7.12_K-Noise and Vibration Analysis.pdf — Moreno Valley City Council, June 3, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

Town Center at Moreno
Valley

NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

PREPARED BY:

Bill Lawson, PE, INCE
[email protected]
(949) 584-3148

FEBRUARY 10, 2025

14556-15 TCMV Noise
Town Center at Moreno Valley Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
ii

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... III APPENDICES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... IV LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... V LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . V LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 1 Off-Site Traffic Noise Analysis .................................................................................................................. 1 On-Site Traffic Noise Analysis .................................................................................................................. 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 2006 City of Moreno Valley General Plan ................................................................................... 16

3.3 2040 City of Moreno Valley General Plan Noise Element .......................................................... 17

3.4 Operational Noise Standards ...................................................................................................... 20

3.5 Construction Noise Standards .................................................................................................... 21

3.6 Vibration Standards .................................................................................................................... 22 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 25

4.1 Noise Level Increases (Threshold A) ........................................................................................... 25

4.2 Vibration (Threshold B) ............................................................................................................... 26

4.3 CEQA Guidelines Not Further Analyzed (Threshold C) ............................................................... 27

4.4 Significance Criteria Summary .................................................................................................... 27 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ................................ ................................ .................. 29

5.1 Measurement Procedure and Criteria ........................................................................................ 29

5.2 Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................................... 29

5.3 Noise Measurement Results ....................................................................................................... 30 6 TRAFFIC NOISE METHODS AND PROCEDURES ................................ ................................ ........... 33

6.1 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model ........................................................................................ 33 7 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ........................... 37

7.1 Noise Contours ............................................................................................................................ 37

7.2 Existing Project Traffic Noise Level Increases ............................................................................. 44 Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
iv

7.3 OYC (2028) Project Traffic Noise Level Increases ....................................................................... 44

7.4 Horizon Year (2045) Project Traffic Noise Level Increases ......................................................... 44 8 ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS................................ ................................ ............................ 49

8.1 Exterior Noise Analysis ................................................................................................................ 49

8.2 Interior Noise Analysis ................................................................................................................ 53 9 OFF-SITE RECEIVER LOCATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ 59 10 OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS ................................ ................................ ................................ 63

10.1 Operational Noise Sources .......................................................................................................... 63

10.2 Reference Noise Levels ............................................................................................................... 63

10.3 CadnaA Noise Prediction Model ................................................................................................. 66

10.4 Project Operational Noise Levels ................................................................................................ 67

10.5 Project Operational Noise Level Compliance .............................................................................. 68

10.6 Project Operational Noise Level Increases ................................................................................. 69 11 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 73

11.1 Construction Noise Levels ........................................................................................................... 73

11.2 Construction Reference Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 73

11.3 Construction Noise Analysis ........................................................................................................ 75

11.4 Construction Noise Level Compliance ........................................................................................ 75

11.5 Temporary Construction Noise Level Increases .......................................................................... 77

11.6 Cumulative Construction Noise Analysis .................................................................................... 77

11.7 Construction Vibration Analysis .................................................................................................. 80 12 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 83 13 CERTIFICATION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 85

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.1: CITY OF MORENO VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
APPENDIX 5.1: STUDY AREA PHOTOS
APPENDIX 5.2: NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.1: OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS APPENDIX 8.1: ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS APPENDIX 10.1: CADNAA OPERATIONAL NOISE MODEL INPUTS
APPENDIX 11.1: CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL INPUTS
APPENDIX 11.2: CADNAA CUMULATIVE CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL INPUTS

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
v

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT ES-A: SUMMARY OF NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES ................................ ............................. 4 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 7 EXHIBIT 1-B: PRELIMINARY LAND USE PLAN ................................ ................................ ....................... 8 EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 9 EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION ................................ ................................ ............ 12 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION ................................ .......................... 14 EXHIBIT 3-A: COMMUNITY NOISE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX ................................ .............................. 19 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS ................................ ................................ .............. 31 EXHIBIT 8-A: ON-SITE RECEIVER LOCATIONS ................................ ................................ ..................... 50 EXHIBIT 9-A: OFF-SITE RECEIVER LOCATIONS ................................ ................................ .................... 61 EXHIBIT 10-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS ................................ ................................ . 64 EXHIBIT 11-A: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS ................................ ............................... 74 EXHIBIT 11-B: CUMULATIVE CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS................................ .......... 79

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS ................................ ................................ . 1 TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS AT 200 FEET FROM THE SOURCE ................................ 21 TABLE 3-2: CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS FROM THE SOURCE LAND USE ................................ . 22 TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................ 27 TABLE 5-1: AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ................................ ................................ ........ 30 TABLE 6-1: OFF-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS ................................ ................................ ................. 34 TABLE 6-2: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................ ................................ ................ 35 TABLE 6-3: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS ................................ ................................ .......................... 36 TABLE 6-4: TRAFFIC FLOW BY VEHICLE TYPE (VEHICLE MIX) ................................ .............................. 36 TABLE 6-5: ON-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS ................................ ................................ .................. 36 TABLE 7-1: EXISTING WITHOUT PROJECT CONTOURS ................................ ................................ ....... 38 TABLE 7-2: EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONTOURS ................................ ................................ .............. 39 TABLE 7-3: OYC (2028) WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ................................ .......................... 40 TABLE 7-4: OYC (2028) WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ................................ ................................ . 41 TABLE 7-5: HORIZON YEAR (2045) WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ................................ ......... 42 TABLE 7-6: HORIZON YEAR (2045) WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ................................ ................ 43 TABLE 7-7: EXISTING WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ................................ .............. 45 TABLE 7-8: OYC (2028) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE INCREASES ................................ ..................... 46 TABLE 7-9: HORIZON YEAR 2040 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE INCREASES ................................ ...... 47 TABLE 8-1: EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS ................................ ................................ ................................ . 49 TABLE 8-2: EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS WITH NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES ................................ ......... 51 TABLE 8-3: FIRST FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL) ................................ ................................ ... 55 TABLE 8-4: SECOND FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL) ................................ .............................. 56 TABLE 8-5: THIRD FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL) ................................ ................................ . 57 TABLE 10-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS................................ ................................ ..... 65 TABLE 10-2: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS ................................ ............................ 67 TABLE 10-3: NIGHTTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS ................................ ......................... 67 TABLE 10-4: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE ................................ ................................ ..... 68 Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
vi
TABLE 10-5: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ................................ ........... 70 TABLE 10-6: NIGHTTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ................................ ........ 71 TABLE 11-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS ................................ ................................ .... 75 TABLE 11-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY ................................ .................. 76 TABLE 11-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE ................................ ................................ .. 76 TABLE 11-4: DAYTIME CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ................................ ....................... 77 TABLE 11-5: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE ................................ ................................ .. 78 TABLE 11-6: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ................................ ...... 80 TABLE 11-7: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS ................................ ................................ 81

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
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
INCE Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Leq Equivalent continuous (average) sound level
Lmax Maximum level measured over the time interval
mph Miles per hour
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
Project Town Center at Moreno Valley
REMEL Reference Energy Mean Emission Level
RMS Root-mean-square
VdB Vibration Decibels

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has prepared this noise study to determine the noise exposure and the necessary noise mitigation measures for the proposed Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan (“Project”). The Project site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Nason Street and Alessandro Boulevard in the City of Moreno Valley.

This noise study has been prepared to satisfy applicable City of Moreno Valley noise standards and significance criteria based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (1) The results of this Noise and Vibration 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
Off-Site Traffic Noise 7 Less Than Significant -
On-Site Traffic Noise 8 -1 -1
Operational Noise 10 Less Than Significant -
Construction Noise 11 Less Than Significant -
Construction Vibration Less Than Significant -
1 Impacts of the environment on a project are excluded from CEQA.

OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
Traffic generated by the operation of the proposed Project will influence the traffic noise levels in surrounding off-site areas. To quantify the traffic noise increases on the surrounding off -site areas, the changes in traffic noise levels on 28 roadway segments surrounding the Project site were calculated based on the change in the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. The traffic noise levels provided in this analysis are based on the traffic forecasts found in Town Center at Moreno Valley Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (2) The results of this analysis show that land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to Project -related traffic noise levels increases without mitigation.

ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
To the extent this analysis considers impacts in relation to future residents of the Project, it does so for informational purposes to show compliance with City regulations. Impacts of the environment on a project are excluded from CEQA unless the project itself “exacerbates” such impacts. (3) As such, any impact on the future residents of the Project is not an impact under Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
2 CEQA. However, an on-site exterior noise impact analysis has been completed to determine the traffic noise exposure and to identify potential necessary noise abatement measures for the proposed Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Project. It is expected that the primary source of noise impacts to the Project site will be traffic noise from Cottonwood Avenue, Nason Street, Alessandro Boulevard, Bay Avenue and Street A. The on-site exterior traffic noise analysis indicates that the noise sensitive residential land uses could experience normally unacceptable exterior noise levels of up to 73.6 dBA CNEL on Nason Street.

NOI-1: ON-SITE TRAFFIC EXTERIOR NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES To reduce the effects of on-site traffic noise, the construction of 6 -foot-high noise barriers is recommended for the private yards of single -family residential land use and outdoor common areas for multi-family residential land use represented by on-site receiver locations ON1, ON2, and ON7. With the recommended noise barriers shown on Exhibit ES-A, the future exterior noise levels at the outdoor living areas (backyards) of single-family residential uses will range from 57.6 to 64.7 dBA CNEL. This noise analysis shows that the recommended 6 -foot-high noise barriers will satisfy the City of Moreno Valley 65 dBA CNEL normally acceptable exterior noise level guidelines for single-family residential use.

The recommended noise control barriers shall be constructed so that the top of each wall extends to the recommended 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 t he roadways, or a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA. (4) The barrier must present a solid face from top to bottom. Unnecessary openings or decorative cutouts shall not be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking.

NOI-2: ON-SITE TRAFFIC INTERIOR NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES To satisfy the State of California’s 45 dBA CNEL noise insulation standards, all residential land uses adjacent to Cottonwood Avenue, Nason Street, and Alessandro Boulevard will require a windows-closed condition and a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning).

Upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of 30 are required for the single-family residential land uses located west of Nason Street represented by the on -site receiver location ON2. With the following noise abatement measures, the on-site interior traffic noise levels would satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise requirements.
• Windows/Sliding Glass Doors: All residential units require windows and sliding glass doors that have well-fitted, well-weather-stripped assemblies, and the following sound transmission class (STC) ratings:

1. Single-family residential land uses located west of Nason Street represented by the on - site receiver location ON2 require upgraded windows and sliding glass doors with minimum STC ratings of 30 (all windows/glass doors, all floors);

2. All other residential lots require windows and sliding glass doors with minimum sound transmission class (STC) ratings of 27.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
3 • Exterior Doors (Non-Glass): All exterior doors shall be well weather-stripped and have well-sealed perimeter gaps around the doors to achieve the STC ratings recommended below: (5)

1. Single-family residential land uses located west of Nason Street represented by the on - site receiver location ON2 require upgraded doors with minimum STC ratings of 30 (all floors);

2. All other residential lots require doors with minimum sound transmission class (STC) ratings of 27.
• Exterior 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 well- sealed 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: Consistent with City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 9.03.040[F][3], in all residential districts, air conditioners, heating, cooling and ventilating equipment and all other mechanical, lighting or electrical devices shall be operated so that noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA (Ldn) at the property line. Additionally, such equipment, including roof-mounted installation, shall be screened from surrounding properties and streets and shall not be located in the required front yard or street side yard. All equipment shall be installed and operated in accordance with other applicable city ordinances.
• Future Noise Studies: final noise studies shall be prepared for the future noise sensitive residential uses prior to obtaining building permits for the Project. Each noise study shall finalize the noise attenuation measures described in this Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise Analysis using the precise grading plans and actual building design specifications, and may include additional mitigation, if necessary, to meet the interior noise level standards for residential land uses. These noise studies would utilize any recommendations identified in this study and use the precise grading plans and act ual building design specifications to identify any additional noise abatement measures , such as exterior noise barriers and/or building materials (e.g., sound transmission class ratings for windows and doors), if necessary, based on the site -specific noise impacts within these planning areas.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
4 EXHIBIT ES-A: SUMMARY OF NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
5 1 INTRODUCTION
This noise analysis has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed Town Center at Moreno Valley (“Project”).

This noise study briefly describes the proposed Project, provides information regarding noise fundamentals, sets out the regulatory setting, presents 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 long- term stationary -source operati onal noise and short -term construction noise and vibration impacts.

1.1 SITE LOCATION
The proposed Project is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Nason Street and Alessandro Boulevard in the City of Moreno Valley, as shown on Exhibit 1-A. The Project site is currently undeveloped. There is a vacant parcel northeast of the Project site (southwest of the Nason Street and Cottonwood Avenue intersection), and an Eastern Municipal Water District booster station northwest of the Project site (so utheast corner of Cottonwood Avenue and Letterman Street) that are not part of the Project. The area surrounding the Project generally consists of existing single-family residential homes.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project involves a proposed Specific Plan, and a proposed Tentative Tract Map (TTM) to allow for the development of residential, commercial, and park uses. Because the proposed Specific Plan is designed to provide flexibility for development within th e Specific Plan area, the actual type and amount of uses that would be developed at buildout of the Specific Plan are unknown.

Therefore, a reasonable potential buildout development scenario has been developed for purposes of analysis. The proposed Project is planned to consist of the following land uses listed below. A preliminary land use plan for the proposed Project is shown on Exhibit 1-B. For the purposes of this analysis, i t is expected that the Project would be developed in a single phase with an anticipated Opening Year of 2028.
• 800 residential dwelling units
• 4.8 acres of parks
• 106-room hotel
• 15,000 square feet of office use
• 30,000 square foot civic use
• 16,660 square feet of high turnover (sit-down) restaurant use • 3,500 square feet of fast-food restaurant with drive-thru window • 60,890 square feet of commercial retail
• 45,000 square feet of supermarket use
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
6 The existing 2006 Moreno Valley General Plan land use designation and zoning for the site is Public Facilities. Therefore, the proposed Project also involves a General Plan amendment and zone change. The proposed General Plan land use designation s are Residential (30 du/acre maximum), Open Space, and Commercial. The proposed change of zone would amend the Public Facilities zoning to the TCMV Specific Plan (SP 222) zoning classification for the subject property.

However, the City of Moreno Valley is currently in the process of readopting the City’s 2040 General Plan Update (2040 General Plan) and zoning.1 The General Plan land use designation and zoning proposed by the City is Downtown Center (DC) District. The proposed Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan is consistent with the City’s proposed Downtown Center (DC) District land use and zoning designations.

This report evaluates the impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Project under the existing General Plan land use and zoning designations, which would require a General Plan Amendment and zone change, and the City’s proposed General Plan land use and zoning designation, if applicable to the analysis.

1 In June 2021, the City Council of the City of Moreno Valley (City Council) approved and adopted the City’s 2040 General Plan Update (2040 General Plan), a Change of Zone and Municipal Code Update, and its Climate Action Plan (CAP) and certified an EIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2020039022, as having been prepared in compliance with CEQA in connection with the approvals.

A lawsuit entitled Sierra Club v. The City of Moreno Valley, Riverside Superior Court Case No. CVRI2103300, challenged the validity of the CAP and the EIR. In May 2024, the City Council set aside the 2021 approvals and certification, based on a March 2024 ruling and judgment of the court. The City is in the process of readopting the 2040 General Plan and issued a Notice of Preparation of a Revised Environmental Impact Report for MoVal 2040: The Moreno Valley Comprehensive General Plan Update, Municipal Code and Zoning (including Zoning Atlas) Amendments, and Climate Action Plan on July 30, 2024.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
7 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
8 EXHIBIT 1-B: PRELIMINARY LAND USE PLAN

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
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). A - weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Exhibit 2 -A presents a summary of the typic al 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

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
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 A - weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period and is commonly used to describe the “average” noise levels within the environment.

Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment. Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hou rs. 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. T he 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 L eq 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 Moreno Valley 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 a ttenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
11 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 acousti cally 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 norma lly 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. (8)

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 s ource. 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. (9)

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 gener al, 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.

Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noi se barrier to work, it must block the line- of-sight path of sound from the noise source.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
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 t he 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 f rom being located adjacent to a highway, or that the developments are planned, designed, and constructed in such a way that noise impacts are minimized. (10)

2.7 COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO NOISE
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. (11 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. (12) According to research originally published in the Noise Effects Handbook (11), 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. (8)
EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Just Perceptible
Barely Perceptible
Readily Perceptible
Twice as Loud
Noise Level Increase (dBA)
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
13 2.8 VIBRATION
Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (12) , 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 eruption s, 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 t o 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 st ructures (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.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
14 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION

Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
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 a nd 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). (13) 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.

3.1.1 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 c onstruction 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 (14).

3.1.2 NON-RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
The State of California’s Green Building Standards Code contains mandatory measures for non - residential building construction in Section 5.507 on Environmental Comfort. (15) These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when non-residential structures are developed in areas where the exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL, such as within a noise contour of an airport, freeway, railroad, and other noise source. If the development falls within an airport or freeway 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, buildings shall be co nstructed to provide an interior noise level environment attributable to exterior sources that does not exceed an hourly equivalent level of 50 dBA L eq in occupied areas during any hour of operation.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
16 3.2 2006 CITY OF MORENO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN
The City of Moreno Valley Noise Element typically provides the standards for land use compatibility for community noise exposure. However, the City of Moreno Valley 2006 General Plan does not include a noise element or specific transportation-related noise standards. Rather, noise is considered in the Environmental Safety section of the General Plan Safety Element. (16) The OPR land use/noise compatibility standards are used by many California cities and counties and specify the maximum noise levels allowable for new developments impacted by transportation noise sources. The OPR land use/noise compatibility criteria, found in Figure 2 of the General Plan Guidelines, Appendix D: Noise Element Guidelines, identify the criteria for the Project land uses, as shown on Exhibit 3-A.

The purpose of the transportation noise criteria is to protect, create, and maintain an environment free from noise and vibration that may jeopardize the health or welfare of sensitive receptors, or degrade quality of life. City General Plan Policies (City of Moreno Valley General Plan, pp.9-31, 9-32) act to ensure that when exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL at sensitive receivers, mitigation is provided to ensure that interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL are maintained. General Plan Policies in this regard are consistent with, and support, the California Building Code interior noise standards. The 2006 City of Moreno Valley General Plan Safety Element includes the following objectives and policies related to noise.

Objective 6.3:

Provide noise compatible land use relationships by establishing noise standards utilized for design and siting purposes.

Policies:

6.3.1 The following uses shall require mitigation to reduce noise exposure where current or future exterior noise levels exceed 20 CNEL above the desired interior noise level:
a. Single and multiple family residential buildings shall achieve an interior noise level of 45 CNEL or less. Such buildings shall include sound insulating windows, walls, roofs and ventilation systems. Sound barriers shall also be installed (e.g. masonry walls or walls with berms) between single-family residences and major roadways.
b. New libraries, hospitals and extended medical care facilities, places of worship and office uses shall be insulated to achieve interior noise levels of 50 CNEL or less. c. New schools shall be insulated to achieve interior noise levels of 45 CNEL or less.

6.3.2 Discourage residential uses where current or projected exterior noise due to aircraft over flights will exceed 65 CNEL.

6.3.3 Where the future noise environment is likely to exceed 70 CNEL due to overflights from the joint - use airport at March, new buildings containing uses that are not addressed under Policy 6.3.1 shall require insulation to achieve interior noise levels recommended in the March Air Reserve Base Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Report.

6.3.4 Encourage residential development heavily impacted by aircraft over flight noise, to transition to uses that are more noise compatible.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
17 6.3.5 Enforce the California Administrative Code, Title 24 noise insulation standards for new multi-family housing developments, motels and hotels.

6.3.6 Building shall be limited in areas of sensitive receptors.

Objective 6.4
Review noise issues during the planning process and require noise attenuation measures to minimize acoustic impacts to existing and future surrounding land uses.

Policies:

6.4.1 Site, landscape and architectural design features shall be encouraged to mitigate noise impacts for new developments, with a preference for noise barriers that avoid freeway sound barrier walls.

Objective 6.5
Minimize noise impacts from significant noise generators such as, but not limited to, motor vehicles, trains, aircraft, commercial, industrial, construction, and other activities.

Policies:

6.5.1 New commercial and industrial activities (including the placement of mechanical equipment) shall be evaluated and designed to mitigate noise impacts on adjacent uses.

6.5.2 Construction activities shall be operated in a manner that limits noise impacts on surrounding uses.

3.3 2040 CITY OF MORENO VALLEY GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT The currently proposed 2040 City of Moreno Valley General Plan includes a Noise Element with goals, policies, and actions that also seek to proactively address sources of noise in Moreno Valley, protect against excessive noise, and support the social and economic vitality of the community.

Goal N-1:

Design for a pleasant, healthy sound environment conductive to living and working.

Policies
N.1-1. Protect occupants of existing and new buildings from exposure to excessive noise, particularly adjacent to freeways, major roadways, the railroad, and within areas of aircraft overﬂight.

N.1-2. Guide the location and design of transportation facilities, industrial uses, and other potential noise generators to minimize the effects of noise on adjacent land uses.

N.1-3. Apply the community noise compatibility standards (Table N -1) to all new development and major redevelopment projects outside the noise and safety compatibility zones established in the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibili ty (ALUC) Plan in order to protect against the adverse eﬀects of noise exposure. Projects within the noise and safety compatibility zones are subject to the standards contained in the ALUC Plan.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
18 N.1-4. Require a noise study and/or mitigation measures if applicable for all projects that would expose people to noise levels greater than the “normally acceptable” standard and for any other projects that are likely to generate noise in excess of these standards.

N.1-5. Noise impacts should be controlled at the noise source where feasible, as opposed to at receptor end with measures to buﬀer, dampen, or actively cancel noise sources. Site design, building orientation, building design, hours of operation, and other techniques, for new developments deemed to be noise generators shall be used to control noise sources.

N.1-6. Require noise buffering, dampening, or active cancellation, on rooftop or other outdoor mechanical equipment located near residences, parks, and other noise sensitive land uses.

N.1-7. Developers shall reduce the noise impacts on new development through appropriate means (e.g., double -paned or soundproof windows, setbacks, berming, and screening).

Noise attenuation methods should avoid the use of visible sound walls where possible.

Actions
N.1-A. Continue to review proposed projects for conformance with the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, including consideration of the Compatibility Zone Factors shown in Table MA -1 and the Basic Compatibility Criteria shown in Table MA-2, as may be amended.

N.1-B. Require dedication of an aviation easement as a condition of development approval for projects within the noise and safety compatibility zones identiﬁed by the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, as may be amended . The intention of this action is to alert interested individuals, including property buyers and developers, to the proximity of aircraft operations and related noise and safety compatibility protections.

N.1-C. Study the feasibility of using alternative pavement materials such as rubberized asphalt pavements on roadways to reduce noise generation. Update City standards as appropriate.

Goal N-2:

Ensure that noise does not have a substantial, adverse effect on the quality of life in the community.

Policies
N.2-3. Limit the potential noise impacts of construction activities on surrounding land uses through noise regulations in the Municipal Code that address allowed days and hours of construction, types of work, construction equipment, and sound attenuation devices.

N.2-4. Collaborate with the March Joint Powers Authority, March Inland Port Airport Authority, Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, and other responsible agencies to formulate and apply strategies to address noise and safety compatibility protection from airport operations.

Actions
N.2-A. Continue to maintain performance standards in the Municipal Code to ensure that noise generated by proposed projects is compatible with surrounding land uses.

While the 2040 General Plan provides background and noise fundamentals, both the 2006 and 2040 General Plan rely on the transportation noise criteria that are derived from standards contained in the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) General Plan Guidelines. (13) Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
19 The OPR land use/noise compatibility standards are used by many California cities and counties and specify the maximum noise levels allowable for new developments impacted by transportation noise sources. The OPR Community Noise Compatibility Matrix, found in Table N- 1 of the General Plan Noise Element, describes the land use compatibility guidelines for the Project, as shown on Exhibit 3-A.

EXHIBIT 3-A: COMMUNITY NOISE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX

The anticipated residential uses allowed by the proposed Specific Plan are considered normally acceptable with exterior noise levels of up to 65 dBA CNEL and conditionally acceptable up to 70 dBA CNEL. For conditionally acceptable land use, new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design . Conventional construction, but with closed

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
20 windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. The residential uses allowed by the proposed Specific Plan are considered normally unacceptable with exterior noise of up to 75 dBA CNEL. For normally unacceptable land use, new construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

The planned park land use west of Nason Street is considered normally acceptable with exterior noise levels of up to 70 dBA CNEL, conditionally acceptable up to 75 dBA CNEL and normally unacceptable above 75 dBA CNEL. The analyzed hotel land use west of Nason Street is considered normally acceptable with exterior noise levels of up to 65 dBA CNEL, conditionally acceptable up to 70 dBA CNEL and normally unacceptable above 70 dBA CNEL. The planned Project commercial land uses located west of Nason Street are considered normally acceptable with exterior noise levels of up to 70 dBA CNEL, conditionally acceptable up to 77 dBA CNEL and normally unacceptable above 77 dBA CNEL. The civic land use allowed by the Specific Plan (analyzed as a library) located east of Street A is considered normally acceptable with exterior noise levels of up to 70 dBA CNEL, and conditionally acceptable up to 80 dBA CNEL.

3.4 OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from a designated fixed location or private property such as within the Project site , stationary -source (operational) noise such as the expected outdoor seating activity, trash enclosure activity, roof-top air conditioning units, parking lot activity, park activities and ground air conditioning units are typically evaluated against standards established under a city’s Municipal Code.

The City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code, Chapter 11.80 Noise Regulation , provides performance standards and noise control guidelines for determining and mitigating non - transportation or stationary-source noise impacts from operations at private properties. The City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code defines Maximum Sound Levels (in dB(A)) for Source Land Uses in Table 11.80.030-2 for Residential and Commercial land uses. As defined by the Municipal Code, Section 11.80.020 Definitions, Commercial land use means all uses of land not otherwise classified as residential, and residential land use means all uses of land primarily for dwelling units, as well as hospitals, schools, colleges and universities, and places of religious assembly. (17) For the purpose of this analysis, the operational noise activities from uses allowed by the proposed Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan are limited to the Commercial land use. Based on this standard, the operational noise level limits for commercial land use, from Table 11.80.030 -2, of 65 dBA Leq during the daytime (8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) hours and 60 dBA Leq during the nighttime (10:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m.) hours shall apply to the operational noise source activities from the Project.

Further, Section 11.80.030(C) Prohibited Acts , Nonimpulsive Sound Decibel Limits , states: No person shall maintain, create, operate or cause to be operated on private property any source of sound in such a manner as to create any nonimpulsive sound which exceeds the limits set forth for the source land use category (as defined in Section 11.80. 020) in Table 11.80.030 -2 when measured at a distance of two hundred (200) feet or more from the real property line of the source Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
21 of the sound, if the sound occurs on a privately owned property… (17) Therefore, at a distance of 200 feet from the property line, the Project’s operational noise levels shall not exceed the 65 dBA Leq daytime and 60 dBA Leq nighttime noise level standards for commercial land uses, as shown on Table 3-1. The City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code also identifies continuous sound level limits in Table 11.80.030 -1 based on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) noise exposure guidelines. A division of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH identifies a noise level threshold based on the duration of exposure to the source. The City of Moreno Valley noise level threshold starts at 90 dBA for more than eight hours per day, and for every increase, the exposure time is reduced. The City of Moreno Valley identifies noise level thresholds of 92 dBA for more than 6 hours per day, 95 dBA for more than 4 hour per day, 97 dBA for more than 3 hours per day, and up to 100 dBA for more than 2 hours per day. However, this noise study uses the more restrictive City of Moreno Valley commercial noise level limits identified on Table 11.80.030-2 for source land uses in the Municipal Code, shown on Table 3 -1 of this report, to evaluate the potential operational noise levels due to the operation of the Project.

TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS AT 200 FEET FROM THE SOURCE City Source
Land use
Noise Level Standards (dBA Leq)1
Daytime Nighttime
Moreno Valley Commercial 65 60
1 City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code, Chapter 11.80 Noise Regulation, Table 11.80.030-2 Maximum Sound Levels (in dB(A)) for Source Land Uses when measured at 200 feet from the property line of the source land use (Appendix

3.1). Leq represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given period. "Daytime" = 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m.

Please note that depending on what types of commercial land uses are developed in the Specific Plan, the following Ordinances may also apply to the project. • Municipal Code Section 9.09.080 (C.6) Drive-in, drive-through, fast food and take-out restaurants. • Municipal Code Section 9.09.070 (C.3) Vehicle repair facilities. • Municipal Code Section 9.09.110 Recycling facilities. • Municipal Code Section 9.09.270 (B.6) Outdoor dining. • Municipal Code Section 9.09.260(A-B) Mixed Use Development (Noise Notification). • Municipal Code Section 11.80.040 (H) Special provisions for temporary use and special event permits.

