 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Camino Campesino
Scenario: Backyard With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 74.0
Barrier Elevation: 73.5
Pad Elevation: 73.5
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.36 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-7.430 -10.430
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.41 -1.20 -6.480 -9.480
-20.91 1.42 -1.20 -4.900 -7.900

0.29 0.16

0.00 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 74.000

76.297

82.006

39.954

39.618

39.550
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

65.5 63.6 61.9 55.8 64.4 65.1

58.1 59.4

56.6 50.2 48.7 57.1 57.4

57.9 48.9 50.1 58.5 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 67.1 65.3 62.4 57.5 66.0 66.5
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

58.1 56.2 54.5 48.4 57.0 57.6

51.6 54.5

50.1 43.7 42.2 50.6 50.9

53.0 44.0 45.2 53.6 53.7
Vehicle Noise: 60.3 58.6 55.2 50.8 59.3 59.7

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 72 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Camino Campesino
Scenario: Backyard With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 72.0
Barrier Elevation: 72.1
Pad Elevation: 72.1
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.34 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-7.650 -10.650
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.40 -1.20 -6.720 -9.720
-20.91 1.43 -1.20 -4.900 -7.900

0.33 0.19

0.00 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 72.000

74.297

80.006

40.070

39.689

39.505
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

65.5 63.6 61.9 55.8 64.4 65.0

58.1 59.4

56.6 50.2 48.7 57.1 57.3

57.9 48.9 50.2 58.5 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 67.1 65.3 62.4 57.5 66.0 66.5
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

57.9 56.0 54.2 48.2 56.8 57.4

51.4 54.5

49.8 43.5 41.9 50.4 50.6

53.0 44.0 45.3 53.6 53.7
Vehicle Noise: 60.1 58.4 54.9 50.6 59.1 59.5

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
55

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 69 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Ave Descanso
Scenario: Backyard With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 69.0
Barrier Elevation: 70.2
Pad Elevation: 70.2
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 17 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.40 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-8.050 -11.050
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.48 -1.20 -7.150 -10.150
-20.91 1.54 -1.20 -5.200 -8.200

0.41 0.25

0.02 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 69.000

71.297

77.006

39.708

39.235

38.832
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

65.6 63.7 61.9 55.9 64.5 65.1

58.1 59.5

56.6 50.3 48.7 57.2 57.4

58.1 49.0 50.3 58.6 58.7
Vehicle Noise: 67.1 65.4 62.4 57.5 66.1 66.6
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

57.5 55.6 53.9 47.8 56.4 57.0

51.0 54.3

49.5 43.1 41.6 50.0 50.3

52.9 43.8 45.1 53.4 53.5
Vehicle Noise: 59.8 58.1 54.6 50.3 58.8 59.2

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 65 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Ave Descanso
Scenario: Backyard With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 64.0
Barrier Elevation: 65.6
Pad Elevation: 65.6
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 17 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.38 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-8.250 -11.250
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.46 -1.20 -7.360 -10.360
-20.91 1.54 -1.20 -5.300 -8.300

0.45 0.28

0.03 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 64.000

66.297

72.006

39.807

39.305

38.823
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

65.6 63.7 61.9 55.9 64.5 65.1

58.1 59.5

56.6 50.3 48.7 57.2 57.4

58.1 49.0 50.3 58.6 58.8
Vehicle Noise: 67.1 65.4 62.4 57.5 66.1 66.6
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

57.3 55.4 53.7 47.6 56.2 56.8

50.8 54.2

49.3 42.9 41.4 49.8 50.1

52.8 43.7 45.0 53.3 53.5
Vehicle Noise: 59.6 57.9 54.4 50.1 58.6 59.1

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 61 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Ave Descanso
Scenario: Backyard With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 62.0
Barrier Elevation: 61.6
Pad Elevation: 61.6
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 17 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.46 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-7.500 -10.500
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.51 -1.20 -6.480 -9.480
-20.91 1.53 -1.20 -4.900 -7.900

0.30 0.16

0.00 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 62.000

64.297

70.006

39.360

39.009

38.921
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

65.6 63.7 62.0 55.9 64.5 65.2

58.2 59.5

56.7 50.3 48.8 57.2 57.5

58.0 49.0 50.3 58.6 58.7
Vehicle Noise: 67.2 65.4 62.5 57.6 66.1 66.6
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

58.1 56.2 54.5 48.4 57.0 57.7

51.7 54.6

50.2 43.8 42.3 50.7 51.0

53.1 44.1 45.4 53.7 53.8
Vehicle Noise: 60.4 58.6 55.2 50.8 59.3 59.8

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 7 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Palm Drive
Scenario: Backyard With Wall
54,000
10%
415.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 5,400 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 425.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

5.37 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
-14.05
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-5.600 -8.600
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-11.87 -14.05 -1.20 -5.600 -8.600
-15.82 -14.04 -1.20 -5.400 -8.400

0.06 0.06

0.04 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006
425.050
425.023
425.011
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

59.5 57.6 55.8 49.8 58.4 59.0

50.5 51.1

49.0 42.6 41.1 49.6 49.8

49.7 40.6 41.9 50.2 50.3
Vehicle Noise: 60.5 58.7 56.1 50.9 59.5 60.0
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

