Baldwin’s The Jepson Manual (Second Edition) published in 2012; D. P. Tibor's Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California published in 2001; R. A. Stebbins and S. M.
McGinnis’ Field guide to amphibians and reptiles of California published in 2012; Peterson's Bird of North America published in 2008; and E. W. Jameson’s and H. J. Peeters’ California mammals published in 2004. Plant common names used in this report were taken from Baldwin (2012), Jaeger (1969) and Tibor (2001). Animal common names are taken from Stebbins and McGinnis (2012), Peterson (2008) and Jameson and Peeter (2004).
Fieldwork was conducted by James Cornett (M.S.) and Blake Gonzales. Plant identifications were made by Andrew Sanders (B.S.) and Mr. Cornett. Animal remains were identified by Mr.
Cornett. The literature review was conducted by Terry Belknap (B.S.). The report was written by Mr. Cornett.
8-240
Rancho Mirage 34.8-acre Biological Study Page 13
IV. PLANT SURVEY RESULTS
A single plant association or community was found on site: the Sonoran creosote bush scrub community as described by Sawyer Keeler-Wolf (1995).
Sonoran creosote bush scrub community dominates vegetation of the entire area and is the pervasive plant community throughout the Colorado Desert of southeastern California. The creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) is, by far, the dominant perennial followed by bugseed (Dicoria canescens), Emory's Dalea (Dalea emoryi), croton (Croton californicus) and wingscale (Atriplex canescens).
Many native and exotic weed species have germinated over most of the site but particularly in disturbed areas such as road shoulders, residential borders and where off-road-vehicles have traversed. These species include Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii), bugseed (Dicoria canescens) and Schismus grass (Schismus barbatus). These species are often found throughout the Colorado Desert of southeastern California whenever natural vegetation has been damaged or removed.
The Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, published by the California Native Plant Society (2001), the CNDDB Special Plant List (2014) or the Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California (2014) lists a total of five plant species that could conceivably occur on the project site. They are the glandular ditaxis (Ditaxis clariana), ribbed cryptantha (Cryptantha costata), flat-seeded spurge (Chamaesyce platysperma), Coachella Valley milk vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus coachellae), and Salton milkvetch (Astragalus crotalareiae).
1. The glandular ditaxis, Ditaxis clariana, is a rare perennial herb that blooms from December through March. It is restricted to sandy environments in the Sonoran Desert and has been found in the Coachella Valley at elevations like those found on the project site. Since the glandular ditaxis is a perennial, it likely would be detected during the plant surveys. It was not detected and therefore presumed to not occur onsite. This species is not listed as rare, threatened, or endangered by either the state or federal governments nor is it proposed to be listed at this time.
Though considered sensitive by the California Native Plant Society, the glandular ditaxis is not a covered species under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) .
2. The ribbed cryptantha is an uncommon ephemeral known to occur on sandy soils in the Coachella Valley. The project site can be considered suitable habitat for this species. It was not detected but the surveys were conducted in summer following a winter of severe drought resulting in most ephemeral species not being in evidence. The ribbed cryptantha is not listed as rare, threatened or endangered by either the state or federal governments nor is it proposed to be
8-241
Rancho Mirage 34.8-acre Biological Study Page 14
listed at this time. The California Native Plant Society considers the ribbed cryptantha a sensitive species. It is not a covered species under the CVMSHCP.
3. The flat-seeded spurge is an extremely rare ephemeral herb known to occur on sandy soils in the Sonoran Desert. There has been at least one specimen found in the Coachella Valley. The species was not detected but the surveys were done in summer following a winter of below average precipitation. The flat-seeded spurge is not listed as rare, threatened or endangered by either the state or federal governments nor is it proposed to be listed at this time. The California Native Plant Society considers it a sensitive species. It is not covered under the CVMSHCP.
4. The Coachella Valley milk vetch is an uncommon, spring-blooming ephemeral herb that is known to occur on sandy soils in the Coachella Valley. Two seeds pods of this species were found within the project boundaries. This species has also been recorded in the area surrounding the project site (Cornett, personal files). The milk vetch is listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. It has no formal state status. Impacts to the milk vetch are fully mitigated by the CVMSHCP through the payment of the Plan mitigation fee. No further action is necessary regarding this species.
5. The Salton milkvetch (Astragalus crotalariae) is a perennial herb found in the Sonoran Desert of California and Arizona. No individuals, evidence or records of the Salton milkvetch were found on or near the project boundaries. The Salton milkvetch is neither state nor federally listed.
It is a rare plant usually encountered on sandy or gravelly soils below 1,000 feet in elevation.
Though considered sensitive by the California Native Plant Society it is not a covered species under the CVMSHCP.
A complete list of vascular plant species found within the project boundaries has been placed in Table 1 of the Appendix. Planted ornamental species are not included within this list. Taxonomic nomenclature follows Baldwin (2012). Common names are taken from Jaeger (1969), Baldwin (2012), Munz (1974) or Tibor (2001).
8-242
Rancho Mirage 34.8-acre Biological Study Page 15
V. ANIMAL SURVEY RESULTS
The fauna of the project site and surrounding vicinity is composed of species typical of sandy, windswept habitats in the Coachella Valley portion of the Colorado Desert, a desert defined by Jaeger (1957). Animal species associated with residential subdivisions were also recorded from the site.
Arthropods
Encountered arthropods on the site included the harvester ant (Pogonomyrmex californicus), ghost beetle (Asbolus verrucosus), fuzz beetle (Edrotes ventricosus), sand scorpion (Paruroctonus mesaensis) and Eleodes beetle (Eleodes armata).
Three insect species known to occur within the Coachella Valley have been placed on the California Department of Fish and Game’s Special Animals list. They are the Coachella giant sand treader cricket (Macrobaenetes valgum), Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket (Stenopelmatus cahuilaensis) and Coachella Valley grasshopper (Spaniacris deserticola). None of these three insect species were found during the surveys and none have any official status with governmental agencies. The Coachella giant sand treader cricket and Jerusalem cricket are covered species under the Plan.
Amphibians and Reptiles
No amphibian species were found during the surveys, and none are expected.
Detected reptiles included the side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris), desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis), western shovel-nosed snake (Chionactis occipitalis) and Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata).
Two observations of the officially threatened Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard were recorded confirming the habitat was suitable for the species. The isolated nature of the project site area as well as several consecutive drought years has likely reduced the population of this species within the project boundaries. Impacts to the fringe-toed lizard are fully mitigated by the payment of a habitat acquisition fee as required under the Plan.
A concerted effort was made to find sign of the officially listed desert tortoise (Goperhus agassizi). However, no evidence of any kind was found, and no direct observations were made.
In addition, the California Natural Diversity Database has no records of the tortoise on or within one mile of the project site. It is concluded this species does not occur within the project site and immediate vicinity and no additional surveys for this species are recommended.
8-243
Rancho Mirage 34.8-acre Biological Study Page 16
An intensive effort was made to find individuals or sign of the flat-tailed horned lizard, Phrynosoma mcallii. No observations or evidence of this species within the project boundaries were recorded. Nevertheless, most of the project site is considered suitable habitat. In 2011, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service considered listing the flat-tailed horned lizard but chose to not do so in May of that year. Impacts to the horned lizard are fully mitigated under the Plan.
Birds
Detected birds within the project area were the Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), common raven (Corvus corax), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus).
No observations of LeConte’s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei) were recorded during surveys. In the Coachella Valley this species is associated with golden cholla, an arborescent cactus that provides a nesting site for the thrasher. The cactus species was not found onsite and, therefore, it was concluded the thrasher does not occupy the project site. LeConte’s thrasher is a covered species under the Plan.
Two functionally non-covered and sensitive avian species were possible occupants of the project site and vicinity: the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus).
Burrowing Owl
An intensive survey for the burrowing owl was undertaken following protocols established by state and federal governments. No observations of the owl were recorded, and no evidence of its presence was found. The habitat of the project site is suitable for the owl and active burrows of the species have been found several times within two miles of the project site (Cornett, personal files). Because the project site habitat is considered suitable and owls are known to occur in the immediate area, it was concluded that the burrowing owl could take up residence on the site at any time. The burrowing owl is not functionally covered under the Plan.
Loggerhead Shrike
The loggerhead shrike, a state Species of Special Concern, was not observed or detected on or near the project site. The project site and immediate area, however, are considered suitable habitat for the shrike and it could breed within project site boundaries. The shrike is not a covered species under the Plan.
8-244
Rancho Mirage 34.8-acre Biological Study Page 17
Mammals
Recorded mammals included the black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), Palm Springs ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus) and coyote (Canis latrans). No individuals of the Palm Springs Pocket Mouse (Perognathus longimembris bangsi), a covered species, were found.
No individuals of the desert kit fox (Vulpes macrotis arsipus) were seen or detected on or near the project site. Human activity in the area is the likely explanation for its absence. The desert kit fox is fully protected in California and is not a covered species under the Plan.
The Palm Springs Ground Squirrel is the only mammalian covered species discovered within the project boundaries. It was detected six times (burrows) but should be expected throughout the project site as the habitat is suitable. It currently is not a listed species and has a much broader range than was previously thought (Federal Register, 2009). It is, therefore, unlikely that it will be listed in the near future. It is a covered species under the Plan and impacts to the squirrel are mitigated by the payment of the required habitat acquisition fee.
Wildlife Corridors
Smoothing of surfaces to yield tracks was performed on each site visit to determine if important wildlife corridors existed on the site. Tracks of ravens, roadrunners and coyotes were recorded.
However, no discernable and routinely used corridors could be found.
A complete list of vertebrate species seen or detected on the project site can be found in Table 2 of the Appendix.
8-245
Rancho Mirage 34.8-acre Biological Study Page 18
VI. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An intensive plant and animal survey was conducted within the proposed project boundaries.
Evidence of the federally endangered Coachella Valley milk vetch was found onsite and is known from the general region. The site appears to be suitable for the sensitive Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket, Coachella Valley giant sand-treader cricket and Palm Springs pocket mouse even though they were not detected. The Palm Springs ground squirrel was detected within the site boundaries. Each of the above organisms is covered under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Mitigation for impacts to these species is accomplished through the payment of a fee to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. Fees vary depending upon the use to which the land is put, acreage and density. Contact the Coachella Valley Association of Governments to determine current fees.
The remaining comments are restricted to those species or habitats not covered under the CVMSHCP or that are not functionally covered.
Casey’s June Beetle
Though Casey’s June beetle is known to occur in the Coachella Valley, trapping surveys did not detect this species. Thus far, this officially endangered, non-covered species has not been found east of Cathedral City. Therefore, no further surveys are recommended for Casey’s June beetle and no mitigation is needed or recommended.
Desert Tortoise
Though the desert tortoise is a covered species under the CVMSHCP, clearance surveys for the tortoise can still be required by the United State Fish & Wildlife Service prior to grubbing, grading or other site disturbance. The desert tortoise occurs in the Coachella Valley but is not currently known to be present on the valley floor. Observations have been on upper bajadas surrounding the valley. In keeping with this distribution pattern, protocol-level surveys revealed no evidence of the desert tortoise within or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, no additional surveys or actions regarding this species are recommended or required.
8-246
Rancho Mirage 34.8-acre Biological Study Page 19
Desert Dry Wash Woodland
No bodies of standing water, no streams and no washes (as indicated by wash plant species) are present on site. Therefore, streambed alteration permits from state or local agencies should not be necessary.
CVMSHCP and Conservation Areas
The project site lies within the Plan mitigation fee area. Therefore, the project proponent must pay a mitigation fee to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments based upon the density and type of structures erected. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments can be contacted regarding applicable and current mitigation fees.
The project site is not within a Conservation Area as shown in the CVMSHCP. Additionally, the site does not abut a Conservation Area. Therefore, the project is not subject to Plan requirements regarding lands adjoining Conservation Areas.
Indirect Impacts
The project site and immediate area are surrounded by a high-volume roadway and residential and commercial developments. As a result, it is nearly an ecological island with likely little significant biological interaction with natural habitats elsewhere in the Coachella Valley.
Therefore, it is concluded the development of the project site will have no significant indirect impacts to biological resources in the region.
Burrowing Owl
The burrowing owl was not seen nor detected on or near project site boundaries. However, site habitat is considered suitable for this species and the owl is known to breed in the area. The burrowing owl could take up residence on the site at any time. For this reason, the State of California recommends in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (March 7, 2012), that a clearance survey for this species occur not more than 14 days prior to grading, grubbing or other site disturbance.
Loggerhead Shrike
The loggerhead shrike is not a covered species under the Plan and is a state Species of Special Concern. As the project site is considered suitable habitat for the shrike, it is recommended that a
8-247
Rancho Mirage 34.8-acre Biological Study Page 20
breeding survey for this species be conducted 14 days prior to any construction activities that are planned between February 15 and June 15, the breeding season of the shrike in the Coachella Valley. If a shrike nest is found, a buffer should be established in which construction activities are prohibited until all young have fledged. The width of the buffer should be determined by a qualified biologist. (The shrike breeding survey can be conducted simultaneously with the burrowing owl survey if disturbance is to occur between February 15 and June 15.)
Mitigation Summary
1. Contact CVAG to determine precise mitigation fees applicable under the CVMSHCP.
2. Conduct a loggerhead shrike breeding survey not more than 14 days prior to site disturbance if such disturbance is planned between February 15 and June 15.
3. Conduct a burrowing owl clearance survey not more than 14 days prior to site disturbance.
Conclusion
Development of the proposed project site is not expected to have significant adverse impacts upon biological resources in the region providing the mitigation described in this report is implemented.
8-248
Rancho Mirage 34.8-acre Biological Study Page 21
VII. REFERENCES
Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti and D. H. Wilken. 2012. The Jepson Manual:
Vascular Plants of California. (Second Edition) University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
California Department of Fish & Game. November 2021. Natural Diversity Database.
California Department of Fish & Game. 2021. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Natural Resources Agency, State of California.
California Department of Fish & Game Special Animals Report (2021). Natural Resources Agency, State of California.
California Department of Fish & Wildlife. 2021. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Naturel Resources Agency, State of California.
Coachella Valley Association of Governments. 2006. The Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Palm Desert, California.
Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 215.
Garrett, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of Southern California. Los Angeles Audubon Society, Los Angeles, CA.
Helix Environmental Planning. 2010. Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Palm Springs, California.
Jaeger, E. C. 1957. The North American deserts. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Jaeger, E. C. 1969. Desert wildflowers. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Jameson, E. W. Jr. and H. J. Peeters. 2004. Mammals of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Munz, P. A. 1974. Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
National Climatic Data Center. 2020. Climatic summaries, Asheville, North Carolina.
Peterson, R. T. 2008. Peterson field guide to birds of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York.
Sawyer, J. O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.
Stebbins, R. C. and S. M. McGinnis. 2012. Field guide to amphibians and reptiles of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Tibor, D. P. (editor). 2001. Inventory of rare and endangered plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.
Zabriskie, J. G. 1979. Plant of Deep Canyon. Philip Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center, University of California, Riverside.
8-249
Rancho Mirage 34.8-acre Biological Study Page 22
VIII. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
I, James W. Cornett, hereby certify the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
September 9, 2021 ________________________________________ Date Principal Investigator
8-250
Rancho Mirage 34.8-acre Biological Study Page 23
APPENDIX
8-251
Rancho Mirage 34.8-acre Biological Study Page 24
Species Status Terms Used in This Report
State, Federal, Tribal and local governments, and occasionally private conservation organizations, determine certain plant and animal species are in need of special protection because their numbers are declining, and extinction may be likely. Collectively, such species are referred to as special-status species.
Species or subspecies officially classified as Endangered are in imminent danger of becoming extinct. State and federal endangered species laws require that government agencies take direct steps to prevent further decline in the numbers of each endangered species. Persons or companies wishing to develop land on which endangered animal species occur will be required to mitigate adverse impacts to the endangered species so that there is no reduction in numbers and no net loss of the species’ habitat. Mitigation may take the form of avoiding development on that part of the site inhabited by the species, acquiring habitat for the species elsewhere (accomplished by the CVMSHCP) or, in rare instances, relocating the project to an alternate site. In certain instances, an endangered species may be adversely impacted even though it does not actually occur on site. If such a finding is made, mitigation will likely be required.
Species or subspecies officially classified as Threatened are likely to become endangered if action is not forthcoming from government agencies. These species are not in imminent danger of becoming extinct and there is more time to find ways to prevent their extinction. Mitigation requirements for threatened species are the same as those for endangered species.
The state of California has an additional classification known as Species of Special Concern. In brief, these are plant and animal species whose numbers may be declining or who status may be in jeopardy but there is insufficient data to formerly classify them as threatened or endangered.
Mitigation for these species can be required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) but is not automatic.
Governmental agencies sometimes erect Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) that protect selected Covered species. Specific mitigation for Covered species may not be required under such a plan.
However, occasionally Covered species may not be functionally covered because state or federal agencies have refused to allow the taking of such species despite an approved HCP.
If officially threatened or endangered species not fully covered under an HCP are adversely impacted by a development the project proponents should expect to meet with staff of the United States Fish & Wildlife Service and/or the California Department of Fish & Game to review and decide upon mitigation alternatives.
8-252
Rancho Mirage 34.8-acre Biological Study Page 25
TABLE 1
PLANT SPECIES RECORDED
RANCHO MONTEREY 34.8-ACRE SITE
ANGIOSPERMAE – DICOTYLEDONES
ASTERACEAE - SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Conyza canadensis - Horseweed
Dicoria canescens - Desert Dicoria
Encelia farinosa - Brittlebush
Hymenoclea salsola - Cheese-bush
Palafoxia arida - Spanish Needle
Stephanomeria exigua - Mitra
BORAGINACEAE - BORAGE FAMILY
Cryptantha micrantha - Purple-rooted Forget-me-not
Tiquilia plicata - Plicate Coldenia
BRASSICACEAE - MUSTARD FAMILY
Brassica tournefortii - Sahara Mustard
CHENOPODIACEAE - GOOSEFOOT FAMILY
Atriplex canescens – Wingscale
Salsola tragus - Russian Thistle
EUPHORBIACEAE - SPURGE FAMILY
Croton californicus - Desert Croton
Chamaesyce polycarpa - Sand-mat
FABACEAE - PEA FAMILY
Astragalus lentiginosus coachellae - Coachella Valley milk vetch Psorothamnus emoryi - Emory Dalea
GERANIACEAE - GERANIUM FAMILY
Erodium cicutarium – Filaree
NYCTAGINACEAE - FOUR-O'CLOCK FAMILY
Abronia villosa - Hairy Sand-Verbena
8-253
Rancho Mirage 34.8-acre Biological Study Page 26
PLANTAGINACEAE - Plantain Family
Plantago ovata - Woolly Plantain
SOLANACEAE - NIGHTSHADE FAMILY
Datura metaloides - Jimson Weed
ZYGOPHYLLACEAE - CALTROP FAMILY
Larrea tridentata - Creosote Bush
ANGIOSPERMAE - MONOCOTYLEDONES
POACEAE - GRASS FAMILY
Bromus madritensis - Foxtail Grass
Cynodon dactylon – Bermuda Grass
Panicum urvilleanum - Desert panicgrass
Pennisetum villosum – Fountain Grass
Schismus barbatus - Abu-mashi
8-254
Rancho Mirage 34.8-acre Biological Study Page 27
TABLE 2
EXPECTED BREEDING OR OBSERVED VERTEBRATES
RANCHO MONTEREY 34.8-ACRE SITE
REPTILES
GEKKONIDAE - GECKOS
Coleonyx variegatus - Western Banded Gecko
IGUANIDAE - IGUANIDS
Dipsosaurus dorsalis - Desert Iguana *
Gambelia wislizenii - Long-nosed Leopard Lizard ?
Phrynosoma mcallii - Flat-tailed Horned Lizard ?
Uma inornata – Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard *
Urosaurus graciosus - Long-Tailed Bush Lizard *
Uta stansburiana - Side-Blotched Lizard *
TEIIDAE - WHIPTAILS
Cnemidophorus tigris - Western Whiptail *
LEPTOTYPHLOPIDAE - BLIND SNAKES
Leptotyphlops humilis - Western Blind Snake
COLUBRIDAE - COLUBRIDS
Arizona elegans - Glossy Snake
Chionactis occipitalis - Western Shovel-nosed Snake *
Lampropeltis getulus - Common Kingsnake ?
Masticophis flagellum – Coachwhip *
Phyllorhynchus decurtatus - Spotted Leaf-nosed Snake ?