3.5 CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from the construction of the Town Center at Moreno Valley site, noise from construction activities is typically evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code. The Municipal Code noise standards for construction are described below for the City of Moreno Valley to determine the potential noise impacts at the nearest receiver locations. The construction-related noise standards are shown on Table 3-2.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
22 The Municipal Code noise standards for construction are described below for the City of Moreno Valley to determine the potential noise impacts at the nearest sensitive receiver locations. As a subset of its stationary-source noise regulations, the City Municipal Code establishes permitted hours of construction activity. More specifically, Municipal Code Section 11.80.030(D)(7), Construction and Demolition, provides the following:

No person shall operate, or cause operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work between the hours of eight p.m. and seven a.m. the following day such that the sound there from creates a noise disturbance, except for emergency work by public service utilities or for other work approved by the city manager or designee.

Therefore, based on Section 11.80.030(D)(7) construction regulations, a construction -related noise disturbance occurs if Project construction activity occurs outside of the permitted hours.

However, for this analysis, the stationary -source noise level limits of 65 dBA L eq during the daytime hours and 60 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours are used as appropriate thresholds for the nearest sensitive land uses (e.g., residential homes) in the Project study area. In addition, grading operations shall be limited to the hours identified in Section 8.21.050(O) of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays or as approved by the City Engineer. The City of Moreno Valley construction noise standards are shown on Table 3 -2 and included in Appendix 3.1. As previously discussed in Section 3. 3, the construction noise level threshold used in this noise study represents a conservative approach, since it is more restrictive than the continuous sound level limits of Table 11.80.030-1 of the City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code.

TABLE 3-2: CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS FROM THE SOURCE LAND USE City Permitted Hours of
Construction Activity
Construction Noise Level
Standard (dBA Leq)2
Daytime Nighttime
Moreno Valley1
General Activity: 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on any day.

Grading is limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to
Friday; 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. 65 603
1 City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code, Section 11.80.030 (D)(7) as shown in Appendix 3.1. 2 Acceptable threshold for determining the relative significance of short-term Project construction noise levels, based on the City of Moreno Valley stationary noise standards shown on Table 3-1.
3 Any nighttime construction activity requires an exemption from the City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code as indicated in Section 11.80.030 (E)(8) for a special event permit (Section 11.80.040). The special event permit application shall be submitted to the City of Moreno Valley Planning Department for approval and meet the requirements of Municipal Code Section 11.80.040. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

3.6 VIBRATION STANDARDS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground -borne vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. Construction vibration is generally associated with pile driving and rock blasting. Other construction equipment such as air compressors, light trucks, hydraulic loaders, etc., generates little or no ground vibration. (12) In addition, the Final Environmental Impact Report for the MoVal 2040:

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
23 Comprehensive Plan Update, Housing Element, and Climate Action Plan (GP FEIR) established that non-pile driving or foundation work construction phases that have the highest potential of producing vibration (such as jackhammering and other high -power tools) would be intermittent and would only occur for short periods of time for any individual development site. By use of administrative controls, such as scheduling construction activities with the highest potential to produce perceptible vibration to hours with least potential to affect nearby properties, perceptible vibration can be kept to a minimum and as such would result in a less than significant impact with respect to perception. (18)2
To analyze vibration impacts originating from the operation and construction of the uses allowed by the Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan , vibration -generating activities are appropriately evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code, if such standards exist. However, the City of Moreno Valley does not identify specific vibration level limits. Therefore, for analysis purposes, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, (19 p. 38) Table 19, vibration damage thresholds are used in this noise study to assess potential temporary construction -related vibration impacts at adjacent residential building locations. The Caltrans vibration damage thresholds are derived from the (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (12) and consistent with the vibration criteria outlined in the GP FEIR. 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).

2 The information about vibration provided in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the MoVal 2040:

Moreno Valley Comprehensive Plan Update, Housing Element Update, and Climate Action Plan remains applicable to the discussion of potential vibration impacts resulting from construction in the City. The court decision did not address this topical issue.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
24 This page intentionally left blank
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
25 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?

4.1 NOISE LEVEL INCREASES (THRESHOLD A)
Noise level increases resulting from the Project are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines described above at the closest sensitive receiver locations. Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing ambient noise levels, and the location of noise -sensitive receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. This approach recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significa nt. (20) This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and differing individual experiences with noise.

Thus, an important way of determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise is the comparison of it to the exist ing environment to which one has adapted —the so-called ambient environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will typically be judged.

4.1.1 TRANSPORTATION / OPERATIONAL NOISE (SUBSTANTIAL PERMANENT NOISE LEVEL INCREASE) The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) (21) developed guidance to be used for the assessment of project-generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level.

The FICON recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by aircraft noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these recommendations are often used in environmental noise impact assessments involving the use of cumulative noise exposure metrics, such as the average-daily noise level (CNEL) and equivalent continuous noise level (Leq).

As previously stated, the approach used in this noise study recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders a noise impact significant, based on a 2008 California Court of Appeal ruling on Gray v. County of Madera. (20) For example, if the ambient noise environment is quiet (<60 dBA) and the new noise source greatly increases the noise levels, an impact may occur if the noise criteria may be exceeded. Therefore, for this analysis, a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater project-related noise level increase is considered a significant impact when the without project noise levels are below 60 dBA. Per the FICON, in areas where the without project noise levels Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
26 range from 60 to 65 dBA, a 3 dBA barely perceptible noise level increase appears to be appropriate for most people. When the without project noise levels already exceed 65 dBA, any increase in community noise louder than 1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact if the noise criteria for a giv en land use is exceeded, since it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance.

The FICON guidance provides an established source of criteria to assess the impacts of substantial temporary or permanent increase in baseline ambient noise levels. Based on the FICON criteria, the amount to which a given noise level increase is considere d acceptable is reduced when the without project (baseline) noise levels are already shown to exceed certain land -use specific exterior noise level criteria. The specific levels are based on typical responses to noise level increases of 5 dBA or readily perceptible, 3 dBA or barely perceptible, and 1.5 dBA depending on the underlying without project noise levels for noise-sensitive uses. The FICON levels of increases and their perceived acceptance at noise sensitive receiver locations are consistent with guidance outlined in the City of Moreno Valley General Plan Implementation Policy S -6d, the Federal Highway Administration (8 p. 9) and Caltrans (22 p. 2_48).

4.1.2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE (SUBSTANTIAL TEMPORARY NOISE LEVEL INCREASE) To assess the noise-generating construction activities, the temporary noise level increases over the existing ambient conditions is considered under CEQA significance threshold A. For purposes of this analysis, t he Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol 12 dBA L eq substantial noise level increase threshold is used to assess temporary noise level increases. (23) Caltrans considers a substantial noise increase to occur when the project’s predicted noise level exceeds the existing noise level by 12 dBA or more. The use of 12 dB is based on the concept that a 10 dB increase generally is perceived as a doubling of loudness. (6 pp. 3-2) Although Caltrans recommendations were specifically developed to assess traffic noise impacts, the 12 dBA Leq substantial noise level increase threshold is used by other agencies to address the temporary noise level increases with the potential to exceed existing conditions. (23) Therefore, if the Project-related construction noise levels generate a temporary noise level increase above the existing ambient noise levels of up to 12 dBA L eq, then the Project construction noise level increases will be considered a potentially significant impact.

4.2 VIBRATION (THRESHOLD B)
As described in Section 3.6, vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated using the Caltrans vibration damage thresholds to assess potential temporary construction-related impacts at adjacent building locations. The nearest noise sensitive buildings adjacent to the Project site can best be described as “older residential struct ures” with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec).

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
27 4.3 CEQA GUIDELINES NOT FURTHER ANALYZED (THRESHOLD C) CEQA Noise Threshold C applies when there are nearby public and private airports and/or air strips and focuses on land use compatibility of the Project to nearby airports and airstrips. The Project site is not located within two miles of an airport or air strip. The closest airport is the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport (MARB/IPA) which is over 3 miles west of the Project site. As such, the Project site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations, and therefore, impacts are considered less than significant, and no further noise analysis is conducted in relation to Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, Noise Threshold C.

4.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
As discussed above, for purposes of this analysis, n oise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the proposed development. Table 4 -1 shows the significance criteria summary matrix that includes the allowable criteria used in this analysis to identify potentially significant incremental noise level increases.

TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Analysis Condition(s)
Significance Criteria7
Daytime Nighttime
Off-Site
Traffic1
If ambient is < 60 dBA CNEL ≥ 5 dBA CNEL Project increase If ambient is 60 - 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase If ambient is > 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 1.5 dBA CNEL Project increase On-Site
Traffic
Exterior Noise Compatibility Criteria2 See Exhibit 3-A
Interior Noise Level Standard3 45 dBA CNEL
Operational
At 200' from the property
line of the source4 65 dBA Leq 60 dBA Leq
If ambient is < 60 dBA Leq1 ≥ 5 dBA Leq Project increase If ambient is 60 - 65 dBA Leq1 ≥ 3 dBA Leq Project increase If ambient is > 65 dBA Leq1 ≥ 1.5 dBA Leq Project increase Construction
At 200' from the property
line of the source4 65 dBA Leq 60 dBA Leq
Exterior Noise Level Increase5 12 dBA Leq
Vibration Level Threshold6 0.3 PPV (in/sec)
1 FICON, 1992.
2 City of Moreno Valley General Plan Community Noise Compatibility Matrix, Table N-1 (Exhibit 3-A). 3 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Chapter 12, Section 1206. 4 City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code, Chapter 11.80 Noise Regulation, Table 11.80.030-2 5 Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, April 2020. 6 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual, April 2020 Table 19. 7 City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code, Chapter 11.80 Noise Regulation, Table 11.80.030-2 defines "Daytime" = 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.: "Nighttime" = 10:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m. City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section

11.80.030(D)(7) defines "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
28 This page intentionally left blank
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
29 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
To assess the existing noise level environment, 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at nine locations in the Project study area. The receiver locations were selected to describe and document the existing noise environment within the Project study area. Exhibit 5-A provides the boundaries of the Project study area and the noise level measurement locations. To fully describe the existing noise conditions, noise level measurements were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on Thursday, December 4, 2024. Appendix 5.1 includes study area photos.

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

5.2 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
The long -term noise level measurements were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site. Both Caltrans and the FTA recognize that it is not rea sonable to collect noise level measurements that can fully represent every part of a private yard, patio, deck, or balcony normally used for human activity when estimating impacts for new development projects. This is demonstrated in the Caltrans general site location guidelines which indicate that, sites must be free of noise contamination by sources other than sources of interest. Avoid sites located near sources such as barking dogs, lawnmowers, pool pumps, and air conditioners unless it is the express intent of the analyst to measure these sources. (6) Further, FTA guidance states, that it is not necessary nor recommended that existing noise exposure be determined by measuring at every noise -sensitive location in the project area. Rather, the recommended approach is to characterize the noise environment for clusters of sites based on measurements or estimates at representative locations in the community. (12)
Based on recommendations of Caltrans and the FTA, it is not necessary to collect measurements at each individual building or residence, because each receiver measurement represents a group of buildings that share acoustical equivalence. (12) In other words, the area represented by the receiver shares similar shielding, terrain, and geometric relationship to the reference noise source. Receivers represent a location of noise sensitive areas and are used to estimate the future noise level impacts. Collecting reference ambient noise level measurements at the nearby sensitive receiver locations allows for a comparison of the before and after Project noise levels Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
30 and is necessary to assess potential noise impacts due to the Project’s contribution to the ambient noise levels.

5.3 NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
The noise measurements presented below focus on the equivalent or the hourly energy average sound levels (Leq). The equivalent sound level (L eq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Table 5 -1 identifies the hourly daytime ( 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:0 1 p.m. to 7:59 a.m.) noise levels at each noise level measurement location.

TABLE 5-1: AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Location1 Description
Energy Average
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)2
Daytime Nighttime
L1 Located north of the site near the residence at 26783 Campus Point Drive 56.9 50.0
L2 Located east of the site near the residence at 13760 Nason Street. 71.6 65.1
L3 Located east of the site near the residence at 13860 Nason Street. 69.7 63.8
L4 Located south of the site near the residence at 26871 Alessandro Blvd. 47.8 41.8
L5 Located south of the site at the Valley Christian Academy located at 26755 Alessandro Blvd. 69.9 61.3
L6 Located west of the site near the residence at 26606 Danube Way 54.7 48.5
L7 Located west of the site near the residence at 26722 Bay Avenue. 57.8 54.6
L8 Located northwest of the site near the residence at 26656 Quartz Road. 57.2 50.0
L9 Located east of the site near the Moreno Elementary School at 13700 Nason Street. 58.6 48.7
1 See Exhibit 5-A for the noise level measurement locations. 2 Energy (logarithmic) average levels. The long-term 24-hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix 5.2. "Daytime" = 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m.

Table 5 -1 provides the equivalent noise levels used to describe the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions. These daytime and nighttime energy average noise levels represent the average of all hourly noise levels observed during these time periods expre ssed as a single number. Appendix 5.2 provides summary worksheets of the noise levels for each of the daytime and nighttime hours.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
31 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
32 This page intentionally left blank
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
33 6 TRAFFIC NOISE METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The following section outlines the methods and procedures used to estimate and analyze the future traffic noise environment. Consistent with the City of Moreno Valley Land Use Compatibility guidelines, all transportation-related noise levels are presented in terms of the 24- hour CNELs.

6.1 FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
The expected roadway noise level increases from vehicular traffic were calculated by Urban Crossroads, Inc. using a computer program that replicates the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model - FHWA-RD-77-108. (25) 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. (26) 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" o r "soft" relates to the absorption of the ground, pavement, or landscaping), and the percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period. Research conducted by Caltrans has shown that the use of soft site conditions is appropriate for the application of the FHWA traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis. (27)

6.1.1 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL INPUTS
Table 6-1 presents the roadway parameters used to assess the Project’s off -site transportation noise impacts. Table 6 -1 identifies the 28 off-site study area roadway segments, the distance from the centerline to adjacent receiving land use based on the functional roadway classifications per the City of Moreno Valley General Plan Circulation Element, and the vehicle speeds. The ADT volumes used in this study are presented on Table 6-2 are based on the Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc (2) for the following traffic conditions:
• Existing Without Project
• Existing With Project
• Opening Year Cumulative (OYC) (2028) Without Project
• Opening Year Cumulative (OYC) (2028) With Project
• Horizon Year (2045) Without Project
• Horizon Year (2045) With Project

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
34 TABLE 6-1: OFF-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS
ID Roadway Segment Classification1
Distance from
Centerline to
Receiving Land
Use (Feet)3
Vehicle
Speed
(mph)
1 Perris Blvd. n/o Alessandro Blvd. Divided Arterial 55' 40 2 Perris Blvd. s/o Alessandro Blvd. Divided Arterial 55' 40 3 Kitching St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. Minor Arterial 44' 40 4 Kitching St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. Minor Arterial 44' 40 5 Lasselle St. n/o Cottonwood Av. Arterial 50' 40
6 Lasselle St. s/o Cottonwood Av. Arterial 50' 40
7 Lasselle St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. Arterial 50' 40
8 Lasselle St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. Arterial 50' 40
9 Nason St. n/o Fir Av. Divided Arterial 55' 40
10 Nason St. s/o Fir Av. Divided Arterial 55' 40
11 Nason St. n/o Cottonwood Av. Divided Arterial 55' 45 12 Nason St. s/o Cottonwood Av. Divided Arterial 55' 45 13 Nason St. n/o Bay Av. Divided Arterial 55' 45
14 Nason St. s/o Bay Av. Divided Arterial 55' 45
15 Nason St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. Divided Arterial 55' 45 16 Nason St. s/o Cactus Divided Arterial 55' 45
17 Eucalyptus Av. e/o Nason St. Arterial 50' 35
18 Cottonwood Av. w/o Lasselle St. Minor Arterial 44' 45 19 Bay Av. w/o Lasselle St. Collector 39' 30
20 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Perris Blvd. Divided Major Arterial 67' 45 21 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Kitching St. Divided Major Arterial 67' 45 22 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Lasselle St. Divided Major Arterial 67' 45 23 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Lasselle St. Divided Major Arterial 67' 50 24 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Nason St. Divided Arterial 55' 45 25 Cactus Av. w/o Nason St. Minor Arterial 44' 45
26 Cactus Av. e/o Nason St. Minor Arterial 44' 45
27 Iris Av. w/o Nason St. Divided Major Arterial 67' 50 28 Iris Av. e/o Nason St. Divided Major Arterial 67' 50 1 City of Moreno Valley General Plan Circulation Element 2 Distance to receiving land use is based upon the right-of-way distances.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
35 TABLE 6-2: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ID Roadway Segment
Average Daily Traffic Volumes1
Existing OYC (2028) Horizon Year
(2045)
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
1 Perris Blvd. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 26,142 26,542 30,413 30,813 37,658 38,058 2 Perris Blvd. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 31,008 31,408 35,334 35,734 47,980 48,380 3 Kitching St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 12,021 12,139 13,236 13,354 14,572 14,690 4 Kitching St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 12,615 12,733 13,879 13,997 15,278 15,396 5 Lasselle St. n/o Cottonwood Av. 7,920 8,038 11,038 11,156 12,154 12,272 6 Lasselle St. s/o Cottonwood Av. 8,719 8,837 12,812 12,930 14,105 14,223 7 Lasselle St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 9,429 9,547 14,124 14,242 15,548 15,666 8 Lasselle St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 15,027 15,427 19,122 19,522 21,075 21,475 9 Nason St. n/o Fir Av. 32,620 39,150 53,935 60,465 59,329 65,859 10 Nason St. s/o Fir Av. 25,565 32,377 46,640 53,452 51,304 58,116 11 Nason St. n/o Cottonwood Av. 26,945 34,157 48,134 55,346 66,593 73,805 12 Nason St. s/o Cottonwood Av. 24,817 30,337 42,620 48,140 57,461 62,981 13 Nason St. n/o Bay Av. 25,049 30,569 40,272 45,792 57,461 62,981 14 Nason St. s/o Bay Av. 25,100 28,426 39,955 43,281 43,951 47,277 15 Nason St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 23,604 24,360 30,426 31,182 33,468 34,224 16 Nason St. s/o Cactus 16,007 16,527 20,030 20,550 22,034 22,554 17 Eucalyptus Av. e/o Nason St. 12,782 13,182 13,836 14,236 24,492 24,892 18 Cottonwood Av. w/o Lasselle St. 7,159 7,559 10,925 11,325 12,057 12,457 19 Bay Av. w/o Lasselle St. 2,670 3,248 3,670 4,248 4,095 4,673 20 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Perris Blvd. 27,499 27,967 35,338 35,806 65,227 65,695 21 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Kitching St. 19,670 20,938 30,752 32,020 33,954 35,222 22 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Lasselle St. 13,337 14,843 24,233 25,739 26,807 28,313 23 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Lasselle St. 10,706 12,730 21,286 23,310 23,617 25,641 24 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Nason St. 7,610 8,648 21,161 22,199 23,278 24,316 25 Cactus Av. w/o Nason St. 15,040 15,158 17,131 17,249 18,844 18,962 26 Cactus Av. e/o Nason St. 11,118 11,236 12,035 12,153 16,935 17,053 27 Iris Av. w/o Nason St. 31,111 31,511 39,782 40,182 40,959 41,359 28 Iris Av. e/o Nason St. 24,933 25,051 33,006 33,124 36,307 36,425 1 Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Traffic Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc.

The ADT volumes vary for each roadway segment based on the existing traffic volumes and the combination of project traffic distributions. In addition, the off-site traffic noise analysis is based on a PM peak hour to average daily traffic (peak -to-daily) relationship of 7.83%. Table 6 -3 provides the time of day (daytime, evening, and nighttime) vehicle splits and Table 6 -4 presents the traffic flow distributions (vehicle mix) used for this analysis. The vehicle mix provides the Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
36 hourly distribution percentages of automobile, medium trucks, and heavy trucks for input into the FHWA noise prediction model.

TABLE 6-3: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS
Vehicle Type Time of Day Splits1 Total of Time of
Day Splits Daytime Evening Nighttime
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 vehicle 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 6-4: TRAFFIC FLOW BY VEHICLE TYPE (VEHICLE MIX)
Classification Total % Traffic Flow Total
Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks
All Roadways1 97.42% 1.84% 0.74% 100.00%
1 Typical Southern California vehicle mix.

6.1.2 ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL INPUTS
The traffic volumes shown on Table 6 -5 reflect future long -range traffic conditions needed to assess the future on -site traffic noise environment and to identify potential noise abatement measures (if any) that address the worst -case future conditions. Table 6 -5 presents the theoretical maximum roadway capacities and vehicle speeds used to estimate the conservative worst-case future on-site traffic noise conditions. To predict the future noise environment within the planned residential component of the Project site, receivers were placed 10 feet from the property line. The first -floor exterior noise level receivers were placed five feet above the pad elevation and 20 feet from the property line. All second-floor receivers were located 15 feet and potential third-floor receivers were located 25 feet above the proposed finished floor elevation.

Table 6-5 presents the on-site roadway parameters used for this study.

TABLE 6-5: ON-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS
Roadway Classification1 Lanes
Average
Daily Traffic
Volume2
Vehicle
Speed
(mph)
Nason St. Divided Arterial 4 63,000 45
Cottonwood Av. Minor Arterial 4 10,500 45
Bay Av. Collector 2 3,200 30
Alessandro Blvd. Divided Major Arterial 6 25,950 50
Street A Collector 2 2,050 30
1 Road classifications based upon the City of Moreno Valley General Plan Circulation Element. 2 Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Traffic Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
37 7 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
To assess the off -site transportation CNEL noise level impacts associated with development of the proposed Project, noise contours were developed based on the Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc . (2) Noise contour boundaries represent the equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway.

7.1 NOISE CONTOURS
Noise contours were used to assess the Project's incremental 24 -hour dBA CNEL traffic -related noise impacts at receiving land uses adjacent to roadways conveying Project traffic. The noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of a constant valu e and are measured from the center of the roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL noise levels. The noise contours do not consider the effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may attenuate ambient noise levels. In addition, because the n oise contours reflect modeling of vehicular noise on area roadways, they appropriately do not reflect noise contributions from the surrounding stationary noise sources within the Project study area.

Tables 7-1 through 7-6 present a summary of the exterior dBA CNEL traffic noise levels without barrier attenuation. Roadway segments are analyzed from the without Project to the with Project conditions in each of the following timeframes:
• Existing
• Opening Year Cumulative (OYC) (2028)
• Horizon Year (2045)
Appendix 7.1 includes a summary of the dBA CNEL traffic noise level contours for each of the traffic scenarios.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
38 TABLE 7-1: EXISTING WITHOUT PROJECT CONTOURS
ID Road Segment
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Perris Blvd. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 69.8 53 115 247
2 Perris Blvd. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 70.5 60 128 277
3 Kitching St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 67.4 29 63 137
4 Kitching St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 67.6 30 66 141
5 Lasselle St. n/o Cottonwood Av. 65.0 23 50 108
6 Lasselle St. s/o Cottonwood Av. 65.4 25 53 115
7 Lasselle St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 65.8 26 56 121
8 Lasselle St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 67.8 36 77 165
9 Nason St. n/o Fir Av. 70.7 62 133 286
10 Nason St. s/o Fir Av. 69.7 52 113 243
11 Nason St. n/o Cottonwood Av. 71.2 66 142 306
12 Nason St. s/o Cottonwood Av. 70.8 62 135 290
13 Nason St. n/o Bay Av. 70.9 63 135 292
14 Nason St. s/o Bay Av. 70.9 63 136 292
15 Nason St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 70.6 60 130 280
16 Nason St. s/o Cactus 68.9 47 100 216
17 Eucalyptus Av. e/o Nason St. 65.7 26 55 119
18 Cottonwood Av. w/o Lasselle St. 66.4 25 55 118
19 Bay Av. w/o Lasselle St. 58.3 7 14 30
20 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Perris Blvd. 70.5 72 155 334
21 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Kitching St. 69.0 58 124 267
22 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Lasselle St. 67.3 44 96 206
23 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Lasselle St. 67.5 46 99 212
24 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Nason St. 65.7 28 61 132
25 Cactus Av. w/o Nason St. 69.6 42 90 193
26 Cactus Av. e/o Nason St. 68.3 34 73 158
27 Iris Av. w/o Nason St. 72.1 93 201 432
28 Iris Av. e/o Nason St. 71.2 80 173 373
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
39 TABLE 7-2: EXISTING WITH PROJECT CONTOURS
ID Road Segment
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Perris Blvd. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 69.8 54 116 249
2 Perris Blvd. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 70.6 60 130 279
3 Kitching St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 67.4 30 64 138
4 Kitching St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 67.6 31 66 142
5 Lasselle St. n/o Cottonwood Av. 65.1 23 51 109
6 Lasselle St. s/o Cottonwood Av. 65.5 25 54 116
7 Lasselle St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 65.8 26 57 122
8 Lasselle St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 67.9 36 78 168
9 Nason St. n/o Fir Av. 71.5 70 150 323
10 Nason St. s/o Fir Av. 70.7 61 132 285
11 Nason St. n/o Cottonwood Av. 72.2 77 167 359
12 Nason St. s/o Cottonwood Av. 71.7 71 154 331
13 Nason St. n/o Bay Av. 71.7 72 155 333
14 Nason St. s/o Bay Av. 71.4 68 147 317
15 Nason St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 70.7 62 133 286
16 Nason St. s/o Cactus 69.1 48 103 221
17 Eucalyptus Av. e/o Nason St. 65.8 26 57 122
18 Cottonwood Av. w/o Lasselle St. 66.6 26 57 122
19 Bay Av. w/o Lasselle St. 59.2 7 16 34
20 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Perris Blvd. 70.5 73 157 338
21 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Kitching St. 69.3 60 129 278
22 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Lasselle St. 67.8 48 103 221
23 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Lasselle St. 68.3 51 111 238
24 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Nason St. 66.3 31 67 144
25 Cactus Av. w/o Nason St. 69.7 42 90 194
26 Cactus Av. e/o Nason St. 68.4 34 74 159
27 Iris Av. w/o Nason St. 72.2 94 202 436
28 Iris Av. e/o Nason St. 71.2 81 174 374
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
40 TABLE 7-3: OYC (2028) WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ID Road Segment
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Perris Blvd. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 70.4 59 127 273
2 Perris Blvd. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 71.1 65 140 302
3 Kitching St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 67.8 31 68 146
4 Kitching St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 68.0 32 70 151
5 Lasselle St. n/o Cottonwood Av. 66.4 29 62 135
6 Lasselle St. s/o Cottonwood Av. 67.1 32 69 149
7 Lasselle St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 67.5 34 74 159
8 Lasselle St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 68.8 42 90 194
9 Nason St. n/o Fir Av. 72.9 86 186 400
10 Nason St. s/o Fir Av. 72.3 78 169 363
11 Nason St. n/o Cottonwood Av. 73.7 97 209 451
12 Nason St. s/o Cottonwood Av. 73.2 90 193 416
13 Nason St. n/o Bay Av. 72.9 86 186 400
14 Nason St. s/o Bay Av. 72.9 86 185 398
15 Nason St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 71.7 72 154 332
16 Nason St. s/o Cactus 69.9 54 117 251
17 Eucalyptus Av. e/o Nason St. 66.0 27 58 126
18 Cottonwood Av. w/o Lasselle St. 68.2 34 72 156
19 Bay Av. w/o Lasselle St. 59.7 8 17 37
20 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Perris Blvd. 71.6 85 183 395
21 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Kitching St. 70.9 77 167 360
22 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Lasselle St. 69.9 66 142 307
23 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Lasselle St. 70.5 72 156 336
24 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Nason St. 70.1 56 121 261
25 Cactus Av. w/o Nason St. 70.2 45 98 211
26 Cactus Av. e/o Nason St. 68.7 36 77 166
27 Iris Av. w/o Nason St. 73.2 110 236 509
28 Iris Av. e/o Nason St. 72.4 97 209 450
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
41 TABLE 7-4: OYC (2028) WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS
ID Road Segment
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Perris Blvd. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 70.5 59 128 276
2 Perris Blvd. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 71.1 66 141 304
3 Kitching St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 67.8 32 68 147
4 Kitching St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 68.0 33 70 151
5 Lasselle St. n/o Cottonwood Av. 66.5 29 63 136
6 Lasselle St. s/o Cottonwood Av. 67.1 32 69 150
7 Lasselle St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 67.6 34 74 159
8 Lasselle St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 68.9 42 91 197
9 Nason St. n/o Fir Av. 73.4 93 200 432
10 Nason St. s/o Fir Av. 72.9 86 185 398
11 Nason St. n/o Cottonwood Av. 74.3 107 230 495
12 Nason St. s/o Cottonwood Av. 73.7 97 209 451
13 Nason St. n/o Bay Av. 73.5 94 202 436
14 Nason St. s/o Bay Av. 73.2 90 195 420
15 Nason St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 71.8 73 157 338
16 Nason St. s/o Cactus 70.0 55 119 256
17 Eucalyptus Av. e/o Nason St. 66.1 28 60 128
18 Cottonwood Av. w/o Lasselle St. 68.4 34 74 160
19 Bay Av. w/o Lasselle St. 60.4 9 19 41
20 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Perris Blvd. 71.6 86 185 398
21 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Kitching St. 71.1 80 172 369
22 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Lasselle St. 70.2 69 148 319
23 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Lasselle St. 70.9 77 166 357
24 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Nason St. 70.3 58 125 269
25 Cactus Av. w/o Nason St. 70.2 46 98 211
26 Cactus Av. e/o Nason St. 68.7 36 78 167
27 Iris Av. w/o Nason St. 73.3 110 238 513
28 Iris Av. e/o Nason St. 72.4 97 209 451
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
42 TABLE 7-5: HORIZON YEAR (2045) WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ID Road Segment
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Perris Blvd. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 71.4 68 146 315
2 Perris Blvd. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 72.4 80 172 370
3 Kitching St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 68.2 34 72 156
4 Kitching St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 68.4 35 74 161
5 Lasselle St. n/o Cottonwood Av. 66.9 31 67 143
6 Lasselle St. s/o Cottonwood Av. 67.5 34 74 158
7 Lasselle St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 67.9 36 78 169
8 Lasselle St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 69.3 45 96 207
9 Nason St. n/o Fir Av. 73.3 92 198 426
10 Nason St. s/o Fir Av. 72.7 83 180 387
11 Nason St. n/o Cottonwood Av. 75.1 121 260 560
12 Nason St. s/o Cottonwood Av. 74.5 109 236 507
13 Nason St. n/o Bay Av. 74.5 109 236 507
14 Nason St. s/o Bay Av. 73.3 91 197 424
15 Nason St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 72.1 76 164 354
16 Nason St. s/o Cactus 70.3 58 124 268
17 Eucalyptus Av. e/o Nason St. 68.5 40 85 184
18 Cottonwood Av. w/o Lasselle St. 68.7 36 77 167
19 Bay Av. w/o Lasselle St. 60.2 9 19 40
20 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Perris Blvd. 74.2 128 276 594
21 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Kitching St. 71.4 83 178 384
22 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Lasselle St. 70.4 71 152 328
23 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Lasselle St. 71.0 78 167 360
24 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Nason St. 70.6 60 129 278
25 Cactus Av. w/o Nason St. 70.6 48 104 224
26 Cactus Av. e/o Nason St. 70.1 45 97 209
27 Iris Av. w/o Nason St. 73.3 112 241 519
28 Iris Av. e/o Nason St. 72.8 103 222 479
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
43 TABLE 7-6: HORIZON YEAR (2045) WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ID Road Segment
CNEL at
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)1
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 Perris Blvd. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 71.4 68 147 317
2 Perris Blvd. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 72.5 80 173 372
3 Kitching St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 68.3 34 73 156
4 Kitching St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 68.5 35 75 161
5 Lasselle St. n/o Cottonwood Av. 66.9 31 67 144
6 Lasselle St. s/o Cottonwood Av. 67.5 34 74 159
7 Lasselle St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 68.0 37 79 170
8 Lasselle St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 69.3 45 97 210
9 Nason St. n/o Fir Av. 73.8 99 212 457
10 Nason St. s/o Fir Av. 73.3 91 195 421
11 Nason St. n/o Cottonwood Av. 75.6 129 278 600
12 Nason St. s/o Cottonwood Av. 74.9 116 250 539
13 Nason St. n/o Bay Av. 74.9 116 250 539
14 Nason St. s/o Bay Av. 73.6 96 207 446
15 Nason St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 72.2 77 167 359
16 Nason St. s/o Cactus 70.4 59 126 272
17 Eucalyptus Av. e/o Nason St. 68.6 40 86 186
18 Cottonwood Av. w/o Lasselle St. 68.8 37 79 170
19 Bay Av. w/o Lasselle St. 60.8 9 20 44
20 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Perris Blvd. 74.2 129 277 597
21 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Kitching St. 71.5 85 183 394
22 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Lasselle St. 70.6 73 158 340
23 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Lasselle St. 71.3 82 176 380
24 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Nason St. 70.7 62 133 286
25 Cactus Av. w/o Nason St. 70.6 49 105 225
26 Cactus Av. e/o Nason St. 70.2 45 97 210
27 Iris Av. w/o Nason St. 73.4 113 243 523
28 Iris Av. e/o Nason St. 72.8 103 223 480
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of the receiving adjacent land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
44 7.2 EXISTING PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
An analysis of existing traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the proposed Project has been included in this report to fully analyze all the existing traffic scenarios identified in the Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Traffic Analysis . This condition is provided solely for informational purposes and will not occur, since the Project will not be fully developed and occupied under Existing conditions. Table 7-1 shows the Existing without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Exist ing without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 58.3 to 72.1 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-2 shows the Existing with Project conditions will range from 59.2 to 72.2 dBA CNEL. Table 7-7 shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level impacts will range from 0.0 to 1.0 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 4- 1, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to unmitigated Project-related traffic noise levels.