53.9 52.0 50.2 44.2 52.8 53.4

44.9 45.7

43.4 37.0 35.5 44.0 44.2

44.3 35.2 36.5 44.8 44.9
Vehicle Noise: 54.9 53.1 50.5 45.3 53.9 54.4

77.62 82.14

69.34 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
56

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 11 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Palm Drive
Scenario: Backyard With Wall
54,000
10%
415.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 5,400 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 425.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

5.37 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
-14.05
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-5.600 -8.600
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-11.87 -14.05 -1.20 -5.600 -8.600
-15.82 -14.04 -1.20 -5.400 -8.400

0.06 0.06

0.04 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006
425.050
425.023
425.011
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

59.5 57.6 55.8 49.8 58.4 59.0

50.5 51.1

49.0 42.6 41.1 49.6 49.8

49.7 40.6 41.9 50.2 50.3
Vehicle Noise: 60.5 58.7 56.1 50.9 59.5 60.0
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

53.9 52.0 50.2 44.2 52.8 53.4

44.9 45.7

43.4 37.0 35.5 44.0 44.2

44.3 35.2 36.5 44.8 44.9
Vehicle Noise: 54.9 53.1 50.5 45.3 53.9 54.4

77.62 82.14

69.34 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 15 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Palm Drive
Scenario: Backyard With Wall
54,000
10%
415.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 5,400 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 425.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

5.37 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
-14.05
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-5.600 -8.600
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-11.87 -14.05 -1.20 -5.600 -8.600
-15.82 -14.04 -1.20 -5.400 -8.400

0.06 0.06

0.04 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006
425.050
425.023
425.011
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

59.5 57.6 55.8 49.8 58.4 59.0

50.5 51.1

49.0 42.6 41.1 49.6 49.8

49.7 40.6 41.9 50.2 50.3
Vehicle Noise: 60.5 58.7 56.1 50.9 59.5 60.0
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

53.9 52.0 50.2 44.2 52.8 53.4

44.9 45.7

43.4 37.0 35.5 44.0 44.2

44.3 35.2 36.5 44.8 44.9
Vehicle Noise: 54.9 53.1 50.5 45.3 53.9 54.4

77.62 82.14

69.34 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 5 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Camino Campesino
Scenario: First Floor With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 75.0
Barrier Elevation: 73.2
Pad Elevation: 73.2
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.39 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-6.870 -9.870
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.43 -1.20 -6.000 -9.000
-20.91 1.40 -1.20 -4.900 -7.900

0.21 0.10

0.00 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.000

77.297

83.006

39.742

39.505

39.689
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

65.6 63.7 61.9 55.9 64.5 65.1

58.1 59.3

56.6 50.2 48.7 57.1 57.4

57.9 48.9 50.1 58.5 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 67.1 65.3 62.4 57.5 66.1 66.5
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

58.7 56.8 55.0 49.0 57.6 58.2

52.1 54.4

50.6 44.2 42.7 51.1 51.4

53.0 44.0 45.2 53.6 53.7
Vehicle Noise: 60.7 59.0 55.7 51.2 59.7 60.2

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 3 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Camino Campesino
Scenario: First Floor With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 75.0
Barrier Elevation: 73.2
Pad Elevation: 73.2
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.39 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-6.870 -9.870
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.43 -1.20 -6.000 -9.000
-20.91 1.40 -1.20 -4.900 -7.900

0.21 0.10

0.00 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.000

77.297

83.006

39.742

39.505

39.689
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

65.6 63.7 61.9 55.9 64.5 65.1

58.1 59.3

56.6 50.2 48.7 57.1 57.4

57.9 48.9 50.1 58.5 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 67.1 65.3 62.4 57.5 66.1 66.5
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

58.7 56.8 55.0 49.0 57.6 58.2

52.1 54.4

50.6 44.2 42.7 51.1 51.4

53.0 44.0 45.2 53.6 53.7
Vehicle Noise: 60.7 59.0 55.7 51.2 59.7 60.2

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
57

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 76 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Camino Campesino
Scenario: First Floor With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 74.0
Barrier Elevation: 73.5
Pad Elevation: 73.5
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.36 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-7.430 -10.430
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.41 -1.20 -6.480 -9.480
-20.91 1.42 -1.20 -4.900 -7.900

0.29 0.16

0.00 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 74.000

76.297

82.006

39.954

39.618

39.550
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

65.5 63.6 61.9 55.8 64.4 65.1

58.1 59.4

56.6 50.2 48.7 57.1 57.4

57.9 48.9 50.1 58.5 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 67.1 65.3 62.4 57.5 66.0 66.5
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

58.1 56.2 54.5 48.4 57.0 57.6

51.6 54.5

50.1 43.7 42.2 50.6 50.9

53.0 44.0 45.2 53.6 53.7
Vehicle Noise: 60.3 58.6 55.2 50.8 59.3 59.7

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 72 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Camino Campesino
Scenario: First Floor With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 72.0
Barrier Elevation: 72.1
Pad Elevation: 72.1
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.34 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-7.650 -10.650
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.40 -1.20 -6.720 -9.720
-20.91 1.43 -1.20 -4.900 -7.900

0.33 0.19

0.00 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 72.000

74.297

80.006

40.070

39.689

39.505
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

65.5 63.6 61.9 55.8 64.4 65.0

58.1 59.4

56.6 50.2 48.7 57.1 57.3

57.9 48.9 50.2 58.5 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 67.1 65.3 62.4 57.5 66.0 66.5
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