VIPERIDAE - VIPERS
Crotalus cerastes - Sidewinder *
8-255
Rancho Mirage 34.8-acre Biological Study Page 28
BIRDS
ACCIPITRIDAE - OSPREY, HAWKS, EAGLES
Buteo jamaicensis - Red-Tailed Hawk *
FALCONIDAE - FALCONS
Falco sparverius - American Kestrel *
COLUMBIDAE - PIGEONS AND DOVES
Columba livia - Rock Dove *
Zenaida macroura - Mourning Dove *
CUCULIDAE - CUCKOOS
Geococcyx californianus - Greater Roadrunner *
TROCHILIDAE - HUMMINGBIRDS
Calypte costae - Costa's Hummingbird
TYRANNIDAE - TYRANT FLYCATCHERS
Sayornis saya - Say's Phoebe *
CORVIDAE - CROWS AND JAYS
Corvus corax - Common Raven *
MIMIDAE - MOCKINGBIRDS AND THRASHERS
Mimus polyglottos - Northern Mockingbird *
STURNIDAE - STARLINGS
Sturnus vulgaris - European Starling *
ICTERIDAE – BLACKBIRDS AND ORIOLES
Euphagus cyanocephalus - Brewer's Blackbird *
Quiscalus mexicanus – Great-tailed Grackle *
PLOCEIDAE - WEAVER FINCHES
Passer domesticus - House Sparrow *
FRINGILLIDAE - FINCHES
Carpodacus mexicanus - House Finch *
8-256
Rancho Mirage 34.8-acre Biological Study Page 29
MAMMALS
VESPERTILIONIDAE - EVENING BATS
Pipistrellus hesperus - Western Pipistrelle *
LEPORIDAE - HARES AND RABBITS
Lepus californicus - Black-tailed Jackrabbit *
Sylvilagus audubonii - Audubon Cottontail
SCIURIDAE - SQUIRRELS
Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus – Palm Springs Ground Squirrel *
GEOMYIDAE - POCKET GOPHERS
Thomomys bottae - Botta Pocket Gopher
HETEROMYIDAE - POCKET MICE, KANGAROO RATS
Dipodomys deserti - Desert Kangaroo Rat *
CRICETIDAE - DEER MICE AND WOODRATS
Peromyscus maniculatus - Deer Mouse *
MURIDAE – RATS, MICE, VOLES
Mus musculus – House Mouse *
CANIDAE - FOXES, WOLVES, AND COYOTES
Canis latrans - Coyote *
* = Sign or individual observed on site
? = Possible occurrence on or near site; not detected during surveys
8-257
APPENDIX B:
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report
CRM Tech
April 2022
8-258
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
REILING TRUST MIXED-USE PROJECT
Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 685-090-002, -003, and -005 to -007 City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California
For Submittal to:
Development Services Department, Planning Division
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Prepared for:
Retail Net Lease Properties, Inc.
74998 Country Club Drive, Suite 220-345
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Prepared by:
CRM TECH
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator
Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator
April 28, 2022
CRM TECH Contract No. 3760
8-259
Title: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: Reiling Trust Mixed-Use Project, Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 685-090-002, -003, and -005 to -007, City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California
Author(s): Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator
Ben Kerridge, Archaeologist/Report Writer
Daniel Ballester, Archaeologist/Field Director
Consulting Firm: CRM TECH
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-6400
Date: April 28, 2022
For Submittal to: Development Services Department, Planning Division City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
(760) 328-2266
Prepared for: Retail Net Lease Properties, Inc.
74998 Country Club Drive, Suite 220-345
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 320-9811
Project Size: Approximately 34.8 acres
USGS Quadrangle: Cathedral City, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangle (Section 30, T4S R6E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian)
Keywords: Coachella Valley region, western Colorado Desert; Sites 3760-1H, 3760- 2H, and 3760-3H (temporary designations); Isolates 3760-4H, 3760-5H, 3760-6H, 3760-7H, and 3760-8H; late-historic-period structural remains and refuse items; no “historical resources” under CEQA
8-260
i
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Between July 2021 and April 2022, at the request of Retail Net Lease Properties, Inc., CRM TECH performed a cultural resources survey on approximately 34.8 acres of vacant desert land on the northeastern edge of the City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California. The subject property of the study consists of five parcels, namely Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 685-090- 002, -003, and -005 to -007, located on the west side of Monterey Avenue near its intersection with Dick Kelly Drive, in the northeast quarter of Section 30, T4S R6E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian.
The study is part of the environmental review process for a proposed mixed-use development project. The City of Rancho Mirage, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the project area. In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH initiated a historical/archaeological resources records search, pursued historical background research, contacted Native American representatives, and carried out an intensive-level field survey.
As a result of these research procedures, eight cultural resources of historic-period origin, including three archaeological sites and five isolates (i.e., localities with fewer than three artifacts), were recorded within the project area and designated temporarily as 3760-1H to 3760-8H, pending assignment of official identification numbers in the California Historical Resources Inventory. The sites, 3760-1H, 3760-2H, and 3760-3H, consist of the remains of so-called “jackrabbit homesteads” established between 1957 and 1960, while each of the isolates represents a single domestic refuse item.
As late-historic-period features that are virtually ubiquitous in the southern California desert region, Sites 3760-1H, 3760-2H, and 3760-3H do not demonstrate any significant association or special merits to meet any of the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, and thus they do qualify as “historical resources” under CEQA provisions. The isolates, 3760-4H to 3760-8H, by definition do not constitute archaeological site due to the lack of depositional context and are therefore not considered potential “historical resources.”
Based on these findings, CRM TECH recommends to the City of Rancho Mirage a conclusion that the proposed project will have No Impact on any “historical resources.” No further cultural resources investigation is recommended for the project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. However, if buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work within 50 feet of the discovery should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.
8-261
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 SETTING .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Current Natural Setting ..................................................................................................................... 4 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................................. 5 Prehistoric Context........................................................................................................................ 5 Ethnohistoric Context ................................................................................................................... 5 Historic Context ............................................................................................................................ 7 RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 8 Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 8 Native American Participation .......................................................................................................... 8 Historical Background Research....................................................................................................... 8 Field Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 8 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 9 Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 9 Native American Participation .......................................................................................................... 9 Historical Background Research....................................................................................................... 9 Field Survey .................................................................................................................................... 12 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................... 13 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 14 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications ............................................................................................ 17 APPENDIX 2: Correspondence with Native American Representatives ........................................... 21 APPENDIX 3: California Historical Resources Inventory Record Forms ......................................... 28
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project vicinity...................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. Project area ........................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 3. Aerial image of the project area ........................................................................................... 3 Figure 4. Typical landscape in the project area ................................................................................... 4 Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies ..................................................................................... 10 Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856 ........................................................................ 11 Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1901 ................................................................................. 11 Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941 ................................................................................. 11 Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1951-1958 ........................................................................ 11 Figure 10. Historic-period glass bottle base at Site 3760-1H ............................................................ 13
8-262
1 INTRODUCTION
Between July 2021 and April 2022, at the request of Retail Net Lease Properties, Inc., CRM TECH performed a cultural resources survey on approximately 34.8 acres of vacant desert land on the northeastern edge of the City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The subject property of the study consists of five parcels, namely Assessor’s Parcel Nos. (APNs) 685-090-002, - 003, and -005 to -007, located on the west side of Monterey Avenue near its intersection with Dick Kelly Drive, in the northeast quarter of Section 30, T4S R6E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Figs. 2, 3).
The study is part of the environmental review process for a proposed mixed-use development project. The City of Rancho Mirage, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the project area.
In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH initiated a historical/archaeological resources records search, pursued historical background research, contacted Native American representatives, and carried out an intensive-level field survey. The following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and final conclusion of the study. Personnel who participated in the study are named in the appropriate sections below, and their qualifications are provided in Appendix 1.
Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 120’x60’ quadrangle [USGS 1979]) 8-263
2 Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS Myoma and Cathedral City, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangles [USGS 1978; 1981])
8-264
3 Figure 3. Aerial image of the project area.
8-265
4 SETTING
CURRENT NATURAL SETTING
The City of Rancho Mirage is located in the Coachella Valley, a northwest-southeast trending desert valley that constitutes the western end of the Colorado Desert. Dictated by this geographic setting, the climate and environment of the region are typical of the southern California desert country, marked by extremes in temperature and aridity. Temperatures in the region reach over 120 degrees Fahrenheit in summer, and dip to near freezing in winter. Average annual precipitation is less than five inches, and the average annual evaporation rate exceeds three feet.
The irregularly shaped project area lies on the generally level and sandy desert floor between the San Jacinto Mountains to the southwest and the Indio Hills to the northeast. The adjacent land features large shopping centers to the north and the east and undeveloped parcels to south and the west, with residential neighborhoods situated further in the latter directions (Fig. 3). Elevations in the project area range roughly from 255 feet to 295 feet above mean sea level, with the terrain sloping gently downward to the southeast.
Vegetation in the vicinity consists mainly of creosote bushes with occasional examples of small grasses and brush. The surface soil is characterized by the lightly undulating, somewhat compact sand dunes and shows a fair amount of prior disturbance (Fig. 4). Sources of the disturbance included past construction activities associated with a basin and several short-lived small residences on the property, while off-road vehicle tracks and evidence of soil removal were also observed.
Figure 4. Typical landscape in the project area. (Photograph taken on September 15, 2021) 8-266
5 CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
Numerous investigations on the history of cultural development in southern California have led researchers to propose a number of cultural chronologies for the desert regions. A specific cultural sequence for the Colorado Desert was offered by Schaefer (1994) on the basis of the many archaeological studies conducted in the area. The earliest time period identified is the Paleoindian (ca. 8,000 to 10,000-12,000 years ago), when “small, mobile bands” of hunters and gatherers, who relied on a variety of small and large game animals as well as wild plants for subsistence, roamed the region (ibid.:63). These small groups settled “on mesas and terraces overlooking larger washes” (ibid.:64). The artifact assemblage of that period typically consists of very simple stone tools, “cleared circles, rock rings, [and] some geoglyph types” (ibid.).
The Early Archaic Period follows and dates to ca. 8,000 to 4,000 years ago. It appears that a decrease in population density occurred at this time and that the indigenous groups of the area relied more on foraging than hunting. Very few archaeological remains have been identified to this time period. The ensuing Late Archaic Period (ca. 4,000 to 1,500 years ago) is characterized by continued low population densities and groups of “flexible” sizes that settled near available seasonal food resources and relied on “opportunistic” hunting of game animals. Groundstone artifacts for food processing were prominent during this time period.
The most recent period in Schaefer’s scheme, the Late Prehistoric, dates from ca. 1,500 years ago to the time of the Spanish missions, and saw the continuation of the seasonal settlement pattern.
Peoples of the Late Prehistoric Period were associated with the Patayan cultural pattern and relied more heavily on the availability of seasonal “wild plants and animal resources” (Schaefer 1994:66).
It was during this period that ceramics and the bow/arrow were introduced into the region.
The shores of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, during times of its presence, attracted much settlement and resource procurement activities. In times of the lake’s desiccation and absence, according to Schaefer (1994:66), the Native people moved away from its receding shores towards rivers, streams, and mountains. Numerous archaeological sites dating to the last high stand of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, roughly between 1600 and 1700 A.D., have been identified along its former shoreline.
Testing and mitigative excavations at these sites have recovered brown and buff ware ceramics, a variety of groundstone and projectile point types, ornaments, and cremation remains.
Ethnohistoric Context
The Coachella Valley is a historical center of Native American settlement, where U.S. surveyors noted large numbers of Indian villages and rancherías, occupied by the Cahuilla people, in the mid- 19th century. The origin of the name “Cahuilla” is unclear, but may originate from their own word káwiya, meaning master or boss (Bean 1978). The Takic-speaking Cahuilla are generally divided by anthropologists into three groups, according to their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla of the San Gorgonio Pass-Palm Springs area, the Mountain Cahuilla of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilla Valley, and the Desert Cahuilla of the eastern Coachella Valley. The 8-267
6 basic written sources on Cahuilla culture and history include Kroeber (1925), Strong (1929), and Bean (1978), based on information provided by such Cahuilla informants as Juan Siva, Francisco Patencio, Katherine Siva Saubel, and Mariano Saubel. The following ethnohistoric discussion is based primarily on these sources.
The Cahuilla did not have a single name that referred to an all-inclusive tribal affiliation. Instead, membership was in terms of lineages or clans. Each lineage or clan belonged to one of two main divisions of the people, known as moieties. Their moieties were named for the Wildcat, or Tuktum, and Coyote, or Istam. Members of clans in one moiety had to marry into clans from the other moiety. Individual clans had villages, or central places, and territories they called their own, for purposes of hunting game, and gathering raw materials for food, medicine, ritual, or tool use. They interacted with other clans through trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies.
Cahuilla subsistence was defined by the surrounding landscape and primarily based on the hunting and gathering of wild and cultivated foods, exploiting nearly all of the resources available in a highly developed seasonal mobility system. They were adapted to the arid conditions of the desert floor, the lacustral cycles of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, and the environments of the nearby mountains.
When the lake was full, or nearly full, the Cahuilla would take advantage of the resources presented by the body of fresh water, building elaborate stone fish traps. Once the lake had desiccated, they relied on the available terrestrial resources. The cooler temperatures and resources available at higher elevations in the nearby mountains were also taken advantage of.
The Cahuilla diet included seeds, roots, wild fruits and berries, acorns, wild onions, piñon nuts, and mesquite and screw beans. Medicinal plants such as creosote, California sagebrush, yerba buena and elderberry were typically cultivated near villages (Bean and Saubel 1972). Common game animals included deer, antelope, big horn sheep, rabbits, wood rats and, when Holocene Lake Cahuilla was present, fish and waterfowl. The Cahuilla hunted with throwing sticks, clubs, nets, traps, and snares, as well as bows and arrow (Bean 1978; CSRI 2002). Common tools included manos and metates, mortars and pestles, hammerstones, fire drills, awls, arrow-straighteners, and stone knives and scrapers. These lithic tools were made from locally sourced material as well as materials procured through trade or travel. They also used wood, horn, and bone spoons and stirrers; baskets for winnowing, leaching, grinding, transporting, parching, storing, and cooking; and pottery vessels for carrying water, storage, cooking, and serving food and drink (ibid.).
As the landscape defined their subsistence practices, the tending and cultivation practices of the Cahuilla helped shape the landscape. Biological studies have recently found evidence that the fan palms found in the Coachella Valley and throughout the southeastern California desert (Washingtonia filifera) may not be relics from a paleo-tropical environment, but instead a relatively recent addition brought to the area and cultivated by native populations (Anderson 2005). The planting of palms by the Cahuilla is well-documented, as is their enhancement of palm stands through the practice of controlled burning (ibid.; Bean and Saubel 1972). Burning palm stands would increase fruit yield dramatically by eliminating pests such as the palm borer beetle, date scales, and spider mites (Bean and Saubel 1972). It also prevented out-of-control wildfires by eliminating dead undergrowth before it accumulated to dangerous levels. The Cahuilla also burned stands of chia to produce higher yields, and deergrass to yield straighter, more abundant stalks for basketry (ibid.; Anderson 2005).
8-268
7 Population data prior to European contact is almost impossible to obtain, but estimates range from 3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons covering a territory of over 2,400 square miles. During the 19th century, the Cahuilla population was decimated as a result of European diseases, most notably smallpox, for which the Native peoples had no immunity. Today, Native Americans of Pass or Desert Cahuilla heritage are mostly affiliated with one or more of the Indian reservations in and near the Coachella Valley, including Agua Caliente, Morongo, Cabazon, Torres Martinez, and Augustine.
There has been a resurgence of traditional ceremonies in recent years, and the language, songs, and stories are now being taught to the youngest generations.
Historic Context
In 1823-1825, José Romero, José Maria Estudillo, and Romualdo Pacheco became the first noted European explorers to travel through the Coachella Valley when they led a series of expeditions in search of a route to Yuma (Johnston 1987:92-95). Due to its harsh environment, few non-Indians ventured into the desert valley during the Mexican and early American periods, except those who traveled along the established trails. The most important of these trails was the Cocomaricopa Trail, an ancient Indian trading route that was “discovered” in 1862 by William David Bradshaw and known after that as the Bradshaw Trail (Gunther 1984:71; Ross 1992:25). In much of the Coachella Valley, this historic wagon road traversed a similar course to that of present-day State Route 111.
During the 1860s-1870s, the Bradshaw Trail served as the main thoroughfare between coastal southern California and the Colorado River, until the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1876-1877 brought an end to its heyday (Johnston 1987:185).
Non-Indian settlement in the Coachella Valley began in the 1870s with the establishment of railroad stations along the Southern Pacific Railroad, and spread further in the 1880s after public land was opened for claims under the Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, and other federal land laws (Laflin 1998:35-36; Robinson 1948:169-171). Farming became the dominant economic activity in the valley thanks to the development of underground water sources, often in the form of artesian wells. Around the turn of the century, the date palm was introduced into the Coachella Valley, and by the late 1910s dates were the main agricultural crop and the tree an iconic image celebrating the region as the “Arabia of America” (Shields Date Gardens 1957). Then, starting in the 1920s, a new industry featuring equestrian camps, resorts, hotels, and eventually country clubs began to spread throughout the Coachella Valley, transforming it into southern California’s premier winter retreat.
In the Rancho Mirage area, the first notable settlement activities occurred in the 1910s-1920s, when several date ranches were established in the present-day city boundary (Love and Tang 1996:7). In 1924, R.P. “Bert” Davie and E.E. McIntyre subdivided the Rancho Rio del Sol Estates around today’s Clancy Lane, creating a small community nicknamed “Little Santa Monica” (ibid.:8). Ten years later, Louis Blankenhorn and Laurence Macomber began a new subdivision at the mouth of Magnesia Spring Canyon, and for the first time bestowed the name Rancho Mirage on the community (ibid.). After the end of WWII, Rancho Mirage embarked on a period of rapid growth.
With the development of the Thunderbird Country Club and the Tamarisk Country Club in 1951- 1952, Rancho Mirage set the trend in the post-WWII boom among the five cove communities along Highway 111 (ibid.:8-9). This trend has continued into the present and has given rise to the City of Rancho Mirage’s popular reputation as the “country club city.”
8-269
8 RESEARCH METHODS
RECORDS SEARCH
The historical/archaeological resources records search was completed by the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California, Riverside, on July 21, 2021. During the records search, EIC administrative/coordinator assistant Eulices Lopez examined maps and records on file for previously identified cultural resources and existing cultural resources reports within a half-mile radius of the project location. Previously identified cultural resources include properties designated as California Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, or Riverside County Historic Landmarks, as well as those listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the California Historical Resources Inventory.
NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
On July 21, 2021, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a records search in the commission’s Sacred Lands File. The NAHC is the State of California’s trustee agency for the protection of “tribal cultural resources,” as defined by California Public Resources Code §21074, and is tasked with identifying and cataloging properties of Native American cultural value throughout the state. In the meantime, CRM TECH notified the nearby Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the upcoming archaeological field survey and invited tribal participation. The correspondence between CRM TECH and the Native American representatives is attached to this report in Appendix 2.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Historical background research for this study was conducted by CRM TECH archaeologist Ben Kerridge on the basis of the following sources:
• Published literature in local and regional history;
• U.S. General Land Office (GLO) land survey plat maps dated 1856, available at the website of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM);
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps dated 1904-1981, available at the USGS website;
• Aerial and satellite photographs taken in 1972-2018, available at the Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR) Online website and through the Google Earth software; • Archival records of the GLO and the BLM, available at the BLM website; • Various online genealogical databases, primarily those available at ancestry.com.
FIELD SURVEY
CRM TECH archaeologists Daniel Ballester and Hunter O’Donnell carried out the field survey of the project area on September 15, 2021. The survey was conducted at an intensive level by walking a series of parallel north-south transects at 15-meter (approximately 50-foot) intervals. In this way, the entire project area was systematically and carefully examined for any evidence of human 8-270
9 activities dating to the prehistoric or historic period (i.e., 50 years or older). Ground visibility was good to excellent (95 to 100 percent) as vegetation was sparse, although a small portion of the project area was obscured by large creosote bushes. In this environment, however, shifting sands are more likely to contribute to obscured cultural remains than is vegetation.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
RECORDS SEARCH
According to EIC records, a narrow strip of land on the eastern edge of the project area may have been included in two linear surveys completed along Monterey Avenue in the past, but no cultural resources have been recorded within or adjacent to the project boundaries. Within the half-mile scope of the records search, EIC records show 21 additional cultural resources studies on various tracts of land and linear features, in total covering roughly 35 percent of the land surface (Fig. 5).
As a result of these past survey efforts, two historic-period cultural resources, designated Sites 33- 005636 and 33-017008 in the California Historical Resources Inventory, have been recorded within the half-mile radius, but no prehistoric—i.e., Native American—cultural remains have been found.
Site 33-005636 represents the Southern Pacific (now Union Pacific) Railroad line that runs approximately half a mile to the north of the project area, and Site 33-017008 represents the remains of a collapsed shed located half a mile to the northwest. In view of the distance of these sites from the project location, neither site requires further consideration during this study.
NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
In response to CRM TECH’s inquiry, the NAHC reported in a letter dated August 19, 2021, that the Sacred Lands File search yielded negative results for Native American cultural resources in the project area. Noting that the absence of specific information would not necessarily indicate the absence of cultural resources, however, the NAHC recommended that local Native American groups be consulted for further information and provided a referral list potential contacts in the region who may have knowledge of such resources. The NAHC’s reply is attached in Appendix 2 for reference by the City of Rancho Mirage in future government-to-government consultations with the pertinent Native American representatives, if necessary.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Historical sources consulted for this study yielded no evidence of any settlement or development activities within the project area prior to the mid-20th century (Figs. 6-9). In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the nearest human-made feature known to be extant was the Southern Pacific Railroad, which was later joined by U.S. Highway 60/70/99, the forerunner of today’s Interstate Highway 10 (Figs. 7, 8). By the 1950s, a dirt road had been established along the course of present- day Monterey Avenue, providing access from the highway to a few scattered buildings in the vicinity, including a trio standing in a roughly east-west line along the northern project boundary in what is now APNs 685-090-002, -003, and -005 (Fig. 9)
8-271
10 Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies in the vicinity of the project area, listed by EIC file number. Locations of known historical/archaeological resources are not shown as a protective measure.