7.3 OYC (2028) PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Table 7-3 presents the Opening Year Cumulative (2028) without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Opening Year Cumulative (2028) without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 59.7 to 73.7 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7 -4 shows the Opening Year Cumulative (2028) with Project conditions will range from 60.4 to 74.3 dBA CNEL. Table 7 -8 shows that the Project off - site traffic noise level increases will range from 0.0 to 0.7 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off -site traffic noise presented in Table 4 -1, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to unmitigated Project-related traffic noise levels.

7.4 HORIZON YEAR (2045) PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Table 7-5 presents the Horizon Year (2045) without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Horizon Year (2045) without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 60.2 to 75.1 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7 -6 shows the Horizon Year (2045) with Project conditions will range from

60.8 to 75.6 dBA CNEL. Table 7-9 shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level increases will range from 0.0 to 0.6 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off -site traffic noise presented in Table 4-1, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to unmitigated Project-related traffic noise levels.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
45 TABLE 7-7: EXISTING WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ID Road Segment
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold2
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Perris Blvd. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 69.8 69.8 0.0 1.5 No 2 Perris Blvd. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 70.5 70.6 0.1 1.5 No 3 Kitching St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 67.4 67.4 0.0 1.5 No 4 Kitching St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 67.6 67.6 0.0 1.5 No 5 Lasselle St. n/o Cottonwood Av. 65.0 65.1 0.1 1.5 No
6 Lasselle St. s/o Cottonwood Av. 65.4 65.5 0.1 1.5 No
7 Lasselle St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 65.8 65.8 0.0 1.5 No 8 Lasselle St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 67.8 67.9 0.1 1.5 No 9 Nason St. n/o Fir Av. 70.7 71.5 0.8 1.5 No
10 Nason St. s/o Fir Av. 69.7 70.7 1.0 1.5 No
11 Nason St. n/o Cottonwood Av. 71.2 72.2 1.0 1.5 No
12 Nason St. s/o Cottonwood Av. 70.8 71.7 0.9 1.5 No
13 Nason St. n/o Bay Av. 70.9 71.7 0.8 1.5 No
14 Nason St. s/o Bay Av. 70.9 71.4 0.5 1.5 No
15 Nason St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 70.6 70.7 0.1 1.5 No
16 Nason St. s/o Cactus 68.9 69.1 0.2 1.5 No
17 Eucalyptus Av. e/o Nason St. 65.7 65.8 0.1 1.5 No
18 Cottonwood Av. w/o Lasselle St. 66.4 66.6 0.2 1.5 No 19 Bay Av. w/o Lasselle St. 58.3 59.2 0.9 5.0 No
20 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Perris Blvd. 70.5 70.5 0.0 1.5 No 21 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Kitching St. 69.0 69.3 0.3 1.5 No 22 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Lasselle St. 67.3 67.8 0.5 1.5 No 23 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Lasselle St. 67.5 68.3 0.8 1.5 No 24 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Nason St. 65.7 66.3 0.6 1.5 No
25 Cactus Av. w/o Nason St. 69.6 69.7 0.1 1.5 No
26 Cactus Av. e/o Nason St. 68.3 68.4 0.1 1.5 No
27 Iris Av. w/o Nason St. 72.1 72.2 0.1 1.5 No
28 Iris Av. e/o Nason St. 71.2 71.2 0.0 1.5 No
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 2 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
46 TABLE 7-8: OYC (2028) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE INCREASES ID Road Segment
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold2
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Perris Blvd. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 70.4 70.5 0.1 1.5 No 2 Perris Blvd. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 71.1 71.1 0.0 1.5 No 3 Kitching St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 67.8 67.8 0.0 1.5 No 4 Kitching St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 68.0 68.0 0.0 1.5 No 5 Lasselle St. n/o Cottonwood Av. 66.4 66.5 0.1 1.5 No
6 Lasselle St. s/o Cottonwood Av. 67.1 67.1 0.0 1.5 No
7 Lasselle St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 67.5 67.6 0.1 1.5 No 8 Lasselle St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 68.8 68.9 0.1 1.5 No 9 Nason St. n/o Fir Av. 72.9 73.4 0.5 1.5 No
10 Nason St. s/o Fir Av. 72.3 72.9 0.6 1.5 No
11 Nason St. n/o Cottonwood Av. 73.7 74.3 0.6 1.5 No
12 Nason St. s/o Cottonwood Av. 73.2 73.7 0.5 1.5 No
13 Nason St. n/o Bay Av. 72.9 73.5 0.6 1.5 No
14 Nason St. s/o Bay Av. 72.9 73.2 0.3 1.5 No
15 Nason St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 71.7 71.8 0.1 1.5 No
16 Nason St. s/o Cactus 69.9 70.0 0.1 1.5 No
17 Eucalyptus Av. e/o Nason St. 66.0 66.1 0.1 1.5 No
18 Cottonwood Av. w/o Lasselle St. 68.2 68.4 0.2 1.5 No 19 Bay Av. w/o Lasselle St. 59.7 60.4 0.7 5.0 No
20 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Perris Blvd. 71.6 71.6 0.0 1.5 No 21 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Kitching St. 70.9 71.1 0.2 1.5 No 22 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Lasselle St. 69.9 70.2 0.3 1.5 No 23 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Lasselle St. 70.5 70.9 0.4 1.5 No 24 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Nason St. 70.1 70.3 0.2 1.5 No
25 Cactus Av. w/o Nason St. 70.2 70.2 0.0 1.5 No
26 Cactus Av. e/o Nason St. 68.7 68.7 0.0 1.5 No
27 Iris Av. w/o Nason St. 73.2 73.3 0.1 1.5 No
28 Iris Av. e/o Nason St. 72.4 72.4 0.0 1.5 No
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 2 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
47 TABLE 7-9: HORIZON YEAR 2040 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE INCREASES ID Road Segment
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold2
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Perris Blvd. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 71.4 71.4 0.0 1.5 No 2 Perris Blvd. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 72.4 72.5 0.1 1.5 No 3 Kitching St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 68.2 68.3 0.1 1.5 No 4 Kitching St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 68.4 68.5 0.1 1.5 No 5 Lasselle St. n/o Cottonwood Av. 66.9 66.9 0.0 1.5 No
6 Lasselle St. s/o Cottonwood Av. 67.5 67.5 0.0 1.5 No
7 Lasselle St. n/o Alessandro Blvd. 67.9 68.0 0.1 1.5 No 8 Lasselle St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 69.3 69.3 0.0 1.5 No 9 Nason St. n/o Fir Av. 73.3 73.8 0.5 1.5 No
10 Nason St. s/o Fir Av. 72.7 73.3 0.6 1.5 No
11 Nason St. n/o Cottonwood Av. 75.1 75.6 0.5 1.5 No
12 Nason St. s/o Cottonwood Av. 74.5 74.9 0.4 1.5 No
13 Nason St. n/o Bay Av. 74.5 74.9 0.4 1.5 No
14 Nason St. s/o Bay Av. 73.3 73.6 0.3 1.5 No
15 Nason St. s/o Alessandro Blvd. 72.1 72.2 0.1 1.5 No
16 Nason St. s/o Cactus 70.3 70.4 0.1 1.5 No
17 Eucalyptus Av. e/o Nason St. 68.5 68.6 0.1 1.5 No
18 Cottonwood Av. w/o Lasselle St. 68.7 68.8 0.1 1.5 No 19 Bay Av. w/o Lasselle St. 60.2 60.8 0.6 3.0 No
20 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Perris Blvd. 74.2 74.2 0.0 1.5 No 21 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Kitching St. 71.4 71.5 0.1 1.5 No 22 Alessandro Blvd. w/o Lasselle St. 70.4 70.6 0.2 1.5 No 23 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Lasselle St. 71.0 71.3 0.3 1.5 No 24 Alessandro Blvd. e/o Nason St. 70.6 70.7 0.1 1.5 No
25 Cactus Av. w/o Nason St. 70.6 70.6 0.0 1.5 No
26 Cactus Av. e/o Nason St. 70.1 70.2 0.1 1.5 No
27 Iris Av. w/o Nason St. 73.3 73.4 0.1 1.5 No
28 Iris Av. e/o Nason St. 72.8 72.8 0.0 1.5 No
1 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 2 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)?

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
48 This page intentionally left blank
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
49 8 ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
An on-site exterior noise impact analysis has been completed to determine the noise exposure levels that would result from adjacent transportation noise sources in the Project study area, and to identify potential noise abatement measures that would achieve acceptable Project exterior and interior noise levels. The primary source of transportation noise affecting the Project site is anticipated to be from Cottonwood Avenue, Nason Street, Alessandro Boulevard, Bay Avenue and Street A. The Project would also be exposed to nominal traffic noise from the Project’s other internal roads. However, due to the distance, and low traffic volume/speed, traffic noise from these roads will not make a substantive contribution to ambient noise conditions.

8.1 EXTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS
Using the FHWA traffic noise prediction model and the parameters outlined in Tables 6-3 to 6-5, the expected future exterior noise levels for the on-site Project land uses were estimated at on- site receiver locations. To describe the on -site traffic noise impacts, nine on-site receiver locations were selected for analysis facing Cottonwood Avenue, Nason Street, Alessandro Boulevard, Bay Avenue and Street A as shown on Exhibit 8-A. Table 8-1 presents a summary of future on -site exterior traffic noise levels. The on -site traffic noise analysis calculations are provided in Appendix 8.1.

TABLE 8-1: EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
Receiver
Location1 Roadway Land Use
Exterior
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)2
Land Use
Compatibility3
ON1 Cottonwood Av. Residential 66.7 Conditionally Acceptable ON2 Nason St. Residential 73.6 Normally Unacceptable
ON3 Nason St. Park 73.6 Conditionally Acceptable
ON4 Nason St. Hotel 73.6 Normally Unacceptable
ON5 Nason St. Commercial 73.6 Conditionally Acceptable
ON6 Alessandro Blvd. Commercial 70.2 Conditionally Acceptable ON7 Alessandro Blvd. Residential 70.2 Normally Unacceptable ON8 Bay Av. Residential 57.7 Normally Acceptable
ON9 Street A Civic (Library) 55.7 Normally Acceptable
1 On-site receiver locations shown on Exhibit 8-A.
2 Exterior on-site traffic noise level calculations are included in Appendix 8.1. 3 Based on the General Plan land use compatibility guidelines as shown on Exhibit 3-A. For conditionally acceptable land use, new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. For Normally Unacceptable land use, if new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
50 EXHIBIT 8-A: ON-SITE RECEIVER LOCATIONS

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
51 All future residential uses will require detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements to ensure that needed noise insulation features are included in the design. These final noise studies would utilize any recommendations identified in this study in combination with precise grading plans and actual building design specifications to identify any additional noise abatement measures, such as exterior noise barriers and/or building materials (e.g., sound transmission class ratings for windows and doors), if necessary. The final noise study requirements are detailed in the Executive Summary.

8.1.1 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
The on-site exterior traffic noise analysis indicates that the noise sensitive outdoor living areas (backyards) for residential land uses would experience unmitigated exterior noise levels of up to

73.6 dBA CNEL on Nason Street. Based on City of Moreno Valley Community Noise Compatibility Matrix shown on Exhibit 3 -A, the land uses within the Project are considered as normally unacceptable with exterior noise levels ranging from 70 to 75 dBA CNEL. For normally unacceptable land use, new construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Noise-sensitive exterior areas are generally limited to private yards of single-family residential land use and outdoor common areas for multi -family residential land use. To satisfy the City of Moreno Valley 65 dBA CNEL normally acceptable exterior noise level guidelines the construction of 6-foot-high noise barriers is recommended for the private yards of single -family residential land use and outdoor common areas for multi-family residential land use represented by on-site receiver locations ON1, ON2, and ON7. With the recommended noise barriers shown on Exhibit ES-A, Table 8-2 shows that the future exterior noise levels with noise abatement measures will range from 57.6 to 64.7 dBA CNEL. This noise analysis shows that the recommended 6-foot-high noise barriers will satisfy the City of Moreno Valley 65 dBA CNEL normally acceptable exterior noise level guidelines for residential uses.

TABLE 8-2: EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS WITH NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES Receiver
Location1 Roadway Land Use
Barrier
Height
(Feet)
Exterior
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)2
Land Use
Compatibility3
ON1 Cottonwood Av. Residential 6' 57.6 Normally Acceptable ON2 Nason St. Residential 6' 64.7 Normally Acceptable
ON7 Alessandro Blvd. Residential 6' 61.4 Normally Acceptable ON8 Bay Av. Residential 0' 57.7 Normally Acceptable
1 On-site receiver locations shown on Exhibit 8-A.
2 Exterior on-site traffic noise level calculations are included in Appendix 8.1. 3 Based on the General Plan land use compatibility guidelines as shown on Exhibit 3-A.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
52 NOI-1: ON-SITE TRAFFIC EXTERIOR NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES To reduce the on-site traffic noise level impacts, the construction of 6-foot-high noise barriers is recommended for the private yards of single -family residential land use and outdoor common areas for multi -family residential land use represented by the on -site receiver locations ON1, ON2, and ON 7. With the noise abatement measures detailed in the Executive Summary and shown on Exhibit ES -A, the Project will satisfy the City of Moreno Valley 65 dBA CNEL normally acceptable exterior noise level guidelines for the residential land uses.

8.1.2 PARK
Based on City of Moreno Valley Community Noise Compatibility Matrix shown on Exhibit 3-A, the planned park land use west of Nason Street represent by Receiver Location ON3 is considered conditionally acceptable with exterior noise levels of 73.6 dBA CNEL. However, it is expected that the Park will be limited to daytime activities with no receivers at this location that will experience the nighttime noise levels encapsulated within the future 24-hour unmitigated exterior CNEL noise levels.

8.1.3 HOTEL
The analyzed hotel land use west of Nason Street is considered normally unacceptable with exterior noise levels of 73.6 dBA CNEL. For normally unacceptable land use, new construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design . The reasonable worst-case exterior noise level represented by Receiver Location ON4 d escribes the unmitigated exterior noise levels at the right-of-way boundary. Actual noise levels for hotel uses will be calculated at the building locations that will include additional setbacks from the right -of-way and site design to reduce the potential noise exposure. In addition, hotel buildings often incorporate additional noise -reducing design elements such as double -glazed windows, sealed doors, and sound -absorbing insulation to enhance acoustic comfort for guests.

8.1.4 COMMERCIAL
The planned Project commercial land use s west of Nason Street and north of Alessandro Boulevard are considered conditionally acceptable with exterior noise levels ranging from 70. 2 to 73.6 dBA CNEL. For conditionally acceptable land use, new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design . Based on the City of Moreno Valley Community Noise Compatibility Matrix, the Project commercial land use represented by Receiver Locations ON5 and ON6 will satisfy the interior noise requirements using conventional construction.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
53 8.1.5 CIVIC USE/LIBRARY
The analyzed civic land use/library located east of Street A is considered normally acceptable with exterior noise levels of up to 55.7 dBA CNEL. Located east of A str eet, Receiver Location ON9 shows that the Civic Use/Library is considered satisfactory with buildings of normal conventional construction, without any special insulation requirements.

8.2 INTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS
To ensure that the interior noise levels comply with the interior noise level standards, future exterior noise levels were calculated at the estimated at the first, second and third floor building façade locations for planned residential locations.

8.2.1 NOISE REDUCTION METHODOLOGY
The interior noise level is the difference between the predicted exterior noise level at the building facade 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." (8) (28) 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] up graded dual glazed windows; [3] mechanical ventilation/air conditioning; and [4] exterior wall/roof assembles free of cut outs or openings.

8.2.2 INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL ASSESSMENT
To provide the necessary interior noise level reduction, Tables 8 -3, 8-4 and 8 -5 indicate that Project residential land uses adjacent to Cottonwood Avenue, Nason Street, Alessandro Boulevard will require a windows -closed condition and a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). Table 8 -3 shows that the future first floor interior noise levels with the recommended exterior noise abatement measures are expected to range from 31.4 to 41.3 dBA CNEL. Table 8-4 shows that the future second-floor interior noise levels with the recommended exterior noise abatement measures are expected to range from 31.3 to 44.3 dBA CNEL. Table 8- 5 shows that the future third -floor interior noise levels with the recommended exterior noise abatement measures are expected to range from 30.9 to 44.1 dBA CNEL.

The interior noise assessment shows that the residential land use represented by the on -site receiver locations ON1, ON7 and ON8 can be satisfied using standard windows with a minimum STC rating of 27. However, upgraded windows and sliding glass doors with minimum STC rating of 30 are required for the residential land uses located west of Nason Street represented by the on-site receiver location ON2.

NOI-2: ON-SITE TRAFFIC INTERIOR NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES To satisfy the State of California’s 45 dBA CNEL noise insulation standards, all residential land uses adjacent to Cottonwood Avenue, Nason Street, Alessandro Boulevard will require a windows-closed condition and a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning).

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
54 Upgraded windows and sliding glass doors with minimum STC rating of 30 are required for the residential land uses located west of Nason Street represented by the on -site receiver location ON2.

In addition, a final noise study shall be prepared for the noise sensitive residential land uses prior to obtaining building permits for the project . This report would finalize the noise attenuation measures described in this study using the precise grading plans and actual building design specifications and may include additional noise abatement, if necessary, to meet the interior noise level standards.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
55 TABLE 8-3: FIRST FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL) Receiver
Location1 Land Use1 Noise Level
at Façade2
Required
Interior
Noise
Reduction3
Estimated
Interior
Noise
Reduction4
Upgraded
Windows5
Interior
Noise
Level6
Threshold7 Threshold
Exceeded?
ON1 Residential 58.9 13.9 25.0 No 33.9 45 No
ON2 Residential 66.3 21.3 25.0 No 41.3 45 No
ON7 Residential 63.2 18.2 25.0 No 38.2 45 No
ON8 Residential 56.4 11.4 25.0 No 31.4 45 No
1 On-site receiver locations shown on Exhibit 8-A.
2 Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). See Appendix 8.1. 3 Noise reduction to satisfy the interior noise level threshold. 4 A minimum of 25 dBA noise reduction is assumed with standard building construction and approximately 2 dBA less than the STC rating for upgraded windows. 5 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 6 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows. 7 Interior noise level threshold: 45 dBA CNEL for residential use (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code)

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
56 TABLE 8-4: SECOND FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL) Receiver
Location1 Land Use1 Noise Level
at Façade2
Required
Interior
Noise
Reduction3
Estimated
Interior
Noise
Reduction4
Upgraded
Windows5
Interior
Noise
Level6
Threshold7 Threshold
Exceeded?
ON1 Residential 65.3 20.3 25.0 No 40.3 45 No
ON2 Residential 72.3 27.3 28.0 Yes 44.3 45 No
ON7 Residential 69.0 24.0 25.0 No 44.0 45 No
ON8 Residential 56.3 11.3 25.0 No 31.3 45 No
1 On-site receiver locations shown on Exhibit 8-A.
2 Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). See Appendix 8.1. 3 Noise reduction to satisfy the interior noise level threshold. 4 A minimum of 25 dBA noise reduction is assumed with standard building construction and approximately 2 dBA less than the STC rating for upgraded windows. 5 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 6 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows. 7 Interior noise level threshold: 45 dBA CNEL for residential use (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code)

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
57 TABLE 8-5: THIRD FLOOR INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL) Receiver
Location1 Land Use1 Noise Level
at Façade2
Required
Interior
Noise
Reduction3
Estimated
Interior
Noise
Reduction4
Upgraded
Windows5
Interior
Noise
Level6
Threshold7 Threshold
Exceeded?
ON1 Residential 65.0 20.0 25.0 No 40.0 45 No
ON2 Residential 72.1 27.1 28.0 Yes 44.1 45 No
ON7 Residential 68.8 23.8 25.0 No 43.8 45 No
ON8 Residential 55.9 10.9 25.0 No 30.9 45 No
1 On-site receiver locations shown on Exhibit 8-A.
2 Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). See Appendix 8.1. 3 Noise reduction to satisfy the interior noise level threshold. 4 A minimum of 25 dBA noise reduction is assumed with standard building construction and approximately 2 dBA less than the STC rating for upgraded windows. 5 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 6 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows. 7 Interior noise level threshold: 45 dBA CNEL for residential use (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code)

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
58 This page intentionally left blank
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
59 9 OFF-SITE RECEIVER LOCATIONS
To assess the potential for long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts, the following off-site receiver locations, as shown on Exhibit 9-A, were identified as representative locations for analysis. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land.

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

To describe the potential off-site Project noise levels, nine receiver locations in the vicinity of the Project site were identified. The selection of receiver locations is based on FHWA guidelines and is consistent with additional guidance provided by Caltrans and the FTA, as previously described in Section 5.2. O ther 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 26873 Campus Point Drive, approximately 92 feet north of the Project site. R1 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24 -hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R2: Location R2 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 13760 Nason Street, approximately 164 feet east of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R2 is placed at the bui lding façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R3: Location R3 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 13980 Nason Street, approximately 211 feet east of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R3 is placed at the bui lding façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L3, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R4: Location R4 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 26871 Alessandro Boulevard, approximately 453 feet south of the Project site. R4 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L4, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R5: Location R5 represents the Valley Christian Academy located at 26755 Alessandro, approximately 163 feet south of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas facing the Project site, receiver R5 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
60 measurement was taken near this location, L4, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R6: Location R 6 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 26606 Danube Way, approximately 675 feet west of the Project site. R6 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24 -hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L5, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R7: Location R 7 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 26722 Bay Avenue, approximately 26 feet west of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R 7 is placed at the building façade.

Location R7 can also be used to represent the potential future noise sensitive receivers within the Alessandro Walk (Tentative Tract Map 38265) residential development located west of the Project site and north of Alessandro Boulevard.

R8: Location R8 represents the Moreno Valley Unified School District Early Learning Academy located at 26700 Cottonwood Avenue, approximately 296 feet northwest of the Project site. R8 is placed at the closest classroom. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R9: Location R9 represents the relocated Moreno Elementary School located at 13700 Nason Street, approximately 220 feet east of the Project site. R9 is placed at the building façade facing the Project. A 24 -hour noise measurement was taken near this loca tion, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
61 EXHIBIT 9-A: OFF-SITE RECEIVER LOCATIONS

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
62 This page intentionally left blank
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
63 10 OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS
This section analyzes the potential stationary -source operational noise impacts at the nearest receiver locations, identified in Section 9, resulting from the operation of uses allowed by the Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan. . Exhibit 10-A identifies the representative noise source activities used to assess the commercial and park land use noise source activities.

10.1 OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCES
This operational noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with the expected typical daytime and nighttime activities from the planned commercial and park land uses within the Project site. Consistent with the Project land use plan shown on Exhibit 10-A, the on-site Project -related noise sources are expected to include: outdoor seating activity, trash enclosure activity, roof-top air conditioning units, parking lot activity, park activities and ground air conditioning units.

10.2 REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To estimate the Project operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the proposed Project. This section provides a detailed des cription of the reference noise level measurements shown on Table 10-1 used to estimate the Project operational noise impacts. It is important to note that the following projected noise levels assume a conservative noise environment with the outdoor seating activity, trash enclosure activity, roof -top air conditioning units, parking lot activity, park activities and ground air conditioning units all operating at the same time. These sources of noise activity will likely vary throughout the day.

10.2.1 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES
The reference noise level measurements presented in this section were collected using a Larson Davis LxT Type 1 precisions sound level meter (serial number 01146). The LxT sound level meter was calibrated using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 200, was programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form and was located at approximately five feet above the ground elevation for each measurement. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measureme nts. All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (24)

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
64 EXHIBIT 10-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
65 TABLE 10-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Noise Source1
Noise
Source
Height
(Feet)
Min./Hour2
Reference
Noise
Level
@50 feet
(dBA Leq)
Sound
Power
Level
(dBA)3 Day Night
Outdoor Seating Activity 4' 60' 0' 59.8 91.5
Trash Enclosure Activity 5' 10' 10' 56.8 89.0
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 5' 39' 28' 57.2 88.9
Parking Lot Activity 5' 60' 30' 56.1 87.8
Park Activities 5' 60' 0' 49.4 81.1
Ground Air Conditioning Units 3' 39 28 44.4 76.0
1 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc.
2 Anticipated duration (minutes within the hour) of noise activity during typical hourly conditions expected at the Project site. "Daytime" = 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:01 p.m. - 7:59 a.m. 3 Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings. Sound power levels calculated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source.

10.2.1 OUTDOOR SEATING ACTIVITY
To describe the outdoor common area courtyards activity areas, a reference noise level measurement was taken. At 50 feet, the reference noise level is 59.8 Dba Leq at a noise source height of 5 feet. The reference noise level measurement includes outdoor eating, drinking , laughing and talking. Given the commercial nature of the land use, outdoor seating activities are anticipated to take place mainly during daytime hours when the businesses are operational.