57.9 56.0 54.2 48.2 56.8 57.4

51.4 54.5

49.8 43.5 41.9 50.4 50.6

53.0 44.0 45.3 53.6 53.7
Vehicle Noise: 60.1 58.4 54.9 50.6 59.1 59.5

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 69 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Ave Descanso
Scenario: First Floor With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 69.0
Barrier Elevation: 70.2
Pad Elevation: 70.2
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 17 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.40 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-8.050 -11.050
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.48 -1.20 -7.150 -10.150
-20.91 1.54 -1.20 -5.200 -8.200

0.41 0.25

0.02 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 69.000

71.297

77.006

39.708

39.235

38.832
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

65.6 63.7 61.9 55.9 64.5 65.1

58.1 59.5

56.6 50.3 48.7 57.2 57.4

58.1 49.0 50.3 58.6 58.7
Vehicle Noise: 67.1 65.4 62.4 57.5 66.1 66.6
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

57.5 55.6 53.9 47.8 56.4 57.0

51.0 54.3

49.5 43.1 41.6 50.0 50.3

52.9 43.8 45.1 53.4 53.5
Vehicle Noise: 59.8 58.1 54.6 50.3 58.8 59.2

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 65 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Ave Descanso
Scenario: First Floor With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 64.0
Barrier Elevation: 65.6
Pad Elevation: 65.6
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 17 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.38 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-8.250 -11.250
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.46 -1.20 -7.360 -10.360
-20.91 1.54 -1.20 -5.300 -8.300

0.45 0.28

0.03 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 64.000

66.297

72.006

39.807

39.305

38.823
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

65.6 63.7 61.9 55.9 64.5 65.1

58.1 59.5

56.6 50.3 48.7 57.2 57.4

58.1 49.0 50.3 58.6 58.8
Vehicle Noise: 67.1 65.4 62.4 57.5 66.1 66.6
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

57.3 55.4 53.7 47.6 56.2 56.8

50.8 54.2

49.3 42.9 41.4 49.8 50.1

52.8 43.7 45.0 53.3 53.5
Vehicle Noise: 59.6 57.9 54.4 50.1 58.6 59.1

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
58

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 61 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Ave Descanso
Scenario: First Floor With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 62.0
Barrier Elevation: 61.6
Pad Elevation: 61.6
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 17 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.46 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-7.500 -10.500
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.51 -1.20 -6.480 -9.480
-20.91 1.53 -1.20 -4.900 -7.900

0.30 0.16

0.00 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 62.000

64.297

70.006

39.360

39.009

38.921
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

65.6 63.7 62.0 55.9 64.5 65.2

58.2 59.5

56.7 50.3 48.8 57.2 57.5

58.0 49.0 50.3 58.6 58.7
Vehicle Noise: 67.2 65.4 62.5 57.6 66.1 66.6
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

58.1 56.2 54.5 48.4 57.0 57.7

51.7 54.6

50.2 43.8 42.3 50.7 51.0

53.1 44.1 45.4 53.7 53.8
Vehicle Noise: 60.4 58.6 55.2 50.8 59.3 59.8

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 7 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Palm Drive
Scenario: First Floor With Wall
54,000
10%
415.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 5,400 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 435.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

5.37 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
-14.20
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 20.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-5.400 -8.400
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-11.87 -14.20 -1.20 -5.300 -8.300
-15.82 -14.20 -1.20 -5.200 -8.200

0.04 0.03

0.02 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006
435.025
434.998
434.986
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

59.3 57.4 55.7 49.6 58.2 58.8

50.4 50.9

48.9 42.5 40.9 49.4 49.6

49.5 40.5 41.7 50.1 50.2
Vehicle Noise: 60.4 58.6 56.0 50.7 59.3 59.8
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

53.9 52.0 50.3 44.2 52.8 53.4

45.1 45.7

43.6 37.2 35.6 44.1 44.3

44.3 35.3 36.5 44.9 45.0
Vehicle Noise: 55.0 53.2 50.6 45.4 53.9 54.5

77.62 82.14

69.34 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 11 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Palm Drive
Scenario: First Floor With Wall
54,000
10%
415.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 5,400 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 435.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

5.37 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
-14.20
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 20.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-5.400 -8.400
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-11.87 -14.20 -1.20 -5.300 -8.300
-15.82 -14.20 -1.20 -5.200 -8.200

0.04 0.03

0.02 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006
435.025
434.998
434.986
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

59.3 57.4 55.7 49.6 58.2 58.8

50.4 50.9

48.9 42.5 40.9 49.4 49.6

49.5 40.5 41.7 50.1 50.2
Vehicle Noise: 60.4 58.6 56.0 50.7 59.3 59.8
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

53.9 52.0 50.3 44.2 52.8 53.4

45.1 45.7

43.6 37.2 35.6 44.1 44.3

44.3 35.3 36.5 44.9 45.0
Vehicle Noise: 55.0 53.2 50.6 45.4 53.9 54.5

77.62 82.14

69.34 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 15 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Palm Drive
Scenario: First Floor With Wall
54,000
10%
415.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 5,400 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 435.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