8-272
11 Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856. (Source: GLO 1856a; 1856b)
Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1901. (Source:
USGS 1904)
Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941. (Source:
USGS 1941)
Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1951-1958.
(Source: USGS 1958)
8-273
12 These three buildings were evidently the result of five-acre small tract land claims filed on what was then U.S. government land. The westernmost of these buildings was located on land that the U.S. government patented to Harold Frederick Neill, Sr., in 1957 (BLM n.d.). A Los Angeles resident, Neill was born in Illinois in 1927, served in the U.S. Army during World War II, married Roberta Chivas in 1953, and died in 1982 (ancestry.com n.d.). Directly to the east, the middle of the three buildings was on land patented to Bernard Elmore in 1958 (BLM n.d.). Born in 1909, Elmore also served in the U.S. Army during the war and died in 1965 (ancestry.com n.d.). In 1959, a patent was issued to Fay Randall Herod for five acres where the third and easternmost of the buildings was in the 1950s (BLM n.d.). Immediately to its south, a fourth patent was issued to Maxwell Elliot Risvold in 1960 (BLM n.d.), and a building was noted at this location by 1978 (Fig. 2). These buildings, among additional buildings outside the project area, can be seen in aerial photographs taken in 1972 (NETR Online 1972), but by 1996 no trace of them could be found any more (NETR Online 1996).
These settlements in the project area were part of a wave of small tract claims on public land in the Coachella Valley following post-WWII streamlining of the Small Tract Act of 1938, whereby the U.S. government granted to private owners five-acre homesteads in the southern California desert, typically for a second residence, with the caveat that construction must occur within two years for a claim to remain valid. The resulting “jackrabbit homesteads,” as they came to be known, were often hastily constructed using subpar materials and building practices, and were often abandoned soon afterwards or fell victim to the harsh climate (Bellisi n.d.; Verdin 2000).
The rest of the project area has remained undeveloped to the present time, even with the proliferation of commercial and residential development nearby after the 1980s and the construction of Monterey Avenue adjacent to the eastern project boundary between 1984 and 1996 (NETR Online 1972-1996).
The nearest development, that of the Monterey Marketplace shopping center directly to the north, began in the 1990s and was completed over the ensuing decade (NETR Online 1996-2009). Since then, no major changes have occurred in land uses within or adjacent to the project area (NETR Online 1996-2018).
FIELD SURVEY
During the field survey, a total of eight cultural resources were encountered and recorded within the project area, including three archaeological sites and five isolates (i.e., localities with fewer than three artifacts), all of them dating to the historic period. They were designated temporarily as 3760- 1H to 3760-8H, pending assignment of official identification numbers in the California Historical Resources Inventory by the EIC. The sites, 3760-1H, 3760-2H, and 3760-3H, consist of the remains of the “jackrabbit homesteads” discussed above, while each of the isolates represents a single domestic refuse item. The features and artifacts found at these eight localities are listed below, and further details are provided in the standard record forms in Appendix 3.
• Site 3760-1H: Site 3760-1H is composed of scattered remains of a residence on Harold Frederick Neill’s 1957 Small Tract claim, such as concrete fragments, metal trim, composite shingles, plate-glass shards, lumber, domestic refuse, and part of the framework of the dwelling.
The refuse items include five 16-ounce flat-top beverage cans and a condiment bottle with a “GC” (Glass Containers Corporation) maker’s mark, indicating a manufacturing date between the 1930s and 1950s (Fig. 10).
8-274
13 Figure 10. Historic period glass bottle base at Site 3760-1H. (Photograph taken on September 15, 2021)
• Site 3760-2H: Site 3760-2H represents the scattered remains of Bernard Elmore’s 1958 jackrabbit homestead, including concrete fragments, lumber, plate-glass shards, and a brown Anheuser Busch beer bottle fragment from the shoulder portion. • Site 3760-3H: Site 3760-3H represents the scattered remains of Maxwell Elliot Risvold’s 1960 jackrabbit homestead, including concrete fragments, lumber, composite shingles, nails, and plate-glass shards.
• Isolate 3760-4H: This isolate consists of an aluminum Hamm’s 12 ounce “drawn” or “punched” can dating to the early 1970s.
• Isolate 3760-5H: This isolate consists of a metal sanitary can. • Isolate 3760-6H: This isolate consists of a flat-top beverage can with interlocking seams and opened with a “church key.”
• Isolate 3760-7H: This isolate consists of a five-gallon round fuel can measuring 10.5 inches in diameter and 13.5 inches in height.
• Isolate 3760-8H: This isolate consists of a brown glass bottle base with orange-peel stippling and a Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Company maker’s mark from 1954.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study is to identify any cultural resources within the project area and to assist the City of Rancho Mirage in determining whether such resources meet the official definition of “historical resources,” as provided in the California Public Resources Code, in particular CEQA.
According to PRC §5020.1(j), “‘historical resource’ includes, but is not limited to, any object, 8-275
14 building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.”
More specifically, CEQA guidelines state that the term “historical resources” applies to any such resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, included in a local register of historical resources, or determined to be historically significant by the lead agency (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)-(3)). Regarding the proper criteria for the evaluation of historical significance, CEQA guidelines mandate that “generally a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources” (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1(c))
In summary of the research results above, three historic-period archaeological sites and five historic- period isolates were recorded within the project area during this study and designated temporarily as 3760-1H to 3760-8H. The five isolates, 3760-4H to 3760-8H, each consist of a single domestic refuse item. By definition, the isolates do not constitute archaeological site due to the lack of depositional context. Therefore, they are not considered potential “historical resources” and require no further consideration in the CEQA-compliance process.
The sites, 3760-1H, 3760-2H, and 3760-3H, represent the remains of three “jackrabbit homesteads” established in the 1957-1960 era, a very common type of features to be found in the southern California desert region. Historical background research has identified no persons or events of recognized historical significance in association with these sites, nor do the construction materials recorded at these sites demonstrate any particular merits in terms of design, construction, engineering, or aesthetics. Furthermore, such features from the well-documented late historic period, occurring without a substantial artifact deposit, have little potential for important archaeological data. Based on these considerations, the present study concludes that Sites 3760-1H, 3760-2H, and 3760-3H do not appear to meet any of the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. Therefore, they do qualify as “historical resources” under CEQA provisions.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CEQA establishes that “a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC §21084.1). “Substantial adverse change,” according to PRC §5020.1(q), “means demolition, 8-276
15 destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired.”
In conclusion, while a total of eight cultural resources were identified within the project area during this study, none of them appears to meet CEQA’s definition of a “historical resource.” Therefore, CRM TECH concludes that no “historical resources” exist within or adjacent to the project area and presents the following recommendations to the City of Rancho Mirage:
• The proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change to any known “historical resources.”
• No further cultural resources investigation will be necessary for the project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. • If any buried cultural materials are encountered during earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work within 50 feet of the discovery should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.
REFERENCES
Ancestry.com
n.d. Genealogical database entries for Bernard Elmore, Fay Randall Herod, Harold Frederick Neill, and Maxwell Elliot Risvold. https://www.ancestry.com .
Anderson, M. Kat
2005 Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Bean, Lowell John
1978 Cahuilla. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8:
California; pp. 575-587. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell John, and Katherine Siva Saubel
1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.
Bellisi, Lou
n.d. BLM and the Small Tract Act in the Southern California Desert: A Brief History. http://www.publicland.org/35_archives/documents/doc_1306_bellesi.html .
BLM (Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior) n.d. The Official Federal Land Records Site. http://www.glorecords.blm.gov .
CSRI (Cultural Systems Research, Inc.)
2002 The Native Americans of Joshua Tree National Park: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment Study. Http:// www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/jotr/history6.htm .
GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1856a Plat map: Township No. 4 South Range No. 5 East, SBBM; surveyed in 1855-1856. 1856b Plat map: Township No. 4 South Range No. 6 East, SBBM; surveyed in 1855-1856.
Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. J.D.
Gunther, Riverside.
8-277
16 Johnston, Francis J.
1987 The Bradshaw Trail; revised edition. Historical Commission Press, Riverside.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Laflin, Patricia
1998 Coachella Valley California: A Pictorial History. The Donning Company, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Love, Bruce, and Bai “Tom” Tang
1996 Cultural Resources Report: Rancho Mirage General Plan, City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California. On File, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research) Online
1972-2018 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity; taken in 1972, 1996, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018. http://www.historicaerials.com .
Robinson, W.W.
1948 Land in California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Ross, Delmer G.
1992 Gold Road to La Paz: An Interpretive Guide to the Bradshaw Trail. Tales of the Mojave Road Publishing Company, Essex, California.
Schaefer, Jerry
1994 The Challenge of Archaeological Research in the Colorado Desert: Recent Approaches and Discoveries. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16(1):60-80.
Shields Date Gardens
1957 Coachella Valley Desert Trails and the Romance and Sex Life of the Date. Shields Date Gardens, Indio.
Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 26.
USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1904 Map: Indio, Calif. (30’, 1:125,000); surveyed in 1901. 1941 Map: Edom, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1941. 1958 Map: Thousand Palms, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1951-1956, field-checked in 1958.
1978 Map: Myoma, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1958 edition photorevised in 1972, photoinspected in 1978.
1979 Map: Santa Ana, Calif. (120’x60’, 1:250,000); 1959 edition revised. 1981 Map: Cathedral City, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1958 edition photorevised in 1978.
Verdin, Tom
2000 Homesteader Legacy Leaves Desert Littered with Abandoned Shacks. The Los Angeles Times November 5.
8-278
17 APPENDIX 1:
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/HISTORIAN
Bai “Tom” Tang, M.A.
Education
1988-1993 Graduate Program in Public History/Historic Preservation, University of California, Riverside.
1987 M.A., American History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 1982 B.A., History, Northwestern University, Xi’an, China.
2000 “Introduction to Section 106 Review,” presented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the University of Nevada, Reno.
1994 “Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites,” presented by the Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno.
Professional Experience
2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1993-2002 Project Historian/Architectural Historian, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1993-1997 Project Historian, Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California. 1991-1993 Project Historian, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. 1990 Intern Researcher, California State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 1990-1992 Teaching Assistant, History of Modern World, University of California, Riverside. 1988-1993 Research Assistant, American Social History, University of California, Riverside. 1985-1988 Research Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1985-1986 Teaching Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1982-1985 Lecturer, History, Xi’an Foreign Languages Institute, Xi’an, China.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations Regarding California’s Cultural Resources Inventory System (with Special Reference to Condition 14 of NPS 1990 Program Review Report). California State Office of Historic Preservation working paper, Sacramento, September 1990.
Numerous cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit, Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991.
8-279
18 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ARCHAEOLOGIST
Michael Hogan, Ph.D., RPA (Registered Professional Archaeologist)
Education
1991 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 1981 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside; with honors. 1980-1981 Education Abroad Program, Lima, Peru.
2002 “Section 106—National Historic Preservation Act: Federal Law at the Local Level,” UCLA Extension Course #888.
2002 “Recognizing Historic Artifacts,” workshop presented by Richard Norwood, Historical Archaeologist.
2002 “Wending Your Way through the Regulatory Maze,” symposium presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals.
1992 “Southern California Ceramics Workshop,” presented by Jerry Schaefer. 1992 “Historic Artifact Workshop,” presented by Anne Duffield-Stoll.
Professional Experience
2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1999-2002 Project Archaeologist/Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1996-1998 Project Director and Ethnographer, Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands, California. 1992-1998 Assistant Research Anthropologist, University of California, Riverside. 1992-1995 Project Director, Archaeological Research Unit, U.C. Riverside. 1993-1994 Adjunct Professor, Riverside Community College, Mt. San Jacinto College, U.C.
Riverside, Chapman University, and San Bernardino Valley College. 1991-1992 Crew Chief, Archaeological Research Unit, U.C. Riverside. 1984-1998 Project Director, Field Director, Crew Chief, and Archaeological Technician for various southern California cultural resources management firms.
Research Interests
Cultural Resource Management, Southern Californian Archaeology, Settlement and Exchange Patterns, Specialization and Stratification, Culture Change, Native American Culture, Cultural Diversity.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Principal investigator for, author or co-author of, and contributor to numerous cultural resources management study reports since 1986.
Memberships
Society for American Archaeology; Society for California Archaeology; Pacific Coast Archaeological Society; Coachella Valley Archaeological Society. 8-280
19 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/REPORT WRITER
Ben Kerridge, M.A.
Education
2014 Geoarchaeological Field School, Institute for Field Research, Kephallenia, Greece. 2010 M.A., Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton. 2009 Project Management Training, Project Management Institute/CH2M HILL, Santa Ana, California.
2004 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton.
Professional Experience
2015- Project Archaeologist/Report Writer, CRM TECH, Colton, California. 2015 Teaching Assistant, Institute for Field Research, Kephallenia, Greece. 2009-2014 Publications Delivery Manager, CH2M HILL, Santa Ana, California. 2006-2009 Technical Publishing Specialist, CH2M HILL, Santa Ana, California.
Memberships
Society for California Archaeology; Pacific Coast Archaeological Society.
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST
Hunter C. O’Donnell, B.A.
Education
2016- M.A. Program, Applied Archaeology, California State University, San Bernardino. 2015 B.A. (cum laude), Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino. 2012 A.A., Social and Behavioral Sciences, Mt. San Antonio College, Walnut, California. 2011 A.A., Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Mt. San Antonio College, Walnut, California.
Professional Experience
2017- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Colton, California. 2016-2018 Graduate Research Assistant, Applied Archaeology, California State University, San Bernardino.
2016-2017 Cultural Intern, Cultural Department, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, Temecula, California.
2015 Archaeological Intern, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California. 2015 Peer Research Consultant: African Archaeology, California State University, San Bernardino.
8-281
20 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/FIELD DIRECTOR
Daniel Ballester, M.S., RPA (Registered Professional Archaeologist)
Education
2013 M.S., Geographic Information System (GIS), University of Redlands, California. 1998 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino. 1997 Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of California, Riverside.
1994 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.
2007 Certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), California State University, San Bernardino.
2002 “Historic Archaeology Workshop,” presented by Richard Norwood, Base Archaeologist, Edwards Air Force Base; presented at CRM TECH, Riverside, California.
Professional Experience
2002- Field Director/GIS Specialist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 2011-2012 GIS Specialist for Caltrans District 8 Project, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, California.
2009-2010 Field Crew Chief, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, California. 2009-2010 Field Crew, ECorp, Redlands.
1999-2002 Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego, California. 1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas, California. 1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.
Cultural Resources Management Reports
Field Director, co-author, and contributor to numerous cultural management reports since 2002.
8-282
21 APPENDIX 2
CORRESPONDENCE WITH
NATIVE AMERICAN REPRESENTATIVES
8-283
SACRED LANDS FILE & NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACTS LIST REQUEST
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1550 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(916)373-3710
(916)373-5471 (Fax)
[email protected]
Project: Ms. Carolee Reiling Trust Mixed-Use Project; Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 685-090-002, -003, -005, -006, and -007 (CRM TECH No. 3760)
County: Riverside
USGS Quadrangle Name: Cathedral City, Calif.
Township 4 South Range 6 East SB BM; Section(s) 30 Company/Firm/Agency: CRM TECH
Contact Person: Nina Gallardo
Street Address: 1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
City: Colton, CA Zip: 92324
Phone: (909) 824-6400 Fax: (909) 824-6405
Email: [email protected]
Project Description: The primary component of the project is a mixed-use development on approximately 34.8 acres of land located on the west side of Monterey Avenue and north of Dick Kelly Drive/35th Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 685-090-002, -003, -005, -006 and -007), in the City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California.
July 21, 2021
8-284
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
August 19, 2021
Nina Gallardo
CRM TECH
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Proposed Ms. Carolee Reiling, Reiling Trust Mixed Use Project, Riverside County
Dear Ms. Gallardo:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Julie Tumamait-
Stenslie
Chumash
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
8-285
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6800
Fax: (760) 699-6919
Cahuilla
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6907
Fax: (760) 699-6924
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Augustine Band of Cahuilla
Mission Indians
Amanda Vance, Chairperson
P.O. Box 846
Coachella, CA, 92236
Phone: (760) 398 - 4722
Fax: (760) 369-7161
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Cabazon Band of Mission
Indians
Doug Welmas, Chairperson
84-245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio, CA, 92203
Phone: (760) 342 - 2593
Fax: (760) 347-7880
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Daniel Salgado, Chairperson
52701 U.S. Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 5549
Fax: (951) 763-2808
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla
and Cupeño Indians
Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson
P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189
Phone: (760) 782 - 0711
Fax: (760) 782-0712
Cahuilla
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Ann Brierty, THPO
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5259
Fax: (951) 572-6004
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Robert Martin, Chairperson
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5110
Fax: (951) 755-5177
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (928) 750 - 2516
[email protected]
Quechan
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (760) 572 - 2423
historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan
1 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Proposed Ms. Carolee Reiling, Reiling Trust Mixed Use Project, Riverside County.
PROJ-2021-
004471
08/19/2021 03:07 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
8/19/2021
8-286
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
John Gomez, Environmental
Coordinator
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson
P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
Michael Mirelez, Cultural
Resource Coordinator
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
Phone: (760) 399 - 0022
Fax: (760) 397-8146
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Twenty-Nine Palms Band of
Mission Indians
Darrell Mike, Chairperson
46-200 Harrison Place
Coachella, CA, 92236
Phone: (760) 863 - 2444
Fax: (760) 863-2449
29chairman@29palmsbomi-
nsn.gov
Chemehuevi
Twenty-Nine Palms Band of
Mission Indians
Anthony Madrigal, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
46-200 Harrison Place
Coachella, CA, 92236
Phone: (760) 775 - 3259
[email protected]
Chemehuevi
2 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Proposed Ms. Carolee Reiling, Reiling Trust Mixed Use Project, Riverside County.
PROJ-2021-
004471
08/19/2021 03:07 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
8/19/2021
8-287
From: Nina Gallardo
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 1:06 PM
To: Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office ([email protected]) Cc: Heredia, Andreas (TRBL)
Subject: Cultural Resources Study and Participation in Field Survey for the Proposed Ms. Carolee Reiling Trust Mixed-Use Project, APNs 685-090-002, -003, -005, -006 and -007, City of Rancho Mirage (CRM TECH No. 3760)
Hello,
I’m writing to inform you that CRM TECH will be conducting the cultural resources study for the proposed Ms. Carolee Reiling Trust Mixed-Use Project on APNs 685-090-002, -003, -005, -006 and -007 in the City of Rancho Mirage (CRM TECH No. 3760). Specifically, I am contacting you to see if the tribe would like to participate in the archaeological field survey for the project. We will contact you again when we have a specific time and date for the fieldwork after we have received back the RS results from the Eastern Information Center. I’m attaching the project area map and other information. We would also appreciate any information that the tribe can provided about the project location. Please feel free to email back with any questions regarding the project and possible availability for the field survey.
Thank you for your time and input on this project.
Nina Gallardo
(909) 824-6400 (phone)
(909) 824-6405 (fax)
CRM TECH
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Ste. A/B
Colton, CA 92324
From: Nina Gallardo
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 9:00 AM
To: Heredia, Andreas (TRBL)
Cc: Patricia Garcia-Plotkin ([email protected]) Subject: FW: Cultural Resources Study and Participation in Field Survey for the Proposed Ms.
Carolee Reiling Trust Mixed-Use Project, APNs 685-090-002, -003, -005, -006 and -007, City of Rancho Mirage (CRM TECH No. 3760)
Hello,
I’m emailing you to see if the tribe can join us for this survey possible this Friday morning (9/10) since we just received the RS results from the Eastern Information Center. We would also appreciate any information that the tribe can provided about the project location. Please feel free to email back with any questions regarding the project and possible availability for the field survey.
Thank you for your time and input on this project.
Nina Gallardo
8-288
From: Nina Gallardo
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 2:49 PM
To: Heredia, Andreas (TRBL); [email protected]
Cc: Patricia Garcia-Plotkin ([email protected]) Subject: FW: Cultural Resources Study and Participation in Field Survey for the Proposed Ms.
Carolee Reiling Trust Mixed-Use Project, APNs 685-090-002, -003, -005, -006 and -007, City of Rancho Mirage (CRM TECH No. 3760)
Hello,
I’m emailing to see if you received my earlier email from last Wednesday about the above- referenced project. Daniel would like to conduct this field survey on Wednesday morning, 9/15.
Please feel free to email back with any questions regarding the project and possible availability for the field survey.
Thanks again,
Nina Gallardo
CRM TECH
909-824-6440
8-289
28 APPENDIX 3
CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
RECORD FORMS
Sites 3760-1H to -3H and Isolates 3760-4H to -8H
(Temporary Designations)
8-290
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: √ Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Riverside and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Cathedral City, Calif. Date 1981 T4S; R6E; NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Sec 30 ; S.B. B.M.