10.2.2 TRASH ENCLOSURE ACTIVITY
To describe the noise levels associated with a trash enclosure activity, Urban Crossroads collected a reference noise level measurement at an existing trash enclosure containing two dumpster bins. The trash enclosure noise levels describe metal gates open ing and closing, metal scraping against concrete floor sounds, dumpster movement on metal wheels, and trash dropping into the metal dumpster. The reference noise levels describe trash enclosure noise activities when trash is dropped into an empty metal dumpster, as would occur at the Project site. The measured reference noise level at the uniform 50 -foot reference distance is 56.8 Dba Leq for the trash enclosure activity. The reference noise level describes the expected noise source activities associated with the trash enclosures for the Project’s proposed buildings. Typical trash enclosure activities are estimated to occur for 10 minutes per hour.

10.2.3 ROOF-TOP AIR CONDITIONING UNITS
To assess the noise levels created by the roof -top air conditioning units, reference noise level measurements were collected from a Lennox SCA120 series 10 -ton model packaged air conditioning unit. At the uniform reference distance of 50 feet, the reference noise level is 57.2 dBA Leq. Based on the typical operating conditions observed over a four -day measurement period, the roof-top air conditioning units are estimated to operate for an average of 39 minutes Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
66 per hour during the daytime hours, and 28 minutes per hour during the nighttime hours. For this noise analysis, the air conditioning units are expected to be located on the roof of the proposed building. This reference noise level describes the expected roof-top air conditioning units located 5 feet above the roof for the planned air conditioning units at the Project site.

10.2.4 PARKING LOT ACTIVITY
To describe the on -site parking lot activity a reference noise level of 56.1 Dba Leq at 50 feet is used. Parking lot activities are expected to take place during the full hour (60 minutes) throughout the daytime and evening hours with 30 minutes of activity during the nighttime hours. The parking lot noise levels are mainly due to cars pulling in and out of parking spaces.

10.2.5 PARK ACTIVITIES
To represent the potential noise level impacts associated with the Project’s park activities, a reference noise level measurement was collected at the Founders Park in the unincorporated community of Ladera Ranch in the County of Orange. The reference noise levels collected at the Founders Park are expected to reflect the noise level activities within the open space-recreation land use areas of the Project site, since the reference noise level measurement includes girls’ youth soccer games, coaches shouting instructions, and parents speaking on cell phones at five feet from the noise le vel measurement location, and background noise levels from kids playing on swing sets and people cheering and clapping at 50 feet from the noise level measurement location. Using the uniform reference distance of 50 feet, the reference park activity noise level is 49.4 dBA Leq. The playground activities are estimated to occur for 60 minutes during the peak hour conditions.

10.2.6 GROUND AIR CONDITIONING UNITS
To assess the noise levels created by the air conditioning units, reference noise levels were taken from equipment specifications for a 3- to 5-ton residential packaged air conditioning unit (Carrier 50VR-A). At a uniform reference distance of 50 feet, the units would generate a reference noise level of 44.4 dBA Leq. The air conditioning units were modeled 5 feet above ground, operating 39 minutes per hour during the daytime and 28 minutes at nighttime, which represents the typical maximum operating time for properly sized AC systems.

10.3 CADNAA NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
To fully describe the exterior operational noise levels from the Project, Urban Crossroads, Inc. developed a noise prediction model using the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program. CadnaA can analyze multiple types of noise sources usin g 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 an d the partial noise level contributions by noise source. Consistent with the ISO 9613 -2 protocol, the CadnaA noise Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
67 prediction model relies on the reference sound power level (L w) to describe individual noise sources. While sound pressure levels (e.g., L eq) quantify in decibels the intensity of given sound sources at a reference distance, sound power levels (L w) 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 i s the ac oustical energy emitted by the sound source and is an absolute value that is not affected by the environment. The operational noise level calculations provided in this noise study account for the distance attenuation provided due to geometric spreading, w hen 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 ha rd and soft surfaces.

10.4 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Using the reference noise levels to represent the proposed Project operations that include outdoor seating activity, trash enclosure activity, roof -top air conditioning units, parking lot activity, park activities and ground air conditioning units , Urban Crossroads, Inc. calculated the operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the Project site and the Project-related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations and at 200 feet from the property line of the source . Table 10-2 shows the Project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 29.5 to 49.9 dBA Leq.

TABLE 10-2: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Noise Source1
Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 @200'
Outdoor Seating Activity 26.1 38.8 46.5 41.2 37.2 21.4 23.2 24.1 33.5 24.1 Trash Enclosure Activity 12.4 31.9 27.6 25.8 13.9 8.0 10.8 9.9 22.7 9.9 Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 28.4 39.1 42.0 36.4 33.7 26.0 29.6 26.2 34.4 26.2 Parking Lot Activity 31.2 43.6 45.5 41.0 31.7 25.0 27.4 28.3 36.5 28.3 Park Activities 21.8 33.2 21.7 23.7 12.3 10.2 14.2 13.9 30.5 13.9 Ground Air Conditioning Units 28.4 23.1 21.8 20.1 24.8 14.9 42.6 22.6 23.4 22.6 Total (All Noise Sources) 35.2 46.3 49.9 44.9 39.7 29.5 43.0 31.9 40.4 31.9 1 See Exhibit 10-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 10.1.

Table 10-3 shows the Project operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the off -site receiver locations are expected to range from 25.8 to 43.8 dBA Leq. The differences between the daytime and nighttime noise levels are largely related to the duration of noise activity (Table 10 -1). Appendix 10.1 includes the detailed noise model inputs including the existing perimeter walls used to estimate the Project operational noise levels presented in this section.

TABLE 10-3: NIGHTTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
68 Noise Source1 Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 @200'
Outdoor Seating Activity 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trash Enclosure Activity 11.4 30.9 26.6 24.9 12.9 7.0 9.9 8.9 21.8 21.8 Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 26.0 36.6 39.6 34.0 31.3 23.6 27.2 23.8 32.0 32.0 Parking Lot Activity 27.2 39.6 41.5 37.0 27.7 21.0 23.4 24.4 32.5 32.5 Park Activities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ground Air Conditioning Units 26.0 20.7 19.3 17.7 22.4 12.5 40.2 20.1 20.9 20.9 Total (All Noise Sources) 31.3 41.8 43.8 39.0 33.3 25.8 40.5 28.0 35.6 35.6 1 See Exhibit 10-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 10.1.

10.5 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project-only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of Moreno Valley exterior noise level standards at nearby noise -sensitive receiver locations. Table 10 -4 shows the operational noise levels associated with Town Center at Moreno Valley Project will satisfy the City of Moreno Valley 65 dBA Leq daytime and 60 dBA Leq nighttime exterior noise level standards at all nearby receiver locations and at 200 feet from the property line of the source . Therefore, the operational noise impacts are considered less than significant at the nearby noise -sensitive receiver locations.

TABLE 10-4: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 35.2 31.3 65 60 No No
R2 46.3 41.8 65 60 No No
R3 49.9 43.8 65 60 No No
R4 44.9 39.0 65 60 No No
R5 39.7 33.3 65 60 No No
R6 29.5 25.8 65 60 No No
R7 43.0 40.5 65 60 No No
R8 31.9 28.0 65 60 No No
R9 40.4 35.6 65 60 No No
@200' 31.9 35.6 65 60 No No
1 See Exhibit 9-A for the off-site receiver locations.
2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown on Tables 10-2 and 10-3. 3 Exterior noise level standards for source (commercial) land use, as shown on Table 4-1. 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:01 p.m. - 7:59 a.m.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
69 10.6 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
To describe the Project operational noise level increases, the Project operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearby off-site receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources. Since the units used to measure noise, decibels (dB), are logarithmic units, the Project-operational and existing ambient noise levels cannot be combined using standard arithmetic equations. (6) Instead, they must be logarithmically added using the following base equation:

SPLTotal = 10log10[10SPL1/10 + 10SPL2/10 + … 10SPLn/10] Where “SPL1,” “SPL2,” etc. are equal to the sound pressure levels being combined, or in this case, the Project-operational and existing ambient noise levels. The difference between the combined Project and ambient noise levels describes the Project noise level increases to the existing ambient noise environment. Noise levels that would be experienced at receiver locations when Project-source noise is added to the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions are presented on Tables 10-5 and 10-6, respectively. As indicated on Tables 10 -5 and 10 -6, the Project will generate a daytime operational noise level increases ranging from 0. 0 to 1.8 dBA L eq at the nearest receiver locations. Project-related operational noise level increases will satisfy the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented in Table 4 -1. Therefore, the incremental Project operational noise level increase is considered less than significant at all receiver locations.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
70 TABLE 10-5: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 35.2 L1 56.9 56.9 0.0 5.0 No
R2 46.3 L2 71.6 71.6 0.0 1.5 No
R3 49.9 L3 69.7 69.7 0.0 1.5 No
R4 44.9 L4 47.8 49.6 1.8 5.0 No
R5 39.7 L4 47.8 48.4 0.6 5.0 No
R6 29.5 L5 69.9 69.9 0.0 1.5 No
R7 43.0 L6 54.7 55.0 0.3 5.0 No
R8 31.9 L1 56.9 56.9 0.0 5.0 No
R9 40.4 L2 71.6 71.6 0.0 1.5 No
@200' 31.9 L3 69.7 69.7 0.0 1.5 No
1 See Exhibit 9-A for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown on Table 10-2. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 4-1.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
71 TABLE 10-6: NIGHTTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 31.3 L1 50.0 50.1 0.1 5.0 No
R2 41.8 L2 65.1 65.1 0.0 1.5 No
R3 43.8 L3 63.8 63.8 0.0 3.0 No
R4 39.0 L4 41.8 43.6 1.8 5.0 No
R5 33.3 L4 41.8 42.4 0.6 5.0 No
R6 25.8 L5 61.3 61.3 0.0 3.0 No
R7 40.5 L6 48.5 49.1 0.6 5.0 No
R8 28.0 L1 50.0 50.0 0.0 5.0 No
R9 35.6 L2 65.1 65.1 0.0 1.5 No
@200' 35.6 L3 63.8 63.8 0.0 3.0 No
1 See Exhibit 9-A for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown on Table 10-3. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 4-1.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
72 This page intentionally left blank
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
73 11 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
This section analyzes potential impacts resulting from the short -term construction activities associated with the development of the Project. Exhibit 11-A shows the construction noise source activity in relation to the nearest sensitive receiver locations previously described in Section 9.

To support the Project, off-site storm drain improvements will be developed. The off-site storm drain will be installed along Alessandro west of the Project site and within the existing public right-of-way (ROW). It is expected that the off -site storm dr ain improvements would proceed linearly along the existing roadway and would not take place at one location for the entire duration of construction. Construction noise from this work would, therefore, be relatively short term because it would take place f or only a matter of days. As storm drain construction work moves linearly along the alignment within the existing ROW and farther from sensitive uses, noise levels would be reduced. To prevent high levels of construction noise from impacting noise - sensitive land uses, City of Moreno Valley Municipal Code Section 11.80.030(D)(7) limits general construction activities within 200 feet of residential uses to weekdays, between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. In addition, grading operations are limited to the hours identified in Section

8.21.050(O) of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays or as approved by the City Engineer.

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

11.2 CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To describe construction noise activities, this construction noise analysis was prepared using reference construction equipment noise levels from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), which includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emission levels. (29) The RCNM equipment database, provides a comprehensive list of the noise generating characteristics for specific types of construction equipment. In addition, the database provides an acoustical usage factor to Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
74 estimate the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation.

EXHIBIT 11-A: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
75 11.3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. Consistent with FTA guidance for general construction noise assessment, Table 11-1 presents the combined noise levels for the loudest construction equipment, assuming they operate at the same time. As shown on Table 11-2, the construction noise levels are expected to range from 45.7 to 60.6 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations and

56.3 dBA Leq at 200 feet from the property line of the source. Appendix 11.1 includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs.

TABLE 11-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction Equipmnet1
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Composite
Reference Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)2
Reference
Power Level
(dBA Lw)3
Site
Preparation
Tractor 80

84.0 115.6 Backhoe 74
Grader 81
Grading
Scraper 80

83.3 114.9 Excavator 77
Dozer 78
Building
Construction
Crane 73

80.6 112.2 Generator 78
Front End Loader 75
Paving
Paver 74

77.8 109.5 Dump Truck 72
Roller 73
Architectural
Coating
Man Lift 68

76.2 107.8 Compressor (air) 74
Generator (<25kVA) 70
1 FHWA Road Construction Noise Model.
2 Represents the combined noise level for all equipment assuming they operate at the same time consistent with FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance.
3 Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings.

11.4 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
The construction noise analysis shows that noise levels at the nearby receiver locations will satisfy the City of Moreno Valley daytime 65 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities as shown on Table 11-3. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise is considered less than significant at all receiver locations and at 200 feet from the property line of the source.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
76 TABLE 11-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation Grading Building
Construction Paving Architectural
Coating
Highest
Levels2
R1 57.2 56.5 53.8 51.1 49.4 57.2
R2 57.4 56.7 54.0 51.3 49.6 57.4
R3 56.0 55.3 52.6 49.9 48.2 56.0
R4 52.7 52.0 49.3 46.6 44.9 52.7
R5 56.4 55.7 53.0 50.3 48.6 56.4
R6 45.7 45.0 42.3 39.6 37.9 45.7
R7 60.6 59.9 57.2 54.5 52.8 60.6
R8 50.6 49.9 47.2 44.5 42.8 50.6
R9 55.4 54.7 52.0 49.3 47.6 55.4
@200' 56.3 55.6 52.9 50.2 48.5 56.3
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A.
2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction activity, which is measured from the Project site boundary to the nearest receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 11.1.

TABLE 11-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2 Threshold3 Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1 57.2 65 No
R2 57.4 65 No
R3 56.0 65 No
R4 52.7 65 No
R5 56.4 65 No
R6 45.7 65 No
R7 60.6 65 No
R8 50.6 65 No
R9 55.4 65 No
@200' 56.3 65 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A.
2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the nearest receiver locations as shown on Table 11-2.
3 Construction noise level thresholds as shown on Table3-2. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold?

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
77 11.5 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
To describe the temporary Project construction noise level contributions to the existing ambient noise environment, the Project construction noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements at the nearest off -site receiver loc ations. The difference between the combined Project -construction and ambient noise levels is used to describe the construction noise level increase.

Temporary noise level increases that would be experienced at sensitive receiver locations when Project construction-source noise is added to the ambient daytime conditions are presented on Table 11-4. A temporary noise level increase of 12 dBA is considered a potentially significant impact based on Caltrans’ substantial noise level increase criteria. (28) TABLE 11-4: DAYTIME CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location1
Highest
Project
Construction
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 57.2 L1 56.9 60.1 3.2 12 No
R2 57.4 L2 71.6 71.8 0.2 12 No
R3 56.0 L3 69.7 69.9 0.2 12 No
R4 52.7 L4 47.8 53.9 6.1 12 No
R5 56.4 L4 47.8 57.0 9.2 12 No
R6 45.7 L5 69.9 69.9 0.0 12 No
R7 60.6 L6 54.7 61.6 6.9 12 No
R8 50.6 L1 56.9 57.8 0.9 12 No
R9 55.4 L2 71.6 71.7 0.1 12 No
@200' 56.3 L3 69.7 69.9 0.2 12 No
1 Construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A 2 Total Project daytime construction noise levels as shown on Table 11-3. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project construction activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project construction activities. 7 Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.

11.6 CUMULATIVE CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
It is expected that the nearest sensitive receiver locations may also experience additional background construction noise impacts due to construction activities associated with other projects. A review of the cumulative development summary in the Project Traffic Impact Analysis (2), includes two adjacent cumulative projects. This includes Alessandro Walk (Tentative Tract Map 38265) located northeast of the Project site (represented by Receiver Location R7) and the Cottonwood & Nason located northeast of the Project site as shown on Exhibit 11 -B. Using the highest the reference construction equipment noise levels for grading activity and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project cumulative construction noise level impacts Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
78 at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. The actual timing of construction for each project is not known at this time. However, to present the conservative condition, Table 11-4 presents a summary of the cumulative noise levels assuming all projects are constructed concurrently. Appendix 11.2 includes the detailed CadnaA cumulative construction noise model inputs.

TABLE 11-5: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Threshold
Exceeded?5 Cumulative2
Combined
Cumulative +
Project3
Threshold4
R1 60.1 61.9 65 No
R2 53.3 58.8 65 No
R3 50.3 57.0 65 No
R4 51.5 55.2 65 No
R5 56.4 59.4 65 No
R6 61.2 61.3 65 No
R7 59.1 62.9 65 No
R8 52.7 54.8 65 No
R9 57.2 59.4 65 No
@200' 50.3 57.3 65 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A.
2 Cumulative construction noise levels from planned nearby developments as shown on Exhibit 11-B. 3 Combined cumulative, and Project related construction noise levels (assuming concurrent construction activity). 4 Does the combined cumulative and Project related construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? The cumulative construction noise analysis on Table 11 -5 shows that the nearby receiver locations will satisfy the City of Moreno Valley daytime 65 dBA L eq significance threshold during the concurrent cumulative construction activities. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise is considered less than significant at all receiver locations and at 200 feet from the property line of the source. In addition, Municipal Code Section 11.80.030(D)(7) limits general construction activities within 200 feet of residential uses to weekdays, between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Because construction activities are typically limited to weekdays, during day light hours, the direct and cumulative construction noise impacts are considered a nuisance or annoying, rather than a significant impact upon surrounding land uses.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
79 EXHIBIT 11-B: CUMULATIVE CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
80 11.7 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. The operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Construction vibration is generally associated with pile driving and rock blasting. However, no pile driving, or rock blasting activities are planned for the Project. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized on Table 11-6. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential for human response (annoyance) and building damage using the following vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA. To describe the vibration impacts the FTA provides the following equation: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5 TABLE 11-6: 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
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual Table 11-7 presents the expected Project related vibration levels at the nearby receiver locations.

At distances ranging from 12 to 665 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from 0.001 to 0.268 in/sec PPV.

Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec), the typical Project construction vibration levels will fall below the building damage thresholds at all the noise sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, the Project-related vibration impacts are considered less than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site. Moreover, the vibration levels reported at the sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction peri od but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
81 TABLE 11-7: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION 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 59' 0.001 0.010 0.021 0.025 0.025 0.3 No
R2 82' 0.001 0.006 0.013 0.015 0.015 0.3 No
R3 115' 0.000 0.004 0.008 0.009 0.009 0.3 No
R4 366' 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.3 No
R5 78' 0.001 0.006 0.014 0.016 0.016 0.3 No
R6 665' 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.3 No
R7 12' 0.009 0.105 0.229 0.268 0.268 0.3 No
R8 187' 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.3 No
R9 136' 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.3 No
@200' 200' 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.3 No
1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A.
2 Distance from receiver location to Project construction boundary (Project site boundary). 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (Table 11-6). 4 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020, Table 19, p. 38. 5 Does the peak vibration exceed the acceptable vibration thresholds? "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
82 This page intentionally left blank
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
83 12 REFERENCES

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

2. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. December 2024.

3. CBIA v. BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 and Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 473.

4. 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/desig n03.cfm.

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, Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. December 2011.

9. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Highway Noise Barrier Design Handbook. 2001.

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

11. 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.

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

13. Office of Planning and Research. State of California General Plan Guidelines. October 2017.

14. 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.

15. —. 2019 California Green Building Standards Code. January 2020.

16. City of Moreno Valley. General Plan Safety Element. October 2006.

17. —. Municipal Code, Chapter 11.80 Noise Regulation.

18. —. Final Environmental Impact Report for the MoVal 2040: Moreno Valley Comprehensive Plan Update, Housing Element Update, and Climate Action Plan. May 20, 2021.

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

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

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
84 21. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August 1992.

22. California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement. November 2009.

23. —. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects. May 2011.

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

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

26. 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.

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

28. —. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. April 2020.

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

30. City of Moreno Valley. General Plan Noise Element. June 2021.

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise
85 13 CERTIFICATION
The contents of this noise study report represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the proposed Town Center at Moreno Valley 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

Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise

This page intentionally left blank
86 Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise

APPENDIX 3.1:

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE

87 Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise

This page intentionally left blank
88 3/14/22, 11:11 AM Chapter 11.80 NOISE REGULATION
https://library.qcode.us/lib/moreno_valley_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_11-chapter_11_80?view=all 1/11 Moreno Valley, CA Municipal Code
Title 11 PEACE, MORALS AND SAFETY
Chapter 11.80 NOISE REGULATION

11.80.010 Legislative findings.

11.80.020 Definitions.

11.80.030 Prohibited acts.

11.80.040 Special provisions for temporary use and special event permits.

11.80.050 Measurement or assessment of sound.

11.80.060 Violation.

11.80.010 Legislative findings.

It is found and declared that:

A. Excessive sound within the limits of the city is a condition which has existed for some time, and the amount and intensity of such sound is increasing.

B. Such excessive sound is a detriment to the public health, safety, and welfare and quality of life of the residents of the city.

C. The necessity in the public interest for the provisions and prohibitions hereinafter contained and enacted is declared as a matter of legislative determination and public policy, and it is further declared that the provisions and prohibitions hereinafter contained and enacted are in pursuance of and for the purpose of securing and promoting the public health, safety, welfare and quality of life of the city and its inhabitants. (Ord. 740 § 1.2, 2007)

11.80.020 Definitions.

For purposes of this chapter, certain words and phrases used herein are defined as follows:
“A-weighted sound level” means the sound pressure level in decibels as measured with a sound level meter using the A-weighting network. The unit of measurement is the dB(A). “Commercial” means all uses of land not otherwise classified as residential, as defined in this section. “Construction” means any site preparation, and/or any assembly, erection, repair, or alteration, excluding demolition, of any structure, or improvements to real property. 89 3/14/22, 11:11 AM Chapter 11.80 NOISE REGULATION
https://library.qcode.us/lib/moreno_valley_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_11-chapter_11_80?view=all 2/11 “Continuous airborne sound” means sound that is measured by the slow-response setting of a meter manufactured to the specifications of ANSI Section 1.4-1983 (R2006) “Specification for Sound Level Meters,” or its successor.
“Daytime” means eight a.m. to ten p.m. the same day.
“Decibel” (dB) means a unit for measuring the amplitude of sound, equal to twenty (20) times the logarithm to the base ten (10) of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is twenty (20) microPascals (twenty (20) microNewtons per square meter.) “Demolition” means any dismantling, intentional destruction or removal of structures or other improvements to real property.
“Disturb” means to interrupt, interfere with, or hinder the enjoyment of peace or quiet or the normal listening activities or the sleep, rest or mental concentration of the hearer. “Emergency” means any occurrence or set of circumstances involving actual or imminent physical trauma or significant property damage which necessitates immediate action. Economic loss alone shall not constitute an emergency. It shall be the burden of an alleged violator to prove an “emergency.” “Emergency work” means any work made necessary to restore property to a safe condition following an emergency, or to protect persons or property threatened by an imminent emergency, to the extent such work is, in fact, necessary to protect persons or property from exposure to imminent danger or damage.
“Frequency” means the number of complete oscillation cycles per unit of time. “Impulsive sound” means sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay. Examples of sources of impulsive sound include explosions, drop forge impacts, and discharge of firearms.
“Nighttime” means 10:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m. the following day. “Noise disturbance” means any sound which:

1. Disturbs a reasonable person of normal sensitivities;

2. Exceeds the sound level limits set forth in this chapter; or

3. Is plainly audible as defined in this section. Where no specific distance is set forth for the determination of audibility, references to noise disturbance shall be deemed to mean plainly audible at a distance of two hundred (200) feet from the real property line of the source of the sound, if the sound occurs on privately owned property, or from the source of the sound, if the sound occurs on public right- of-way, public space or other publicly owned property.
“Person” means any person, person’s firm, association, copartnership, joint venture, corporation, or any entity public or private in nature.
90 3/14/22, 11:11 AM Chapter 11.80 NOISE REGULATION
https://library.qcode.us/lib/moreno_valley_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_11-chapter_11_80?view=all 3/11 “Plainly audible” means that the sound or noise produced or reproduced by any particular source, can be clearly distinguished from ambient noise by a person using his/her normal hearing faculties. “Public right-of-way” means any street, avenue, boulevard, sidewalk, bike path or alley, or similar place normally accessible to the public which is owned or controlled by a governmental entity. “Public space” means any park, recreational or community facility, or lot which contains at least one building that is open to the general public during its hours of operation. “Residential” means all uses of land primarily for dwelling units, as well as hospitals, schools, colleges and universities, and places of religious assembly.
“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 capable of producing an auditory impression. The description of sound may include any characteristic of such sound, including duration, intensity and frequency. “Sound level” means the weighted sound pressure level as measured in dB(A) by a sound level meter and as specified in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) specifications for sound-level meters (ANSI Section 1.4-1971 (R1976)). If the frequency weighting employed is not indicated, the A-weighting shall apply.
“Sound level meter” means an instrument, demonstrably capable of accurately measuring sound levels as defined above.

All technical definitions not defined above shall be in accordance with applicable publications and standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). (Ord. 740 § 1.2, 2007)

11.80.030 Prohibited acts.

A. General Prohibition. It is unlawful and a violation of this chapter to maintain, make, cause, or allow the making of any sound that causes a noise disturbance, as defined in Section 11.80.020.

B. Sound causing permanent hearing loss.

1. Sound level limits. Based on statistics from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Table 1 and Table 1-A specify sound level limits which, if exceeded, will have a high probability of producing permanent hearing loss in anyone in the area where the sound levels are being exceeded. No sound shall be permitted within the city which exceeds the parameters set forth in Tables 11.80.030-1 and 11.80.030-1-A of this chapter:

Table 11.80.030-1
MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS SOUND LEVELS*
Duration per Day
Continuous
Hours
Sound level
[db(A)]
91 3/14/22, 11:11 AM Chapter 11.80 NOISE REGULATION
https://library.qcode.us/lib/moreno_valley_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_11-chapter_11_80?view=all 4/11 8 90
6 92
4 95
3 97
2 100

1.5 102
1 105

0.5 110

0.25 115

* When the daily sound exposure is composed of two or more periods of sound exposure at different levels, the combined effect of all such periods shall constitute a violation of this section if the sum of the percent of allowed period of sound exposure at each level exceeds 100 percent Table 11.80.030-1A

MAXIMUM IMPULSIVE SOUND
LEVELS
Number of
Repetitions per 24-
Hour Period
Sound level
[dB(A)]
1 145
10 135
100 125

2. Exemptions. No violation shall exist if the only persons exposed to sound levels in excess of those listed in Tables 11.80.030-1 and 11.80.030-1A are exposed as a result of:
a. Trespass;
b. Invitation upon private property by the person causing or permitting the sound; or c. Employment by the person or a contractor of the person causing or permitting the sound. 92 3/14/22, 11:11 AM Chapter 11.80 NOISE REGULATION
https://library.qcode.us/lib/moreno_valley_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_11-chapter_11_80?view=all 5/11 C. Nonimpulsive Sound Decibel Limits. No person shall maintain, create, operate or cause to be operated on private property any source of sound in such a manner as to create any nonimplusive sound which exceeds the limits set forth for the source land use category (as defined in Section 11.80.020) in Table 11.80.030-2 when measured at a distance of two hundred (200) feet or more from the real property line of the source of the sound, if the sound occurs on privately owned property, or from the source of the sound, if the sound occurs on public right-of-way, public space or other publicly owned property. Any source of sound in violation of this subsection shall be deemed prima facie to be a noise disturbance.

Table 11.80.030-2
MAXIMUM SOUND LEVELS (IN dB(A)) FOR SOURCE LAND USES
Residential Commercial
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
60 55 65 60

D. Specific Prohibitions. In addition to the general prohibitions set out in subsection A of this section, and unless otherwise exempted by this chapter, the following specific acts, or the causing or permitting thereof, are regulated as follows:

1. Motor Vehicles. No person shall operate or cause to be operated a public or private motor vehicle, or combination of vehicles towed by a motor vehicle, that creates a sound exceeding the sound level limits in Table 11.80.030-2 when the vehicle(s) are not otherwise subject to noise regulations provided for by the California Vehicle Code.

2. Radios, Televisions, Electronic Audio Equipment, Musical Instruments or Similar Devices from a Stationary Source. No person shall operate, play or permit the operation or playing of any radio, tape player, television, electronic audio equipment, musical instrument, sound amplifier or other mechanical or electronic sound making device that produces, reproduces or amplifies sound in such a manner as to create a noise disturbance. However, this subsection shall not apply to any use or activity exempted in subsection E of this section and any use or activity for which a special permit has been issued pursuant to Section 11.80.040.

3. Radios, Electronic Audio Equipment, or Similar Devices from a Mobile Source Such as a Motor Vehicle. Sound amplification or reproduction equipment on or in a motor vehicle is subject to regulation in accordance with the California Vehicle Code when upon the public right-of-way. When upon public space or publicly owned property other than the public right-of-way or upon private property open to the public, sound amplification or reproduction equipment shall not be operated in such a manner that it is plainly audible at a distance of fifty (50) feet in any direction from the vehicle.