5.37 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
-14.20
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 20.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0
-5.400 -8.400
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-11.87 -14.20 -1.20 -5.300 -8.300
-15.82 -14.20 -1.20 -5.200 -8.200

0.04 0.03

0.02 Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006
435.025
434.998
434.986
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

59.3 57.4 55.7 49.6 58.2 58.8

50.4 50.9

48.9 42.5 40.9 49.4 49.6

49.5 40.5 41.7 50.1 50.2
Vehicle Noise: 60.4 58.6 56.0 50.7 59.3 59.8
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

53.9 52.0 50.3 44.2 52.8 53.4

45.1 45.7

43.6 37.2 35.6 44.1 44.3

44.3 35.3 36.5 44.9 45.0
Vehicle Noise: 55.0 53.2 50.6 45.4 53.9 54.5

77.62 82.14

69.34 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
59

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 5 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Camino Campesino
Scenario: Second Floor With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 75.0
Barrier Elevation: 73.2
Pad Elevation: 73.2
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 14.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.13 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.23 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-20.91 1.39 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-1.25
-1.62
-2.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.000

77.297

83.006

41.386

40.768

39.769
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

65.3 63.4 61.7 55.6 64.2 64.8

57.9 59.3

56.4 50.0 48.5 56.9 57.2

57.9 48.9 50.1 58.5 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 66.9 65.1 62.2 57.3 65.8 66.3
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

65.3 63.4 61.7 55.6 64.2 64.8

57.9 59.3

56.4 50.0 48.5 56.9 57.2

57.9 48.9 50.1 58.5 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 66.9 65.1 62.2 57.3 65.8 66.3

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 3 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Camino Campesino
Scenario: Second Floor With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 75.0
Barrier Elevation: 73.2
Pad Elevation: 73.2
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 14.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.13 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.23 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-20.91 1.39 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-1.25
-1.62
-2.77
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 75.000

77.297

83.006

41.386

40.768

39.769
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

65.3 63.4 61.7 55.6 64.2 64.8

57.9 59.3

56.4 50.0 48.5 56.9 57.2

57.9 48.9 50.1 58.5 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 66.9 65.1 62.2 57.3 65.8 66.3
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

65.3 63.4 61.7 55.6 64.2 64.8

57.9 59.3

56.4 50.0 48.5 56.9 57.2

57.9 48.9 50.1 58.5 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 66.9 65.1 62.2 57.3 65.8 66.3

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 76 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Camino Campesino
Scenario: Second Floor With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 74.0
Barrier Elevation: 73.5
Pad Elevation: 73.5
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 14.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.07 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.17 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-20.91 1.36 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-1.07
-1.41
-2.48
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 74.000

76.297

82.006

41.788

41.104

39.927
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

65.3 63.4 61.6 55.5 64.2 64.8

57.8 59.3

56.3 50.0 48.4 56.9 57.1

57.9 48.8 50.1 58.4 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 66.8 65.1 62.1 57.2 65.8 66.3
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

65.3 63.4 61.6 55.5 64.2 64.8

57.8 59.3

56.3 50.0 48.4 56.9 57.1

57.9 48.8 50.1 58.4 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 66.8 65.1 62.1 57.2 65.8 66.3

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 72 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Camino Campesino
Scenario: Second Floor With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 72.0
Barrier Elevation: 72.1
Pad Elevation: 72.1
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 14.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.03 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-20.91 1.35 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-0.99
-1.31
-2.35
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 72.000

74.297

80.006

41.986

41.271

40.014
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

65.2 63.3 61.6 55.5 64.1 64.7

57.8 59.3

56.3 49.9 48.4 56.9 57.1

57.9 48.8 50.1 58.4 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 66.8 65.0 62.1 57.2 65.8 66.2
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

65.2 63.3 61.6 55.5 64.1 64.7

57.8 59.3

56.3 49.9 48.4 56.9 57.1

57.9 48.8 50.1 58.4 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 66.8 65.0 62.1 57.2 65.8 66.2

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
60

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 69 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Ave Descanso
Scenario: Second Floor With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 69.0
Barrier Elevation: 70.2
Pad Elevation: 70.2
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 14.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 17 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.04 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.16 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-20.91 1.39 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-0.85
-1.15
-2.13
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 69.000

71.297

77.006

41.938

41.161

39.743
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

65.2 63.3 61.6 55.5 64.1 64.7

57.8 59.3

56.3 50.0 48.4 56.9 57.1

57.9 48.9 50.1 58.5 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 66.8 65.1 62.1 57.2 65.8 66.2
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

65.2 63.3 61.6 55.5 64.1 64.7

57.8 59.3

56.3 50.0 48.4 56.9 57.1

57.9 48.9 50.1 58.5 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 66.8 65.1 62.1 57.2 65.8 66.2

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 65 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Ave Descanso
Scenario: Second Floor With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 64.0
Barrier Elevation: 65.6
Pad Elevation: 65.6
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 14.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 17 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.02 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.14 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-20.91 1.38 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-0.80
-1.09
-2.05
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 64.000

66.297

72.006

42.085

41.288

39.817
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

65.2 63.3 61.5 55.5 64.1 64.7

57.8 59.3

56.3 49.9 48.4 56.9 57.1

57.9 48.9 50.1 58.5 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 66.8 65.0 62.0 57.2 65.8 66.2
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