Elevation: Approximately 285 feet above mean sea level c. Address N/A City Rancho Mirage Zip d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11 ; 556,318 mE/ 3,739,896 mN UTM Derivation: USGS Quad √ GPS (NAD 83)
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, etc., as appropriate) Located on APN 685- 090-002, approximately 1,435 feet south of Dinah Shore Drive and 1,015 feet west of Monterey Avenue
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries): The site represents the remains of a “jackrabbit homestead” from the post-WWII era, such as concrete fragments, plate-glass shards, lumber, domestic refuse, and part of the framework of the dwelling. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AH2: Structural remains; AH4: Trash scatters *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object √ Site District Element of District Isolate Other
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,
accession #) Taken on September
15, 2021; view to the southwest
*P6. Date Constructed/Age of Sources:
√ Historic Prehistoric Both
*P7. Owner and Address: Retail Net
Lease Properties, Inc., 74998
Country Club Drive, Suite 220-
345, Palm Desert, CA 92260
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and
address) Daniel Ballester and
Hunter O’Donnell, CRM TECH,
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite
A/B, Colton, CA 92324
*P9. Date Recorded: September 15,
2021
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive-level survey for
CEQA-compliance
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none.”) Bai “Tom” Tang, Ben Kerridge, and Daniel Ballester (2022): Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey:
Reiling Trust Mixed-Use Project, Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 685-090-002, -003, and -005 to -007, City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California
*Attachments: None √ Location Map √ Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record √ Archaeological Record District Record Linear Resource Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information 8-291
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
A1. Dimensions: a. Length 140 feet (NE-SW) b. Width 95 feet (NW-SE) Method of Measurement: Paced Taped Visual estimate √ Other: GPS Method of Determination (Check any that apply.): √ Artifacts √ Features Soil Vegetation Topography Cut bank Animal burrow Excavation Property boundary Other (Explain):
Reliability of Determination: √ High Medium Low Explain:
Limitations (Check any that apply): Restricted access Paved/built over Site limits incompletely defined Disturbances Vegetation Other (Explain):
A2. Depth: None √ Unknown Method of Determination:
*A3. Human Remains: Present √ Absent Possible Unknown (Explain):
*A4. Features: (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch map.) Portions of the dwelling, namely parts of the framing, are still in situ and broken off at ground level. Concrete rubble, lumber fragments, metal trim, composite shingles, and plate-glass shards are scattered around the feature.
*A5. Cultural Constituents: (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., not associated with features.) Refuse items scattered across the site include five 16-ounce flat-top beverage cans and a condiment bottle with a “GC” (Glass Containers Corporation) maker’s mark, indicating a manufacturing date between the 1930s and 1950s. *A6. Were Specimens Collected? √ No Yes (If yes, attach Artifact Record or catalog and identify where specimens are curated.)
*A7. Site Condition: Good Fair √ Poor (Describe disturbances.): The dwelling is in ruins and scattered across the ground, with no substantial portions remaining standing while the artifacts present are heavily degraded.
*A8. Nearest Water (Type, distance, and direction.): The Whitewater River, approximately 3.3 miles to the southwest
*A9. Elevation: Approximately 285 feet above mean sea level A10. Environmental Setting: (Describe vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope, aspect, exposure, etc.): The site is located on the mostly level desert floor with small sand dune drifts scattered throughout. The soil generally consists of fine to medium-grained sand with occasional eruptions of quartzite scattered throughout the area. Far from the closest hills there is no evidence of regular alluvial action.
Vegetation would have been typical desert scrubs and bushes inhabited by fauna native to the area, with creosote being the most dominant vegetation present.
A11. Historical Information: In 1938 the Small Tract Act was passed allowing plots of federal land up to five acres in size to be claimed by applicants with the requirement that the land be developed. This resulted in the creation of “jackrabbit homesteads,” simple residential structures constructed cheaply for the express purpose of laying claim to the land. These structures began appearing in 1938 but their numbers escalated rapidly after WWII with the sudden availability in building material and the necessity for more housing. This particular claim was patented to Harold Frederick Neill, Sr., of Los Angeles, a WWII veteran, in 1957.
*A12. Age: Prehistoric Protohistoric 1542-1769 1769-1848 1848-1880 1880-1914 1914-1945 √ Post 1945 Undetermined Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known: The artifacts present at the site also point to a date in the 1950s.
A13. Interpretations: (Discuss scientific, interpretive, ethnic, and other values of site, if known) A14. Remarks: The site does not appear eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources.
A15. References: (Documents, informants, maps, and other references.): See Item A11.
A16. Photographs: (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Record.):
Original Media/Negatives Kept at: CRM TECH, Colton, California *A17. Form Prepared by: Ben Kerridge, Hunter O’Donnell, and Daniel Ballester Date: December 1, 2021
Affiliation and Address: CRM TECH, 1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B, Colton, CA 92324
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information 8-292
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
*Map Name: Cathedral City and Myoma, Calif.
*Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map: 1978/1981
DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information 8-293
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
SKETCH MAP Trinomial
*Drawn by: Daniel Ballester *Date: September 17, 2021
DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information 8-294
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: √ Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Riverside and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Cathedral City, Calif. Date 1981
T4S; R6E; NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Sec 30 ; S.B. B.M.
Elevation: Approximately 277 feet above mean sea level c. Address N/A City Rancho Mirage Zip d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11 ; 556,406 mE/ 3,739,888 mN UTM Derivation: USGS Quad √ GPS (NAD 83)
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, etc., as appropriate) Located on APN 685- 090-003, approximately 1,470 feet south of Dinah Shore Drive and 730 feet west of Monterey Avenue
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries): The site represents the scattered remains of a “jackrabbit homestead” from the post-WWII era, including concrete fragments, lumber, plate- glass fragments, and a glass bottle fragment. The bottle shoulder fragment belonged to a brown Anheuser Busch beer bottle.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AH2: Structural remains; AH4: Trash scatters *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object √ Site District Element of District Isolate Other
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,
accession #) Taken on September
15, 2021; view to the east
*P6. Date Constructed/Age of Sources:
√ Historic Prehistoric Both
*P7. Owner and Address: Retail Net
Lease Properties, Inc., 74998
Country Club Drive, Suite 220-
345, Palm Desert, CA 92260
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and
address) Daniel Ballester and
Hunter O’Donnell, CRM TECH,
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite
A/B, Colton, CA 92324
*P9. Date Recorded: September 15,
2021
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive-level survey for
CEQA-compliance
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none.”) Bai “Tom” Tang, Ben Kerridge, and Daniel Ballester (2022): Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey:
Reiling Trust Mixed-Use Project, Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 685-090-002, -003, and -005 to -007, City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California
*Attachments: None √ Location Map √ Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record √ Archaeological Record District Record Linear Resource Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
8-295
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
A1. Dimensions: a. Length 95 feet (N-S) b. Width 85 feet (E-W) Method of Measurement: Paced Taped Visual estimate √ Other: GPS Method of Determination (Check any that apply.): √ Artifacts √ Features Soil Vegetation Topography Cut bank Animal burrow Excavation Property bounday Other (Explain):
Reliability of Determination: √ High Medium Low Explain:
Limitations (Check any that apply): Restricted access Paved/built over Site limits incompletely defined Disturbances Vegetation Other (Explain):
A2. Depth: None √ Unknown Method of Determination:
*A3. Human Remains: Present √ Absent Possible Unknown (Explain):
*A4. Features: (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch map.) Portions of the dwelling, namely parts of the framing, are still in situ and broken off at ground level. An assortment of building materials, such as concrete rubble, lumber fragments, metal trim, plate-glass shards, and composite shingles, are scattered throughout the site. *A5. Cultural Constituents: (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., not associated with features.) The most notable artifact is a brown Anheuser Busch beer bottle fragment from the shoulder portion.
*A6. Were Specimens Collected? √ No Yes (If yes, attach Artifact Record or catalog and identify where specimens are curated.)
*A7. Site Condition: Good Fair √ Poor (Describe disturbances.): The dwelling is in ruins and scattered across the ground, with no substantial portions remaining standing while the artifacts present are heavily degraded.
*A8. Nearest Water (Type, distance, and direction.): The Whitewater River is approximately 3.3 miles to the southwest.
*A9. Elevation: Approximately 277 feet above mean sea level A10. Environmental Setting: (Describe vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope, aspect, exposure, etc.): The site is located on the mostly level desert floor with small sand dune drifts scattered throughout. The soil generally consists of fine to medium-grained sand with occasional eruptions of quartzite scattered throughout the area. Far from the closest hills there is no evidence of regular alluvial action.
Vegetation would have been typical desert scrubs and bushes inhabited by fauna native to the area, with creosote being the most dominant vegetation present.
A11. Historical Information: In 1938 the Small Tract Act was passed allowing plots of federal land up to five acres in size to be claimed by applicants with the requirement that the land be developed. This resulted in the creation of “jackrabbit homesteads,” simple residential structures constructed cheaply for the express purpose of laying claim to the land. These structures began appearing in 1938 but their numbers escalated rapidly after WWII with the sudden availability in building material and the necessity for more housing. This particular dwelling appears to have been associated with a 1958 patent obtained by Bernard Elmore, a WWII veteran.
*A12. Age: Prehistoric Protohistoric 1542-1769 1769-1848 1848-1880 1880-1914 1914-1945 √ Post 1945 Undetermined Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known: The artifacts present at the site also point to a date in the 1950s.
A13. Interpretations: (Discuss scientific, interpretive, ethnic, and other values of site, if known) A14. Remarks: The site does not appear eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources.
A15. References: (Documents, informants, maps, and other references.): See Item A11.
A16. Photographs: (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Record.):
Original Media/Negatives Kept at: CRM TECH, Colton, California *A17. Form Prepared by: Ben Kerridge, Hunter O’Donnell, and Daniel Ballester Date: December 1, 2021
Affiliation and Address: CRM TECH, 1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B, Colton, CA 92324
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information 8-296
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
*Map Name: Cathedral City and Myoma, Calif.
*Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map: 1978/1981
DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information 8-297
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
SKETCH MAP Trinomial
*Drawn by: Daniel Ballester *Date: September 17, 2021
DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information 8-298
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: √ Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Riverside and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Cathedral City, Calif. Date 1981 T4S; 66E; SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Sec 30 ; S.B. B.M.
Elevation: Approximately 265 feet above mean sea level c. Address N/A City Rancho Mirage Zip d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11 ; 556,605 mE/ 3,739,824 mN UTM Derivation: USGS Quad √ GPS (NAD 83)
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, etc., as appropriate) Located on APN 685- 090-005, approximately 1,700 feet south of Dinah Shore Drive and 20 feet west of Monterey Avenue
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries): The site is composed of the scattered remains of a “jackrabbit homestead” from the post-WWII era, including concrete fragments, lumber, composite shingles, nails, and plate-glass shards.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AH2: Structural remains *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object √ Site District Element of District Isolate Other
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,
accession #) Taken on September
15, 2021; view to the south
*P6. Date Constructed/Age of Sources:
√ Historic Prehistoric Both
*P7. Owner and Address: Retail Net
Lease Properties, Inc., 74998
Country Club Drive, Suite 220-
345, Palm Desert, CA 92260
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and
address) Daniel Ballester and
Hunter O’Donnell, CRM TECH,
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite
A/B, Colton, CA 92324
*P9. Date Recorded: September 15,
2021
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive-level survey for
CEQA-compliance
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none.”) Bai “Tom” Tang, Ben Kerridge, and Daniel Ballester (2022): Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey:
Reiling Trust Mixed-Use Project, Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 685-090-002, -003, and -005 to -007, City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California
*Attachments: None √ Location Map √ Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record √ Archaeological Record District Record Linear Resource Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information 8-299
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
A1. Dimensions: a. Length 75 feet (NW-SE) b. Width 50 feet (NE-SW) Method of Measurement: Paced Taped Visual estimate √ Other: GPS Method of Determination (Check any that apply.): √ Artifacts √ Features Soil Vegetation Topography Cut bank Animal burrow Excavation Property boundary Other (Explain):
Reliability of Determination: √ High Medium Low Explain:
Limitations (Check any that apply): Restricted access Paved/built over Site limits incompletely defined Disturbances Vegetation Other (Explain):
A2. Depth: None √ Unknown Method of Determination:
*A3. Human Remains: Present √ Absent Possible Unknown (Explain):
*A4. Features: (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch map.) Portions of the dwelling, namely parts of the framing, are still in situ and broken off at ground level. Composite shingles, concrete fragments, nails, lumber, plate-glass shards are scattered around the feature. *A5. Cultural Constituents: (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., not associated with features.) None
*A6. Were Specimens Collected? √ No Yes (If yes, attach Artifact Record or catalog and identify where specimens are curated.)
*A7. Site Condition: Good Fair √ Poor (Describe disturbances.): The dwelling is in ruins and scattered across the ground, with no substantial portions remaining standing while the artifacts present are heavily degraded.
*A8. Nearest Water (Type, distance, and direction.): The Whitewater River is approximately 3.3 miles to the southwest.
*A9. Elevation: Varies from approximately 265 feet above mean sea level A10. Environmental Setting: (Describe vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope, aspect, exposure, etc.): The site is located on the mostly level desert floor with small sand dune drifts scattered throughout. The soil generally consists of fine to medium -grained sand with occasional eruptions of quartzite scattered throughout the area. Far from the closest hills there is no evidence of regular alluvial action.
Vegetation would have been typical desert scrubs and bushes inhabited by fauna native to the area, with creosote being the most dominant vegetation present.
A11. Historical Information: In 1938 the Small Tract Act was passed allowing plots of federal land up to five acres in size to be claimed by applicants with the requirement that the land be developed. This resulted in the creation of “jackrabbit homesteads,” simple residential structures constructed cheaply for the express purpose of laying claim to the land. These structures began appearing in 1938 but their numbers escalated rapidly after WWII with the sudden availability in building material and the necessity for more housing. This particular claim was patented to Maxwell Elliot Risvold in 1960. *A12. Age: Prehistoric Protohistoric 1542-1769 1769-1848 1848-1880 1880-1914 1914-1945 √ Post 1945 Undetermined Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known:
A13. Interpretations: (Discuss scientific, interpretive, ethnic, and other values of site, if known) A14. Remarks: The site does not appear eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources.
A15. References: (Documents, informants, maps, and other references.): See Item A11.
A16. Photographs: (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Record.):
Original Media/Negatives Kept at: CRM TECH, Colton, California *A17. Form Prepared by: Ben Kerridge, Hunter O’Donnell, and Daniel Ballester Date: December 1, 2021
Affiliation and Address: CRM TECH, 1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B, Colton, CA 92324
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information 8-300
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
*Map Name: Cathedral City and Myoma, Calif.
*Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map: 1978/1981
DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information 8-301
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
SKETCH MAP Trinomial
*Drawn by: Daniel Ballester *Date: September 17, 2021
DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information 8-302
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P1. Other Identifier: MC-01
*P2. Location: √ Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Riverside and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Cathedral City, Calif. Date 1981 T4S; R6E; SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Sec 30; S.B. B.M.
Elevation: Approximately 295 feet above mean sea level c. Address N/A City Rancho Mirage Zip d. UTM:(Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11; 556,324 mE / 3,739,577 mN UTM Derivation: USGS Quad √ GPS (NAD 83)
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, etc., as appropriate)
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) This isolate consists of a single aluminum Hamm’s 12 ounce “drawn” or “punched” can dating to the early 1970s.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AH16: Other (isolated refuse item) *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District √ Isolate Other
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,
accession #) Taken on September
15, 2021
*P6. Date Constructed/Age of Sources:
√ Historic Prehistoric Both
*P7. Owner and Address: Retail Net
Lease Properties, Inc., 74998
Country Club Drive, Suite 220-
345, Palm Desert, CA 92260
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and
address) Daniel Ballester and
Hunter O’Donnell, CRM TECH,
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite
A/B, Colton, CA 92324
*P9. Date Recorded: September 15,
2021
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive-level survey for
CEQA-compliance
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none.”) Bai “Tom” Tang, Ben Kerridge, and Daniel Ballester (2022): Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey:
Reiling Trust Mixed-Use Project, Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 685-090-002, -003, and -005 to -007, City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California
*Attachments: None √ Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Resource Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information 8-303
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
*Map Name: Cathedral City and Myoma, Calif.
*Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map: 1978/1981
DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information 8-304
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P1. Other Identifier: MC-02
*P2. Location: √ Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Riverside and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Cathedral City, Calif. Date 1981 T4S; R6E; SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Sec 30; S.B. B.M.
Elevation: Approximately 295 feet above mean sea level c. Address N/A City Rancho Mirage Zip d. UTM:(Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11; 556,315 mE / 3,739,551 mN UTM Derivation: USGS Quad √ GPS (NAD 83)
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, etc., as appropriate)
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) This isolate consists of a single metal sanitary can.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AH16: Other (isolated refuse item)
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District √ Isolate Other
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,
accession #) Taken on September
15, 2021
*P6. Date Constructed/Age of Sources:
√ Historic Prehistoric Both
*P7. Owner and Address: Retail Net
Lease Properties, Inc., 74998
Country Club Drive, Suite 220-
345, Palm Desert, CA 92260
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and
address) Daniel Ballester and
Hunter O’Donnell, CRM TECH,
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite
A/B, Colton, CA 92324
*P9. Date Recorded: September 15,
2021
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive-level survey for
CEQA-compliance
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none.”) Bai “Tom” Tang, Ben Kerridge, and Daniel Ballester (2022): Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey:
Reiling Trust Mixed-Use Project, Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 685-090-002, -003, and -005 to -007, City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California
*Attachments: None √ Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Resource Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information 8-305
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
*Map Name: Cathedral City and Myoma, Calif.
*Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map: 1978/1981
DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information 8-306
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P1. Other Identifier: MC-03
*P2. Location: √ Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Riverside and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Cathedral City, Calif. Date 1981 T4S; R6E; SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Sec 30; S.B. B.M.
Elevation: Approximately 295 feet above mean sea level c. Address N/A City Rancho Mirage Zip d. UTM:(Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11; 556,370 mE / 3,739,880 mN UTM Derivation: USGS Quad √ GPS (NAD 83)
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, etc., as appropriate)
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) This isolate consists of a single flat-top beverage can with interlocking seams and opened with a “church key.”
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AH16: Other (isolated refuse item)
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District √ Isolate Other
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,
accession #) Taken on September
15, 2021
*P6. Date Constructed/Age of Sources:
√ Historic Prehistoric Both
*P7. Owner and Address: Retail Net
Lease Properties, Inc., 74998
Country Club Drive, Suite 220-
345, Palm Desert, CA 92260
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and
address) Daniel Ballester and
Hunter O’Donnell, CRM TECH,
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite
A/B, Colton, CA 92324
*P9. Date Recorded: September 15,
2021
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive-level survey for CEQA-compliance
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none.”) Bai “Tom” Tang, Ben Kerridge, and Daniel Ballester (2022): Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey:
Reiling Trust Mixed-Use Project, Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 685-090-002, -003, and -005 to -007, City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California
*Attachments: None √ Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Resource Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information 8-307
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
*Map Name: Cathedral City and Myoma, Calif.
*Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map: 1978/1981
DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information 8-308
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P1. Other Identifier: MC-04
*P2. Location: √ Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Riverside and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Cathedral City, Calif. Date 1981 T4S; R6E; SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Sec 30; S.B. B.M.
Elevation: Approximately 295 feet above mean sea level c. Address N/A City Rancho Mirage Zip d. UTM:(Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11; 556,499 mE / 3,739,672 mN UTM Derivation: USGS Quad √ GPS (NAD 83)
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, etc., as appropriate)
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) This isolate consists of a single five-gallon round fuel can measuring 10.5 inches in diameter and 13.5 inches in height.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AH16: Other (isolated refuse item)
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District √ Isolate Other
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,
accession #) Taken on September
15, 2021
*P6. Date Constructed/Age of Sources:
√ Historic Prehistoric Both
*P7. Owner and Address: Retail Net
Lease Properties, Inc., 74998
Country Club Drive, Suite 220-
345, Palm Desert, CA 92260
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and
address) Daniel Ballester and
Hunter O’Donnell, CRM TECH,
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite
A/B, Colton, CA 92324
*P9. Date Recorded: September 15,
2021
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive-level survey for CEQA-compliance
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none.”) Bai “Tom” Tang, Ben Kerridge, and Daniel Ballester (2022): Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey:
Reiling Trust Mixed-Use Project, Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 685-090-002, -003, and -005 to -007, City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California
*Attachments: None √ Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Resource Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information 8-309
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
*Map Name: Cathedral City and Myoma, Calif.
*Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map: 1978/1981
DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information 8-310
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P1. Other Identifier: MC-05
*P2. Location: √ Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Riverside and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Cathedral City, Calif. Date 1981 T4S; R6E; SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Sec 30; S.B. B.M.
Elevation: Approximately 295 feet above mean sea level c. Address N/A City Rancho Mirage Zip d. UTM:(Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11; 556,540 mE / 3,739,924 mN UTM Derivation: USGS Quad √ GPS (NAD 83)
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, etc., as appropriate)
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) This isolate consists of a single brown glass bottle base with orange-peel stippling and a Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Company maker’s mark from 1954.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AH16: Other (isolated refuse item)
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District √ Isolate Other
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,
accession #) Taken on September
15, 2021
*P6. Date Constructed/Age of Sources:
√ Historic Prehistoric Both
*P7. Owner and Address: Retail Net
Lease Properties, Inc., 74998
Country Club Drive, Suite 220-
345, Palm Desert, CA 92260
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and
address) Daniel Ballester and
Hunter O’Donnell, CRM TECH,
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite
A/B, Colton, CA 92324
*P9. Date Recorded: September 15,
2021
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive-level survey for CEQA-compliance
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none.”) Bai “Tom” Tang, Ben Kerridge, and Daniel Ballester (2022): Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey:
Reiling Trust Mixed-Use Project, Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 685-090-002, -003, and -005 to -007, City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California
*Attachments: None √ Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Resource Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information 8-311
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
*Map Name: Cathedral City and Myoma, Calif.
*Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map: 1978/1981
DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information 8-312
APPENDIX C:
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Amendment County of Riverside Climate Action Plan (CAP) Greenhouse Gas Assessment
Meridian Consultants
November 2022
8-313
Los Angeles Office
706 S. Hill Street, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Westlake Village Office
920 Hampshire Road, Suite A5
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Date: November 16, 2022
To: Ben and Judy Reiling Revocable Trust
c/o Carolee Reiling
774 S. Hudson Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91106
Cc: Paul DePalatis, AICP
MSA Consulting, Inc.
From: Christ Kirikian
Principal | Director of Air Quality & Acoustics
Subject: Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Amendment
County of Riverside Climate Action Plan (CAP) Greenhouse Gas Assessment
Introduction
This memorandum includes a greenhouse gas consistency assessment of the Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) with the County of Riverside Climate Action Plan (CAP) Screening Table.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, the methods suitable for analysis of GHG emissions are:
• Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. The Lead Agency has discretion to select the model it considers most appropriate provided it supports its decision with substantial evidence. The Lead Agency should explain the limitation of the particular model or methodology selected for use.
• Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards The City has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions. Nor have South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Office of Planning and Research (OPR), California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), or any other state or regional agency adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing GHG emissions that is applicable to the Project.
Assessing the significance of a project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change involves: (1) developing pertinent inventories of GHG emissions, and (2) considering project consistency with applicable emission reduction strategies and goals. This evaluation of consistency with such plans is the sole basis for determining the significance of the Project’s GHG-related impacts on the environment.
In March 2013, the City adopted the 2013 Sustainability Action Plan: Leadership in Energy Efficiency (Sustainability Plan) in order to set GHG reduction goals and measures. The Sustainability Plan is a 8-314
framework for the documenting and implementation of policies and programs designed to reduce the City’s GHG emissions. However, these policies and programs were meant to work towards the previous Statewide target of 1990 levels by 2020, set by Assembly Bill (AB) 32.
The County of Riverside has a CAP (recently updated in December 2019) that addresses current GHG emissions reduction in concert with AB 32, Senate Bill (SB) 32 and Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, and international efforts to address global climate change, including specific local requirements that would substantially lessen the cumulative problem. Thus, the CAP update fulfills the description of mitigation found in CEQA Guidelines §15130(a)(3) and §15183.5. The CAP provides a methodology for determining whether implementation of a project will result in significant GHG emissions and air quality impacts. The SCAQMD unofficially recommended a 3,000 MTCO2e per year initial screening threshold for individual projects. This screening criterion was incorporated into the CAP but does not apply for large-scale developments, such as the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. For those projects exceeding the 3,000 MTCO2e screening criterion, or those that are too large to evaluate against a simple metric, the CAP offers the screening table assessment to demonstrate compliance with AB 32.
The SPA proposes to develop a mixed-use community on approximately 35 acres that would provide a variety of residential housing options and commercial retail uses. The SPA would consist of a combination of residential uses (up to 400 dwelling units) including multi-family and senior apartments, and/or commercial retail uses (up to 150,000 square feet of retail space) including drive-through restaurants, or an approved combination of the residential and commercial component along with open space, parks, retention areas and associated improvements.
Riverside County Climate Action Plan (CAP)
The County adopted a CAP for the unincorporated areas in the County in 2012. The CAP establishes a programmatic approach to reducing GHG emissions associated with the continued growth of the County and set a framework for a comprehensive plan that addresses the GHG impacts of future development and County operations. Through the CAP, the County has established goals and policies that incorporate environmental responsibility into its daily management of residential, commercial, and industrial growth, education, energy and water use, air quality, transportation, waste reduction, economic development, and open space and natural habitats. The 2019 CAP Update was approved on December 17, 2019.The 2019 CAP update refines the County’s efforts to meet greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction strategies, specifically for the years 2035 and 2050. The 2019 CAP update builds upon the GHG reduction strategies in the 2015 CAP.
As part of the CAP, the County of Riverside published a guidance document entitled “Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Screening Tables, County of Riverside, California.” As part of this guidance, the County established a threshold of GHG emission levels required for analysis. The County determined that projects with emissions less than 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) 3,000 MTCO2e per year, when combined with modest energy efficiency measures (i.e., energy efficient at least five percent greater than 2010 Title 24 requirements and water conservation measures that match the January 2011 8-315
California Green Building Code) are considered less than significant and do not require any further analysis.
If the project exceeds 3,000 MTCO2e per year, then: (1) project emissions need to be reduced by 25 percent from year 2011 emissions levels or (2) alternatively, the project would need to achieve a minimum of 100 points pursuant to the CAP Screening Tables. The Screening Tables also allow developers to tailor their mitigation measures to the project’s needs, rather than have them be subject to “one- size fits all” mitigation measures that may not be appropriate.
The screening table method assigns points for each option incorporated into a project as mitigation or a project design feature (collectively referred to as “feature”). The point values correspond to the minimum emissions reduction expected from each feature. The menu of features allows maximum flexibility and options for how development projects can implement the GHG reduction measures.
Projects that garner at least 100 points will be consistent with the reduction quantities anticipated in the County’s CAP Update and would not require quantification of project-specific GHG emissions.
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. Similar approach was used by Meridian Consultants for recent development projects within the City including the Section 31 Specific Plan EIR (NOD dated December 6, 2019).
Analysis
The analysis of the impacts associated with the proposed Specific Plan followed the two-step CAP process described above. Based on the Project-specific analysis, the operational plus amortized construction emissions associated with the proposed Specific Plan would exceed the CAP's screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year without implementing features from the screening tables to reduce the emissions associated with the proposed Specific Plan.
According to the CAP, mixed-use projects (regardless of size) that garner at least 100 points will be consistent with the reduction quantities in the County’s CAP Update and would be considered less than significant for GHG emissions. As such, the option selected to determine GHG impacts is an analysis pursuant to the Screening Tables, as shown in Table 1: County of Riverside Greenhouse Gas Screening Table. It is important to note the features presented in Table 1 below represent adherence to regulatory compliance measures such as the General Plan, CalGreen Building Codes, Title 24 requirements and the City’s Municipal Code. Based on the proposed features for residential and commercial projects, the Project would result in a minimum total of 126 points. With adherence to regulatory compliance measures and incorporation of these features and given that the Project garners more than 100 points (by including GHG-reducing elements), the Project incorporates sufficient GHG reduction design features to be consistent with the Countywide plan for reducing emissions. As such, no mitigation would be required.
8-316
TABLE 1
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE GREENHOUSE GAS SCREENING TABLE
Feature Description Project Consistency Points
Screening for GHG Implementation Measures for Residential Development EE5.A.2
Windows
• Enhanced Window (0.32 U-Factor, 0.25
SHGC)
The Project will satisfy this measure by adhering to the California Title 24 Update which requires the maximum U-factor for windows to be
0.30. 4
EE10.A.3
Cool Roofs
• Enhanced Cool Roof (CRRC 0.2 aged solar
reflectance, 0.75 thermal emittance)
The Project will satisfy this measure by adhering to the current Building Energy Efficiency Standards for residential development within climate zones 10-15, which requires a solar reflectance of 0.2 and a thermal emittance of 0.75.
7 EE5.B.1
Heating/Cooling
Distribution System
• Modest Duct Insulation (R-6)
• Enhanced Duct insulation (R-8)
The Project will satisfy this measure by adhering to the 2019 Energy Code Insulation and QII Requirements which requires duct insulated to R-6 or R-8.
4 EE5.B.3
Water Heaters
• Improved Efficiency Water Heater (0.675
Energy Factor)
The Project will satisfy this measure as typical gas storage water heaters have uniform energy factor (UEF) of 0.60-0.76, electric storage water heaters approximately 0.90, and gas instantaneous units approximately 0.80-0.94.
7 EE5.B.5
Artificial Lighting
• High Efficiency Lights (50% of in-unit fixtures
are high efficiency).
The project will satisfy this measure by adhering to the requirements of the current CalGreen Building Code Section 150(k) 1A which requires all luminaries or light sources be high efficacy and by permanently installing lighting within the interior common areas in the buildings that are high efficacy luminaries, controlled by an occupant sensor.
6 W2.A.1
Water Efficient
Landscaping
• Only California Native Plants that requires
no irrigation or some supplemental irrigation
Adherence to Section 17.24.070 of the City’s Municipal Code requires landscape design plans include water efficient, drought tolerant, and native plant material. Invasive plants or escaped exotics shall be avoided.
5 W2.A.2
Water Efficient
Irrigation Systems
• Weather based irrigation control systems or
moisture sensors
Per Rancho Mirage Municipal Code 17.24.025, the City adopted CVWD’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) which establishes landscape and irrigation system design criteria to ensure sustainable landscape design. This requires new landscape plans be designed to incorporate more native and locally compatible drought tolerant planting materials and efficient irrigation systems. The Project will satisfy this measure by adhering to the requirements of 2 8-317
TABLE 1
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE GREENHOUSE GAS SCREENING TABLE
Feature Description Project Consistency Points
the 2022 CalGreen Building Code Section 4.304.1 and complying with MWELO as required by Riverside County Ordinance Section 859.2, resulting in a minimum of 20 percent reduced water use for outdoor irrigation
W2.B.1
Showers Water Efficient Showerheads (2.0 gpm)
The Project will satisfy this measure by adhering to the requirements of the current CalGreen Building Code Section 4.303.1 by installing showerheads not exceeding 2.0 gpm at 80 psi.
2 W2.B.2
Toilets Water Efficient Toilets (1.5 gpm)
The Project will satisfy this measure by adhering to the requirements of the current CalGreen Building Code Section 4.303.1 by installing water efficient toilets less than or equal to 1.28 gal/flush. 2 W2.B.3
Faucets Water Efficient faucets (1.28 gpm)
The Project will satisfy this measure by adhering to the requirements of the current CalGreen Building Code Section 4.303.1 by installing water efficient faucets for the lavatories, metering, and kitchen. 2 W2.B.4
Dishwasher
Water Efficient Dishwasher (6 gallons per cycle
or less)
The Project will satisfy this measure by adhering to the requirements of the current CalGreen Building Code Section 110.1 to install dishwashers that meet or exceed the ENERGY STAR Program requirements.
1 W2.B.5
Washing Machine
Water Efficient Washing Machine (Water factor
<5.5)
Compliant to the current Building Codes, buildings required to house Energy Star appliances. Additionally, The Project will satisfy this measure by adhering to the Riverside County General Plan Energy Efficiency and Conservation policy AQ 5.2 which adopts incentives and/or regulations to enact energy conservation requirements for private and public developments.
1 T2.A.1
Sidewalks
• Provide pedestrian linkage between
residential and commercial uses within 1
mile
Per Section 4.4 of the SPA, perimeter streets and edge conditions shall include landscape screening and buffering for successfully integrating into the surrounding area. Monterey Avenue will include a 25-foot landscape area with 8-foot meandering sidewalk.
The proposed residential community is located within a mile-radius to existing restaurants and services along Monterey Avenue, east of the project. Additionally, the project proposes up to 150,000 square feet of commercial/retail space. On-site sidewalk improvements will be implemented to improve pedestrian connectivity to the surroundings.
Additionally, the project would provide a pedestrian access network to link areas of the project site, encouraging people to walk instead of drive.
3 8-318
TABLE 1
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE GREENHOUSE GAS SCREENING TABLE
Feature Description Project Consistency Points
T2.A.2
Bicycle paths
• Provide bicycle paths within project
boundaries
• Provide bicycle path linkages between
residential and other land uses
There is currently an existing Class II Bicycle Lane and a proposed sidewalk on the project side of Monterey Avenue. Improvements resulting from the Project are expected to enhance, rather than obstruct or conflict with the City’s established goals on bicycle or pedestrian transportation or with any existing facilities. A new 8-foot bicycle/pedestrian trail is proposed along Via Vail and Monterey Avenue.
2 T4.A.1
Electric Vehicle
Recharging
• Provide circuit and capacity in garages of
residential units for use by an electric
vehicle. Charging stations are for on-road
electric vehicles legally able to drive on all
roadways including Interstate Highways and
freeways
Pursuant to Section 17.26.030 of the City’s Municipal Code, all new buildings shall be electric vehicle charging station ready. Additionally, the Project will satisfy this measure by adhering to the requirements of the current CalGreen Building Code Section 4.106.4.1 to install a raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit for each dwelling unit.
1 Subtotal Points Earned by Residential Project 49
Screening for GHG Implementation Measures for Commercial Development and Public Facilities EE10.A.2
Windows
• Enhanced Window Insulation (0.32 U-factor,
0.25 SHGC)
The Project will satisfy this measure by adhering to the California Title 24 Update which requires the maximum U-factor for windows to be
0.30. 5
EE10.B.1
Heating/Cooling
Distribution System
• Modest Duct insulation (R-6)
• Enhanced Duct Insulation (R-8)
The Project will satisfy this measure by adhering to the current Energy Code Insulation and QII Requirements which requires duct insulated to R-6 or R-8.
5 EE10.B.4 Water
Heaters
• Improved Efficiency Water Heater (0.675
Energy Factor)
The Project will satisfy this measure as typical gas storage water heaters have uniform energy factor (UEF) of 0.60-0.76, electric storage water heaters approximately 0.90, and gas instantaneous units approximately 0.80-0.94.
8 EE10.B.6
Artificial Lighting
• High Efficiency Lights (50% of in-unit fixtures
are high efficiency).
The project will satisfy this measure by adhering to the requirements of the current CalGreen Building Code Section 150(k) 1A which requires all luminaries or light sources be high efficacy and by permanently installing lighting within the interior common areas in the buildings that are high efficacy luminaries, controlled by an occupant sensor.
7 W2.D.1
Water Efficient
Landscaping
• Only California Native Plants that requires
no or only supplemental irrigation
Adherence to Section 17.24.070 of the City’s Municipal Code requires landscape design plans include water efficient, drought tolerant, and 5 8-319
TABLE 1
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE GREENHOUSE GAS SCREENING TABLE
Feature Description Project Consistency Points
native plant material. Invasive plants or escaped exotics shall be avoided.
W2.E.1
Showers Water Efficient Showerheads (2.0 gpm)
The Project will satisfy this measure by adhering to the requirements of the current CalGreen Building Code Section 4.303.1 by installing showerheads not exceeding 2.0 gpm at 80 psi.
2 W2.E.2
Toilets Water Efficient Toilets/Urinals (1.5 gpm)
The Project will satisfy this measure by adhering to the requirements of the current CalGreen Building Code Section 4.303.1 by installing water efficient toilets less than or equal to 1.28 gal/flush. 3 W2.E.3
Faucets Water Efficient faucets (1.28 gpm)
The Project will satisfy this measure by adhering to the requirements of the current CalGreen Building Code Section 4.303.1 by installing water efficient faucets for the lavatories, metering, and kitchen. 2 W2.E.4
Commercial
Dishwashers
Water Efficient dishwashers (20% water savings)
The Project will satisfy this measure by adhering to the requirements of the current CalGreen Building Code Section 110.1 to install dishwashers that meet or exceed the ENERGY STAR Program requirements, providing a minimum savings of 20% or greater. 2 T3.A.3
Employee
Bicycle/Pedestrian
Programs
• Complete sidewalk to residential within ½
mile
Per Section 4.4 of the SPA, perimeter streets and edge conditions shall include landscape screening and buffering for successfully integrating into the surrounding area. Monterey Avenue will include a 25-foot landscape area with 8-foot meandering sidewalk.
There is currently an existing Class II Bicycle Lane and a proposed sidewalk on the project side of Monterey Avenue. Improvements resulting from the Project are expected to enhance, rather than obstruct or conflict with the City’s established goals on bicycle or pedestrian transportation or with any existing facilities. A new 8-foot bicycle/pedestrian trail is proposed along Via Vail and Monterey Avenue.
1 T1.F.1
Parking
• Provide reserved preferential parking spaces
for car-share, carpool, and ultra-low or zero
emission vehicles.
Adherence to Section 17.26.030 of the City’s Municipal Code requires designated parking for any combination of low-emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles consistent with the adopted building code.
1 T2.B.1
Sidewalks
• Provide bicycle path linkages between
commercial and residential land uses within
1 mile.
Per Section 4.4 of the SPA, perimeter streets and edge conditions shall include landscape screening and buffering for successfully integrating into the surrounding area. Monterey Avenue will include a 25-foot landscape area with 8-foot meandering sidewalk.
2 8-320
TABLE 1
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE GREENHOUSE GAS SCREENING TABLE
Feature Description Project Consistency Points
The proposed residential community is located within a mile-radius to existing restaurants and services along Monterey Avenue, east of the project. Additionally, the project proposes up to 150,000 square feet of commercial/retail space. On-site sidewalk improvements will be implemented to improve pedestrian connectivity to the surroundings.
Additionally, the project would provide a pedestrian access network to link areas of the project site, encouraging people to walk instead of drive.
T2.B.2
Bicycle Paths
• Provide bicycle paths within project
boundaries
• Provide bicycle path linkages between
commercial and other land uses
There is currently an existing Class II Bicycle Lane and a proposed sidewalk on the project side of Monterey Avenue. Improvements resulting from the Project are expected to enhance, rather than obstruct or conflict with the City’s established goals on bicycle or pedestrian transportation or with any existing facilities. A new 8-foot bicycle/pedestrian trail is proposed along Via Vail and Monterey Avenue.
2 T4.B.1
Electric Vehicle
Recharging
• Provide circuit and capacity in
garages/parking areas for installation of
electric vehicle charging stations.
• Install electric vehicle charging stations in
garages/parking areas
Adherence to Section 17.26.030 of the City’s Municipal Code requires new construction and projects requiring discretionary action to provide electric vehicle charging stations. At the minimum, 4 vehicle charging stations would be required for 201 and over parking spaces. 32 Subtotal Points Earned by Commercial/Industrial Project 77 TOTAL POINTS Earned by Residential and Commercial/Industrial Project 126 Note: According to the CEQA Thresholds and Screening Tables Instructions for Project Application, for mixed-use projects both Screening Tables for GHG Implementation Measures for Residential Development and for Commercial Development and Public Facilities are to be filled out, but the points should be proportionally identical to the proportioning of the mix of uses.
8-321
Certification
The contents of this greenhouse gas assessment represent an accurate depiction of the consistency with the County of Riverside CAP associated with the Rancho Monterey SPA. The information contained in this memorandum is based on the best available information at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (818) 415-7274.
Sincerely,
Christ Kirikian, INCE
Principal | Director of Air Quality & Acoustics
[email protected]
8-322
APPENDIX D:
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.