4. Portable, Hand-Held Music or Sound Amplification or Reproduction Equipment. Such equipment shall not be operated on a public right-of-way, public space or other publicly owned property in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of fifty (50) feet in any direction from the operator. 93 3/14/22, 11:11 AM Chapter 11.80 NOISE REGULATION
https://library.qcode.us/lib/moreno_valley_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_11-chapter_11_80?view=all 6/11

5. Loudspeakers and Public Address Systems.
a. Except as permitted by Section 11.80.040, no person shall operate, or permit the operation of, any loudspeaker, public address system or similar device, for any commercial purpose:

1. Which produces, reproduces or amplifies sound in such a manner as to create a noise disturbance; or

2. During nighttime hours on a public right-of-way, public space or other publicly owned property. b. No person shall operate, or permit the operation of, any loudspeaker, public address system or similar device, for any noncommercial purpose, during nighttime hours in such a manner as to create a noise disturbance.

6. Animals. No person shall own, possess or harbor an animal or bird that howls, barks, meows, squawks, or makes other sounds that:
a. Create a noise disturbance;
b. Are of frequent or continued duration for ten (10) or more consecutive minutes and are plainly audible at a distance of fifty (50) feet from the real property line of the source of the sound; or c. Are intermittent for a period of thirty (30) or more minutes and are plainly audible at a distance of fifty (50) feet from the real property line of the source of the sound.

7. Construction and Demolition. No person shall operate or cause the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration or demolition work between the hours of eight p.m. and seven a.m. the following day such that the sound there from creates a noise disturbance, except for emergency work by public service utilities or for other work approved by the city manager or designee. This section shall not apply to the use of power tools as provided in subsection (D)(9) of this section.

8. Emergency Signaling Devices. No person shall intentionally sound or permit the sounding outdoors of any fire, burglar or civil defense alarm, siren or whistle, or similar stationary emergency signaling device, except for emergency purposes or for testing as follows:
a. Testing of a stationary emergency signaling device shall not occur between seven p.m. and seven a.m. the following day;
b. Testing of a stationary emergency signaling device shall use only the minimum cycle test time, in no case to exceed sixty (60) seconds;
c. Testing of a complete emergency signaling system, including the functioning of the signaling device and the personnel response to the signaling device, shall not occur more than once in each calendar month. Such testing shall only occur only on weekdays between seven a.m. and seven p.m. and shall be exempt from the time limit specified in subsection (D)(8)(2) of this section. 94 3/14/22, 11:11 AM Chapter 11.80 NOISE REGULATION
https://library.qcode.us/lib/moreno_valley_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_11-chapter_11_80?view=all 7/11

9. Power Tools. No person shall operate or permit the operation of any mechanically, electrically or gasoline motor-driven tool during nighttime hours so as to cause a noise disturbance across a residential real property boundary.

10. Pumps, Air Conditioners, Air-Handling Equipment and Other Continuously Operating Equipment.

Notwithstanding the general prohibitions of subsection a of this section, no person shall operate or permit the operation of any pump, air conditioning, air-handling or other continuously operating motorized equipment in a state of disrepair or in a manner which otherwise creates a noise disturbance distinguishable from normal operating sounds.

E. Exemptions. The following uses and activities shall be exempt from the sound level regulations except the maximum sound levels provided in Tables 11.80.030-1 and 11.80.030-1A:

1. Sounds resulting from any authorized emergency vehicle when responding to an emergency call or acting in time of an emergency.

2. Sounds resulting from emergency work as defined in Section 11.80.020

3. Any aircraft operated in conformity with, or pursuant to, federal law, federal air regulations and air traffic control instruction used pursuant to and within the duly adopted federal air regulations; and any aircraft operating under technical difficulties in any kind of distress, under emergency orders of air traffic control, or being operated pursuant to and subsequent to the declaration of an emergency under federal air regulations.

4. All sounds coming from the normal operations of interstate motor and rail carriers, to the extent that local regulation of sound levels of such vehicles has been preempted by the Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq.) or other applicable federal laws or regulations

5. Sounds from the operation of motor vehicles, to the extent they are regulated by the California Vehicle Code.

6. Any constitutionally protected noncommercial speech or expression conducted within or upon a any public right-of-way, public space or other publicly owned property constituting an open or a designated public forum in compliance with any applicable reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on such speech or expression or otherwise pursuant to legal authority.

7. Sounds produced at otherwise lawful and permitted city-sponsored events, organized sporting events, school assemblies, school playground activities, by permitted fireworks, and by permitted parades on public right-of-way, public space or other publicly owned property.

8. An event for which a temporary use permit or special event permit has been issued under other provisions of this code, where the provisions of Section 11.80.040 are met, the permit granted expressly grants an exemption from specific standards contained in this chapter, and the permittee and all persons under the permittee’s reasonable control actually comply with all conditions of such permit. Violation of any condition of such a permit related to sound or sound equipment shall be a violation of this chapter and punishable as such.
95 3/14/22, 11:11 AM Chapter 11.80 NOISE REGULATION
https://library.qcode.us/lib/moreno_valley_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_11-chapter_11_80?view=all 8/11 F. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit, modify or repeal any other regulation elsewhere in this code relating to the regulation of noise sources, nor shall any such other regulation be read to permit the emission of noise in violation of any provision of this chapter. (Ord. 740 § 1.2, 2007)

11.80.040 Special provisions for temporary use and special event permits.

The exemption by permit set forth in Section 11.80.030(E)(8) shall be subject to the following requirements and conditions:

A. The permit application shall include the name, address and telephone number of the permit applicant; the date, hours and location for which the permit is requested; and the nature of the event or activity. It shall also specify the types of sounds and/or sound equipment to be permitted, the proposed duration of such sound, the specific standards from which the sound is to be exempted, and the reasons for each requested exemption.

B. The permit shall be issued provided the proposed activity meets the requirements of this section and the issuing official determines that the sound to be emitted at the event as proposed would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, that the event cannot reasonably achieve its legitimate aims and purposes without the exemption and that the sound levels proposed will not unreasonably damage the peace and quiet enjoyment of the lawful users of surrounding properties, nor constitute a public nuisance.

C. The official issuing the permit may prescribe any reasonable conditions or requirements he/she deems necessary to minimize noise disturbances upon the community or the surrounding neighborhood, and/or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the public, including participants in the permitted event, including use of mufflers, screens or other sound-attenuating devices.

D. Any permit granted must be in writing and shall contain all conditions upon which the permit shall be effective.

E. No more than six events requiring a sound limit exemption may be held at any particular location upon privately owned or controlled property per calendar year, provided further that the number of events shall not exceed the number permitted under the regulations for the type of permit issued. For purposes of this subsection, “location” means a legal parcel of real property or a complete shopping or commercial center or mall sharing common parking and access even if comprised of multiple legal parcels.

F. The exemption from sound limits under such permit shall not exceed maximum period of four hours in one twenty-four (24) hour day.

G. The permit will only be granted for hours between nine a.m. and ten p.m. on all days other than Friday and Saturday; and, on Friday and Saturday, between the hours of nine a.m. and one a.m. of the following day, except in the following circumstances:

1. A permit may be granted for hours between nine a.m. on New Year’s Eve and one a.m. the following day (New Year’s Day).
96 3/14/22, 11:11 AM Chapter 11.80 NOISE REGULATION
https://library.qcode.us/lib/moreno_valley_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_11-chapter_11_80?view=all 9/11

2. A permit may be granted for hours between nine a.m. and two a.m. the following day if there are no residences, hospitals, or nursing homes within a 0.5 mile radius of the property where the function is taking place.

H. Functions for which the permits are issued shall be limited to a continuous airborne sound level not to exceed seventy (70) dB(A), as measured two hundred (200) feet from the real property boundary of the source property if on private property, or from the source if on public right-of-way, public space or other publicly owned property. (Ord. 740 § 1.2, 2007)

11.80.050 Measurement or assessment of sound.

A. Measurement With Sound Meter.

1. The measurement of sound shall be made with a sound level meter meeting the standards prescribed by ANSI Section 1.4-1983 (R2006). The instruments shall be maintained in calibration and good working order. A calibration check shall be made of the system at the time of any sound level measurement. Measurements recorded shall be taken so as to provide a proper representation of the source of the sound. The microphone during measurement shall be positioned so as not to create any unnatural enhancement or diminution of the measured sound. A windscreen for the microphone shall be used at all times. However, a violation of this chapter may occur without the occasion of the measurements being made as otherwise provided.

2. The slow meter response of the sound level meter shall be used in order to best determine the average amplitude.

3. The measurement shall be made at any point on the property into which the sound is being transmitted and shall be made at least three feet away from any ground, wall, floor, ceiling, roof and other plane surface.

4. In case of multiple occupancy of a property, the measurement may be made at any point inside the premises to which any complainant has right of legal private occupancy; provided that the measurement shall not be made within three feet of any ground, wall, floor, ceiling, roof or other plane surface.

5. All measurements of sound provided for in this chapter will be made by qualified officials of the city who are designated by the city manager or designee to operate the apparatus used to make the measurements.

B. Assessment Without Sound Level Meter. Any police officer, code enforcement officer, or other official designated by the city manager or designee who hears a noise or sound that is plainly audible, as defined in Section 11.80.020, in violation of this chapter, may enforce this chapter and shall assess the noise or sound according to the following standards:

1. The primary means of detection shall be by means of the official’s normal hearing faculties, not artificially enhanced.
97 3/14/22, 11:11 AM Chapter 11.80 NOISE REGULATION
https://library.qcode.us/lib/moreno_valley_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_11-chapter_11_80?view=all 10/11

2. The official shall first attempt to have a direct line of sight and hearing to the vehicle or real property from which the sound or noise emanates so that the official can readily identify the offending source of the sound or noise and the distance involved. If the official is unable to have a direct line of sight and hearing to the vehicle or real property from which the sound or noise emanates, then the official shall confirm the source of the sound or noise by approaching the suspected vehicle or real property until the official is able to obtain a direct line of sight and hearing, and confirm the source of the sound or noise that was heard at the place of the original assessment of the sound or noise.

3. The official need not be required to identify song titles, artists, or lyrics in order to establish a violation. (Ord. 740 § 1.2, 2007)

11.80.060 Violation.

A. Violation of Sound Level Limits. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and/or six months in the county jail, or both. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any violation of the provisions of this chapter may, in the discretion of the citing officer or the city attorney, be cited and/or prosecuted as an infraction or be subject to civil citation pursuant to Chapter 1.10.

B. Joint and Several Responsibility. In addition to the person causing the offending sound, the owner, tenant or lessee of property, or a manager, overseer or agent, or any other person lawfully entitled to possess the property from which the offending sound is emitted at the time the offending sound is emitted, shall be responsible for compliance with this chapter if the additionally responsible party knows or should have known of the offending noise disturbance. It shall not be a lawful defense to assert that some other person caused the sound. The lawful possessor or operator of the premises shall be responsible for operating or maintaining the premises in compliance with this chapter and may be cited regardless of whether or not the person actually causing the sound is also cited.

C. Violation May be Declared a Public Nuisance. The operation or maintenance of any device, equipment, instrument, vehicle or machinery in violation of any provisions of this chapter which endangers the public health, safety and quality of life of residents in the area is declared to be a public nuisance, and may be subject to abatement summarily or by a restraining order or injunction issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. (Ord. 824 § 1.2, 2011; Ord. 740 § 1.2, 2007) Contact:

Moreno Valley City Clerk: (951) 413-3001
Published by Quality Code Publishing, Seattle, WA. By using this site, you agree to the terms of use. 98 Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise

APPENDIX 5.1:

STUDY AREA PHOTOS

99 Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise

This page intentionally left blank
100
JN: 14556 Study Area Photos
L1_E
33, 55' 29.010000"117, 11' 33.210000"
L1_N
33, 55' 28.990000"117, 11' 33.130000"
L1_S
33, 55' 29.010000"117, 11' 33.180000"
L1_W
33, 55' 13.570000"117, 11' 28.510000"
L2_E
33, 55' 13.410000"117, 11' 28.570000"
L2_N
33, 55' 13.460000"117, 11' 28.540000"
101
JN: 14556 Study Area Photos
L2_S
33, 55' 13.460000"117, 11' 28.540000"
L2_W
33, 54' 59.070000"117, 11' 38.180000"
L3_E
33, 55' 7.640000"117, 11' 29.040000"
L3_N
33, 55' 7.700000"117, 11' 29.060000"
L3_S
33, 55' 7.700000"117, 11' 29.060000"
L3_W
33, 55' 7.640000"117, 11' 29.060000"
102
JN: 14556 Study Area Photos
L4_E
33, 54' 59.130000"117, 11' 38.180000"
L4_N
33, 54' 59.110000"117, 11' 38.180000"
L4_S
33, 55' 28.990000"117, 11' 33.130000"
L4_W
33, 54' 59.140000"117, 11' 38.210000"
L5_E
33, 55' 3.510000"117, 11' 53.040000"
L5_N
33, 55' 3.550000"117, 11' 52.990000"
103
JN: 14556 Study Area Photos
L5_S
33, 55' 3.520000"117, 11' 53.010000"
L5_W
33, 55' 3.510000"117, 11' 53.040000"
L6_E
33, 55' 15.660000"117, 11' 45.240000"
L6_N
33, 55' 15.720000"117, 11' 45.270000"
L6_S
33, 55' 15.660000"117, 11' 45.270000"
L6_W
33, 55' 15.660000"117, 11' 45.210000"
104
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise

APPENDIX 5.2:

NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS

105
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise

This page intentionally left blank
106
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 14556
Project: Town Center at Moreno Valley Source: Analyst: Z. Ibrahim Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 50.7 56.7 47.3 56.3 55.9 54.7 53.4 51.4 49.6 47.9 47.6 47.4 50.7 10.0 60.7 1 40.3 49.1 36.0 48.7 48.1 46.3 44.5 39.7 37.9 36.3 36.2 36.1 40.3 10.0 50.3 2 43.1 50.2 39.5 49.8 49.3 47.7 46.8 43.5 41.4 39.8 39.6 39.5 43.1 10.0 53.1 3 50.3 54.7 47.1 54.5 54.2 53.4 52.6 51.1 49.6 47.7 47.4 47.2 50.3 10.0 60.3 4 46.4 54.2 41.5 53.9 53.4 51.8 50.3 46.5 44.4 42.0 41.8 41.6 46.4 10.0 56.4 5 51.7 59.3 46.4 59.0 58.7 57.3 55.8 51.8 49.7 47.3 46.9 46.5 51.7 10.0 61.7 6 55.1 65.0 45.1 64.5 63.9 62.2 60.4 54.4 51.0 46.4 45.7 45.2 55.1 10.0 65.1 7 65.1 73.7 51.7 72.9 72.3 70.7 69.4 66.4 63.5 53.6 53.0 51.9 65.1 0.0 65.1 8 57.1 65.6 50.9 65.2 64.8 63.1 61.5 56.8 54.7 51.9 51.3 51.0 57.1 0.0 57.1 9 56.5 65.0 51.6 64.8 64.3 62.8 61.0 55.8 53.5 52.0 51.9 51.7 56.5 0.0 56.5 10 54.9 63.0 50.5 62.8 62.3 60.6 59.0 54.3 52.5 51.1 50.9 50.6 54.9 0.0 54.9 11 54.0 65.3 41.5 64.9 64.1 60.9 58.9 52.7 47.7 42.8 42.2 41.7 54.0 0.0 54.0 12 54.3 64.5 42.4 63.9 63.2 61.4 59.5 53.8 48.9 43.9 43.1 42.6 54.3 0.0 54.3 13 53.2 63.8 43.0 63.4 62.9 60.8 58.1 51.3 47.6 44.0 43.5 43.1 53.2 0.0 53.2 14 56.8 66.4 43.7 66.0 65.2 64.1 63.2 55.2 51.1 45.6 44.9 44.0 56.8 0.0 56.8 15 55.3 66.1 42.3 65.7 65.1 63.0 60.5 53.8 49.3 43.9 43.1 42.4 55.3 0.0 55.3 16 54.6 65.1 42.3 64.7 64.1 61.7 59.8 53.5 49.5 44.0 43.1 42.4 54.6 0.0 54.6 17 56.2 67.5 42.8 67.2 66.5 63.9 61.7 53.2 49.4 44.7 43.8 42.9 56.2 0.0 56.2 18 51.7 60.7 43.2 60.4 60.0 58.1 56.3 51.3 48.5 44.8 44.1 43.4 51.7 0.0 51.7 19 54.4 64.9 46.0 64.5 64.0 61.5 59.2 52.8 49.9 47.1 46.7 46.2 54.4 5.0 59.4 20 49.8 58.3 43.7 57.9 57.3 55.6 54.0 49.7 47.6 44.8 44.3 43.8 49.8 5.0 54.8 21 51.1 59.2 45.1 58.9 58.5 56.7 55.0 50.9 49.2 46.3 45.8 45.3 51.1 5.0 56.1 22 49.2 56.0 43.6 55.8 55.4 54.0 52.7 49.7 47.8 44.7 44.2 43.8 49.2 10.0 59.2 23 47.0 53.8 40.4 53.3 52.8 51.5 50.8 48.1 45.6 41.5 40.9 40.5 47.0 10.0 57.0 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 49.8 58.3 41.5 57.9 57.3 55.6 54.0 49.7 47.6 42.8 42.2 41.7 Max 65.1 73.7 51.7 72.9 72.3 70.7 69.4 66.4 63.5 53.6 53.0 51.9

56.9 64.2 63.6 61.7 59.8 54.1 50.9 46.7 46.1 45.5
Min 40.3 49.1 36.0 48.7 48.1 46.3 44.5 39.7 37.9 36.3 36.2 36.1 Max 55.1 65.0 47.3 64.5 63.9 62.2 60.4 54.4 51.0 47.9 47.6 47.4

50.0 55.1 54.6 53.2 51.9 48.5 46.3 43.7 43.4 43.1
Night
Day
Leq (dBA)24-Hour
CNELDay
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

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

58.6 56.9 50.0
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, December 5, 2024 L1 - Located north of the site near the residence at 26783 Campus Point Drive

50.7 40.3

43.1 50.3

46.4 51.7

55.1 65.1

57.1 56.5

54.9 54.0

54.3 53.2

56.8 55.3

54.6 56.2

51.7 54.4

49.8 51.1

49.2 47.0

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14100-14500\_14500\14556\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\14556_L1_B 107
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 14556
Project: Town Center at Moreno Valley Source: Analyst: Z. Ibrahim Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 59.4 71.3 38.7 70.8 70.2 67.5 65.0 56.4 47.3 40.4 39.7 38.9 59.4 10.0 69.4 1 58.0 70.2 35.4 69.8 69.1 66.5 64.0 52.5 43.2 36.3 35.8 35.5 58.0 10.0 68.0 2 57.3 68.8 36.2 68.3 67.6 65.2 63.2 54.9 47.0 38.2 36.9 36.3 57.3 10.0 67.3 3 63.6 74.3 41.6 73.9 73.3 71.4 69.7 61.5 55.8 44.4 43.0 41.8 63.6 10.0 73.6 4 64.6 75.6 44.1 75.3 74.8 72.1 70.2 63.5 56.5 47.0 45.7 44.3 64.6 10.0 74.6 5 67.1 76.7 48.8 76.2 75.7 73.8 72.5 67.6 61.3 50.9 49.8 49.0 67.1 10.0 77.1 6 70.1 78.0 54.6 77.7 77.2 75.7 74.8 71.5 67.2 58.1 56.4 54.9 70.1 10.0 80.1 7 73.6 80.1 62.2 79.7 79.3 77.9 77.2 75.2 72.1 65.1 63.9 62.5 73.6 0.0 73.6 8 72.4 79.3 58.7 79.0 78.5 77.2 76.4 74.0 70.9 62.7 61.2 59.5 72.4 0.0 72.4 9 70.6 79.1 53.8 78.7 78.1 76.2 75.2 71.8 67.4 57.8 55.8 54.2 70.6 0.0 70.6 10 73.9 85.8 54.7 85.0 84.1 81.3 79.2 71.9 67.9 58.8 56.8 54.9 73.9 0.0 73.9 11 70.0 77.6 52.9 77.3 76.9 75.5 74.7 71.5 67.2 56.8 54.6 53.1 70.0 0.0 70.0 12 69.8 77.3 54.7 76.9 76.5 75.1 74.3 71.3 67.7 58.6 56.6 55.0 69.8 0.0 69.8 13 70.4 78.6 54.9 78.0 77.5 75.7 74.5 71.6 68.3 59.5 57.6 55.2 70.4 0.0 70.4 14 71.2 77.8 57.9 77.4 77.0 75.8 75.1 72.8 69.7 62.1 60.3 58.1 71.2 0.0 71.2 15 71.5 78.1 58.4 77.8 77.4 75.8 75.0 73.0 70.4 62.2 60.4 58.7 71.5 0.0 71.5 16 72.1 78.3 60.0 77.9 77.5 76.2 75.5 73.6 71.2 64.1 62.2 60.3 72.1 0.0 72.1 17 72.6 80.9 61.5 80.1 79.2 77.6 76.0 73.5 71.2 65.3 63.5 61.8 72.6 0.0 72.6 18 72.1 81.1 57.8 80.2 79.6 77.9 76.1 73.1 69.8 61.6 59.8 58.1 72.1 0.0 72.1 19 70.9 80.3 55.1 79.5 78.7 76.8 75.3 72.0 67.7 58.7 56.8 55.4 70.9 5.0 75.9 20 70.3 78.1 53.8 77.7 77.2 75.8 74.9 71.8 67.3 57.6 55.5 53.9 70.3 5.0 75.3 21 68.7 77.0 53.3 76.6 76.1 74.4 73.5 69.9 65.5 57.0 55.2 53.6 68.7 5.0 73.7 22 66.3 75.3 50.0 74.9 74.4 72.6 71.4 67.1 61.9 53.4 51.5 50.3 66.3 10.0 76.3 23 63.5 73.5 44.7 73.1 72.7 70.7 69.2 63.5 57.2 47.3 46.2 44.9 63.5 10.0 73.5 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 68.7 77.0 52.9 76.6 76.1 74.4 73.5 69.9 65.5 56.8 54.6 53.1 Max 73.9 85.8 62.2 85.0 84.1 81.3 79.2 75.2 72.1 65.3 63.9 62.5

71.6 78.8 78.3 76.6 75.5 72.5 69.0 60.5 58.7 57.0
Min 57.3 68.8 35.4 68.3 67.6 65.2 63.2 52.5 43.2 36.3 35.8 35.5 Max 70.1 78.0 54.6 77.7 77.2 75.7 74.8 71.5 67.2 58.1 56.4 54.9

65.1 73.3 72.8 70.6 68.9 62.1 55.3 46.2 45.0 44.0
Night
Day
Leq (dBA)24-Hour
CNELDay
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

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

73.8 71.6 65.1
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, December 5, 2024 L2 - Located east of the site near the residence at 13760 Nason Street.

59.4 58.0

57.3 63.6

64.6 67.1

70.1 73.6

72.4 70.6

73.9 70.0

69.8 70.4

71.2 71.5

72.1 72.6

72.1 70.9

70.3 68.7

66.3 63.5

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14100-14500\_14500\14556\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\14556_L2_E 108
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 14556
Project: Town Center at Moreno Valley Source: Analyst: Z. Ibrahim Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 57.9 69.1 41.2 68.7 68.2 65.6 63.3 56.3 49.9 42.8 42.0 41.3 57.9 10.0 67.9 1 56.8 68.0 39.1 67.7 67.2 64.8 62.0 54.9 48.5 40.7 39.8 39.2 56.8 10.0 66.8 2 54.8 65.2 38.3 64.9 64.6 62.8 60.4 53.8 47.1 39.3 38.9 38.4 54.8 10.0 64.8 3 60.8 70.6 43.0 70.3 69.8 68.2 66.8 60.0 53.7 45.9 45.1 44.4 60.8 10.0 70.8 4 63.2 73.4 46.9 73.0 72.5 70.4 68.7 62.8 57.6 49.5 48.4 47.2 63.2 10.0 73.2 5 66.3 75.2 50.4 74.9 74.4 72.7 71.5 67.0 62.1 53.8 52.4 50.6 66.3 10.0 76.3 6 69.3 76.9 56.5 76.6 76.1 74.6 73.8 70.7 66.9 59.1 57.8 56.7 69.3 10.0 79.3 7 71.7 77.2 61.7 77.0 76.7 75.9 75.3 73.3 70.8 64.4 63.1 61.9 71.7 0.0 71.7 8 70.9 76.8 58.7 76.6 76.4 75.4 74.8 72.4 69.7 62.6 61.0 59.0 70.9 0.0 70.9 9 69.4 77.4 55.5 77.0 76.5 75.1 73.8 70.6 66.6 59.1 57.4 55.9 69.4 0.0 69.4 10 71.6 82.3 57.0 81.9 81.2 78.6 76.4 70.8 67.3 59.9 58.6 57.3 71.6 0.0 71.6 11 69.1 76.9 54.6 76.6 76.1 74.4 73.3 70.5 66.7 58.0 56.2 54.9 69.1 0.0 69.1 12 68.5 75.2 56.0 75.0 74.6 73.6 72.8 70.0 66.4 58.8 57.5 56.2 68.5 0.0 68.5 13 68.5 75.6 57.4 75.3 74.9 73.6 72.8 69.9 66.5 60.0 58.8 57.6 68.5 0.0 68.5 14 69.6 75.6 57.2 75.4 75.0 74.3 73.7 71.2 68.1 60.8 59.1 57.5 69.6 0.0 69.6 15 69.5 76.1 59.0 75.9 75.4 74.3 73.4 70.9 67.9 61.6 60.5 59.2 69.5 0.0 69.5 16 69.6 75.7 58.1 75.4 75.0 74.0 73.5 71.3 68.2 61.3 59.6 58.3 69.6 0.0 69.6 17 70.3 77.3 59.5 77.1 76.7 75.5 74.4 71.6 68.5 62.0 60.8 59.8 70.3 0.0 70.3 18 71.2 82.7 58.0 82.3 81.3 77.0 75.3 70.6 67.1 60.4 59.1 58.2 71.2 0.0 71.2 19 68.3 76.3 56.7 76.0 75.5 73.7 72.7 69.5 65.6 58.9 57.9 56.8 68.3 5.0 73.3 20 68.1 75.7 56.0 75.4 75.0 73.4 72.4 69.4 65.6 58.6 57.3 56.1 68.1 5.0 73.1 21 66.7 74.8 53.9 74.5 74.0 72.4 71.4 67.8 63.7 56.4 55.2 54.0 66.7 5.0 71.7 22 64.2 72.6 50.7 72.3 71.9 70.5 69.4 64.8 60.5 53.3 51.8 50.9 64.2 10.0 74.2 23 61.6 71.2 46.5 70.9 70.4 68.6 66.8 61.4 56.8 48.7 47.5 46.7 61.6 10.0 71.6 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 66.7 74.8 53.9 74.5 74.0 72.4 71.4 67.8 63.7 56.4 55.2 54.0 Max 71.7 82.7 61.7 82.3 81.3 78.6 76.4 73.3 70.8 64.4 63.1 61.9

69.7 76.8 76.3 74.7 73.7 70.7 67.2 60.2 58.8 57.5
Min 54.8 65.2 38.3 64.9 64.6 62.8 60.4 53.8 47.1 39.3 38.9 38.4 Max 69.3 76.9 56.5 76.6 76.1 74.6 73.8 70.7 66.9 59.1 57.8 56.7

63.8 71.0 70.6 68.7 67.0 61.3 55.9 48.1 47.1 46.2
Night
Day
Leq (dBA)24-Hour
CNELDay
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

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

72.2 69.7 63.8
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, December 5, 2024 L3 - Located east of the site near the residence at 13860 Nason Street.