65.2 63.3 61.5 55.5 64.1 64.7

57.8 59.3

56.3 49.9 48.4 56.9 57.1

57.9 48.9 50.1 58.5 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 66.8 65.0 62.0 57.2 65.8 66.2

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 61 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Ave Descanso
Scenario: Second Floor With Wall
13,000
10%

30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 40.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 62.0
Barrier Elevation: 61.6
Pad Elevation: 61.6
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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 14.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 17 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.28 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%

1.13 Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 10.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-16.96 1.24 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-20.91 1.43 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-1.05
-1.39
-2.46
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 62.000

64.297

70.006

41.385

40.688

39.485
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

65.3 63.4 61.7 55.6 64.2 64.8

57.9 59.4

56.4 50.0 48.5 57.0 57.2

57.9 48.9 50.2 58.5 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 66.9 65.1 62.2 57.3 65.9 66.3
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

65.3 63.4 61.7 55.6 64.2 64.8

57.9 59.4

56.4 50.0 48.5 57.0 57.2

57.9 48.9 50.2 58.5 58.6
Vehicle Noise: 66.9 65.1 62.2 57.3 65.9 66.3

74.83 80.05

65.11 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 7 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Palm Drive
Scenario: Second Floor With Wall
54,000
10%
415.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 5,400 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 435.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 14.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

5.37 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
-14.20
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 20.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-11.87 -14.20 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-15.82 -14.20 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-1.33
-1.37
-1.47
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006
435.184
435.116
435.000
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

59.3 57.4 55.7 49.6 58.2 58.8

50.4 50.9

48.9 42.5 40.9 49.4 49.6

49.5 40.5 41.7 50.1 50.2
Vehicle Noise: 60.4 58.6 56.0 50.7 59.3 59.8
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

59.3 57.4 55.7 49.6 58.2 58.8

50.4 50.9

48.9 42.5 40.9 49.4 49.6

49.5 40.5 41.7 50.1 50.2
Vehicle Noise: 60.4 58.6 56.0 50.7 59.3 59.8

77.62 82.14

69.34 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
61

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 11 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Palm Drive
Scenario: Second Floor With Wall
54,000
10%
415.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 5,400 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 435.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 14.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

5.37 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
-14.20
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 20.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-11.87 -14.20 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-15.82 -14.20 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-1.33
-1.37
-1.47
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006
435.184
435.116
435.000
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

59.3 57.4 55.7 49.6 58.2 58.8

50.4 50.9

48.9 42.5 40.9 49.4 49.6

49.5 40.5 41.7 50.1 50.2
Vehicle Noise: 60.4 58.6 56.0 50.7 59.3 59.8
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

59.3 57.4 55.7 49.6 58.2 58.8

50.4 50.9

48.9 42.5 40.9 49.4 49.6

49.5 40.5 41.7 50.1 50.2
Vehicle Noise: 60.4 58.6 56.0 50.7 59.3 59.8

77.62 82.14

69.34 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 10/1/2012

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Sp
Job Number: 14330
Lot No: 15 Analyst: B. Lawson
Road Name: Palm Drive
Scenario: Second Floor With Wall
54,000
10%
415.0

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 5,400 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

Centerline Dist. to Observer: 435.0
Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Barrier Elevation: 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: 6.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 14.0 feet
feet
Vehicle Speed: 45 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

5.37 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42%

84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84%

86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74%
-14.20
Finite Road
-1.20
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
Barrier Distance to Observer: 20.0 feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType
-11.87 -14.20 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-15.82 -14.20 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-1.33
-1.37
-1.47
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006
435.184
435.116
435.000
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

59.3 57.4 55.7 49.6 58.2 58.8

50.4 50.9

48.9 42.5 40.9 49.4 49.6

49.5 40.5 41.7 50.1 50.2
Vehicle Noise: 60.4 58.6 56.0 50.7 59.3 59.8
Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

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

59.3 57.4 55.7 49.6 58.2 58.8

50.4 50.9

48.9 42.5 40.9 49.4 49.6

49.5 40.5 41.7 50.1 50.2
Vehicle Noise: 60.4 58.6 56.0 50.7 59.3 59.8

77.62 82.14

69.34 Road Grade: 1.0%
feet
Friday, September 17, 2021
62

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
APPENDIX 8.1:

CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL INPUTS
63

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
64

14330 - Tract 38200
CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 14330-02.cna
Date: 17.09.21
Analyst: B. Lawson
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) RECEIVERS R1 76.3 76.3 83.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 5.00 a 6486134.01 2284290.44 5.00 RECEIVERS R2 75.3 75.3 81.9 80.0 0.0 0.0 5.00 a 6486692.40 2283795.77 5.00 RECEIVERS R3 75.0 75.0 81.7 80.0 0.0 0.0 5.00 a 6486362.24 2283270.05 5.00 RECEIVERS R4 74.6 74.6 81.2 80.0 0.0 0.0 5.00 a 6485845.98 2283278.99 5.00 RECEIVERS R5 67.5 67.5 74.1 80.0 0.0 0.0 5.00 a 6485270.90 2283914.66 5.00 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) SITEBOUNDARY SITEBOUNDARY00001 127.9 127.9 127.9 79.0 79.0 79.0 Lw" 79 8 Name Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
SITEBOUNDARY 8.00 a 6485750.05 2284262.11 8.00 0.00
6486663.68 2284252.17 8.00 0.00
6486617.31 2283338.09 8.00 0.00
6486555.97 2283339.39 8.00 0.00
6486545.60 2283323.88 8.00 0.00
6486514.58 2283321.01 8.00 0.00
6486386.46 2283320.89 8.00 0.00
6486299.40 2283320.92 8.00 0.00
6486281.42 2283331.67 8.00 0.00
6486279.22 2283340.77 8.00 0.00
6486247.59 2283341.46 8.00 0.00
6486236.78 2283323.74 8.00 0.00
6486188.25 2283321.90 8.00 0.00
6486077.17 2283322.84 8.00 0.00
6486040.55 2283323.14 8.00 0.00
6486021.27 2283343.26 8.00 0.00
6485990.10 2283343.45 8.00 0.00
6485975.40 2283326.45 8.00 0.00
6485933.92 2283326.45 8.00 0.00
6485876.89 2283328.25 8.00 0.00
6485820.86 2283330.02 8.00 0.00
6485776.47 2283333.00 8.00 0.00
6485762.78 2283352.41 8.00 0.00
6485726.61 2283353.08 8.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
65

Rancho Descanso Desert Hot Springs Noise Impact Analysis 14330-02 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
66

Seasmr communities, LLC
Aventura Palms II Specific Plan
In the City of Desert Hot Springs, California

AVENTURA PALMS II

SPECIFIC PLAN
PREPARED FOR:

SEASTAR COMMUNITIES,LLC
240 8. Hickory Street, Suite 200
Escondido, CA 92025-4357
TeI.: (760) 739-9200
Email: [email protected]
(Warner Engineering Project No. 0307-0240)
PREPARED BY:
rner
engineering

CIVILEIGINEING I PLANNINGI LANDSURVEYING
73-185 Highway 111, Suite “A”
Palm Desert, California 92260
TeI.: (760)341-3101
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCILON:
(Date)
City of Desert Hot Springs Warner Engineering
Revised August 4, 2006 www.warnereng.com
Palm Desert 4 Yucca Valley

seastar Communities, LLC
Aventura Palms II Specific Plan
0 CITYOF DESERT HOT SPRINGS 9
65950 Pierson Boulevard 0 City of Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 City Council
Alex Bias, Mayor
Mary K. Stephens, Mayor Pro Tem
Henry Hohenstein, Council Member
Yvonne Parks, CouncilMember
Planning Commission
AlSchmidt, Chairperson
Adam Sanchez, Vice Chairperson
John Gerardi, Commissioner
Tom Gustasson, Commissioner
Robert Mccroskery, Commissioner
Vl?llPieper, Alternate
City Staff
Ann Marie Gallant, CityManager
Steven Mendoza, Assistant City Manager
Larry Grafton, Planning Manager
Jon Braginton, Assistant Planner
Feljay Ugalde, Assistant Planner
0 PROJECT TECHNICALTEAM 9
Cityof Desert HotSprings Chamber of Commerce 0 11-711West Drive Desert HotSprings, CA92240
Riverside County Fire Department 0 82-675 Highway III,#209 - lndio,CA92201 Riverside County Health Department 0 46209 Oasis, Room 209 0 Indio,CA 92201 Archeological Advisory Group 0 Post Office Box491 0 Pioneer Town, CA92268-0491 LSAAssociates 0 1650 Spruce Street, Suite 500 - Riverside, CA92507 MichaelBrandman Associates - 621 East Carnegie Drive,Suite 100 0 San Bemardino, CA92408 Paul Singer. P.E. Transportation Engineering and Planning - 7163 Columbus Drive Anaheim Hills,CA92807
CRMTech - 4472 Orange Street 0 Riverside, CA92501
LGCInland, lnc. 0 41531 Date Street - Murrieta,CA92562
Holt Design Studios, Inc. 0 2109 Remington Park Road 0 Old Hickory, TN 37138 GMP, Inc. - 9404 Genesee Avenue, Suite 140 - La Jolla, CA92037-1353 Wamer Engineering - 73-185 Highway 111, Suite “A”0 Palm Desert, CA92260 City of Desert Hot Springs
Revised August 4, 2006
Warner Engineering
www.wamereng.com
Palm Desert 0 Yucca Valley

Seastar Communities, LLC
Aventura Palms II Specific Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS ___________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________ __i
LIST OF TABLES __________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________ __v
LIST OF EXHIBITS____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____ __vi
LIST OF APPENDICES____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________ __xi

1.0 SPECIFIC PLAN PURPOSE __________________________________________________________________________________ __1

1.1 Purpose, Intent, Authority and Requirements _____________________________________________________ __1

1.1.1 Purpose and Intent of this Speci?c Plan___________________________________________________ __1

1.1.2 Authority for Speci?c Plans __________________________________________________________________________ __1

1.1.3 Requirements for Speci?c Plans ________________________________________________________________ _,1

1.2 Overview of History of Previous General Plan/Zoning Designation _______________ ,_2

1.3 Speci?c Plan to Serve as a Regulatory Plan_______________________________________________________ __3

1.4 Relationship of the Speci?c Plan to the General Plan, ______________________________________ __3 Zoning, Subdivision, and Other Ordinances