May 2022
8-323
Rancho Monterey Specific
Plan
NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
PREPARED BY:
Bill Lawson, PE, INCE
[email protected]
(949) 584-3148
MAY 2, 2022
14271-03 Noise Study
8-324
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
ii
8-325
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
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 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Site Location .................................................................................................................................. 3
1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 3 2 FUNDAMENTALS ....................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Range of Noise .............................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Noise Descriptors .......................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Sound Propagation ........................................................................................................................ 8
2.4 Noise Control ................................................................................................................................ 9
2.5 Noise Barrier Attenuation ............................................................................................................. 9
2.6 Land Use Compatibility With Noise ............................................................................................ 10
2.7 Community Response to Noise ................................................................................................... 10
2.8 Vibration ..................................................................................................................................... 11 3 REGULATORY SETTING ............................................................................................................. 13
3.1 State of California Noise Requirements ...................................................................................... 13
3.2 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Noise Element ................................................................... 14
3.3 Operational Noise Standards ...................................................................................................... 15
3.4 Construction Noise Standards .................................................................................................... 17
3.5 Vibration Standards .................................................................................................................... 17 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ........................................................................................................... 19
4.1 Noise Level Increases (Threshold A) ........................................................................................... 19
4.2 Vibration (Threshold B) ............................................................................................................... 20
4.3 CEQA Guidelines Not Further Analyzed (Threshold C) ............................................................... 20
4.4 Significance Criteria Summary .................................................................................................... 21 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS .................................................................................. 23
5.1 Measurement Procedure and Criteria ........................................................................................ 23
5.2 Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................................... 23
5.3 Noise Measurement Results ....................................................................................................... 24 6 TRAFFIC NOISE METHODS AND PROCEDURES ........................................................................... 27
6.1 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model ........................................................................................ 27 7 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 31
7.1 Noise Contours ............................................................................................................................ 31
7.2 Existing (2022) Project Traffic Noise Level Increases .................................................................. 41
7.3 OY (2023) Project Traffic Noise Level Increases .......................................................................... 41
7.4 FY (2040) Project Traffic Noise Level Increases .......................................................................... 41 8 RECEIVER LOCATIONS .............................................................................................................. 49 9 OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS ................................................................................................ 51 8-326
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
iv
9.1 Operational Noise Sources .......................................................................................................... 51
9.2 Reference Noise Levels ............................................................................................................... 51
9.3 CadnaA Noise Prediction Model ................................................................................................. 54
9.4 Project Operational Noise Levels ................................................................................................ 54
9.6 Project Operational Noise Level Increases ................................................................................. 55 10 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ........................................................................................................ 59
10.1 Construction Noise Levels ........................................................................................................... 59
10.2 Construction Reference Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 59
10.3 Construction Noise Analysis ........................................................................................................ 61
10.4 Construction Noise Level Compliance ........................................................................................ 62
10.5 Construction Vibration Analysis .................................................................................................. 63 11 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 65 12 CERTIFICATION ........................................................................................................................ 67
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.1: CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE 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 9.1: CADNAA OPERATIONAL NOISE MODEL INPUTS
APPENDIX 10.1: CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL INPUTS
8-327
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
v
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP ............................................................................................................. 4 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN ...................................................................................................................... 5 EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS ................................................................................................... 7 EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION ............................................................................ 10 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION .......................................................... 12 EXHIBIT 3-A: NOISE LEVEL AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ............................................................... 16 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS .............................................................................. 25 EXHIBIT 8-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS .................................................................................................. 50 EXHIBIT 9-A: STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE LOCATIONS ..................................................................... 52 EXHIBIT 10-A: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS ................................................. 60
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS ................................................................. 1 TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS .................................................................................. 15 TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY ................................................................................ 21 TABLE 5-1: AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ........................................................................ 24 TABLE 6-1: OFF-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS ................................................................................. 28 TABLE 6-2: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................ 29 TABLE 6-3: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS .......................................................................................... 30 TABLE 6-4: TRAFFIC FLOW BY VEHICLE TYPE (VEHICLE MIX) .............................................................. 30 TABLE 7-1: EXISTING WITHOUT PROJECT CONTOURS ....................................................................... 32 TABLE 7-2: EXISTING WITH PROJECT ALT1 CONTOURS ...................................................................... 33 TABLE 7-3: EXISTING WITH PROJECT ALT2 CONTOURS ...................................................................... 34 TABLE 7-4: OY (2023) WITHOUT PROJECT CONTOURS ....................................................................... 35 TABLE 7-5: OY WITH PROJECT ALT1 CONTOURS ................................................................................ 36 TABLE 7-6: OY WITH PROJECT ALT2 CONTOURS ................................................................................ 37 TABLE 7-7: FY (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONTOURS ....................................................................... 38 TABLE 7-8: FY WITH PROJECT ALT1 CONTOURS ................................................................................ 39 TABLE 7-9: FY WITH PROJECT ALT2 CONTOURS ................................................................................ 40 TABLE 7-10: EXISTING WITH PROJECT ALT1 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES .................................... 42 TABLE 7-11: EXISTING WITH PROJECT ALT2 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES .................................... 43 TABLE 7-12: OY WITH PROJECT ALT1 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ............................................. 44 TABLE 7-13: OY WITH PROJECT ALT2 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ............................................. 45 TABLE 7-14: FY WITH PROJECT ALT1 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES .............................................. 46 TABLE 7-15: FY WITH PROJECT ALT2 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES .............................................. 47 TABLE 9-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ...................................................................... 53 TABLE 9-2: PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS ............................................................................. 55 TABLE 9-3: DAYTIME PROJECT STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE LEVEL INCREASES .................................. 56 TABLE 9-4: EVENING PROJECT STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ................................... 56 TABLE 9-5: NIGHTTIME PROJECT STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ............................... 57 TABLE 10-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS .................................................................... 61 TABLE 10-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY .................................................. 62 8-328
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
vi
TABLE 10-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE .................................................................. 62 TABLE 10-4: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ...................................... 63 TABLE 10-5: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS ................................................................ 64
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 Rancho Monterey Specific Plan
REMEL Reference Energy Mean Emission Level
RMS Root-mean-square
VdB Vibration Decibels
8-329
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
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 Rancho Monterey Specific Plan development (“Project”). The Project site is located to the west of Monterey Avenue and east of Key Largo Avenue in the City of Rancho Mirage. The Project proposes to develop approximately 35 acres to include approximately 150,000 square feet of commercial use and up to 400 dwelling units. This noise study has been prepared to satisfy applicable City of Rancho Mirage 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 -
Operational Noise 9 Less Than Significant -
Construction Noise
10 Less Than Significant -
Construction Vibration Less Than Significant -
8-330
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
2 This page intentionally left blank
8-331
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
3 1 INTRODUCTION
This noise analysis has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed Rancho Monterey Specific Plan (“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 stationary source noise and short-term construction noise and vibration impacts.
1.1 SITE LOCATION
The proposed Project is located to the west of Monterey Avenue and east of Key Largo Avenue in the City of Rancho Mirage, as shown on Exhibit 1-A. The Project area is a 35-acre planning area on the west side of Monterey Avenue that allows for medium density residential and commercial uses.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is a 35-acre planning area within the Monterey Specific Plan that proposes a mixed - use project on the west side of Monterey Avenue within the corporate limits of City of Rancho Mirage. This Project would replace this portion of the existing Specific Plan and establish site - specific development standards, land use regulations, and programs to guide the development of the property in a manner that is consistent with the Rancho Mirage General Plan whil e also maintaining flexibility to respond to changing conditions that factor in any long -term development.
The Project proposes a mixed-use development, as shown in Exhibit 1-B, that would allow up to the following land uses:
• 400 medium rise dwelling units (2-3 stories)
• 150,000 square feet of retail use
8-332
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
4 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP
8-333
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
5 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN
8-334
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
6 This page intentionally left blank
8-335
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
7 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 typical noise levels and their subjective loudness and effects that are described in more detail below.
EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Source: Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (EPA/ONAC 550/9 -74-004) March 1974.
2.1 RANGE OF NOISE
Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (2) 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 8-336
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
8 at approximately 1,000 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. (3) 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) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite 24 -hour noise level is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time-of-day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when noise can become more intrusive. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. The City of Rancho Mirage 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. (2)
2.3.2 GROUND ABSORPTION
The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receiver is usually very close to the ground.
Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually 8-337
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
9 sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 ft. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receiver such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source. (4)
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 leve ls. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects. (2)
2.3.4 SHIELDING
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation typically only has an “out of sight, out of mind” effect. That is, the perception of noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the line-of-sight to nearby residents. However, for vegetation to provide a substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide and dense enough to completely obstruct the line-of-sight between the source and the receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to 5 dBA of noise reduction. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise abatement measure. (5)
2.4 NOISE CONTROL
Noise control is the process of obtaining an acceptable noise environment for an observation point or receiver by controlling the noise source, transmission path, receiver, or all three. This concept is known as the source-path-receiver concept. In general, noise control measures can be applied to these three elements.
2.5 NOISE BARRIER ATTENUATION
Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 15 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receiver.
Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must block the line - of-sight path of sound from the noise source.
8-338
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
10 2.6 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH NOISE
Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches, and residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial developments and related activities. As ambient noise levels affect the perceived amenity or livability of a development, so too can the mismanagement of noise impacts impair the economic health and growth potential of a community by reducing the area’s desirability as a place to live, shop and work. For this reason, land use compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design process. The FHWA encourages State and Local government to regulate land development in such a way that noise -sensitive land uses are either prohibited from being located adjacent to a highway, or that the developments are planned, designed, and constructed in such a way that noise impacts are minimized. (6)
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. (7 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. (8) According to research originally published in the Noise Effects Handbook (7), 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. (4)
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)
8-339
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
11 2.8 VIBRATION
Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (8) , vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-borne noise. Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, ground -borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency.
There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings but is not always suitable for evaluating human response (annoyance) because it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Instead, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude often described as the root mean square (RMS). The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS. Decibel notation (VdB) serves to reduce the range of numbers used to describe human response to vibration.
Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receivers for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and sick), and vibration-sensitive equipment and/or activities.
The background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is generally 50 VdB. Ground-borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration-velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Exhibit 2-C illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural response to ground -borne vibration. 8-340
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
12 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION
Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 8-341
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
13 3 REGULATORY SETTING
To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. In most areas, automobile and truck traffic is the major source of environmental noise. Traffic activity generally produces an average sound level that remains constant with time. Air and rail traffic, and commercial and industrial activities are also major sources of noise in some areas.
Federal, state, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise. Federal and state agencies generally set noise standards for mobile sources such as aircraft and motor vehicles, while regulation of stationary sources is left to local agencies.
3.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOISE REQUIREMENTS
The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. State law requires that each county and city adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise Element which is to be prepared per guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). (9) The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts.
3.1.1 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, Section 1206 to 1207.11.2. These noise standards are applied to new construction that contains dwelling units or sleeping units, such as residential and hotel or motel uses, in California for controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. For new building s, the acceptable interior noise limit is 45 dBA CNEL in habitable rooms (10).
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 (11). These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. The regulations spe cify 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 construction to provide an interior noise level environment attributable to exterior sources that does not exceed an hourly equivalent level of 50 dBA Leq in occupied areas during any hour of operation.
8-342
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
14 3.2 CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT The City of Rancho Mirage has adopted a Noise Element of the General Plan (2017) to control and abate environmental noise, and to protect the citizens of and visitor s to the City of Rancho Mirage from excessive exposure to noise. The Noise Element is intended to help align the community’s various land uses with the existing and future noise environment and thus ensure that any negative effects of noise are minimized or completely avoided.
The noise criteria identified in the City of Rancho Mirage Noise Element are guidelines to evaluate the land use compatibility of transportation related noise. To assist the City in the planning compatible uses, a range of exterior noise thresholds for various land uses have been developed.
Particularly sensitive land uses include residences, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals and nursing homes, and destination resort areas. In addition, parks, golf courses, and other outdoor activity areas can be sensitive to noise disturbances. Less sensitive land uses include commercial uses, conventional hotels and motels, and playgrounds. Least sensitive to noise are heavy commercial uses, transportation, communication, and utility land uses.
To protect noise sensitive land uses, and minimize the effects of excessive and nuisance noise, the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Noise Element has outlined the following noise policies with the goal (Goal N 1) of a noise environment providing peace and quiet that complements and is consistent with Rancho Mirage’s resort residential character:
Policy N 1.1: Land use patterns, associated traffic and its distribution, and individual developments shall be assessed for their potential to generate adverse and incompatible noise impacts.
Noise exceeding normally acceptable levels shall be appropriately mitigated.
Policy N 1.2 Noise sensitive land uses, including residences, resorts, community open space, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, and convalescent homes, shall be protected from high noise levels emitted by both existing and future noise sources.
Policy N 1.3 Project designs shall be required to include measures that assure that interior noise levels for residential development do not exceed 45 dBA CNEL.
Policy N 1.4 Land uses allowed adjacent to Rancho Mirage’s major arterial roads and highways, or the Southern Pacific Railroad/I-10 corridor, should generally be limited to those that are compatible with higher noise levels to maximize noise-related land use compatibility.
Policy N 1.5 Develop and maintain a circulation plan that is consistent with the resort residential character of Rancho Mirage, avoids impacts to existing and planned sensitive receptors/uses, and provides fixed routes for existing and future truck traffic.
The Noise Level and Land Use Compatibility matrix in the Noise Element shown on Exhibit 3-A provides guidelines to evaluate the acceptability of the transportation related noise level impacts. Single-family residential land uses are considered normally acceptable with exterior noise levels below 60 dBA CNEL and conditionally acceptable with noise levels below 70 dBA CNEL. Multi-family residential land uses are considered normally acceptable with exterior noise levels below 65 dBA CNEL and conditionally acceptable with noise levels below 70 dBA CNEL. For 8-343
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
15 conditionally acceptable land use, new construction or development undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and necessary noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply system or air conditioning will normally suffice. Outdoor environment will seem noisy.
3.3 OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from a designated fixed location or private propert y such as the Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Project, stationary-source (operational) noise such as the expected outdoor seating activity, trash enclosure activity, roof-top air conditioning units, and parking lot activity are typically evaluated against standards established under a jurisdiction’s Municipal Code. The City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code noise standards are provided in Appendix 3.1. The City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code (RMMC), Chapter 8.45 establishes the noise level standards for stationary noise sources. The Project’s land use will potentially impact nearby noise-sensitive uses in the Project study area. For nearby noise-sensitive residential land uses in the Project study area, Section 8.45.030 identifies the base exterior noise level standard of 55 dBA Leq during the daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.), 50 dBA Leq during the evening hours (6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 45 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). (12) Table 3-1 provides a summary of the City of Rancho Mirage operational exterior noise level standards for all land use types.
TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS
Land
Use1 Zone2 Time
Period
Exterior Noise
Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Residential
(Low Density)
R-E, H-R,
R-L-2, R-L-3
Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) 55
Evening (6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) 50
Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) 45
Residential
(Medium and High Density,
Hospital, Open Space)
OS, R-M,
R-H, MHP
Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) 60
Evening (6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) 55
Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) 50
Commercial Office, Resort
Commercial, Mixed Use,
Institutional
O, P, Rs-H,
M-U
Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) 65
Evening (6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) 60
Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) 55
Commercial Neighborhood,
General Commercial, Commercial
Recreation, Light Industrial
C-N, C-G, I-
L
Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) 70
Evening (6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) 65
Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) 60
1 City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code, Section 8.45.030 Exterior noise level limits (Appendix 3.1). 2 City of Rancho Mirage Land Use and Zoning Map
3 Leq represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period.
8-344
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
16 EXHIBIT 3-A: NOISE LEVEL AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Noise Element (2017) Exhibit 20
8-345
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
17 3.4 CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from the construction of Rancho Monterey Specific Plan, noise from construction activities is typically evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code. To control noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Project, the City has established limits to the hours of operation. The RMMC Section
15.04.030[A][11] indicates that construction, shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. an d 7:00 p.m. with no activity on Sundays and holidays (13). The City recognizes that construction noise is difficult to control and restricts allowable hours for this intrusion. Still, construction, even when restricted to within these hours, presents a nuisance value when conducted in proximity to sensitive receptors (14). However, neither the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan nor Municipal Code establish numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers. Therefore, a numerical construction threshold based on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for analysis of daytime construction impacts, as discussed below.
According to the FTA, local noise ordinances are typically not very useful in evaluating construction noise. They usually relate to nuisance and hours of allowed activity, and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels, but are generally not practical for assessing the impact of a construction project. Project construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land use. Due to the lack of standardized construction noise thresholds, the FTA provides guidelines that can be considered reasonable criteria for construction noise assessment. The FTA considers a daytime exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leq as a reasonable threshold for noise sensitive residential land use (8 p. 179).
3.5 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. Oth er construction equipment such as air compressors, light trucks, hydraulic loaders, etc., generates little or no ground vibration (8).
To analyze vibration impacts associated with the Rancho Monterey Specific Plan, vibration- generating activities are appropriately evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code if such standards exist. While Section 17.18.080 of the RMMC requires that no vibration associated with any use shall be allowed which is discernable beyond the boundary line of the subject property, the City of Rancho Mirage does not identify specific construction vibration level limits. Therefore, for analysis purposes, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, (15 p. 38) Table 19, vibration damage are used in this noise study to assess potential temporary construction-related impacts at adjacent building locations. The nearest noise sensitive buildings adjacent to the Project site can best be described as “older residential structures” with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of
0.3 PPV (in/sec).
8-346
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
18 This page intentionally left blank
8-347
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
19 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following significance criteria are based on currently adopted guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (1). For the purposes of this report, impacts would be potentially significant if the Project results in or causes:
A. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
B. Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? C. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
4.1 NOISE LEVEL INCREASES (THRESHOLD A)
Noise level increases resulting from the Project are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines described above at the closest sensitive receiver locations. Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing ambient noise levels, and the location of noise-sensitive receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. This approach recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant. (16) This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and differing individual experiences with noise.
Thus, an important way of determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise is the comparison of it to the existing environment to which one has adapted—the so-called ambient environment.
In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will typically be judged. The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) (17) developed guidance to be used for the assessment of project -generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level. The FICON recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by aircraft noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these recommendations are often used in environmental noise impact assessments involving the use of cumulative noise exposure metrics, such as the average -daily noise level (CNEL) and equivalent continuous noise level (Leq). The FICON guidance provides an established source of criteria to assess the impacts of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Based on the FICON criteria, the amount to which a given noise level increase is considered acceptable is reduced when the without Project noise levels are already shown to exceed certain land-use specific exterior noise level criteria. The specific levels are based on typical responses to noise level increases of 5 dBA or readily perceptible, 3 dBA or barely perceptible, and 1.5 dBA depending on the underlying without Project noise levels for noise- sensitive uses. These levels of increases and their perceived acceptance are consistent with guidance provided by both the Federal Highway Administration (4 p. 9) and Caltrans (18 p. 2_48). 8-348
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
20 4.2 VIBRATION (THRESHOLD B)
As described in Section 3.5, the vibration impacts originating from the construction of the Rancho Monterey Specific Plan, 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 structures” with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec).
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 airstrip. The closest airport is the Palm Springs International Airport located approximately 5.9 miles northwest 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.
8-349
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
21 4.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Noise 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 to identify potentially significant incremental noise level increases.
TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Analysis Receiving
Land Use Condition(s) Significance Criteria
Off-Site
Traffic
Noise-
Sensitive1
If ambient is 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 1.5 dBA CNEL Project increase Non-Noise-
Sensitive1,2
If ambient is 70 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase Operational All3 Exterior Noise Level Standards See Table 3-1 Construction
Noise-
Sensitive
Shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. with no activity on Sundays and holidays4
Noise Level Threshold5 80 dBA Leq
All Vibration Level Threshold6 0.3 PPV (in/sec)
1 FICON, 1992.
2 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Noise Element.
3 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Municipal Code, Section 8.45.030 4 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Municipal Code, Section15.04.030[A][10]. 5 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 6 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual, April 2020 Table 19. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
8-350
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
22 This page intentionally left blank
8-351
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
23 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
To assess the existing noise level environment, 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at six 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 Wednesday, August 11, 2021. 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. (19)
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 reasonable 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. (2) 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 (8).
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 (8). In other words, the area represented by the receiver shares similar shielding, terrain, and geometric relationship to the reference noise source. Receivers represent a location of noise sensitive areas and are used to estimate the future noise level impacts. Collecting reference ambient noise level measurements at the nearby sensitive receiver locations allows for a comparison of the before and after Project noise levels 8-352
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
24 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 (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Table 5 -1 identifies the hourly daytime (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.), evening (6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 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 Evening Nighttime
L1 Located north of the Project site near SJVC Rancho
Mirage at 34275 Monterey Avenue. 55.0 53.1 49.4
L2 Located southeast of the Project site near The Enclave Condominium Rentals at 35751 Gateway Drive. 54.4 52.4 50.1 L3 Located south of the Project site near single-family residence at 12 Chandon Court. 52.0 49.0 48.6
L4 Located south of the Project site near single-family residence at 72740 Via Florencia. 45.7 44.8 45.9
L5 Located west of the Project site near single-family
residence at 34620 Via Josefina. 44.8 45.8 47.0
L6 Located northwest of the Project site near Rancho
Mirage Dog Park at 34100 Key Largo Avenue. 50.7 49.9 49.3 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. "Day" = 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; "Evening" = 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Night" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Table 5-1 provides the equivalent noise levels used to describe the daytime, evening, and nighttime ambient conditions. These daytime and nighttime energy average noise levels represent the average of all hourly noise levels observed during these time periods expressed as a single number. Appendix 5.2 provides summary worksheets of the noise levels for each of the daytime and nighttime hours.
8-353
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
25 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
8-354
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
26 This page intentionally left blank
8-355
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
27 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 Rancho Mirage 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. (20) The FHWA Model arrives at a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy M ean Emission Level (REMEL). In California, the national REMELs are substituted with the California Vehicle Noise (Calveno) Emission Levels. (21) Adjustments are then made to the REMEL to account for:
the roadway classification (e.g., collector, secondary, major or arterial), the roadway active width (i.e., the distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway), the total average daily traffic (ADT), the travel speed, the percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks in the traffic volume, the roadway grade, the angle of view (e.g., whether the roadway view is blocked), the site conditions ("hard" or "soft" relates to the absorption of the ground, pavement, or landscaping), and the percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period. Research conducted by Caltrans has shown that the use of soft site conditions is appropriate for the application of the FHWA traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis. (22)
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 19 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 Rancho Mirage and City of Palm Desert General Plans Circulation Element, and the vehicle speeds. The ADT volumes used in this study are presented on Table 6-2 are based on the Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Draft Transportation Impact Assessment, prepared by Fehr & Peers (23) for the following traffic conditions:
• Existing (2022) Without Project Conditions
• Existing With Project Alternative 1 Conditions (with a proposed roadway connection completed) (E+P Alt1)
• Existing With Project Alternative 2 Conditions (with no proposed roadway connection) (E+P Alt2) • Opening Year (2023) Without Project Conditions
• Opening Year With Project Alternative 1 Conditions (with a proposed roadway connection completed) (OYP Alt1)
• Opening Year With Project Alternative 2 Conditions (with no proposed roadway connection) (OYP Alt2)
8-356
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
28 • Future Year (2040) Without Project Conditions
• Future Year With Project Alternative 1 Conditions (with a proposed roadway connection completed) (FYP Alt1)
• Future Year With Project Alternative 2 Conditions (with no proposed roadway connection) (FYP Alt2)
TABLE 6-1: OFF-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS
ID Roadway Segment Classification1
Distance from
Centerline to
Receiving Land
Use (Feet)3
Vehicle
Speed
(mph)
1 Monterey Av. n/o Varner Rd. Thoroughfare 59' 55
2 Monterey Av. s/o Varner Rd. Thoroughfare 59' 55
3 Monterey Av. n/o Dinah Shore Dr. Arterial Street 75' 55 4 Dinah Shore Dr. w/o Key Largo Av. Major Arterial 60' 45 5 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Key Largo Av. Major Arterial 60' 45 6 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Monterey Av. Arterial Street 75' 45 7 Key Largo Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. Local 30' 45
8 Monterey Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. Major Arterial 60' 55 9 Dick Kelly Dr. e/o Monterey Av. Secondary Street 54' 45 10 Monterey Av. s/o Dick Kelly Dr. Major Arterial 60' 55 11 Gerald Ford Dr. w/o Monterey Av. Minor Arterial 55' 50 12 Gerald Ford Dr. e/o Monterey Av. Arterial Street 75' 50 13 Monterey Av. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. Major Arterial 60' 55 14 Frank Sinatra Dr. w/o Monterey Av. Minor Arterial 55' 55 15 Frank Sinatra Dr. e/o Monterey Av. Arterial Street 75' 50 16 Monterey Av. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. Major Arterial 60' 55 17 Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. Minor Arterial 55' 50 18 Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. Arterial Street 75' 45 19 Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. Minor Arterial 55' 50 1 City of Rancho Mirage and City of Palm Desert General Plans Circulation Element 2 Distance to receiving land use is based upon the right-of-way distances.