57.9 56.8

54.8 60.8

63.2 66.3

69.3 71.7

70.9 69.4

71.6 69.1

68.5 68.5

69.6 69.5

69.6 70.3

71.2 68.3

68.1 66.7

64.2 61.6

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14100-14500\_14500\14556\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\14556_L3_G 109
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 14556
Project: Town Center at Moreno Valley Source: Analyst: Z. Ibrahim Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 37.8 42.2 33.9 41.9 41.5 40.8 40.4 38.7 37.3 34.8 34.4 34.0 37.8 10.0 47.8 1 37.2 42.9 33.0 42.6 42.2 41.2 40.5 38.0 35.9 33.6 33.3 33.1 37.2 10.0 47.2 2 36.6 42.7 32.0 42.4 42.0 41.0 40.3 37.4 35.0 32.5 32.2 32.0 36.6 10.0 46.6 3 37.8 42.3 34.1 42.0 41.6 40.9 40.4 38.7 37.1 34.8 34.5 34.2 37.8 10.0 47.8 4 41.1 46.5 36.7 46.2 45.8 44.9 44.2 41.9 40.0 37.4 37.1 36.8 41.1 10.0 51.1 5 45.0 49.2 41.4 48.9 48.6 47.9 47.4 45.8 44.5 42.3 42.0 41.5 45.0 10.0 55.0 6 44.9 49.4 41.3 49.2 49.0 48.2 47.5 45.6 44.1 42.2 41.8 41.4 44.9 10.0 54.9 7 48.6 56.0 42.9 55.5 55.1 54.0 53.0 48.8 46.6 43.8 43.4 43.0 48.6 0.0 48.6 8 50.3 54.5 45.9 54.1 53.8 53.2 52.7 51.2 49.8 47.4 46.8 46.1 50.3 0.0 50.3 9 47.1 55.5 41.2 54.8 54.2 52.7 51.8 47.9 43.6 41.9 41.6 41.3 47.1 0.0 47.1 10 44.4 51.4 40.4 50.9 50.3 49.0 48.1 44.5 43.0 41.2 40.9 40.5 44.4 0.0 44.4 11 44.4 52.3 39.4 51.5 50.8 49.4 48.6 44.4 42.4 40.3 39.9 39.6 44.4 0.0 44.4 12 44.3 52.7 39.4 52.2 51.6 49.6 48.0 44.3 42.2 40.1 39.8 39.5 44.3 0.0 44.3 13 42.4 48.3 38.9 47.8 47.2 45.9 45.1 43.1 41.5 39.6 39.3 39.0 42.4 0.0 42.4 14 43.5 50.3 38.8 49.9 49.4 48.2 47.2 43.9 42.0 39.7 39.3 38.9 43.5 0.0 43.5 15 48.2 57.1 40.0 55.9 54.7 52.9 51.8 48.6 46.2 42.6 41.7 40.4 48.2 0.0 48.2 16 54.1 63.2 43.9 62.2 61.4 60.0 59.0 54.4 51.3 46.6 45.7 44.5 54.1 0.0 54.1 17 47.8 52.7 44.3 52.3 51.8 50.7 50.0 48.5 47.3 45.1 44.8 44.4 47.8 0.0 47.8 18 48.4 53.4 45.1 53.0 52.5 51.7 51.2 48.8 47.7 45.8 45.6 45.2 48.4 0.0 48.4 19 45.0 50.8 42.4 49.9 49.0 47.6 47.0 45.6 44.5 43.0 42.8 42.5 45.0 5.0 50.0 20 45.9 50.0 42.6 49.6 49.1 48.4 48.1 46.8 45.6 43.4 43.0 42.6 45.9 5.0 50.9 21 44.8 48.9 42.0 48.6 48.2 47.4 46.9 45.5 44.3 42.6 42.3 42.0 44.8 5.0 49.8 22 43.6 47.3 40.3 47.1 46.7 46.2 45.9 44.4 43.1 41.2 40.8 40.4 43.6 10.0 53.6 23 42.2 47.4 37.6 47.1 46.8 45.9 45.2 43.3 41.2 38.6 38.1 37.7 42.2 10.0 52.2 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 42.4 48.3 38.8 47.8 47.2 45.9 45.1 43.1 41.5 39.6 39.3 38.9 Max 54.1 63.2 45.9 62.2 61.4 60.0 59.0 54.4 51.3 47.4 46.8 46.1

47.8 52.5 51.9 50.7 49.9 47.1 45.2 42.9 42.5 42.0
Min 36.6 42.2 32.0 41.9 41.5 40.8 40.3 37.4 35.0 32.5 32.2 32.0 Max 45.0 49.4 41.4 49.2 49.0 48.2 47.5 45.8 44.5 42.3 42.0 41.5

41.8 45.3 44.9 44.1 43.5 41.5 39.8 37.5 37.1 36.8
Night
Day
Leq (dBA)24-Hour
CNELDay
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

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

50.2 47.8 41.8
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, December 5, 2024 L4 - Located south of the site near the residence at 26871 Alessandro Blvd.

37.8 37.2

36.6 37.8

41.1 45.0

44.9 48.6

50.3 47.1

44.4 44.4

44.3 42.4

43.5 48.2

54.1 47.8

48.4 45.0

45.9 44.8

43.6 42.2

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14100-14500\_14500\14556\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\14556_L4_H 110
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 14556
Project: Town Center at Moreno Valley Source: Analyst: Z. Ibrahim Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 59.1 72.5 36.7 71.9 70.9 66.9 64.0 53.4 43.4 37.7 37.3 36.8 59.1 10.0 69.1 1 58.7 71.8 35.7 71.5 70.6 67.2 63.9 49.9 41.0 36.3 36.0 35.7 58.7 10.0 68.7 2 52.3 65.1 34.5 64.6 63.8 60.8 58.2 43.9 37.3 34.9 34.7 34.5 52.3 10.0 62.3 3 50.6 63.0 36.3 62.7 62.0 58.7 56.2 45.0 39.6 36.9 36.7 36.4 50.6 10.0 60.6 4 57.5 71.0 38.7 70.5 69.2 64.5 62.2 53.3 44.7 39.7 39.3 38.8 57.5 10.0 67.5 5 59.9 70.9 42.7 70.6 70.0 67.4 65.3 58.5 53.0 44.5 43.7 43.0 59.9 10.0 69.9 6 63.5 73.2 47.5 72.8 72.3 70.4 68.9 63.8 58.2 50.6 49.2 47.8 63.5 10.0 73.5 7 68.7 77.5 53.8 77.1 76.3 74.5 73.5 69.9 65.3 56.7 55.2 54.0 68.7 0.0 68.7 8 73.4 86.2 51.5 85.7 84.6 80.7 77.2 71.0 66.8 56.5 54.2 52.2 73.4 0.0 73.4 9 68.9 78.6 49.5 78.2 77.4 75.0 73.8 69.7 65.0 53.5 51.4 49.8 68.9 0.0 68.9 10 68.5 77.9 47.8 77.6 77.0 74.8 73.5 69.3 64.1 52.8 50.6 48.2 68.5 0.0 68.5 11 68.5 77.5 51.0 77.1 76.4 74.5 73.3 69.6 64.8 55.9 54.1 51.3 68.5 0.0 68.5 12 69.5 79.6 52.0 79.2 78.4 75.5 73.7 70.1 65.9 56.7 54.4 52.3 69.5 0.0 69.5 13 68.8 77.7 48.4 77.3 76.7 74.7 73.5 69.9 65.4 54.0 51.4 48.7 68.8 0.0 68.8 14 68.9 78.5 52.3 78.0 77.1 74.3 72.9 70.0 66.0 56.7 54.6 52.5 68.9 0.0 68.9 15 69.7 77.9 55.1 77.5 76.8 74.7 73.5 70.9 67.8 60.1 58.0 55.5 69.7 0.0 69.7 16 70.9 78.7 58.8 78.3 77.6 75.6 74.7 72.2 69.2 62.0 60.6 59.0 70.9 0.0 70.9 17 71.6 80.3 58.3 79.9 78.9 76.2 74.9 72.7 70.2 62.9 60.8 58.8 71.6 0.0 71.6 18 70.5 77.8 55.9 77.4 76.8 75.2 74.3 71.9 69.0 60.5 58.3 56.2 70.5 0.0 70.5 19 69.6 78.3 51.8 77.9 77.1 75.0 73.8 70.8 67.0 55.7 53.5 52.1 69.6 5.0 74.6 20 68.7 77.5 48.4 77.0 76.3 74.6 73.6 70.2 65.2 52.2 50.2 48.6 68.7 5.0 73.7 21 67.9 76.6 47.2 76.1 75.5 73.8 73.0 69.4 63.7 50.9 48.8 47.5 67.9 5.0 72.9 22 66.1 76.9 44.7 76.5 75.6 73.0 71.4 65.9 58.7 46.9 45.6 44.8 66.1 10.0 76.1 23 64.1 76.1 42.2 75.7 74.9 71.6 69.5 61.9 53.3 43.3 42.8 42.3 64.1 10.0 74.1 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 67.9 76.6 47.2 76.1 75.5 73.8 72.9 69.3 63.7 50.9 48.8 47.5 Max 73.4 86.2 58.8 85.7 84.6 80.7 77.2 72.7 70.2 62.9 60.8 59.0

69.9 78.3 77.5 75.3 73.9 70.5 66.3 56.5 54.4 52.4
Min 50.6 63.0 34.5 62.7 62.0 58.7 56.2 43.9 37.3 34.9 34.7 34.5 Max 66.1 76.9 47.5 76.5 75.6 73.0 71.4 65.9 58.7 50.6 49.2 47.8

61.3 70.8 69.9 66.7 64.4 55.1 47.7 41.2 40.6 40.0
Night
Day
Leq (dBA)24-Hour
CNELDay
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

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

71.2 69.9 61.3
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, December 5, 2024 L5 - Located south of the site at the Valley Christian Academy located at 26755 Alessandro Blvd.

59.1 58.7

52.3 50.6

57.5 59.9

63.5 68.7

73.4 68.9

68.5 68.5

69.5 68.8

68.9 69.7

70.9 71.6

70.5 69.6

68.7 67.9

66.1 64.1

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14100-14500\_14500\14556\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\14556_L5_I 111
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 14556
Project: Town Center at Moreno Valley Source: Analyst: Z. Ibrahim Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 49.4 62.7 39.0 61.0 58.9 55.7 54.0 47.4 43.8 40.0 39.7 39.2 49.4 10.0 59.4 1 43.6 52.7 37.2 52.2 51.5 49.8 48.1 43.1 40.4 37.9 37.6 37.3 43.6 10.0 53.6 2 41.4 48.2 36.8 48.0 47.6 46.5 45.5 41.9 39.2 37.4 37.2 36.8 41.4 10.0 51.4 3 41.2 47.6 37.8 47.0 46.5 45.3 44.5 41.6 40.0 38.4 38.1 37.9 41.2 10.0 51.2 4 47.1 55.5 40.2 55.1 54.6 53.2 51.5 47.2 44.3 41.3 40.8 40.3 47.1 10.0 57.1 5 49.0 56.0 42.9 55.6 55.3 54.3 53.2 49.2 47.0 43.9 43.5 43.0 49.0 10.0 59.0 6 51.0 58.1 44.1 57.8 57.4 56.1 55.0 51.8 49.1 45.6 44.9 44.2 51.0 10.0 61.0 7 55.1 62.0 48.1 61.8 61.3 59.8 58.7 56.0 53.3 49.7 49.0 48.3 55.1 0.0 55.1 8 55.5 61.1 49.9 60.8 60.5 59.5 58.9 56.5 54.2 51.1 50.6 50.0 55.5 0.0 55.5 9 55.3 63.9 47.1 63.3 62.6 60.9 59.9 55.8 52.3 48.5 47.8 47.3 55.3 0.0 55.3 10 54.1 60.1 47.7 59.9 59.6 58.6 57.8 55.1 52.7 48.9 48.4 47.9 54.1 0.0 54.1 11 54.0 60.3 47.3 60.1 59.7 58.7 58.0 55.0 52.3 48.7 48.1 47.5 54.0 0.0 54.0 12 55.5 64.6 48.9 64.4 63.6 61.5 59.1 55.4 53.0 50.0 49.5 49.0 55.5 0.0 55.5 13 55.6 65.3 47.1 64.4 63.7 61.7 60.1 55.4 52.7 48.7 48.0 47.3 55.6 0.0 55.6 14 54.9 61.8 47.6 61.3 60.9 59.6 58.8 55.8 53.3 49.5 48.7 47.8 54.9 0.0 54.9 15 55.1 61.3 47.5 61.0 60.6 59.5 58.7 56.4 53.8 49.5 48.7 47.8 55.1 0.0 55.1 16 55.3 61.7 48.3 61.3 60.9 59.8 58.9 56.3 53.8 49.9 49.2 48.5 55.3 0.0 55.3 17 55.6 62.0 48.3 61.7 61.3 60.1 59.3 56.8 54.0 49.8 49.0 48.4 55.6 0.0 55.6 18 54.2 59.9 47.5 59.7 59.4 58.7 58.1 55.5 52.8 48.9 48.3 47.7 54.2 0.0 54.2 19 53.0 61.4 46.0 60.9 60.3 58.6 57.0 53.5 50.7 47.0 46.6 46.0 53.0 5.0 58.0 20 52.5 58.3 46.7 58.0 57.6 56.8 56.0 53.4 51.1 47.9 47.4 46.9 52.5 5.0 57.5 21 53.0 59.7 47.7 59.1 58.5 57.2 56.2 53.7 51.8 48.9 48.4 47.8 53.0 5.0 58.0 22 51.5 57.8 46.2 57.5 57.2 56.4 55.5 52.3 49.7 47.1 46.7 46.3 51.5 10.0 61.5 23 49.9 58.0 43.4 57.5 56.9 55.1 53.8 50.3 47.8 44.6 44.1 43.5 49.9 10.0 59.9 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 52.5 58.3 46.0 58.0 57.6 56.8 56.0 53.4 50.7 47.0 46.6 46.0 Max 55.6 65.3 49.9 64.4 63.7 61.7 60.1 56.8 54.2 51.1 50.6 50.0

54.7 61.2 60.7 59.4 58.4 55.4 52.8 49.1 48.5 47.9
Min 41.2 47.6 36.8 47.0 46.5 45.3 44.5 41.6 39.2 37.4 37.2 36.8 Max 51.5 62.7 46.2 61.0 58.9 56.4 55.5 52.3 49.7 47.1 46.7 46.3

48.5 54.6 54.0 52.5 51.2 47.2 44.6 41.8 41.4 41.0
Night
Day
Leq (dBA)24-Hour
CNELDay
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

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

57.0 54.7 48.5
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, December 5, 2024 L6 - Located west of the site near the residence at 26606 Danube Way

49.4 43.6

41.4 41.2

47.1 49.0

51.0 55.1

55.5 55.3

54.1 54.0

55.5 55.6

54.9 55.1

55.3 55.6

54.2 53.0

52.5 53.0

51.5 49.9

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14100-14500\_14500\14556\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\14556_L6_J 112
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 14556
Project: Town Center at Moreno Valley Source: Analyst: Z. Ibrahim Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 53.8 67.2 39.9 66.6 65.2 61.9 59.5 46.8 44.0 40.7 40.3 40.0 53.8 10.0 63.8 1 43.6 52.9 38.2 52.3 51.4 48.0 46.7 43.6 41.6 39.0 38.6 38.3 43.6 10.0 53.6 2 41.5 49.8 37.1 49.2 48.5 46.0 44.9 41.8 39.5 37.6 37.4 37.2 41.5 10.0 51.5 3 42.4 51.1 38.1 50.5 49.6 47.2 45.9 42.6 40.2 38.6 38.4 38.1 42.4 10.0 52.4 4 47.9 58.1 40.9 57.5 56.4 53.5 51.6 47.9 45.2 41.7 41.3 40.9 47.9 10.0 57.9 5 50.0 59.5 43.2 58.7 57.7 55.3 54.0 50.0 47.5 44.3 43.7 43.3 50.0 10.0 60.0 6 62.9 74.7 49.0 73.3 72.4 69.3 68.2 63.9 52.2 49.8 49.5 49.1 62.9 10.0 72.9 7 61.5 70.4 52.3 69.3 68.5 66.8 65.3 62.7 59.7 53.4 53.0 52.5 61.5 0.0 61.5 8 59.6 65.6 54.2 65.0 64.4 63.2 62.6 60.7 58.5 55.7 55.1 54.4 59.6 0.0 59.6 9 58.3 64.7 53.6 64.0 63.3 61.9 61.2 59.2 57.2 54.8 54.3 53.8 58.3 0.0 58.3 10 58.9 65.6 54.2 64.9 64.2 62.6 61.6 59.6 58.1 55.5 55.0 54.4 58.9 0.0 58.9 11 55.9 62.4 50.5 61.9 61.3 60.0 59.1 56.7 54.8 51.9 51.4 50.7 55.9 0.0 55.9 12 59.8 69.9 53.6 69.1 68.0 64.9 62.9 59.4 57.6 55.0 54.4 53.8 59.8 0.0 59.8 13 61.3 72.9 51.7 71.9 70.8 68.4 66.7 59.0 55.8 53.1 52.6 51.9 61.3 0.0 61.3 14 57.4 64.6 51.5 63.8 63.2 61.8 60.9 58.1 55.9 53.0 52.4 51.8 57.4 0.0 57.4 15 56.8 63.6 49.7 63.1 62.5 61.2 60.1 57.6 55.6 52.1 51.3 50.2 56.8 0.0 56.8 16 56.5 66.4 49.3 65.9 65.1 61.9 59.9 56.2 54.1 50.7 50.1 49.4 56.5 0.0 56.5 17 54.5 63.3 48.3 62.4 61.5 59.3 57.7 54.8 52.8 49.6 49.0 48.4 54.5 0.0 54.5 18 55.0 62.9 47.7 62.5 62.1 61.1 60.4 54.1 52.0 48.9 48.3 47.9 55.0 0.0 55.0 19 51.8 59.6 46.4 59.0 58.2 56.3 55.3 52.3 50.3 47.2 46.8 46.5 51.8 5.0 56.8 20 50.9 58.1 45.6 57.5 56.9 55.1 54.1 51.6 49.6 46.7 46.2 45.7 50.9 5.0 55.9 21 52.0 59.2 47.2 58.6 57.5 55.4 54.7 52.8 51.0 48.2 47.8 47.4 52.0 5.0 57.0 22 51.1 59.8 46.5 59.0 58.0 55.8 54.7 51.1 49.4 47.3 46.9 46.6 51.1 10.0 61.1 23 50.0 59.0 44.7 58.7 58.2 55.5 53.2 49.8 47.8 45.5 45.1 44.8 50.0 10.0 60.0 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 50.9 58.1 45.6 57.5 56.9 55.1 54.1 51.6 49.6 46.7 46.2 45.7 Max 61.5 72.9 54.2 71.9 70.8 68.4 66.7 62.7 59.7 55.7 55.1 54.4

57.8 63.9 63.2 61.3 60.2 57.0 54.9 51.7 51.2 50.6
Min 41.5 49.8 37.1 49.2 48.5 46.0 44.9 41.8 39.5 37.6 37.4 37.2 Max 62.9 74.7 49.0 73.3 72.4 69.3 68.2 63.9 52.2 49.8 49.5 49.1

54.6 58.4 57.5 54.7 53.2 48.6 45.3 42.7 42.4 42.0
Night
Day
Leq (dBA)24-Hour
CNELDay
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

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

61.8 57.8 54.6
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, December 5, 2024 L7 - Located west of the site near the residence at 26722 Bay Avenue.

53.8 43.6

41.5 42.4

47.9 50.0

62.9 61.5

59.6 58.3

58.9 55.9

59.8 61.3

57.4 56.8

56.5 54.5

55.0 51.8

50.9 52.0

51.1 50.0

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14100-14500\_14500\14556\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\14556_L7_L 113
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 14556
Project: Town Center at Moreno Valley Source: Analyst: Z. Ibrahim Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 44.8 56.1 35.8 55.9 55.3 52.1 49.4 42.4 38.9 36.3 36.1 35.9 44.8 10.0 54.8 1 42.0 52.7 35.2 52.2 51.8 49.0 46.7 39.9 37.0 35.7 35.5 35.3 42.0 10.0 52.0 2 41.1 52.1 33.6 51.7 51.3 48.6 46.1 38.1 35.2 33.9 33.8 33.7 41.1 10.0 51.1 3 43.1 54.0 34.8 53.6 53.2 50.6 48.1 40.7 37.6 35.2 35.0 34.8 43.1 10.0 53.1 4 48.4 58.6 37.1 58.4 57.9 55.5 53.5 47.9 42.2 37.8 37.4 37.2 48.4 10.0 58.4 5 51.9 61.7 40.5 61.4 60.9 58.7 57.1 51.7 47.1 41.6 41.1 40.6 51.9 10.0 61.9 6 54.5 63.9 42.7 63.6 63.1 60.9 59.2 54.8 51.0 44.7 43.8 42.9 54.5 10.0 64.5 7 57.3 65.7 46.9 65.4 64.9 63.1 61.7 57.8 54.8 49.3 48.2 47.1 57.3 0.0 57.3 8 59.3 68.5 48.0 67.9 67.3 65.0 63.6 59.6 56.4 50.6 49.4 48.3 59.3 0.0 59.3 9 58.5 67.9 46.4 67.3 66.7 64.5 63.3 59.0 55.0 48.9 47.8 46.7 58.5 0.0 58.5 10 58.0 66.2 47.5 65.7 65.3 63.6 62.5 58.7 55.5 49.7 48.7 47.7 58.0 0.0 58.0 11 58.6 69.6 44.8 69.2 68.8 65.9 63.4 57.2 53.5 47.4 46.2 45.0 58.6 0.0 58.6 12 56.3 65.7 45.5 65.4 64.8 62.3 60.5 56.4 53.4 48.1 46.8 45.7 56.3 0.0 56.3 13 55.9 65.0 44.8 64.5 63.8 61.9 60.5 56.3 53.2 47.4 46.3 45.0 55.9 0.0 55.9 14 56.2 64.6 44.7 64.3 63.8 61.9 60.7 56.9 53.2 47.1 46.0 44.9 56.2 0.0 56.2 15 57.9 68.0 46.5 67.5 66.8 64.8 62.5 57.4 54.4 49.1 47.8 46.7 57.9 0.0 57.9 16 58.0 65.9 48.3 65.5 64.9 63.4 62.4 58.7 55.6 50.7 49.5 48.5 58.0 0.0 58.0 17 57.9 66.7 47.3 66.4 65.8 63.8 62.2 58.4 55.2 49.8 48.5 47.5 57.9 0.0 57.9 18 56.6 65.6 45.9 65.3 64.8 63.0 61.1 56.7 53.7 47.9 46.9 46.0 56.6 0.0 56.6 19 55.6 65.4 45.0 64.9 64.2 61.9 60.1 55.6 52.4 46.8 46.1 45.2 55.6 5.0 60.6 20 54.3 63.1 42.8 62.8 62.2 60.4 58.9 54.8 51.4 44.7 43.7 42.9 54.3 5.0 59.3 21 53.3 63.0 41.4 62.7 62.1 60.0 57.9 53.4 49.3 43.2 42.3 41.6 53.3 5.0 58.3 22 51.9 62.2 41.5 61.9 61.4 58.8 56.6 51.5 47.4 42.5 41.9 41.6 51.9 10.0 61.9 23 51.9 62.6 42.9 62.3 61.9 59.6 56.9 49.9 46.7 43.6 43.4 43.0 51.9 10.0 61.9 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 53.3 63.0 41.4 62.7 62.1 60.0 57.9 53.4 49.3 43.2 42.3 41.6 Max 59.3 69.6 48.3 69.2 68.8 65.9 63.6 59.6 56.4 50.7 49.5 48.5

57.2 65.7 65.1 63.0 61.4 57.1 53.8 48.0 46.9 45.9
Min 41.1 52.1 33.6 51.7 51.3 48.6 46.1 38.1 35.2 33.9 33.8 33.7 Max 54.5 63.9 42.9 63.6 63.1 60.9 59.2 54.8 51.0 44.7 43.8 43.0

50.0 57.9 57.4 54.9 52.6 46.3 42.6 39.0 38.7 38.3
Night
Day
Leq (dBA)24-Hour
CNELDay
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

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

58.9 57.2 50.0
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, December 5, 2024 L8 - Located northwest of the site near the residence at 26656 Quartz Road.

44.8 42.0

41.1 43.1

48.4 51.9

54.5 57.3

59.3 58.5

58.0 58.6

56.3 55.9

56.2 57.9

58.0 57.9

56.6 55.6

54.3 53.3

51.9 51.9

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14100-14500\_14500\14556\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\14556_L8_M 114
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 14556
Project: Town Center at Moreno Valley Source: Analyst: Z. Ibrahim Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 43.7 54.4 39.2 54.0 53.3 50.0 47.5 41.3 40.3 39.5 39.4 39.3 43.7 10.0 53.7 1 42.5 51.6 38.3 51.3 50.9 48.7 46.6 40.9 39.2 38.6 38.5 38.4 42.5 10.0 52.5 2 37.7 39.1 37.1 39.0 38.9 38.6 38.4 37.9 37.6 37.3 37.3 37.2 37.7 10.0 47.7 3 42.4 52.5 38.3 52.2 51.8 49.0 46.2 39.8 39.1 38.5 38.4 38.3 42.4 10.0 52.4 4 46.0 56.2 41.2 55.9 55.3 53.1 50.8 43.2 41.9 41.5 41.4 41.3 46.0 10.0 56.0 5 50.2 61.5 42.5 61.2 60.7 58.1 55.4 46.1 44.1 42.9 42.7 42.6 50.2 10.0 60.2 6 54.2 65.1 42.8 64.8 64.4 61.6 59.2 52.7 47.0 43.3 43.1 42.9 54.2 10.0 64.2 7 58.2 66.8 48.8 66.5 66.1 64.2 62.8 58.6 55.2 50.7 49.8 49.1 58.2 0.0 58.2 8 60.7 73.7 50.2 72.5 71.2 66.9 64.3 58.9 55.4 51.8 51.2 50.5 60.7 0.0 60.7 9 58.3 67.8 47.2 67.6 67.2 65.0 63.5 58.2 53.6 48.9 48.3 47.4 58.3 0.0 58.3 10 57.7 68.2 43.7 67.8 67.3 65.0 63.3 56.6 50.5 45.1 44.5 43.9 57.7 0.0 57.7 11 57.8 67.2 45.3 66.9 66.5 64.6 63.0 57.8 53.1 46.7 46.1 45.5 57.8 0.0 57.8 12 58.6 68.9 45.1 68.6 68.0 65.6 63.8 58.0 53.0 47.0 46.2 45.3 58.6 0.0 58.6 13 58.7 69.0 43.7 68.4 67.8 65.9 64.4 58.1 52.6 45.5 44.6 43.9 58.7 0.0 58.7 14 59.6 70.6 49.6 69.4 68.3 65.6 63.3 59.3 56.4 51.9 51.1 50.1 59.6 0.0 59.6 15 60.5 71.8 48.8 71.1 70.0 66.7 64.7 60.1 56.2 51.1 50.1 49.2 60.5 0.0 60.5 16 59.3 67.9 45.9 67.5 67.1 65.4 64.3 60.1 55.4 47.9 46.9 46.2 59.3 0.0 59.3 17 59.1 67.2 47.3 66.8 66.5 65.1 63.9 60.0 56.1 49.2 48.2 47.4 59.1 0.0 59.1 18 58.8 67.0 49.5 66.8 66.4 64.7 63.5 59.5 55.9 51.0 50.2 49.6 58.8 0.0 58.8 19 57.6 67.0 46.1 66.7 66.3 64.3 63.0 57.7 52.7 47.5 47.0 46.3 57.6 5.0 62.6 20 55.4 65.6 42.4 65.3 65.0 62.7 60.9 54.5 48.7 43.4 42.9 42.5 55.4 5.0 60.4 21 54.3 65.4 43.1 64.9 64.4 62.0 60.0 52.2 46.7 43.8 43.5 43.2 54.3 5.0 59.3 22 51.2 62.4 42.7 62.1 61.8 59.1 56.3 47.6 44.4 43.1 42.9 42.8 51.2 10.0 61.2 23 48.0 58.1 42.4 57.8 57.5 55.0 52.1 46.0 43.7 42.8 42.6 42.5 48.0 10.0 58.0 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 54.3 65.4 42.4 64.9 64.4 62.0 60.0 52.2 46.7 43.4 42.9 42.5 Max 60.7 73.7 50.2 72.5 71.2 66.9 64.7 60.1 56.4 51.9 51.2 50.5

58.6 67.8 67.2 64.9 63.2 58.0 53.4 48.1 47.4 46.7
Min 37.7 39.1 37.1 39.0 38.9 38.6 38.4 37.9 37.6 37.3 37.3 37.2 Max 54.2 65.1 42.8 64.8 64.4 61.6 59.2 52.7 47.0 43.3 43.1 42.9

48.7 55.4 55.0 52.6 50.3 43.9 41.9 40.8 40.7 40.6
Night
Day
Leq (dBA)24-Hour
CNELDay
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

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

59.2 58.6 48.7
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, December 5, 2024 L9 - Located east of the site near the Moreno Elementary School at 13700 Nason Street.