1.5 Relationship of the Speci?c Plan to Neighboring Plans and Those _________________3 of Other Jurisdictions

1.6 Required Entitlements for Plan Consistency _______________________________________________________ __4

2.0 SUMMARY_____ _j________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___ __8

2.1 Project Description ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ __8

2.2 Relationship to the Region_______________________________________________________________________________________ __8

2.3 Site Location and Relationship to Vicinity____________________________________________________________ __9

2.4 Parcelization Map_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ "9

2.5 Environmental Setting_______________________________________________________________________________________________ __9

2.5.1 Planning Area Information__________________________ _;________________________________________________ __10

2.5.2 Physical Site Conditions _______________________________________________________________________________ "10

2.5.3 Environmental Review__________________________________________________________________________________ __1O

2.6 Phasing __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______ __15

2.7 Project Objectives _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ __16

2.7.1 Statement of Project Objectives _________________________________________________________________ __16

2.7.2 Manner of Implementation of Project Objectives ____________________________________ __17 City of Desert Hot Springs | Warner Engineering
Revised August 4, 2006 www.warnereng.com
Palm Desert 0 Yucca Valley

Seastar Communities, LLC
Aventura Palms II Speci?c Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page

3.0 LAND USE REGULATIONS ___________________________________________________________________________________ _,18

3.1 Statement of Intent_________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________ "18

3.2 Applicability_________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________ __18

3.3 Speci?c Development Standards ___________________________________________________________________________ __18

3.3.1 Permitted, Conditional, Accessory and Prohibited Uses ______________________ _,21

3.3.2 MinimumLot Sizes and Dimensions_________________________________________________________ __22

3.3.3 Setbacks, Lot Coverage, Building Height, Separation __________________________ __22

3.3.4 Parking Requirements — Non-ResidentialUses _____________________________________ ,_23

3.3.5 Landscaping Requirements ________________________________________________________________________ __23

3.3.6 Outdoor Mechanical Equipment _________________________________________________________________ __25

3.3.7 Temporary and/or Special Uses _________________________________________________________________ __25

4.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES_____________________________________________________________________________________________ __26

4.1 Statement of Purpose/Intent ____________________________________________________________________________________ ,_26

4.2 Design Review Process ____________________________________________________________________________________________ __26

4.3 Architectural Concept ________________________________________________________________________________________________ "26

4.3.1 Site Design____________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ __29

4.3.2 Building Massing/Scale ________________________________________________________________________________ __29

4.3.3 Building Colors, Materials and Textures __________________________________________________ __30

4.3.4 Roof, Windows, Doors and Garage Doors ______________________________________________ __31

4.3.5 Walls — Guidelines and Regulations _________________________________________________________ ,_31

4.3.5.1 Project Perimeter___________________________________________________________________________ __31

4.3.5.2 Grading Plan, Erosion Control, SWPPP/NPDES/PM10 __________32

4.3.5.3 Retaining Wall Guidelines ____________________________________________________________ __33

4.3.6 Signage — Guidelines and Regulations _____________________________________________________ __33

4.3.7 Lighting_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____ __34

4.4 Landscape Concept _____________________________________________________________________________________________ __35

4.4.1 Overall Concept/T heme _______________________________________________________________________________ "35

4.4.2 Guidelines_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ __ "36

4.4.3 Project Entries and Emergency Vehicle Access ____________________________________ __36

4.4.4 Street Frontage ______________________________________________________________________________________________ __36

4.5 Irrigation_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______ "37

5.0 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE ________________________________________________________________________ _;____39

5.1 Community Circulation______________________________________________________________________________________________ __39

5.1.1 Public and Private Street Standards __________________________________________________________ __39 Cityof Desen‘ Hot Springs || Warner Engineering
Revised August 4, 2006 www.warnereng.com
Palm Desert 0 Yucca Valley

Seastar Communities, LLC
Aventura Palms II Speci?c Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page

5.1.2 Standards for Project Entries and EVA _________________________________________________ _,41

5.1.3 Transportation Components and Improvements ____________________________________ _.42

5.2 Public Services _____________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________ __42

5.2.1 Water Plan___________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________ "43

5.2.2 Sewer Plan__________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________ __43

5.2.3 Storm Drainage ______________________________________________________________________________________________ "43

5.3 Solid Waste Disposal _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________ __45

5.4 Dry UtilitiesPlan and Description ___________________________________________________________________________ __45

5.4.1 Electricity____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ __45

5.4.2 Natural Gas _________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________ __45

5.4.3 Telephone ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________ _,45

5.4.4 Cable Service _______________________________________________________________________________ __________________ __46

5.4.6 Development Standards ______________________________________________________________________________ __46

6.0 IMPLEMENTATIONMEASURES_________________________________________________________________________ __47

6.1 Entitlements for Implementation _____________________________________________________________________________ _,47

6.2 Project Phasing _____________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________ __47

6.3 Subsequent Development Entitlements ________________________________________________________________ __47

7.0 RELATIONSHIP OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN’S ENVIRONMENTAL______________ __48

DOCUMENTTO SUBSEQUENT DISCRETIONARYPROJECTS

7.1 Projects Exempt from AdditionalEnvironmental Documentation _____________________48

7.2 Projects Requiring Additional Environmental Documentation ___________________________48

8.0 LANDuse REGULATIONS_________________ _;_______________________________________________________________ __49

8.1 Development Policies______________________________________________________________________________________ __________ __49