8-357
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
29 TABLE 6-2: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ID Roadway Segment
Average Daily Traffic Volumes1
Existing (Alt 1) Existing (Alt 2) OY (Alt 1) OY (Alt 2) FY (Alt 1) FY (Alt 2) Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
1 Monterey Av. n/o Varner Rd. 15,500 15,800 15,500 15,800 15,300 15,600 15,300 15,600 16,000 16,300 16,000 16,300 2 Monterey Av. s/o Varner Rd. 30,800 32,000 30,800 32,100 31,000 32,200 31,000 32,200 34,700 35,900 34,700 36,000 3 Monterey Av. n/o Dinah Shore Dr. 51,900 55,200 51,900 55,200 51,500 54,700 51,500 54,700 59,100 62,400 59,100 62,400 4 Dinah Shore Dr. w/o Key Largo Av. 26,900 28,900 26,900 27,500 22,900 23,500 22,900 23,500 27,600 29,600 27,600 28,200 5 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Key Largo Av. 31,000 32,200 31,000 32,400 27,900 28,400 27,900 29,300 32,300 33,500 32,300 33,700 6 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 24,800 24,800 24,800 24,800 22,700 22,700 22,700 22,700 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 7 Key Largo Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 1,600 2,800 1,600 2,600 1,900 3,000 1,900 2,900 6,500 7,700 6,500 7,500 8 Monterey Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 32,600 35,100 32,600 35,100 33,400 35,800 33,400 35,900 40,000 42,500 40,000 42,500 9 Dick Kelly Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 5,400 5,800 5,400 5,800 5,500 5,900 5,500 5,900 5,300 5,700 5,300 5,700 10 Monterey Av. s/o Dick Kelly Dr. 32,900 36,800 32,900 35,800 33,400 36,500 33,400 36,500 39,500 43,400 39,500 42,400 11 Gerald Ford Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 16,500 17,800 16,500 17,000 15,700 16,200 15,700 16,200 24,700 26,000 24,700 25,200 12 Gerald Ford Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 14,500 15,700 14,500 15,000 13,300 13,800 13,300 13,800 19,300 20,500 19,300 19,800 13 Monterey Av. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. 33,300 36,200 33,300 35,200 34,100 36,000 34,100 36,000 39,400 42,300 39,400 41,300 14 Frank Sinatra Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 16,100 16,500 16,100 16,500 15,400 15,700 15,400 15,700 20,800 21,200 20,800 21,200 15 Frank Sinatra Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 16,000 16,300 16,000 16,300 15,500 15,900 15,500 15,900 21,300 21,600 21,300 21,600 16 Monterey Av. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. 35,800 37,100 35,800 37,100 36,600 37,900 36,600 37,900 44,200 45,500 44,200 45,500 17 Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 24,900 25,200 24,900 25,200 22,800 23,100 22,800 23,100 25,100 25,400 25,100 25,400 18 Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 24,900 25,100 24,900 25,100 23,100 23,400 23,100 23,400 26,500 26,700 26,500 26,700 19 Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. 38,000 38,700 38,000 38,700 37,700 38,400 37,700 38,400 42,500 43,200 42,500 43,200 1 Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Draft Transportation Impact Assessment, Fehr & Peers.
8-358
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
30 The ADT volumes vary for each roadway segment based on t he existing traffic volumes and the combination of project traffic distributions. 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 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.
8-359
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
31 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 Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Draft Transportation Impact Assessment. (23) 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 value and are measured from the center of the roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL noise levels. The noise contours do not consider the effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may attenuate ambient noise levels. In addition, because the noise contours reflect modeling of vehicular noise on area roadways, they appropriately do not reflect noise contributions from the surrounding stationary noise sources within the Project study area.
Tables 7-1 through 7-9 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 (2022) Without Project Conditions
• Existing With Project Alternative 1 Conditions (with a proposed roadway connection completed) (E+P Alt1)
• Existing With Project Alternative 2 Conditions (with no proposed roadway connection) (E+P Alt2) • Opening Year (2023) Without Project Conditions
• Opening Year With Project Alternative 1 Conditions (with a proposed roadway connection completed) (OYP Alt1)
• Opening Year With Project Alternative 2 Conditions (with no proposed roadway connection) (OYP Alt2)
• Future Year (2040) Without Project Conditions
• Future Year With Project Alternative 1 Conditions (with a proposed roadway connection completed) (FYP Alt1)
• Future Year With Project Alternative 2 Conditions (with no proposed roadway connection) (FYP Alt2)
Appendix 7.1 includes a summary of the dBA CNEL traff ic noise level contours for each of the traffic scenarios.
8-360
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
32 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 Monterey Av. n/o Varner Rd. 70.2 61 132 284
2 Monterey Av. s/o Varner Rd. 73.2 97 208 449
3 Monterey Av. n/o Dinah Shore Dr. 74.2 143 308 663
4 Dinah Shore Dr. w/o Key Largo Av. 71.9 80 173 372
5 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Key Largo Av. 72.5 88 190 409
6 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.8 62 134 289
7 Key Largo Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 61.9 9 19 40
8 Monterey Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 74.9 128 275 593
9 Dick Kelly Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 64.0 21 46 100
10 Monterey Av. s/o Dick Kelly Dr. 75.0 129 277 597
11 Gerald Ford Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 70.2 57 122 263
12 Gerald Ford Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 67.6 52 112 241
13 Monterey Av. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. 75.0 130 279 602
14 Frank Sinatra Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 71.1 66 141 305
15 Frank Sinatra Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.0 55 119 257
16 Monterey Av. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. 75.3 136 293 631
17 Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.0 75 161 347
18 Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.8 62 134 290
19 Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. 73.8 99 213 459
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.
8-361
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
33 TABLE 7-2: EXISTING WITH PROJECT ALT1 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 Monterey Av. n/o Varner Rd. 70.3 62 134 288
2 Monterey Av. s/o Varner Rd. 73.4 99 214 461
3 Monterey Av. n/o Dinah Shore Dr. 74.5 149 320 690
4 Dinah Shore Dr. w/o Key Largo Av. 72.2 84 181 391
5 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Key Largo Av. 72.7 90 195 420
6 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.8 62 134 289
7 Key Largo Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 64.3 13 27 58
8 Monterey Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 75.2 134 289 623
9 Dick Kelly Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 64.3 22 48 104
10 Monterey Av. s/o Dick Kelly Dr. 75.5 139 299 643
11 Gerald Ford Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 70.5 60 129 277
12 Gerald Ford Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 67.9 55 118 254
13 Monterey Av. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. 75.4 137 295 636
14 Frank Sinatra Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 71.3 67 144 310
15 Frank Sinatra Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.1 56 121 261
16 Monterey Av. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. 75.5 139 300 647
17 Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.0 75 162 349
18 Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.8 63 135 291
19 Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. 73.9 100 216 465
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.
8-362
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
34 TABLE 7-3: EXISTING WITH PROJECT ALT2 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 Monterey Av. n/o Varner Rd. 70.3 62 134 288
2 Monterey Av. s/o Varner Rd. 73.4 99 214 461
3 Monterey Av. n/o Dinah Shore Dr. 74.5 149 320 690
4 Dinah Shore Dr. w/o Key Largo Av. 72.0 81 175 378
5 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Key Largo Av. 72.7 91 196 421
6 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.8 62 134 289
7 Key Largo Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 64.0 12 26 56
8 Monterey Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 75.2 134 289 623
9 Dick Kelly Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 64.3 22 48 104
10 Monterey Av. s/o Dick Kelly Dr. 75.3 136 293 631
11 Gerald Ford Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 70.3 58 125 269
12 Gerald Ford Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 67.8 53 114 246
13 Monterey Av. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. 75.3 135 290 624
14 Frank Sinatra Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 71.3 67 144 310
15 Frank Sinatra Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.1 56 121 261
16 Monterey Av. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. 75.5 139 300 647
17 Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.0 75 162 349
18 Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.8 63 135 291
19 Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. 73.9 100 216 465
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.
8-363
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
35 TABLE 7-4: OY (2023) 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 Monterey Av. n/o Varner Rd. 70.2 61 131 282
2 Monterey Av. s/o Varner Rd. 73.2 97 209 451
3 Monterey Av. n/o Dinah Shore Dr. 74.2 142 306 659
4 Dinah Shore Dr. w/o Key Largo Av. 71.2 72 155 334
5 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Key Largo Av. 72.0 82 177 381
6 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.4 59 126 272
7 Key Largo Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 62.6 10 21 45
8 Monterey Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 75.0 130 280 603
9 Dick Kelly Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 64.1 22 47 101
10 Monterey Av. s/o Dick Kelly Dr. 75.0 130 280 603
11 Gerald Ford Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 70.0 55 118 255
12 Gerald Ford Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 67.2 49 106 227
13 Monterey Av. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. 75.1 132 284 611
14 Frank Sinatra Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 71.0 64 137 296
15 Frank Sinatra Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 67.9 54 117 252
16 Monterey Av. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. 75.4 138 297 641
17 Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 71.6 70 152 327
18 Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.5 59 128 275
19 Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. 73.8 98 212 457
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.
8-364
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
36 TABLE 7-5: OY WITH PROJECT ALT1 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 Monterey Av. n/o Varner Rd. 70.3 61 132 285
2 Monterey Av. s/o Varner Rd. 73.4 100 215 462
3 Monterey Av. n/o Dinah Shore Dr. 74.4 148 318 686
4 Dinah Shore Dr. w/o Key Largo Av. 71.3 73 158 340
5 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Key Largo Av. 72.1 83 179 386
6 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.4 59 126 272
7 Key Largo Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 64.6 13 28 61
8 Monterey Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 75.3 136 293 631
9 Dick Kelly Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 64.4 23 49 106
10 Monterey Av. s/o Dick Kelly Dr. 75.4 138 297 640
11 Gerald Ford Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 70.1 56 121 260
12 Gerald Ford Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 67.4 50 108 233
13 Monterey Av. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. 75.4 137 294 634
14 Frank Sinatra Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 71.0 65 139 299
15 Frank Sinatra Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.0 55 119 256
16 Monterey Av. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. 75.6 141 304 656
17 Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 71.7 71 153 330
18 Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.5 60 129 278
19 Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. 73.9 100 215 463
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.
8-365
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
37 TABLE 7-6: OY WITH PROJECT ALT2 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 Monterey Av. n/o Varner Rd. 70.3 61 132 285
2 Monterey Av. s/o Varner Rd. 73.4 100 215 462
3 Monterey Av. n/o Dinah Shore Dr. 74.4 148 318 686
4 Dinah Shore Dr. w/o Key Largo Av. 71.3 73 158 340
5 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Key Largo Av. 72.3 85 183 394
6 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.4 59 126 272
7 Key Largo Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 64.5 13 28 60
8 Monterey Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 75.3 136 294 633
9 Dick Kelly Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 64.4 23 49 106
10 Monterey Av. s/o Dick Kelly Dr. 75.4 138 297 640
11 Gerald Ford Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 70.1 56 121 260
12 Gerald Ford Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 67.4 50 108 233
13 Monterey Av. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. 75.4 137 294 634
14 Frank Sinatra Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 71.0 65 139 299
15 Frank Sinatra Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.0 55 119 256
16 Monterey Av. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. 75.6 141 304 656
17 Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 71.7 71 153 330
18 Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.5 60 129 278
19 Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. 73.9 100 215 463
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.
8-366
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
38 TABLE 7-7: FY (2040) 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 Monterey Av. n/o Varner Rd. 70.4 63 135 290
2 Monterey Av. s/o Varner Rd. 73.7 105 226 486
3 Monterey Av. n/o Dinah Shore Dr. 74.8 156 335 722
4 Dinah Shore Dr. w/o Key Largo Av. 72.0 82 176 379
5 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Key Largo Av. 72.7 91 195 421
6 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.8 63 135 290
7 Key Largo Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 68.0 22 47 102
8 Monterey Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 75.8 146 316 680
9 Dick Kelly Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 63.9 21 46 98
10 Monterey Av. s/o Dick Kelly Dr. 75.8 145 313 674
11 Gerald Ford Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.0 74 160 345
12 Gerald Ford Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.8 63 135 292
13 Monterey Av. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. 75.7 145 312 673
14 Frank Sinatra Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.3 78 168 361
15 Frank Sinatra Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 69.3 67 145 311
16 Monterey Av. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. 76.2 157 337 727
17 Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.0 75 162 349
18 Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 69.1 65 140 302
19 Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. 74.3 107 230 495
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.
8-367
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
39 TABLE 7-8: FY WITH PROJECT ALT1 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 Monterey Av. n/o Varner Rd. 70.5 63 136 294
2 Monterey Av. s/o Varner Rd. 73.9 107 231 497
3 Monterey Av. n/o Dinah Shore Dr. 75.0 161 348 749
4 Dinah Shore Dr. w/o Key Largo Av. 72.3 85 184 397
5 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Key Largo Av. 72.8 93 200 431
6 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.8 63 135 290
7 Key Largo Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 68.7 25 53 114
8 Monterey Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 76.1 153 329 708
9 Dick Kelly Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 64.2 22 48 103
10 Monterey Av. s/o Dick Kelly Dr. 76.2 155 333 718
11 Gerald Ford Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.2 77 166 357
12 Gerald Ford Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 69.1 65 141 304
13 Monterey Av. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. 76.1 152 328 706
14 Frank Sinatra Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.3 79 170 366
15 Frank Sinatra Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 69.3 68 146 314
16 Monterey Av. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. 76.4 160 344 741
17 Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.1 76 163 351
18 Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 69.1 65 141 303
19 Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. 74.4 108 232 501
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.
8-368
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
40 TABLE 7-9: FY WITH PROJECT ALT2 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 Monterey Av. n/o Varner Rd. 70.5 63 136 294
2 Monterey Av. s/o Varner Rd. 73.9 107 231 498
3 Monterey Av. n/o Dinah Shore Dr. 75.0 161 348 749
4 Dinah Shore Dr. w/o Key Largo Av. 72.1 83 178 384
5 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Key Largo Av. 72.9 93 201 433
6 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.8 63 135 290
7 Key Largo Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 68.6 24 52 112
8 Monterey Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 76.1 153 329 708
9 Dick Kelly Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 64.2 22 48 103
10 Monterey Av. s/o Dick Kelly Dr. 76.1 152 328 707
11 Gerald Ford Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.0 75 162 349
12 Gerald Ford Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 69.0 64 138 297
13 Monterey Av. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. 76.0 150 322 695
14 Frank Sinatra Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.3 79 170 366
15 Frank Sinatra Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 69.3 68 146 314
16 Monterey Av. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. 76.4 160 344 741
17 Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.1 76 163 351
18 Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 69.1 65 141 303
19 Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. 74.4 108 232 501
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.
8-369
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
41 7.2 EXISTING (2022) 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 Rancho Monterey Specific Plan 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 Existing without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 61.9 to 75.3 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-2 shows the Existing with Project Alt1 conditions will range from 64.3 to
75.5 dBA CNEL. Table 7-3 shows the Existing with Project Alt2 conditions will range from 64.0 to
75.5 dBA CNEL. Table 7-10 shows that the Project Alt1 off-site traffic noise level impacts will range from 0.0 to 2.4 dBA CNEL. Table 7-11 shows that the Project Alt2 off-site traffic noise level impacts will range from 0.0 to 2.1 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 OY (2023) PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Table 7-4 presents the Opening Year (2023) without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Opening Year (2023) without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 62.6 to 75.4 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-5 shows the Opening Year (2023) with Project Alt1 conditions will range from 64.4 to 75.6 dBA CNEL. Table 7-6 shows the Opening Year (2023) with Project Alt2 conditions will range from 64.4 to 75.6 dBA CNEL. Table 7-12 shows that the Project Alt1 off-site traffic noise level increases will range from 0.0 to 2.0 dBA CNEL. Table 7-13 shows that the Project Alt2 off-site traffic noise level increases will range from 0.0 to 1.9 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 FY (2040) PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Table 7-7 presents the Future Year (2040) without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Future Year (2040) without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 63.9 to 76.2 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-8 shows the Future Year (2040) with Project Alt1 conditions will range from
64.2 to 76.4 dBA CNEL. Table 7-9 shows the Future Year (2040) with Project Alt2 conditions will range from 64.2 to 76.4 dBA CNEL. Table 7-14 shows that the Project Alt1 off-site traffic noise level increases will range from 0.0 to 0.7 dBA CNEL. Table 7-15 shows that the Project Alt2 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.
8-370
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
42 TABLE 7-10: EXISTING WITH PROJECT ALT1 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 Monterey Av. n/o Varner Rd. 70.2 70.3 0.1 1.5 No
2 Monterey Av. s/o Varner Rd. 73.2 73.4 0.2 1.5 No
3 Monterey Av. n/o Dinah Shore Dr. 74.2 74.5 0.3 1.5 No 4 Dinah Shore Dr. w/o Key Largo Av. 71.9 72.2 0.3 1.5 No 5 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Key Largo Av. 72.5 72.7 0.2 1.5 No 6 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.8 68.8 0.0 1.5 No 7 Key Largo Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 61.9 64.3 2.4 3.0 No 8 Monterey Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 74.9 75.2 0.3 1.5 No 9 Dick Kelly Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 64.0 64.3 0.3 3.0 No
10 Monterey Av. s/o Dick Kelly Dr. 75.0 75.5 0.5 1.5 No 11 Gerald Ford Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 70.2 70.5 0.3 1.5 No 12 Gerald Ford Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 67.6 67.9 0.3 1.5 No 13 Monterey Av. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. 75.0 75.4 0.4 1.5 No 14 Frank Sinatra Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 71.1 71.3 0.2 1.5 No 15 Frank Sinatra Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.0 68.1 0.1 1.5 No 16 Monterey Av. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. 75.3 75.5 0.2 1.5 No 17 Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.0 72.0 0.0 1.5 No 18 Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.8 68.8 0.0 1.5 No 19 Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. 73.8 73.9 0.1 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)? 8-371
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
43 TABLE 7-11: EXISTING WITH PROJECT ALT2 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 Monterey Av. n/o Varner Rd. 70.2 70.3 0.1 1.5 No
2 Monterey Av. s/o Varner Rd. 73.2 73.4 0.2 1.5 No
3 Monterey Av. n/o Dinah Shore Dr. 74.2 74.5 0.3 1.5 No 4 Dinah Shore Dr. w/o Key Largo Av. 71.9 72.0 0.1 1.5 No 5 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Key Largo Av. 72.5 72.7 0.2 1.5 No 6 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.8 68.8 0.0 1.5 No 7 Key Largo Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 61.9 64.0 2.1 3.0 No 8 Monterey Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 74.9 75.2 0.3 1.5 No 9 Dick Kelly Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 64.0 64.3 0.3 3.0 No
10 Monterey Av. s/o Dick Kelly Dr. 75.0 75.3 0.3 1.5 No 11 Gerald Ford Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 70.2 70.3 0.1 1.5 No 12 Gerald Ford Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 67.6 67.8 0.2 1.5 No 13 Monterey Av. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. 75.0 75.3 0.3 1.5 No 14 Frank Sinatra Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 71.1 71.3 0.2 1.5 No 15 Frank Sinatra Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.0 68.1 0.1 1.5 No 16 Monterey Av. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. 75.3 75.5 0.2 1.5 No 17 Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.0 72.0 0.0 1.5 No 18 Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.8 68.8 0.0 1.5 No 19 Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. 73.8 73.9 0.1 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)?
8-372
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
44 TABLE 7-12: OY WITH PROJECT ALT1 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 Monterey Av. n/o Varner Rd. 70.2 70.3 0.1 1.5 No
2 Monterey Av. s/o Varner Rd. 73.2 73.4 0.2 1.5 No
3 Monterey Av. n/o Dinah Shore Dr. 74.2 74.4 0.2 1.5 No 4 Dinah Shore Dr. w/o Key Largo Av. 71.2 71.3 0.1 1.5 No 5 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Key Largo Av. 72.0 72.1 0.1 1.5 No 6 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.4 68.4 0.0 1.5 No 7 Key Largo Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 62.6 64.6 2.0 3.0 No 8 Monterey Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 75.0 75.3 0.3 1.5 No 9 Dick Kelly Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 64.1 64.4 0.3 3.0 No
10 Monterey Av. s/o Dick Kelly Dr. 75.0 75.4 0.4 1.5 No 11 Gerald Ford Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 70.0 70.1 0.1 1.5 No 12 Gerald Ford Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 67.2 67.4 0.2 1.5 No 13 Monterey Av. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. 75.1 75.4 0.3 1.5 No 14 Frank Sinatra Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 71.0 71.0 0.0 1.5 No 15 Frank Sinatra Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 67.9 68.0 0.1 1.5 No 16 Monterey Av. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. 75.4 75.6 0.2 1.5 No 17 Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 71.6 71.7 0.1 1.5 No 18 Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.5 68.5 0.0 1.5 No 19 Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. 73.8 73.9 0.1 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)?