43.7 42.5

37.7 42.4

46.0 50.2

54.2 58.2

60.7 58.3

57.7 57.8

58.6 58.7

59.6 60.5

59.3 59.1

58.8 57.6

55.4 54.3

51.2 48.0

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

This page intentionally left blank
116
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise

APPENDIX 7.1:

OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS

117
Town Center at Moreno Valley Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14556-15 TCMV Noise

This page intentionally left blank
118
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Perris Blvd.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
26,004

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,036 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Highway Data
feet
feet
vehicles
Road Elevation: 0.0
Road Grade: 0.0%
Pad Elevation: 0.0
Site Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Autos: 15
Vehicle Mix
feet
feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Barrier Height: 0.0
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
feet
40 mphVehicle Speed:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.65 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -15.59 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -19.55 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

67.3 66.4 64.7 58.6 67.867.2

61.3 62.6

60.8 54.4 52.9 61.661.4

62.2 53.2 54.4 62.962.8
Vehicle Noise: 69.3 68.6 65.3 60.8 69.869.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
50 107 495230
53 114 530246
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Perris Blvd.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
27,748

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,173 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.93 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -15.31 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -19.26 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

67.5 66.7 64.9 58.9 68.167.5

61.5 62.9

61.1 54.7 53.2 61.961.6

62.5 53.5 54.7 63.263.1
Vehicle Noise: 69.6 68.9 65.6 61.1 70.069.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
52 111 517240
55 119 554257
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Kitching St.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
7,359

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 576 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-3.83
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -21.07 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -25.03 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

62.8 61.9 60.2 54.1 63.362.7

56.8 58.1

56.3 49.9 48.4 57.156.9

57.7 48.7 49.9 58.458.3
Vehicle Noise: 64.8 64.1 60.8 56.3 65.364.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
20 43 19892
21 46 21299
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Kitching St.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
8,873

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 695 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-3.02
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -20.26 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -24.22 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

63.6 62.7 61.0 54.9 64.163.5

57.6 58.9

57.1 50.8 49.2 57.957.7

58.5 49.5 50.7 59.259.1
Vehicle Noise: 65.6 64.9 61.6 57.1 66.165.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
22 48 225104
24 52 241112
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
119
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
9,962

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 780 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.52
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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -19.76 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -23.71 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

63.5 62.7 60.9 54.8 64.163.5

57.5 58.8

57.1 50.7 49.1 57.857.6

58.5 49.4 50.7 59.259.0
Vehicle Noise: 65.5 64.9 61.6 57.0 66.065.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
25 54 253117
27 58 271126
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
10,972

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 859 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.10
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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -19.34 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -23.29 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

63.9 63.1 61.3 55.3 64.563.9

57.9 59.2

57.5 51.1 49.6 58.358.0

58.9 49.8 51.1 59.659.4
Vehicle Noise: 65.9 65.3 62.0 57.4 66.466.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
27 58 270125
29 62 289134
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
8,899

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 697 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-3.01
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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -20.25 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -24.20 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

63.0 62.2 60.4 54.4 63.663.0

57.0 58.3

56.6 50.2 48.7 57.357.1

58.0 48.9 50.2 58.758.5
Vehicle Noise: 65.0 64.4 61.1 56.5 65.565.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
23 51 235109
25 54 251117
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
14,438

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,131 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.91
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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -18.14 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -22.10 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

65.1 64.3 62.5 56.5 65.765.1

59.1 60.4

58.7 52.3 50.8 59.459.2

60.1 51.0 52.3 60.860.6
Vehicle Noise: 67.1 66.5 63.2 58.6 67.667.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
32 70 324150
35 75 347161
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
120
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Fir Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
26,207

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,052 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.68 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -15.56 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -19.51 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

67.3 66.5 64.7 58.6 67.967.3

61.3 62.6

60.8 54.5 52.9 61.661.4

62.2 53.2 54.5 62.962.8
Vehicle Noise: 69.3 68.6 65.4 60.8 69.869.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
50 107 498231
53 115 533247
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Fir Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
21,040

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,647 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.73 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -16.51 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -20.47 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

66.3 65.5 63.7 57.7 66.966.3

60.3 61.7

59.9 53.5 52.0 60.760.4

61.3 52.3 53.5 62.061.9
Vehicle Noise: 68.4 67.7 64.4 59.9 68.868.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
43 93 430200
46 99 460214
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
21,784

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,706 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.37 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -16.87 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -20.83 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

67.9 67.1 65.3 59.3 68.567.9

61.7 62.5

61.3 54.9 53.4 62.061.8

62.2 53.2 54.4 62.962.8
Vehicle Noise: 69.8 69.1 65.9 61.3 70.369.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
53 115 534248
57 123 573266
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
19,791

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,550 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.05
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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -17.29 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -21.24 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

67.5 66.7 64.9 58.9 68.167.5

61.3 62.1

60.8 54.5 52.9 61.661.4

61.8 52.7 54.0 62.562.3
Vehicle Noise: 69.4 68.7 65.5 60.8 69.869.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
50 108 501232
54 116 537249
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
121
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Bay Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
19,898

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,558 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.03
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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -17.26 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -21.22 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

67.5 66.7 64.9 58.9 68.167.5

61.3 62.2

60.9 54.5 53.0 61.761.4

61.8 52.8 54.0 62.562.4
Vehicle Noise: 69.4 68.7 65.5 60.9 69.969.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
50 108 503233
54 116 539250
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Bay Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
19,924

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,560 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.02
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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -17.26 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -21.21 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

67.5 66.7 64.9 58.9 68.167.5

61.3 62.2

60.9 54.5 53.0 61.761.4

61.8 52.8 54.0 62.562.4
Vehicle Noise: 69.4 68.7 65.5 60.9 69.969.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
50 108 503233
54 116 540250
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
19,446

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,523 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.13
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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -17.36 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -21.32 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

67.4 66.6 64.8 58.8 68.067.4

61.2 62.1

60.8 54.4 52.9 61.661.3

61.7 52.7 53.9 62.462.3
Vehicle Noise: 69.3 68.6 65.4 60.8 69.869.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
49 107 495230
53 114 531246
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Cactus
Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
11,862

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 929 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.27
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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -19.51 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -23.47 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

65.3 64.5 62.7 56.6 65.965.3

59.1 59.9

58.6 52.3 50.7 59.459.2

59.6 50.5 51.8 60.260.1
Vehicle Noise: 67.1 66.5 63.3 58.6 67.667.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
36 77 356165
38 82 382177
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
122
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Nason St.

Road Name: Eucalyptus Av.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
8,647

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 677 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.55
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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

75.75 -19.79 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

81.57 -23.75 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

61.3 60.4 58.7 52.6 61.861.2

55.5 57.4

55.0 48.7 47.1 55.855.6

57.0 48.0 49.2 57.757.6
Vehicle Noise: 63.5 62.8 59.4 55.0 64.063.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
19 40 18586
20 43 19892
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Lasselle St.

Road Name: Cottonwood Av.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
8,581

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 672 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-3.68
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -20.92 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -24.87 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

64.9 64.0 62.3 56.2 65.464.8

58.6 59.5

58.2 51.8 50.3 59.058.8

59.1 50.1 51.3 59.859.7
Vehicle Noise: 66.7 66.0 62.9 58.2 67.266.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
27 57 267124
29 62 286133
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Lasselle St.

Road Name: Bay Av.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
1,634

7.83%

39.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 128 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

39.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 24 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-9.12
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%

1.78 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -26.36 1.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -30.31 1.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.58
-4.87
-5.57
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

37.443

37.206

37.230
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 CNELLdn

53.2 52.4 50.6 44.6 53.853.2

47.7 50.2

47.3 40.9 39.4 48.147.9

49.9 40.8 42.1 50.650.4
Vehicle Noise: 55.7 55.1 51.4 47.3 56.255.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
4 9 4420
5 10 4722
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Perris Blvd.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
28,186

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,207 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.49 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -15.75 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -19.71 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

68.2 67.4 65.6 59.6 68.868.2

62.0 62.9

61.6 55.2 53.7 62.362.1

62.5 53.5 54.7 63.263.1
Vehicle Noise: 70.1 69.4 66.2 61.6 70.670.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
68 147 682316
73 158 731339
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
123
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Kitching St.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
20,562

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,610 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.12 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -17.12 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -21.08 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

66.9 66.0 64.3 58.2 67.466.8

60.6 61.5

60.2 53.8 52.3 61.060.7

61.1 52.1 53.3 61.861.7
Vehicle Noise: 68.7 68.0 64.9 60.2 69.268.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
55 119 552256
59 128 593275
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Lasselle St.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
14,040

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,099 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.54
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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -18.78 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -22.73 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

65.2 64.4 62.6 56.6 65.865.2

59.0 59.8

58.5 52.2 50.6 59.359.1

59.5 50.4 51.7 60.260.0
Vehicle Noise: 67.1 66.4 63.2 58.5 67.567.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
43 92 428199
46 99 459213
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Lasselle St.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
11,290

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 884 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.94
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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -20.18 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -24.14 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

65.5 64.7 62.9 56.9 66.165.5

59.1 59.5

58.7 52.3 50.8 59.559.2

59.2 50.2 51.4 59.959.8
Vehicle Noise: 67.2 66.6 63.5 58.7 67.767.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
44 95 441205
47 102 474220
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Nason St.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
8,886

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 696 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-3.53
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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -20.76 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -24.72 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

64.0 63.2 61.4 55.4 64.664.0

57.8 58.7

57.4 51.0 49.5 58.257.9

58.3 49.3 50.5 59.058.9
Vehicle Noise: 65.9 65.2 62.0 57.4 66.465.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
29 63 294136
31 68 315146
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
124
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Nason St.

Road Name: Cactus Av.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
16,059

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,257 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.96
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -18.19 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -22.15 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

67.6 66.7 65.0 58.9 68.267.5

61.4 62.2

60.9 54.6 53.0 61.761.5

61.9 52.8 54.1 62.562.4
Vehicle Noise: 69.4 68.7 65.6 60.9 69.969.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
41 87 405188
43 94 434202
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Nason St.

Road Name: Cactus Av.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
11,689

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 915 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.34
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -19.57 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -23.53 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

66.2 65.4 63.6 57.5 66.866.2

60.0 60.8

59.5 53.2 51.6 60.360.1

60.5 51.4 52.7 61.261.0
Vehicle Noise: 68.0 67.4 64.2 59.5 68.568.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
33 71 328152
35 76 352163
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Nason St.

Road Name: Iris Av.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
25,277

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,979 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.56 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -16.68 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -20.64 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

69.0 68.2 66.4 60.4 69.669.0

62.6 63.0

62.2 55.8 54.3 63.062.7

62.7 53.7 54.9 63.463.3
Vehicle Noise: 70.7 70.1 67.0 62.2 71.270.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
76 163 755350
81 175 811377
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Nason St.

Road Name: Iris Av.

Scenario: Existing Without Project
21,571

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,689 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.13
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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -17.37 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -21.33 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

68.4 67.5 65.8 59.7 68.968.3

61.9 62.4

61.5 55.1 53.6 62.362.0

62.0 53.0 54.2 62.762.6
Vehicle Noise: 70.1 69.4 66.3 61.5 70.670.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
68 146 679315
73 157 730339
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
125
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Perris Blvd.

Scenario: Existing With Project
26,404

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,067 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.71 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -15.52 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -19.48 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

67.3 66.5 64.7 58.7 67.967.3

61.3 62.6

60.9 54.5 53.0 61.761.4

62.3 53.2 54.5 63.062.8
Vehicle Noise: 69.3 68.7 65.4 60.8 69.869.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
50 108 500232
54 115 536249
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Perris Blvd.

Scenario: Existing With Project
28,148

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,204 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.99 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -15.25 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -19.20 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

67.6 66.8 65.0 58.9 68.267.6

61.6 62.9

61.1 54.8 53.2 61.961.7

62.6 53.5 54.8 63.363.1
Vehicle Noise: 69.6 69.0 65.7 61.1 70.169.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
52 112 522242
56 120 559259
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Kitching St.

Scenario: Existing With Project
7,477

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 585 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-3.76
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -21.00 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -24.96 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

62.8 62.0 60.2 54.2 63.462.8

56.8 58.1

56.4 50.0 48.5 57.256.9

57.8 48.7 50.0 58.558.4
Vehicle Noise: 64.8 64.2 60.9 56.3 65.364.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
20 43 20193
21 46 215100
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Kitching St.

Scenario: Existing With Project
8,991

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 704 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.96
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -20.20 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -24.16 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

63.6 62.8 61.0 55.0 64.263.6

57.6 58.9

57.2 50.8 49.3 58.057.7

58.6 49.5 50.8 59.359.2
Vehicle Noise: 65.6 65.0 61.7 57.1 66.165.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
23 49 227105
24 52 243113
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
126
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: Existing With Project
10,080

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 789 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.47
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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -19.71 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -23.66 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

63.6 62.7 60.9 54.9 64.163.5

57.5 58.9

57.1 50.7 49.2 57.957.7

58.5 49.5 50.7 59.259.1
Vehicle Noise: 65.6 64.9 61.6 57.1 66.165.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
25 55 255118
27 59 273127
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: Existing With Project
11,090

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 868 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.05
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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -19.29 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -23.25 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

64.0 63.1 61.4 55.3 64.563.9

58.0 59.3

57.5 51.2 49.6 58.358.1

58.9 49.9 51.1 59.659.5
Vehicle Noise: 66.0 65.3 62.0 57.5 66.566.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
27 59 272126
29 63 291135
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: Existing With Project
9,017

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 706 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.95
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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -20.19 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -24.15 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

63.1 62.2 60.5 54.4 63.663.0

57.1 58.4

56.6 50.3 48.7 57.457.2

58.0 49.0 50.2 58.758.6
Vehicle Noise: 65.1 64.4 61.1 56.6 65.665.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
24 51 237110
25 55 253118
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: Existing With Project
14,838

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,162 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.79
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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -18.03 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -21.98 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

65.2 64.4 62.6 56.6 65.865.2

59.2 60.5

58.8 52.4 50.9 59.659.3

60.2 51.2 52.4 60.960.8
Vehicle Noise: 67.2 66.6 63.3 58.8 67.767.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
33 71 330153
35 76 353164
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
127
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Fir Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: Existing With Project
32,737

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,563 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

2.65 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -14.59 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -18.55 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

68.3 67.4 65.7 59.6 68.868.2

62.3 63.6

61.8 55.4 53.9 62.662.4

63.2 54.2 55.4 63.963.8
Vehicle Noise: 70.3 69.6 66.3 61.8 70.870.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
58 124 577268
62 133 618287
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Fir Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: Existing With Project
27,852

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,181 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.95 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -15.29 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -19.25 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

67.6 66.7 65.0 58.9 68.167.5

61.5 62.9

61.1 54.7 53.2 61.961.7

62.5 53.5 54.7 63.263.1
Vehicle Noise: 69.6 68.9 65.6 61.1 70.169.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
52 112 518241
56 120 555258
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: Existing With Project
28,996

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,270 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.61 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -15.63 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -19.58 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

69.2 68.3 66.6 60.5 69.769.1

62.9 63.8

62.5 56.1 54.6 63.363.1

63.4 54.4 55.6 64.164.0
Vehicle Noise: 71.0 70.3 67.2 62.5 71.571.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
65 139 646300
69 149 693322
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: Existing With Project
25,311

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,982 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.02 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -16.22 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -20.17 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

68.6 67.7 66.0 59.9 69.268.5

62.4 63.2

61.9 55.5 54.0 62.762.5

62.8 53.8 55.1 63.563.4
Vehicle Noise: 70.4 69.7 66.6 61.9 70.970.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
59 127 590274
63 136 633294
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
128
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Bay Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: Existing With Project
25,418

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,990 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.04 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -16.20 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -20.16 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

68.6 67.8 66.0 59.9 69.268.6

62.4 63.2

61.9 55.6 54.0 62.762.5

62.9 53.8 55.1 63.663.4
Vehicle Noise: 70.4 69.8 66.6 61.9 70.970.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
59 127 592275
63 137 635295
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Bay Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: Existing With Project
23,250

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,820 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.65 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -16.59 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -20.54 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

68.2 67.4 65.6 59.6 68.868.2

62.0 62.8

61.5 55.2 53.6 62.362.1

62.5 53.4 54.7 63.263.0
Vehicle Noise: 70.1 69.4 66.2 61.5 70.570.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
56 120 558259
60 129 598278
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: Existing With Project
20,202

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,582 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.04 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -17.20 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -21.15 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

67.6 66.8 65.0 58.9 68.267.6

61.4 62.2

60.9 54.6 53.0 61.761.5

61.9 52.8 54.1 62.662.4
Vehicle Noise: 69.4 68.8 65.6 60.9 69.969.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
51 109 508236
54 117 545253
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Cactus
Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: Existing With Project
12,382

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 969 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.09
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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -19.32 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -23.28 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

65.5 64.6 62.9 56.8 66.065.4

59.3 60.1

58.8 52.4 50.9 59.659.4

59.7 50.7 52.0 60.460.3
Vehicle Noise: 67.3 66.6 63.5 58.8 67.867.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
37 79 366170
39 85 393182
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
129
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Nason St.

Road Name: Eucalyptus Av.

Scenario: Existing With Project
9,047

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 708 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.36
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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

75.75 -19.60 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

81.57 -23.55 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

61.5 60.6 58.9 52.8 62.061.4

55.7 57.6

55.2 48.9 47.3 56.055.8

57.2 48.2 49.4 57.957.8
Vehicle Noise: 63.7 63.0 59.6 55.2 64.263.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
19 41 19189
20 44 20495
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Lasselle St.

Road Name: Cottonwood Av.

Scenario: Existing With Project
8,981

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 703 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-3.48
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -20.72 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -24.67 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

65.1 64.2 62.5 56.4 65.665.0

58.8 59.7

58.4 52.0 50.5 59.259.0

59.3 50.3 51.5 60.059.9
Vehicle Noise: 66.9 66.2 63.1 58.4 67.466.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
27 59 275128
29 64 295137
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Lasselle St.

Road Name: Bay Av.

Scenario: Existing With Project
2,212

7.83%

39.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 173 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

39.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 24 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-7.81
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%

1.78 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -25.04 1.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -29.00 1.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.58
-4.87
-5.57
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

37.443

37.206

37.230
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 CNELLdn

54.5 53.7 51.9 45.9 55.154.5

49.1 51.5

48.6 42.3 40.7 49.449.2

51.2 42.1 43.4 51.951.7
Vehicle Noise: 57.0 56.4 52.8 48.6 57.557.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
5 12 5425
6 12 5727
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Perris Blvd.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: Existing With Project
28,654

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,244 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.56 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -15.68 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -19.64 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

68.3 67.5 65.7 59.7 68.968.3

62.1 62.9

61.6 55.3 53.7 62.462.2

62.6 53.5 54.8 63.363.1
Vehicle Noise: 70.1 69.5 66.3 61.6 70.670.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
69 148 689320
74 159 739343
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
130
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Kitching St.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: Existing With Project
21,830

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,709 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.38 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -16.86 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -20.82 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

67.1 66.3 64.5 58.5 67.767.1

60.9 61.7

60.5 54.1 52.5 61.261.0

61.4 52.3 53.6 62.162.0
Vehicle Noise: 69.0 68.3 65.1 60.5 69.569.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
57 124 575267
62 133 617286
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Lasselle St.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: Existing With Project
15,546

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,217 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.10
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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -18.34 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -22.29 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

65.7 64.8 63.0 57.0 66.265.6

59.4 60.3

59.0 52.6 51.1 59.859.5

59.9 50.9 52.1 60.660.5
Vehicle Noise: 67.5 66.8 63.7 59.0 68.067.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
46 99 458213
49 106 492228
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Lasselle St.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: Existing With Project
13,314

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,043 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.23
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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -19.47 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -23.42 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

66.3 65.4 63.7 57.6 66.866.2

59.8 60.3

59.4 53.0 51.5 60.260.0

59.9 50.9 52.1 60.660.5
Vehicle Noise: 68.0 67.3 64.2 59.4 68.568.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
49 106 493229
53 114 529246
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Nason St.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: Existing With Project
9,924

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 777 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-3.05
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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -20.28 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -24.24 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

64.5 63.7 61.9 55.9 65.164.5

58.3 59.1

57.8 51.5 49.9 58.658.4

58.8 49.7 51.0 59.559.3
Vehicle Noise: 66.4 65.7 62.5 57.8 66.866.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
32 68 316147
34 73 339157
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
131
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Nason St.

Road Name: Cactus Av.

Scenario: Existing With Project
16,177

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,267 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.92
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -18.16 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -22.12 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

67.6 66.8 65.0 59.0 68.267.6

61.4 62.2

61.0 54.6 53.0 61.761.5

61.9 52.8 54.1 62.662.5
Vehicle Noise: 69.5 68.8 65.6 61.0 69.969.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
41 88 407189
44 94 437203
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Nason St.

Road Name: Cactus Av.

Scenario: Existing With Project
11,807

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 924 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.29
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -19.53 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -23.49 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

66.2 65.4 63.6 57.6 66.866.2

60.0 60.9

59.6 53.2 51.7 60.460.1

60.5 51.5 52.7 61.261.1
Vehicle Noise: 68.1 67.4 64.3 59.6 68.668.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
33 71 330153
35 76 354164
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Nason St.

Road Name: Iris Av.

Scenario: Existing With Project
25,677

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,011 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.62 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -16.61 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -20.57 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

69.1 68.3 66.5 60.5 69.769.1

62.7 63.1

62.3 55.9 54.3 63.062.8

62.8 53.7 55.0 63.563.3
Vehicle Noise: 70.8 70.1 67.1 62.3 71.370.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
76 164 763354
82 177 820381
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Nason St.

Road Name: Iris Av.

Scenario: Existing With Project
21,689

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,698 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.11
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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -17.35 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -21.30 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

68.4 67.5 65.8 59.7 69.068.3

62.0 62.4

61.5 55.2 53.6 62.362.1

62.0 53.0 54.2 62.762.6
Vehicle Noise: 70.1 69.4 66.3 61.6 70.670.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
68 147 682316
73 158 733340
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
132
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Perris Blvd.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
28,860

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,260 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

2.10 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -15.14 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -19.09 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

67.7 66.9 65.1 59.1 68.367.7

61.7 63.0

61.3 54.9 53.4 62.061.8

62.7 53.6 54.9 63.463.2
Vehicle Noise: 69.7 69.1 65.8 61.2 70.269.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
53 114 531246
57 122 568264
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Perris Blvd.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
30,802

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,412 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

2.38 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -14.85 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -18.81 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

68.0 67.2 65.4 59.3 68.668.0

62.0 63.3

61.5 55.2 53.6 62.362.1

62.9 53.9 55.2 63.663.5
Vehicle Noise: 70.0 69.3 66.1 61.5 70.570.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
55 119 554257
59 128 594275
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Kitching St.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
7,809

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 611 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-3.58
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -20.81 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -24.77 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

63.0 62.2 60.4 54.4 63.663.0

57.0 58.3

56.6 50.2 48.7 57.457.1

58.0 48.9 50.2 58.758.5
Vehicle Noise: 65.0 64.4 61.1 56.5 65.565.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
21 44 20696
22 48 221103
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Kitching St.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
9,416

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 737 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.76
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -20.00 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -23.96 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

63.8 63.0 61.2 55.2 64.463.8

57.8 59.1

57.4 51.0 49.5 58.257.9

58.8 49.7 51.0 59.559.4
Vehicle Noise: 65.8 65.2 61.9 57.3 66.365.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
23 50 234109
25 54 250116
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
133
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
12,766

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,000 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.44
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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -18.68 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -22.64 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

64.6 63.7 62.0 55.9 65.164.5

58.6 59.9

58.1 51.8 50.2 58.958.7

59.5 50.5 51.7 60.260.1
Vehicle Noise: 66.6 65.9 62.6 58.1 67.166.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
30 64 298138
32 69 319148
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
14,025

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,098 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.03
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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -18.27 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -22.23 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

65.0 64.2 62.4 56.3 65.665.0

59.0 60.3

58.5 52.2 50.6 59.359.1

59.9 50.9 52.2 60.660.5
Vehicle Noise: 67.0 66.3 63.1 58.5 67.567.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
32 68 318147
34 73 340158
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
11,366

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 890 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.95
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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -19.18 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -23.14 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

64.1 63.2 61.5 55.4 64.664.0

58.1 59.4

57.6 51.3 49.7 58.458.2

59.0 50.0 51.2 59.759.6
Vehicle Noise: 66.1 65.4 62.1 57.6 66.666.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
28 59 276128
30 64 296137
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
17,318

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,356 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.12
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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -17.36 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -21.31 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

65.9 65.1 63.3 57.2 66.565.9

59.9 61.2

59.5 53.1 51.5 60.260.0

60.9 51.8 53.1 61.661.4
Vehicle Noise: 67.9 67.3 64.0 59.4 68.468.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
37 79 366170
39 84 391182
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
134
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Fir Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
46,829

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,667 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

4.20 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -13.04 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -16.99 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

69.8 69.0 67.2 61.2 70.469.8

63.8 65.1

63.4 57.0 55.5 64.163.9

64.8 55.7 57.0 65.565.3
Vehicle Noise: 71.8 71.2 67.9 63.3 72.371.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
73 158 733340
78 169 785364
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Fir Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
41,322

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,235 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

3.66 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -13.58 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -17.53 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

69.3 68.4 66.7 60.6 69.869.2

63.3 64.6

62.8 56.5 54.9 63.663.4

64.2 55.2 56.4 64.964.8
Vehicle Noise: 71.3 70.6 67.3 62.8 71.871.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
67 145 674313
72 156 722335
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
42,733

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,346 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

3.29 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -13.94 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -17.90 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

70.9 70.0 68.3 62.2 71.470.8

64.6 65.5

64.2 57.8 56.3 65.064.7

65.1 56.1 57.3 65.865.7
Vehicle Noise: 72.7 72.0 68.9 64.2 73.272.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
84 180 837388
90 193 897416
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
38,005

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,976 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

2.79 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -14.45 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -18.41 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

70.3 69.5 67.7 61.7 70.970.3

64.1 65.0

63.7 57.3 55.8 64.564.2

64.6 55.6 56.8 65.365.2
Vehicle Noise: 72.2 71.5 68.4 63.7 72.772.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
77 167 774359
83 179 830385
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
135
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Bay Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
35,157

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,753 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

2.45 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -14.79 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -18.75 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

70.0 69.2 67.4 61.3 70.670.0

63.8 64.6

63.3 57.0 55.4 64.163.9

64.3 55.2 56.5 65.064.8
Vehicle Noise: 71.8 71.2 68.0 63.3 72.371.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
73 158 734341
79 170 788366
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Bay Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
33,917

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,656 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

2.29 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -14.95 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -18.90 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

69.9 69.0 67.2 61.2 70.469.8

63.6 64.5

63.2 56.8 55.3 64.063.7

64.1 55.1 56.3 64.864.7
Vehicle Noise: 71.7 71.0 67.9 63.2 72.271.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
72 154 717333
77 166 769357
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
25,322

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,983 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.02 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -16.22 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -20.17 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

68.6 67.7 66.0 59.9 69.268.5

62.4 63.2

61.9 55.6 54.0 62.762.5

62.8 53.8 55.1 63.563.4
Vehicle Noise: 70.4 69.7 66.6 61.9 70.970.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
59 127 590274
63 136 633294
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Cactus
Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
15,012

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,175 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.25
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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -18.49 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -22.44 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

66.3 65.5 63.7 57.7 66.966.3

60.1 60.9

59.6 53.3 51.7 60.460.2

60.6 51.5 52.8 61.361.1
Vehicle Noise: 68.2 67.5 64.3 59.6 68.668.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
42 90 416193
45 96 447207
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
136
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Nason St.

Road Name: Eucalyptus Av.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
9,722

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 761 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.04
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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

75.75 -19.28 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

81.57 -23.24 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

61.8 60.9 59.2 53.1 62.361.7

56.0 57.9

55.6 49.2 47.7 56.356.1

57.5 48.5 49.7 58.258.1
Vehicle Noise: 64.0 63.3 59.9 55.5 64.564.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
20 43 20193
21 46 21499
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Lasselle St.

Road Name: Cottonwood Av.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
12,378

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 969 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.09
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -19.33 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -23.28 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

66.4 65.6 63.8 57.8 67.066.4

60.2 61.1

59.8 53.4 51.9 60.660.3

60.7 51.7 52.9 61.461.3
Vehicle Noise: 68.3 67.6 64.5 59.8 68.868.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
34 73 340158
37 79 365170
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Lasselle St.

Road Name: Bay Av.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
2,290

7.83%

39.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

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

39.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 24 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-7.65
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%

1.78 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -24.89 1.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -28.85 1.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.58
-4.87
-5.57
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

37.443

37.206

37.230
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 CNELLdn

54.7 53.8 52.1 46.0 55.254.6

49.2 51.7

48.8 42.4 40.9 49.649.3

51.3 42.3 43.5 52.051.9
Vehicle Noise: 57.2 56.6 52.9 48.7 57.757.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
6 12 5526
6 13 5927
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Perris Blvd.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
34,887

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,732 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

2.41 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -14.83 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -18.78 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

69.2 68.3 66.6 60.5 69.769.1

62.9 63.8

62.5 56.1 54.6 63.363.0

63.4 54.4 55.6 64.164.0
Vehicle Noise: 71.0 70.3 67.2 62.5 71.571.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
79 169 786365
84 182 843391
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
137
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Kitching St.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
29,416

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,303 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.67 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -15.57 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -19.52 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

68.4 67.6 65.8 59.8 69.068.4

62.2 63.0

61.7 55.4 53.8 62.562.3

62.7 53.6 54.9 63.463.2
Vehicle Noise: 70.3 69.6 66.4 61.8 70.870.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
70 151 701326
75 162 752349
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Lasselle St.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
22,495

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,761 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.51 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -16.73 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -20.69 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

67.3 66.4 64.7 58.6 67.867.2

61.0 61.9

60.6 54.2 52.7 61.461.1

61.5 52.5 53.7 62.262.1
Vehicle Noise: 69.1 68.4 65.3 60.6 69.669.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
59 126 586272
63 136 629292
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Lasselle St.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
19,759

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,547 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.51
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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -17.75 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -21.71 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

68.0 67.1 65.4 59.3 68.667.9

61.6 62.0

61.1 54.8 53.2 61.961.7

61.6 52.6 53.8 62.362.2
Vehicle Noise: 69.7 69.0 65.9 61.2 70.269.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
64 138 641297
69 148 688320
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Nason St.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
22,030

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,725 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.42 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -16.82 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -20.78 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

68.0 67.1 65.4 59.3 68.567.9

61.8 62.6

61.3 54.9 53.4 62.161.9

62.2 53.2 54.5 62.962.8
Vehicle Noise: 69.8 69.1 66.0 61.3 70.369.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
54 116 538250
58 124 577268
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
138
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Nason St.