8.2 Description of Planned Land Use___________________________________________________________________________ "59

8.3 General Development Standards ___________________________________________________________________________ __60

9.0 SPECIFIC PLANADMINISTRATION___________________________________________________________________ __61

9.1 Speci?c Plan Amendment Procedures_________________________________________________________________ __61

9.1.1 State Requirements ______________________________________________________________________________________ __61

9.1.2 Local Requirements ______________________________________________________________________________________ __61

9.2 Interpretations _______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________ __61

9.3 De?nitions______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______ __61
City of Desert Hot Springs ||| Warner Engineering
Revised August 4, 2006 www.warnereng.com
Palm Desert 0 Yucca Valley

Seastar Communities, LLC
Aventura Palms IISpeci?c Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page

10.0 SPECIFIC PLAN ENFORCEMENT______________________________________________________________________ __63

11.0 DEFINITIONS__________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___ __64
City of Desert Hot Springs |V Warner Engineering
Revised August 4, 2006 www.warnereng.com
Palm Desert 0 Yucca Valley

Seastar Communities, LLC
Aventura Palms ll Speci?c Plan

LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page

2.1 ______________________________ __Levelsof Service with Existing, Plus Other Projects, _________________11 Plus Proposed Project

2.2 ______________________________ __AventuraPalms IIProposed Project Phasing Plan_____________________16

3.1 ______________________________ “Development Standards e ______________________________________________________________ __24 City of Desert Hot Springs R-MZone
Compared with Aventura Palms II

4.1 ______________________________ “Guidelinesfor Sustainability ___________________________________________________________ __38 City of Desert Hot Springs V Warner Engineering
Revised August 4, 2006 www.warnereng. com
Palm Desert 0 Yucca Valley

Exhibit

1.1__________________ __

1.2__________________ __

1.3__________________ __

1.4____________________

1.5A
15B___________________
15C...o .o o o o ........ -.
15D.....o u ..- ....... --
15E......~ - o o .......--
15F
15G__________________
City of Desert Hot Springs
Revised August 4, 2006
..........-.

Seastar Communities, LLC
Aventura Palms II Speci?c Plan

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Title
__________ __GeneralPlan Land Use Designations and Existing Uses __________ __AerialPhotograph of the Aventura Palms ll Site (In its current, undeveloped state)
__________“UnitedStates Geological Survey (“USGS")Location Map ____________VicinityMap
(Site Location relative to the General Desert Hot Springs Community) Photographs of the Site and the Immediate Vicinity:

View facing west across south portion of site from Avenida Descanso north of Aventura Palms HOA
____________Photographs of the Site and the Immediate Vicinity:

View facing west across central portion of site from Avenida Descanso north of Aventura Palms HOA
Photographs of the Site and the Immediate Vicinity:

View facing west across north boundary of site from Avenida Descanso adjacent the south side of Vista Montana HOA - Alignment of Camino Campesino Photographs of the Site and the Immediate Vicinity:

View facing northwest towards south boundary of Vista Montana HOA
Photographs of the Site and the Immediate Vicinity:

View facing northeast towards south boundary of Vista Montana HOA
Photographs of the Site and the Immediate Vicinity:

View facing west towards central open space area of Aventura Palms HOA
____________Photographs of the Site and the Immediate Vicinity:

View of southern portion of site facing west towards north portion of Avenida Palms HOA
V| Warner Engineering
www.warnereng.com
Palm Desert 0 Yucca Valley

Exhibit
15H..........o .o .¢ - ¢ ...o ........-
15| _____________________________ __
15J_____________________________
15K
15L____________________________ __
15M___________________________ ,_
15N
150 ___________________________ __
15P

1.6_____________________________ ,_
City of Desert Hot Springs
Revised August 4, 2006
Seastar Communities, LLC
Aventura Palms II Speci?c Plan
LIST OF EXHIBITS(Continued)
Title
Photographs of the Site and the Immediate Vicinity:

View facing southwest of north portion of Aventura Palms HOA Photographs of the Site and the Immediate Vicinity:

View facing northeast along west property line of project site north of the Aventura Palms HOA
Photographs of the Site and the Immediate Vicinity:

View facing east of south portion of project site; Aventura Palms HOA in background
Photographs of the Site and the Immediate Vicinity:

View facing north towards project site taken from north portion of Aventura Palms HOA
Photographs of the Site and the Immediate Vicinity:

View facing southeast towards project site from Camino Campesino alignment
Photographs of the Site and the Immediate Vicinity:

Main gated entry to Aventura Palms HOA north side of Camino Aventura
Photographs of the Site and the Immediate Vicinity:

Main gated entry to Aventura Palms HOA north side of Camino Aventura
Photographs of the Site and the Immediate Vicinity:

Existing modular home located along the south side of Camino Aventura, opposite the Aventura Palms HOA
Photographs of the Site and the Immediate Vicinity:

View facing northeast of southwest corner of adjoining Vista Montana HOA (from intersection of Palm Drive and Camino Campesino alignment)
Conceptual Subdivision Layout
V|| Warner Engineering
www.warnereng.com
Palm Desert 0 Yucca Valley