Road Name: Cactus Av.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
17,894

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,401 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.49
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -17.72 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -21.68 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

68.1 67.2 65.4 59.4 68.668.0

61.8 62.7

61.4 55.0 53.5 62.261.9

62.3 53.3 54.5 63.062.9
Vehicle Noise: 69.9 69.2 66.1 61.4 70.469.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
44 94 435202
47 101 467217
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Nason St.

Road Name: Cactus Av.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
12,494

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 978 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.05
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -19.28 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -23.24 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

66.5 65.7 63.9 57.8 67.166.5

60.3 61.1

59.8 53.5 51.9 60.660.4

60.8 51.7 53.0 61.561.3
Vehicle Noise: 68.3 67.7 64.5 59.8 68.868.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
34 74 343159
37 79 368171
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Nason St.

Road Name: Iris Av.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
33,064

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,589 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.72 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -15.52 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -19.47 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

70.2 69.4 67.6 61.6 70.870.2

63.8 64.2

63.3 57.0 55.4 64.163.9

63.9 54.8 56.1 64.664.4
Vehicle Noise: 71.9 71.2 68.2 63.4 72.471.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
90 195 903419
97 209 970450
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Nason St.

Road Name: Iris Av.

Scenario: EAC (2025)
28,496

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,231 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.08 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -16.16 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -20.12 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

69.6 68.7 67.0 60.9 70.169.5

63.1 63.6

62.7 56.3 54.8 63.563.3

63.2 54.2 55.4 63.963.8
Vehicle Noise: 71.3 70.6 67.5 62.8 71.871.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
82 176 818380
88 189 879408
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
139
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Perris Blvd.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
29,260

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,291 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

2.16 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -15.08 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -19.03 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

67.8 66.9 65.2 59.1 68.367.7

61.8 63.1

61.3 55.0 53.4 62.161.9

62.7 53.7 54.9 63.463.3
Vehicle Noise: 69.8 69.1 65.8 61.3 70.369.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
54 115 536249
57 124 574266
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Perris Blvd.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
31,202

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,443 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

2.44 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -14.80 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -18.75 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

68.1 67.2 65.4 59.4 68.668.0

62.0 63.4

61.6 55.2 53.7 62.462.2

63.0 54.0 55.2 63.763.6
Vehicle Noise: 70.1 69.4 66.1 61.6 70.670.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
56 120 559260
60 129 599278
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Kitching St.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
7,927

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 621 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-3.51
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -20.75 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -24.70 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

63.1 62.2 60.5 54.4 63.663.0

57.1 58.4

56.6 50.3 48.7 57.457.2

58.0 49.0 50.3 58.758.6
Vehicle Noise: 65.1 64.4 61.1 56.6 65.665.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
21 45 20997
22 48 223104
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Kitching St.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
9,534

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 747 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.71
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -19.95 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -23.90 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

63.9 63.0 61.3 55.2 64.463.8

57.9 59.2

57.4 51.1 49.5 58.258.0

58.8 49.8 51.1 59.559.4
Vehicle Noise: 65.9 65.2 61.9 57.4 66.465.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
24 51 236109
25 54 253117
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
140
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
12,884

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,009 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.40
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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -18.64 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -22.60 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

64.6 63.8 62.0 56.0 65.264.6

58.6 59.9

58.2 51.8 50.3 59.058.7

59.6 50.5 51.8 60.360.1
Vehicle Noise: 66.6 66.0 62.7 58.1 67.166.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
30 65 300139
32 69 321149
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
14,143

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,107 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.00
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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -18.23 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -22.19 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

65.0 64.2 62.4 56.4 65.665.0

59.0 60.3

58.6 52.2 50.7 59.459.1

60.0 50.9 52.2 60.760.5
Vehicle Noise: 67.0 66.4 63.1 58.5 67.567.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
32 69 319148
34 74 342159
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
11,484

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 899 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.90
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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -19.14 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -23.10 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

64.1 63.3 61.5 55.5 64.764.1

58.1 59.4

57.7 51.3 49.8 58.558.2

59.1 50.0 51.3 59.859.6
Vehicle Noise: 66.1 65.5 62.2 57.6 66.666.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
28 60 278129
30 64 298138
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
17,718

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,387 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.02
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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -17.26 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -21.21 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

66.0 65.2 63.4 57.3 66.666.0

60.0 61.3

59.6 53.2 51.6 60.360.1

61.0 51.9 53.2 61.761.5
Vehicle Noise: 68.0 67.4 64.1 59.5 68.568.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
37 80 371172
40 86 397184
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
141
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Fir Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
53,359

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 4,178 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

4.77 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -12.47 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -16.42 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

70.4 69.5 67.8 61.7 71.070.3

64.4 65.7

63.9 57.6 56.0 64.764.5

65.3 56.3 57.5 66.065.9
Vehicle Noise: 72.4 71.7 68.4 63.9 72.972.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
80 172 800371
86 184 856397
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Fir Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
48,134

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,769 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

4.32 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -12.92 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -16.87 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

69.9 69.1 67.3 61.3 70.569.9

63.9 65.2

63.5 57.1 55.6 64.364.0

64.9 55.9 57.1 65.665.5
Vehicle Noise: 71.9 71.3 68.0 63.5 72.472.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
75 161 747347
80 172 799371
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
49,945

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,911 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

3.97 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -13.27 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -17.22 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

71.5 70.7 68.9 62.9 72.171.5

65.3 66.2

64.9 58.5 57.0 65.665.4

65.8 56.8 58.0 66.566.4
Vehicle Noise: 73.4 72.7 69.5 64.9 73.973.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
93 200 928431
100 214 996462
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
43,525

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,408 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

3.37 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -13.86 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -17.82 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

70.9 70.1 68.3 62.3 71.570.9

64.7 65.6

64.3 57.9 56.4 65.164.8

65.2 56.2 57.4 65.965.8
Vehicle Noise: 72.8 72.1 68.9 64.3 73.372.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
85 182 847393
91 196 908422
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
142
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Bay Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
40,677

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,185 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

3.08 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -14.16 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -18.11 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

70.6 69.8 68.0 62.0 71.270.6

64.4 65.3

64.0 57.6 56.1 64.864.5

64.9 55.9 57.1 65.665.5
Vehicle Noise: 72.5 71.8 68.6 64.0 73.072.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
81 174 809376
87 187 868403
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Bay Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
37,243

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,916 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

2.70 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -14.54 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -18.50 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

70.3 69.4 67.7 61.6 70.870.2

64.0 64.9

63.6 57.2 55.7 64.464.1

64.5 55.5 56.7 65.265.1
Vehicle Noise: 72.1 71.4 68.3 63.6 72.672.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
76 164 763354
82 176 819380
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
26,078

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,042 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.15 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -16.09 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -20.04 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

68.7 67.9 66.1 60.1 69.368.7

62.5 63.3

62.0 55.7 54.1 62.862.6

63.0 53.9 55.2 63.763.5
Vehicle Noise: 70.6 69.9 66.7 62.0 71.070.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
60 130 602279
65 139 646300
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Cactus
Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
15,532

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,216 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.10
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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -18.34 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -22.30 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

66.5 65.6 63.9 57.8 67.066.4

60.2 61.1

59.8 53.4 51.9 60.660.3

60.7 51.7 52.9 61.461.3
Vehicle Noise: 68.3 67.6 64.5 59.8 68.868.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
43 92 426198
46 98 457212
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
143
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Nason St.

Road Name: Eucalyptus Av.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
10,122

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 793 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.87
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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

75.75 -19.11 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

81.57 -23.06 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

61.9 61.1 59.3 53.3 62.561.9

56.2 58.0

55.7 49.4 47.8 56.556.3

57.7 48.6 49.9 58.458.2
Vehicle Noise: 64.2 63.5 60.1 55.7 64.764.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
21 44 20696
22 47 220102
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Lasselle St.

Road Name: Cottonwood Av.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
12,778

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,001 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.95
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -19.19 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -23.14 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

66.6 65.8 64.0 57.9 67.266.6

60.4 61.2

59.9 53.6 52.0 60.760.5

60.9 51.8 53.1 61.661.4
Vehicle Noise: 68.4 67.8 64.6 59.9 68.968.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
35 75 348161
37 80 373173
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Lasselle St.

Road Name: Bay Av.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
2,868

7.83%

39.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 225 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

39.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 24 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-6.68
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%

1.78 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -23.92 1.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -27.87 1.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.58
-4.87
-5.57
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

37.443

37.206

37.230
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 CNELLdn

55.7 54.8 53.1 47.0 56.255.6

50.2 52.7

49.7 43.4 41.8 50.550.3

52.3 43.3 44.5 53.052.9
Vehicle Noise: 58.2 57.5 53.9 49.7 58.658.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
6 14 6430
7 15 6832
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Perris Blvd.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
35,355

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,768 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

2.47 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -14.77 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -18.72 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

69.2 68.4 66.6 60.6 69.869.2

63.0 63.8

62.5 56.2 54.6 63.363.1

63.5 54.4 55.7 64.264.0
Vehicle Noise: 71.1 70.4 67.2 62.6 71.671.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
79 171 793368
85 183 850395
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
144
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Kitching St.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
30,684

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,403 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.86 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -15.38 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -19.34 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

68.6 67.8 66.0 59.9 69.268.6

62.4 63.2

61.9 55.6 54.0 62.762.5

62.9 53.8 55.1 63.663.4
Vehicle Noise: 70.4 69.8 66.6 61.9 70.970.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
72 155 721335
77 167 774359
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Lasselle St.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
24,001

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,879 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.79 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -16.45 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -20.41 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

67.5 66.7 64.9 58.9 68.167.5

61.3 62.2

60.9 54.5 53.0 61.761.4

61.8 52.8 54.0 62.562.4
Vehicle Noise: 69.4 68.7 65.5 60.9 69.969.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
61 132 612284
66 142 657305
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Lasselle St.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
21,783

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,706 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.09
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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -17.33 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -21.28 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

68.4 67.6 65.8 59.7 69.068.4

62.0 62.4

61.5 55.2 53.6 62.362.1

62.0 53.0 54.3 62.762.6
Vehicle Noise: 70.1 69.4 66.4 61.6 70.670.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
68 147 684317
73 158 735341
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Nason St.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
23,068

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,806 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.62 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -16.62 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -20.58 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

68.2 67.3 65.6 59.5 68.768.1

62.0 62.8

61.5 55.1 53.6 62.362.1

62.4 53.4 54.7 63.163.0
Vehicle Noise: 70.0 69.3 66.2 61.5 70.570.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
55 119 555257
59 128 595276
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
145
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Nason St.

Road Name: Cactus Av.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
18,012

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,410 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.46
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -17.70 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -21.65 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

68.1 67.2 65.5 59.4 68.668.0

61.9 62.7

61.4 55.1 53.5 62.262.0

62.3 53.3 54.6 63.062.9
Vehicle Noise: 69.9 69.2 66.1 61.4 70.470.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
44 94 437203
47 101 469218
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Nason St.

Road Name: Cactus Av.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
12,612

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 988 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-2.01
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -19.24 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -23.20 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

66.5 65.7 63.9 57.9 67.166.5

60.3 61.2

59.9 53.5 52.0 60.760.4

60.8 51.8 53.0 61.561.4
Vehicle Noise: 68.4 67.7 64.5 59.9 68.968.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
34 74 345160
37 80 370172
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Nason St.

Road Name: Iris Av.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
33,464

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,620 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.77 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -15.46 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -19.42 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

70.3 69.4 67.7 61.6 70.870.2

63.8 64.3

63.4 57.0 55.5 64.264.0

63.9 54.9 56.1 64.664.5
Vehicle Noise: 72.0 71.3 68.2 63.4 72.572.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
91 196 910423
98 211 978454
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Nason St.

Road Name: Iris Av.

Scenario: EAPC (2025)
28,614

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,240 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.09 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -16.14 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -20.10 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

69.6 68.8 67.0 60.9 70.269.6

63.2 63.6

62.7 56.4 54.8 63.563.3

63.2 54.2 55.4 63.963.8
Vehicle Noise: 71.3 70.6 67.6 62.8 71.871.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
82 177 820381
88 190 881409
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
146
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Perris Blvd.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
37,658

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,949 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

3.26 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -13.98 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -17.94 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

68.9 68.0 66.3 60.2 69.468.8

62.9 64.2

62.4 56.1 54.5 63.263.0

63.8 54.8 56.0 64.564.4
Vehicle Noise: 70.9 70.2 66.9 62.4 71.470.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
63 137 634294
68 146 679315
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Perris Blvd.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
47,980

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,757 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

4.31 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -12.93 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -16.89 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

69.9 69.1 67.3 61.3 70.569.9

63.9 65.2

63.5 57.1 55.6 64.364.0

64.9 55.8 57.1 65.665.4
Vehicle Noise: 71.9 71.3 68.0 63.4 72.472.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
74 160 745346
80 172 798370
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Kitching St.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
27,814

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,178 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.94 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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -15.30 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -19.25 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

68.5 67.7 65.9 59.9 69.168.5

62.5 63.8

62.1 55.7 54.2 62.962.6

63.5 54.5 55.7 64.264.1
Vehicle Noise: 70.5 69.9 66.6 62.1 71.070.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
48 104 482224
52 111 516239
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Kitching St.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
11,647

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 912 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.84
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -19.08 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -23.03 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

64.7 63.9 62.1 56.1 65.364.7

58.7 60.1

58.3 51.9 50.4 59.158.9

59.7 50.7 51.9 60.460.3
Vehicle Noise: 66.8 66.1 62.8 58.3 67.366.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
27 58 270125
29 62 289134
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
147
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
26,106

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,044 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.67 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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -15.57 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -19.53 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

67.7 66.8 65.1 59.0 68.367.6

61.7 63.0

61.2 54.9 53.3 62.061.8

62.6 53.6 54.9 63.363.2
Vehicle Noise: 69.7 69.0 65.8 61.2 70.269.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
48 104 481223
51 111 515239
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
35,755

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,800 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

3.03 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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -14.21 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -18.16 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

69.1 68.2 66.4 60.4 69.669.0

63.0 64.4

62.6 56.2 54.7 63.463.2

64.0 55.0 56.2 64.764.6
Vehicle Noise: 71.1 70.4 67.1 62.6 71.671.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
59 128 593275
63 137 635295
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
31,121

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,437 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

2.43 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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -14.81 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -18.77 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

68.4 67.6 65.8 59.8 69.068.4

62.4 63.8

62.0 55.6 54.1 62.862.6

63.4 54.4 55.6 64.164.0
Vehicle Noise: 70.5 69.8 66.5 62.0 71.070.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
54 116 540251
58 125 579269
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
28,255

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,212 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

2.01 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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -15.23 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -19.19 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

68.0 67.2 65.4 59.4 68.668.0

62.0 63.3

61.6 55.2 53.7 62.462.1

63.0 53.9 55.2 63.763.6
Vehicle Noise: 70.0 69.4 66.1 61.6 70.570.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
51 109 507235
54 117 542252
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
148
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Fir Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
51,512

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 4,033 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

4.62 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -12.62 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -16.58 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

70.2 69.4 67.6 61.6 70.870.2

64.2 65.5

63.8 57.4 55.9 64.664.3

65.2 56.1 57.4 65.965.7
Vehicle Noise: 72.2 71.6 68.3 63.7 72.772.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
78 168 781363
84 180 836388
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Fir Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
45,454

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,559 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

4.07 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -13.16 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -17.12 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

69.7 68.8 67.1 61.0 70.369.7

63.7 65.0

63.2 56.9 55.3 64.063.8

64.6 55.6 56.9 65.365.2
Vehicle Noise: 71.7 71.0 67.8 63.2 72.271.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
72 155 719334
77 166 769357
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
66,593

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 5,214 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

5.22 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -12.02 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -15.97 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

72.8 71.9 70.2 64.1 73.472.7

66.6 67.4

66.1 59.8 58.2 66.966.7

67.0 58.0 59.3 67.767.6
Vehicle Noise: 74.6 73.9 70.8 66.1 75.174.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
112 242 1,124522
121 260 1,206560
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
57,461

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 4,499 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

4.58 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -12.66 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -16.61 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

72.1 71.3 69.5 63.5 72.772.1

65.9 66.8

65.5 59.1 57.6 66.366.0

66.4 57.4 58.6 67.167.0
Vehicle Noise: 74.0 73.3 70.1 65.5 74.574.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
102 220 1,019473
109 236 1,093507
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
149
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Bay Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
57,461

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 4,499 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

4.58 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -12.66 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -16.61 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

72.1 71.3 69.5 63.5 72.772.1

65.9 66.8

65.5 59.1 57.6 66.366.0

66.4 57.4 58.6 67.167.0
Vehicle Noise: 74.0 73.3 70.1 65.5 74.574.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
102 220 1,019473
109 236 1,093507
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Bay Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
37,308

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,921 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

2.70 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -14.53 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -18.49 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

70.3 69.4 67.7 61.6 70.870.2

64.0 64.9

63.6 57.2 55.7 64.464.2

64.5 55.5 56.7 65.265.1
Vehicle Noise: 72.1 71.4 68.3 63.6 72.672.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
76 165 764355
82 177 820380
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
27,854

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,181 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.44 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -15.80 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -19.76 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

69.0 68.2 66.4 60.3 69.669.0

62.8 63.6

62.3 56.0 54.4 63.162.9

63.3 54.2 55.5 64.063.8
Vehicle Noise: 70.8 70.2 67.0 62.3 71.370.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
63 135 629292
67 145 675313
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Cactus
Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
17,079

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,337 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.69
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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -17.93 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -21.88 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

66.9 66.0 64.3 58.2 67.466.8

60.6 61.5

60.2 53.8 52.3 61.060.8

61.1 52.1 53.3 61.861.7
Vehicle Noise: 68.7 68.0 64.9 60.2 69.268.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
45 98 454211
49 105 487226
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
150
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Nason St.

Road Name: Eucalyptus Av.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
24,492

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,918 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.97 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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

75.75 -15.27 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

81.57 -19.23 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

65.8 64.9 63.2 57.1 66.365.7

60.0 61.9

59.6 53.2 51.7 60.460.1

61.5 52.5 53.7 62.262.1
Vehicle Noise: 68.0 67.4 63.9 59.5 68.568.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
37 80 371172
40 85 397184
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Lasselle St.

Road Name: Cottonwood Av.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
34,723

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,719 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

2.39 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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -14.85 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -18.80 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

70.9 70.1 68.3 62.3 71.570.9

64.7 65.6

64.3 57.9 56.4 65.164.8

65.2 56.2 57.4 65.965.8
Vehicle Noise: 72.8 72.1 68.9 64.3 73.372.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
68 146 677314
73 157 726337
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Lasselle St.

Road Name: Bay Av.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
2,832

7.83%

39.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 222 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

39.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 24 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-6.73
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%

1.78 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

73.48 -23.97 1.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000

79.92 -27.93 1.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.58
-4.87
-5.57
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

61.75 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

37.443

37.206

37.230
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 CNELLdn

55.6 54.8 53.0 46.9 56.255.6

50.1 52.6

49.7 43.3 41.8 50.550.2

52.3 43.2 44.5 52.952.8
Vehicle Noise: 58.1 57.5 53.8 49.7 58.658.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
6 14 6429
7 15 6831
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Perris Blvd.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
65,227

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 5,107 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

5.13 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -12.11 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -16.06 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

71.9 71.0 69.3 63.2 72.571.8

65.7 66.5

65.2 58.8 57.3 66.065.8

66.1 57.1 58.4 66.866.7
Vehicle Noise: 73.7 73.0 69.9 65.2 74.273.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
119 257 1,193554
128 276 1,279594
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
151
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Kitching St.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
60,883

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 4,767 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

4.83 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -12.41 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -16.36 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

71.6 70.7 69.0 62.9 72.271.5

65.4 66.2

64.9 58.5 57.0 65.765.5

65.8 56.8 58.1 66.566.4
Vehicle Noise: 73.4 72.7 69.6 64.9 73.973.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
114 245 1,139529
122 263 1,222567
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Lasselle St.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
55,913

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 4,378 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

4.46 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -12.78 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -16.73 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

71.2 70.4 68.6 62.6 71.871.2

65.0 65.8

64.5 58.2 56.6 65.365.1

65.5 56.4 57.7 66.266.0
Vehicle Noise: 73.1 72.4 69.2 64.5 73.573.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
108 232 1,076500
115 249 1,154536
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Lasselle St.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
41,277

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,232 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

2.69 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -14.55 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -18.51 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

71.2 70.3 68.6 62.5 71.771.1

64.8 65.2

64.3 58.0 56.4 65.164.9

64.8 55.8 57.0 65.565.4
Vehicle Noise: 72.9 72.2 69.1 64.4 73.472.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
105 226 1,047486
112 242 1,125522
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Nason St.

Road Name: Alessandro Blvd.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
24,233

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,897 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

0.83 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -16.41 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -20.36 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

68.4 67.6 65.8 59.7 69.068.4

62.2 63.0

61.7 55.4 53.8 62.562.3

62.7 53.6 54.9 63.363.2
Vehicle Noise: 70.2 69.6 66.4 61.7 70.770.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
57 123 573266
61 132 615285
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
152
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Nason St.

Road Name: Cactus Av.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
19,683

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,541 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.07
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -17.31 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -21.27 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

68.5 67.6 65.9 59.8 69.068.4

62.2 63.1

61.8 55.4 53.9 62.662.4

62.7 53.7 54.9 63.463.3
Vehicle Noise: 70.3 69.6 66.5 61.8 70.870.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
46 100 464215
50 107 498231
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Nason St.

Road Name: Cactus Av.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
16,935

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 1,326 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.73
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -17.96 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -21.92 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

67.8 67.0 65.2 59.2 68.467.8

61.6 62.4

61.2 54.8 53.2 61.961.7

62.1 53.0 54.3 62.862.6
Vehicle Noise: 69.7 69.0 65.8 61.1 70.169.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
42 90 420195
45 97 450209
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: w/o Nason St.

Road Name: Iris Av.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
40,959

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,207 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

2.65 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -14.59 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -18.54 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

71.1 70.3 68.5 62.5 71.771.1

64.7 65.1

64.3 57.9 56.4 65.164.8

64.8 55.7 57.0 65.565.4
Vehicle Noise: 72.8 72.2 69.1 64.3 73.372.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
104 224 1,042484
112 241 1,119519
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: e/o Nason St.

Road Name: Iris Av.

Scenario: GP (2040) Without Project
31,345

7.83%

67.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,454 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

67.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 82 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.49 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%
-0.51
Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

81.00 -15.75 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000

85.38 -19.70 -0.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.71
-4.88
-5.29
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

53.226

53.059

53.076
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 CNELLdn

70.0 69.1 67.4 61.3 70.669.9

63.6 64.0

63.1 56.8 55.2 63.963.7

63.6 54.6 55.8 64.364.2
Vehicle Noise: 71.7 71.0 67.9 63.2 72.271.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
87 188 872405
94 202 936435
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
153
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Perris Blvd.

Scenario: GP (2040) With Project
38,058

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,980 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

3.30 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -13.94 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -17.89 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

68.9 68.1 66.3 60.3 69.568.9

62.9 64.2

62.5 56.1 54.6 63.263.0

63.9 54.8 56.1 64.664.4
Vehicle Noise: 70.9 70.3 67.0 62.4 71.471.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
64 138 638296
68 147 683317
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Perris Blvd.

Scenario: GP (2040) With Project
48,380

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 3,788 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

4.34 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -12.89 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -16.85 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

70.0 69.1 67.4 61.3 70.569.9

63.9 65.3

63.5 57.1 55.6 64.364.1

64.9 55.9 57.1 65.665.5
Vehicle Noise: 72.0 71.3 68.0 63.5 72.572.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
75 161 749348
80 173 802372
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Kitching St.

Scenario: GP (2040) With Project
27,932

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,187 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.96 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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -15.28 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -19.24 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

68.5 67.7 65.9 59.9 69.168.5

62.5 63.9

62.1 55.7 54.2 62.962.7

63.5 54.5 55.7 64.264.1
Vehicle Noise: 70.6 69.9 66.6 62.1 71.170.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
48 104 483224
52 111 517240
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Kitching St.

Scenario: GP (2040) With Project
11,765

7.83%

44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 921 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.80
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%

1.28 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -19.03 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -22.99 1.31 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.61
-4.87
-5.50
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

40.460

40.241

40.262
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 CNELLdn

64.8 64.0 62.2 56.1 65.464.8

58.8 60.1

58.3 52.0 50.4 59.158.9

59.8 50.7 52.0 60.460.3
Vehicle Noise: 66.8 66.1 62.9 58.3 67.366.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
27 58 271126
29 63 291135
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
154
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: GP (2040) With Project
26,224

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,053 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

1.69 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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -15.55 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -19.51 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

67.7 66.9 65.1 59.0 68.367.7

61.7 63.0

61.3 54.9 53.3 62.061.8

62.7 53.6 54.9 63.463.2
Vehicle Noise: 69.7 69.1 65.8 61.2 70.269.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
48 104 482224
52 111 516240
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: GP (2040) With Project
35,873

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,809 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

3.05 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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -14.19 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -18.15 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

69.1 68.2 66.5 60.4 69.669.0

63.1 64.4

62.6 56.3 54.7 63.463.2

64.0 55.0 56.2 64.764.6
Vehicle Noise: 71.1 70.4 67.1 62.6 71.671.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
59 128 594276
64 137 636295
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: GP (2040) With Project
31,239

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,446 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

2.45 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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -14.79 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -18.75 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

68.5 67.6 65.9 59.8 69.068.4

62.5 63.8

62.0 55.7 54.1 62.862.6

63.4 54.4 55.6 64.164.0
Vehicle Noise: 70.5 69.8 66.5 62.0 71.070.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
54 117 542251
58 125 580269
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Alessandro Blvd.

Road Name: Lasselle St.

Scenario: GP (2040) With Project
28,655

7.83%

50.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 2,244 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

50.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

2.07 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%

0.71 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -15.17 0.74 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -19.12 0.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.65
-4.87
-5.43
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

44.147

43.947

43.966
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 CNELLdn

68.1 67.3 65.5 59.4 68.768.1

62.1 63.4

61.6 55.3 53.7 62.462.2

63.0 54.0 55.3 63.763.6
Vehicle Noise: 70.1 69.4 66.2 61.6 70.670.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
51 110 511237
55 118 548254
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
155
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Fir Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: GP (2040) With Project
58,042

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 4,545 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

5.14 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -12.10 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -16.06 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

70.7 69.9 68.1 62.1 71.370.7

64.7 66.1

64.3 57.9 56.4 65.164.8

65.7 56.7 57.9 66.466.3
Vehicle Noise: 72.8 72.1 68.8 64.3 73.272.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
85 182 846393
91 195 906420
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Fir Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: GP (2040) With Project
52,266

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 4,092 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

4.68 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

77.72 -12.56 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

82.99 -16.51 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

66.51 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

70.3 69.5 67.7 61.6 70.970.3

64.3 65.6

63.8 57.5 55.9 64.664.4

65.2 56.2 57.5 65.965.8
Vehicle Noise: 72.3 71.6 68.4 63.8 72.872.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
79 170 789366
84 182 844392
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: GP (2040) With Project
73,805

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 5,779 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

5.67 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -11.57 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -15.53 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

73.2 72.4 70.6 64.6 73.873.2

67.0 67.8

66.6 60.2 58.7 67.367.1

67.5 58.5 59.7 68.268.1
Vehicle Noise: 75.1 74.4 71.2 66.6 75.675.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
120 259 1,204559
129 278 1,292600
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: s/o Cottonwood Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: GP (2040) With Project
62,981

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 4,931 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

4.98 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -12.26 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -16.22 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

46.811

46.830
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 CNELLdn

72.5 71.7 69.9 63.9 73.172.5

66.3 67.2

65.9 59.5 58.0 66.766.4

66.8 57.8 59.0 67.567.4
Vehicle Noise: 74.4 73.7 70.5 65.9 74.974.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:

Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
108 233 1,083503
116 250 1,162539
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
156
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name: Town Center at MV
Job Number: 14556
Road Segment: n/o Bay Av.

Road Name: Nason St.

Scenario: GP (2040) With Project
62,981

7.83%

55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):

Peak Hour Percentage:

Peak Hour Volume: 4,931 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:

55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer:

Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance

4.98 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%

0.30 Finite Road
-1.20
Left View: -90.0
Right View: 90.0
degrees
degrees
Barrier Atten
FHWA Noise Model Calculations

0.0Barrier Distance to Observer: feet
Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm): 0.0

0.000 0.000
Fresnel Berm Atten
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

VehicleType

79.45 -12.26 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000

84.25 -16.22 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos:

68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Autos: 0.000

2.297

8.006

47.000

Moreno Valley City CouncilJune 3, 2025

Moreno Valley City Council
June 3, 2025