8-373
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
45 TABLE 7-13: OY WITH PROJECT ALT2 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 Monterey Av. n/o Varner Rd. 70.2 70.3 0.1 1.5 No
2 Monterey Av. s/o Varner Rd. 73.2 73.4 0.2 1.5 No
3 Monterey Av. n/o Dinah Shore Dr. 74.2 74.4 0.2 1.5 No 4 Dinah Shore Dr. w/o Key Largo Av. 71.2 71.3 0.1 1.5 No 5 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Key Largo Av. 72.0 72.3 0.3 1.5 No 6 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.4 68.4 0.0 1.5 No 7 Key Largo Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 62.6 64.5 1.9 3.0 No 8 Monterey Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 75.0 75.3 0.3 1.5 No 9 Dick Kelly Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 64.1 64.4 0.3 3.0 No
10 Monterey Av. s/o Dick Kelly Dr. 75.0 75.4 0.4 1.5 No 11 Gerald Ford Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 70.0 70.1 0.1 1.5 No 12 Gerald Ford Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 67.2 67.4 0.2 1.5 No 13 Monterey Av. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. 75.1 75.4 0.3 1.5 No 14 Frank Sinatra Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 71.0 71.0 0.0 1.5 No 15 Frank Sinatra Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 67.9 68.0 0.1 1.5 No 16 Monterey Av. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. 75.4 75.6 0.2 1.5 No 17 Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 71.6 71.7 0.1 1.5 No 18 Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.5 68.5 0.0 1.5 No 19 Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. 73.8 73.9 0.1 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)? 8-374
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
46 TABLE 7-14: FY WITH PROJECT ALT1 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 Monterey Av. n/o Varner Rd. 70.4 70.5 0.1 1.5 No
2 Monterey Av. s/o Varner Rd. 73.7 73.9 0.2 1.5 No
3 Monterey Av. n/o Dinah Shore Dr. 74.8 75.0 0.2 1.5 No 4 Dinah Shore Dr. w/o Key Largo Av. 72.0 72.3 0.3 1.5 No 5 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Key Largo Av. 72.7 72.8 0.1 1.5 No 6 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.8 68.8 0.0 1.5 No 7 Key Largo Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 68.0 68.7 0.7 1.5 No 8 Monterey Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 75.8 76.1 0.3 1.5 No 9 Dick Kelly Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 63.9 64.2 0.3 3.0 No
10 Monterey Av. s/o Dick Kelly Dr. 75.8 76.2 0.4 1.5 No 11 Gerald Ford Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.0 72.2 0.2 1.5 No 12 Gerald Ford Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.8 69.1 0.3 1.5 No 13 Monterey Av. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. 75.7 76.1 0.4 1.5 No 14 Frank Sinatra Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.3 72.3 0.0 1.5 No 15 Frank Sinatra Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 69.3 69.3 0.0 1.5 No 16 Monterey Av. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. 76.2 76.4 0.2 1.5 No 17 Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.0 72.1 0.1 1.5 No 18 Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 69.1 69.1 0.0 1.5 No 19 Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. 74.3 74.4 0.1 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)?
8-375
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
47 TABLE 7-15: FY WITH PROJECT ALT2 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 Monterey Av. n/o Varner Rd. 70.4 70.5 0.1 1.5 No
2 Monterey Av. s/o Varner Rd. 73.7 73.9 0.2 1.5 No
3 Monterey Av. n/o Dinah Shore Dr. 74.8 75.0 0.2 1.5 No 4 Dinah Shore Dr. w/o Key Largo Av. 72.0 72.1 0.1 1.5 No 5 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Key Largo Av. 72.7 72.9 0.2 1.5 No 6 Dinah Shore Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.8 68.8 0.0 1.5 No 7 Key Largo Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 68.0 68.6 0.6 1.5 No 8 Monterey Av. s/o Dinah Shore Dr. 75.8 76.1 0.3 1.5 No 9 Dick Kelly Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 63.9 64.2 0.3 3.0 No
10 Monterey Av. s/o Dick Kelly Dr. 75.8 76.1 0.3 1.5 No 11 Gerald Ford Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.0 72.0 0.0 1.5 No 12 Gerald Ford Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 68.8 69.0 0.2 1.5 No 13 Monterey Av. s/o Gerald Ford Dr. 75.7 76.0 0.3 1.5 No 14 Frank Sinatra Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.3 72.3 0.0 1.5 No 15 Frank Sinatra Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 69.3 69.3 0.0 1.5 No 16 Monterey Av. s/o Frank Sinatra Dr. 76.2 76.4 0.2 1.5 No 17 Country Club Dr. w/o Monterey Av. 72.0 72.1 0.1 1.5 No 18 Country Club Dr. e/o Monterey Av. 69.1 69.1 0.0 1.5 No 19 Monterey Av. s/o Country Club Dr. 74.3 74.4 0.1 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)?
8-376
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
48 This page intentionally left blank
8-377
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
49 8 RECEIVER LOCATIONS
To assess the potential for long-term stationary source and short-term construction noise impacts, the following receiver locations, as shown on Exhibit 8-A, were identified as representative locations for analysis. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land. Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include schools, hospitals, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, and recreation areas.
Moderately 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 land, parking lots, warehousing, liquid and solid waste facilities, salvage yards, and transit terminals.
To describe the potential Project noise levels, six receiver locations in the vicinity of the Project site were identified. All distances are measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., private backyards) or at the building façade, whichever is closer to the Project site. The selection of receiver locations is based on FHWA guidelines and is consistent with additional guidance provided by Caltrans and the FTA, as previously described in Section 5.2.
Other sensitive land uses in the Project study area that are located at greater distances than those identified in this noise study will experience lower noise levels than those presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures. Distance is measured in a straight line from the project boundary to each receiver location.
R1: Location R1 represents the existing noise sensitive SJVC Rancho Mirage (college) at 34275 Monterey Avenue, approximately 49 feet north of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R1 is placed at the building façade. 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 The Enclave Condominium Rentals at 35751 Gateway Drive, approximately 1,849 feet southeast of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R2 is placed at the building 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 10 Picasso Court, approximately 1,006 feet south of the Project site. R3 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L3, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
R4: Location R4 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 72740 Via Florencia, approximately 358 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. 8-378
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
50 R5: Location R5 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 34620 Via Josefina., approximately 1,816 feet west of the Project site. R5 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.
R6: Location R6 represents the existing noise sensitive Rancho Mirage Dog Park at 34100 Key Largo Avenue, approximately 846 feet northwest 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, L6, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
EXHIBIT 8-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS
8-379
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
51 9 OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS
This section analyzes the potential stationary-source operational noise impacts at the nearest receiver locations, identified in Section 8, resulting from the operation of uses allowed by the Rancho Monterey Specific Plan. The residential areas within the Rancho Monterey Specific Plan are considered a noise-sensitive receiving land use and are not expected to include any meaningful sources of noise activity. Therefore, no potential operational noise impacts for the residential land use are analyzed in the noise study. Exhibit 9-A identifies the representative noise source activities used to assess the commercial and park land use noise source activities.
9.1 OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCES
This operational noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with the expected typical daytime and nighttime activities at the Project site. The on -site Project-related noise sources are expected to include: outdoor seating activity, trash enclosure activity, roof-top air conditioning units, and parking lot activity.
9.2 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 description of the reference noise level measurements shown on Table 9-1 used to estimate the Project operational noise impacts. It is important to note that the following projected noise levels assume the worst- case noise environment with the outdoor seating activity, trash enclosure activity, roof-top air conditioning units, and parking lot activity all operating at the same time. These sources of noise activity will likely vary throughout the day.
9.2.1 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 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. (19)
8-380
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
52 EXHIBIT 9-A: STATIONARY SOURCE NOISE LOCATIONS
8-381
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
53 TABLE 9-1: 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 Eve. Night
Outdoor Seating Activity 4' 60' 60' 0' 59.8 91.5
Trash Enclosure Activity 5' 10' 10' 10' 56.8 89.0
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 5' 39' 39' 28' 57.2 88.9 Parking Lot Activity 5' 60' 60' 30' 56.1 87.8
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. "Day" = 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; "Evening" = 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Night" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 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.
9.2.1 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, with laughing and talking. Outdoor common area activities are limited to the daytime hours only.
9.2.2 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 opening 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.
9.2.3 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 levels are
57.2 dBA Leq. Based on the typical operating conditions observed over a four -day measurement period, the roof-top air conditioning units are estimated to operate for an average of 39 minutes per hour during the daytime hours, and 28 minutes per hour during the nighttime hours. For this noise analysis, the air conditioning units are expected to be located o n 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. 8-382
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
54 9.2.4 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 activity 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.
9.3 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 using the spatially accurate Project site plan, georeferenced Nearmap aerial imagery, topography, buildings, and barriers in its calculations to predict outdoor noise levels.
Using the ISO 9613-2 protocol, CadnaA will calculate the distance from each noise source to the noise receiver locations, using the ground absorption, distance, and barrier/building attenuat ion inputs to provide a summary of noise level at each receiver and the partial noise level contributions by noise source. Consistent with the ISO 9613-2 protocol, the CadnaA noise prediction model relies on the reference sound power level (L w) to describe individual noise sources. While sound pressure levels (e.g., Leq) quantify in decibels the intensity of given sound sources at a reference distance, sound power levels (Lw) are connected to the sound source and are independent of distance. Sound pressure levels vary substantially with distance from the source and diminish because of intervening obstacles and barriers, air absorption, wind, and other factors. Sound power is the acoustical energy emitted by the sound source and is an absolute value that is not affected by the environment. The operational noise level calculations provided in this noise study account for the distance attenuation provided due to geometric spreading, when sound from a localized stationary source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. A default ground attenuation factor of 0.5 was used in the noise analysis to account for mixed ground representing a combination of hard and soft surfaces.
9.4 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Using the reference noise levels to represent the proposed Project operations that include, Urban Crossroads, Inc. calculated the operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated from the Project site and the Project-related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations. Tables 9-2 shows the calculated Project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., evening hours of 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Table 9-2 shows that the Project operational noise levels will range from 29.8 to 47.2 dBA Leq.
8-383
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
55 TABLE 9-2: PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Receiver
Location1
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3 Threshold Exceeded?4
Day Eve. Night Day Eve. Night Day Eve. Night
R1 47.2 47.2 42.4 65 60 55 No No No
R2 34.5 34.5 30.2 55 50 45 No No No
R3 38.6 38.6 34.1 55 50 45 No No No
R4 40.8 40.8 35.8 55 50 45 No No No
R5 34.7 34.7 29.8 55 50 45 No No No
R6 37.8 37.8 33.4 65 60 55 No No No
1 See Exhibit 8-A for the receiver locations.
2 Proposed Project operational noise level calculations included in Appendix 9.1. 3 City of Rancho Mirage exterior noise level standards by land use, as shown on Table 3-1. 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Day" = 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; "Evening" = 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Night" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
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 Rancho Mirage exterior noise level standards at nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. Table 9-2 shows that the operational noise levels associated with Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Project will satisfy the City of Rancho Mirage daytime, evening, and nighttime exterior noise level standards at all nearby receiver locations. Therefore, the operational noise impacts are considered less than significant at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations.
9.6 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 receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources. Since the units used to measure noise, decibels (dB), are logarithmic units, the Project-stationary source and existing ambient noise levels cannot be combined using standard arithmetic equations. (2) 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 increase s to the existing ambient noise environment. Noise levels that would be experienced at receiver locations when Project-source noise is added to the daytime, evening, and nighttime ambient conditions are presented on Tables 9-3, 9-4, and 9-5, respectively. As indicated on Tables 9-3, 9-4 and 9-5, the Project will generate an unmitigated operational noise level increases ranging from 0.0 to 2.0 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations.
Tables 9-3, 9-4 and 9-5 show that the Project operational noise level contributions satisfy the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented in Table 4 -1. Therefore, the 8-384
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
56 Project related operational noise level increases at all sensitive receiver locations will be less than significant.
TABLE 9-3: DAYTIME PROJECT STATIONARY SOURCE 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?7
R1 47.2 L1 55.0 55.7 0.7 5.0 No
R2 34.5 L2 54.4 54.4 0.0 5.0 No
R3 38.6 L3 52.0 52.2 0.2 5.0 No
R4 40.8 L4 45.7 46.9 1.2 5.0 No
R5 34.7 L5 44.8 45.2 0.4 5.0 No
1 See Exhibit 8-A for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 9-2. 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 Criteria as defined in Section 4.
TABLE 9-4: EVENING PROJECT STATIONARY SOURCE 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?7
R1 47.2 L1 53.1 54.1 1.0 5.0 No
R2 34.5 L2 52.4 52.5 0.1 5.0 No
R3 38.6 L3 49.0 49.4 0.4 5.0 No
R4 40.8 L4 44.8 46.3 1.5 5.0 No
R5 34.7 L5 45.8 46.1 0.3 5.0 No
1 See Exhibit 8-A for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 9-2. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed evening 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 Criteria as defined in Section 4.
8-385
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
57 TABLE 9-5: NIGHTTIME PROJECT STATIONARY SOURCE 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?7
R1 47.2 L1 49.4 51.4 2.0 5.0 No
R2 34.5 L2 50.1 50.2 0.1 5.0 No
R3 38.6 L3 48.6 49.0 0.4 5.0 No
R4 40.8 L4 45.9 47.1 1.2 5.0 No
R5 34.7 L5 47.0 47.2 0.2 5.0 No
1 See Exhibit 8-A for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 9-2. 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 Criteria as defined in Section 4.
8-386
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
58 This page intentionally left blank
8-387
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
59 10 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
This section analyzes potential impacts resulting from the short-term construction activities associated with the development of the Project. Exhibit 10-A shows the construction noise source locations in relation to the nearest sensitive receiver location s previously described in Section 8.
10.1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual recognizes that construction projects are accomplished in several different stages and outlines the procedures for assessing noise impacts during construction. Each stage has a specific equipment mix, depending on the work to be completed during that stage. As a result of the equipment mix, each stage has its own noise characteristics; some stages have higher continuous noise levels than others, and some have higher impact noise levels than others. The Project construction activities are expected to occur in the following stages:
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating
10.2 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. (25) The RCNM equipment database, provides a comprehensive list of the noise generating characteristics for specific t ypes of construction equipment. In addition, the database provides an acoustical usage factor to estimate the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation. 8-388
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
60 EXHIBIT 10-A: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS
8-389
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
61 10.3 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 10-1 presents the combined noise levels for the loudest construction equipment, assuming they operate at the same time. As shown on Table 10-2, the construction noise levels are expected to range from 38.7 to 60.4 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations.
Appendix 10.1 includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs.
TABLE 10-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction Activity
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)1
Combined
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)2
Combined Sound
Power Level
(PWL)3
Site
Preparation
Crawler Tractors 78
80 112 Hauling Trucks 72
Rubber Tired Dozers 75
Grading
Graders 81
83 115 Excavators 77
Compactors 76
Building
Construction
Cranes 73
81 113 Tractors 80
Welders 70
Paving
Pavers 74
83 115 Paving Equipment 82
Rollers 73
Architectural
Coating
Cranes 73
77 109 Air Compressors 74
Generator Sets 70
1 FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).
2 Represents the combined noise level for all equipment assuming they operate at the same time consistent with FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance.
3 Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings. Sound power levels calibrated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source.
8-390
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
62 TABLE 10-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation Grading Building
Construction Paving Architectural
Coating
Highest
Levels2
R1 57.4 60.4 58.4 60.4 54.4 60.4
R2 41.7 44.7 42.7 44.7 38.7 44.7
R3 45.7 48.7 46.7 48.7 42.7 48.7
R4 49.7 52.7 50.7 52.7 46.7 52.7
R5 42.4 45.4 43.4 45.4 39.4 45.4
R6 46.2 49.2 47.2 49.2 43.2 49.2
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-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 10.1.
10.4 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will satisfy the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities as shown on Tabl e 10-3. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise are considered less than significant at all receiver locations.
TABLE 10-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2 Threshold3 Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1 60.4 80 No
R2 44.7 80 No
R3 48.7 80 No
R4 52.7 80 No
R5 45.4 80 No
R6 49.2 80 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-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 10-2.
3 Construction noise level thresholds as shown on Table 4-1. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? 8-391
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
63 10.5 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized on Table 10-4. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential for human response (annoyance) and building damage using the following vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA. To describe the vibration impacts the FTA provides the following equation: PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
TABLE 10-4: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment PPV (in/sec)
at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large bulldozer 0.089
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual Table 10-5 presents the expected Project related vibration levels at the nearby receiver building façade locations. At distances ranging from 49 to 1,849 feet from the building façade to the Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from
0.000 to 0.077 in/sec PPV. Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec), the typical Project construction vibration level s 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 period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter.
8-392
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
64 TABLE 10-5: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS
Location1
Distance
to
Const.
Activity
(Feet)2
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
PPV (in/sec)3 Thresholds
PPV
(in/sec)4
Thresholds
Exceeded?5 Small
bulldozer Jackhammer Loaded
Trucks
Large
bulldozer
Vibratory
Roller
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 49' 0.001 0.013 0.028 0.032 0.077 0.077 0.3 No
R2 1,849' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.3 No
R3 1,006' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.3 No
R4 358' 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.3 No
R5 1,816' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.3 No
R6 846' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.3 No
1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-A.
2 Distance from receiver building facade to Project construction boundary (Project site boundary). 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (Table 10-4). 4 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020, Table 19, p. 38. 5 Does the peak vibration exceed the acceptable vibration thresholds? "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity
Moreover, the impacts at the site of the nearest sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter. 8-393
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
65 11 REFERENCES
1. State of California. California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G. 2018.
2. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program. Technical Noise Supplement - A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA : s.n., September 2013.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Highway Noise Barrier Design Handbook. 2001.
6. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise in the United States, Problem and Response. April 2000. p. 3.
7. 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.
8. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.
9. Office of Planning and Research. State of California General Plan Guidelines. October 2017.
10. 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 .
11. —. 2019 California Green Building Standards Code. January 2020.
12. City of Rancho Mirage. Municipal Code, Chapter 8.45 Noise.
13. —. Municipal Code, Sections 15.04.030.
14. —. General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. 2005.
15. California Department of Transportation. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April 2020.
16. California Court of Appeal. Gray v. County of Madera, F053661. 167 Cal.App.4th 1099; - Cal.Rptr.3d, October 2008.
17. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August 1992.
18. California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement. November 2009.
19. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Specification for Sound Level Meters ANSI S1.4- 2014/IEC 61672-1:2013.
20. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. December 1978. FHWA-RD-77-108.
8-394
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
66 21. 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.
22. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Attenuation as a Function of Ground and Vegetation Final Report. June 1995. FHWA/CA/TL-95/23.
23. Fehr & Peers. Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Draft Transportation Impact Assessment. March 2022.
24. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model. January, 2006.
8-395
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
67 12 CERTIFICATION
The contents of this noise study report represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the proposed Rancho Monterey Specific Plan 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 8-396
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
68 8-397
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
APPENDIX 3.1:
CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE MUNICIPAL CODE
69 8-398
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
70 8-399
11/1/2020 Chapter 8.45 NOISE
https://www.qcode.us/codes/ranchomirage/1/3
Rancho Mirage Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Collapse Search Print No Frames
Title 8 HEALTH AND SAFETY
Chapter 8.45 NOISE
8.45.010 Purpose.
The city has established a quality of life and environment in which peace and quiet is highly valued by its residents, visitors and businesses. The existence of excessive noise within the city is a condition which is detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, welfare and quality of life of the citizenry and shall be regulated in the public interest. This chapter has been created to implement the goals and policies of the noise element of the city’s general plan and to prohibit undesirable noises in the community. This chapter shall be referred to and cited as the Rancho Mirage noise ordinance. (Ord. 633 § 1(Exh. A), 1995)
8.45.020 Definitions.
Ambient noise level means the all encompassing noise level associated with a given environment, being a composite of sounds from all sources, excluding the alleged offensive noise, at the location and approximate time at which a comparison with the alleged offensive noise is to be made.
Cumulative period means an additive period of time consisting of individual time segments which may be continuous or interrupted.
Decibel (dBA) means a unit of sound level measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting network.
Emergency means any occurrence or set of circumstances involving actual or imminent physical danger, crisis, trauma or property damage which demands immediate action.
Noise level means the same as sound level the terms are interchangeable.
Person means any individual, association, partnership, corporation, organization, or public agency, including associated officer(s), employee(s) or department(s).
Sound level means the quantity of decibels measured using the frequency weighting of A of a sound level meter.
Sound level meter means an instrument meeting the American National Standards Institute’s standard S1.4-1983 or later revision, for Type 1 or Type 2 specifications; or an instrument and the associated recording and analyzing equipment which will provide equivalent data. (Ord. 633 § 1(Exh. A), 1995)
8.45.030 Exterior noise level limits.
No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound or allow the creation of sound or noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person which causes the noise level, as measured on any other property, to exceed:
A. The noise level for the applicable zone specified in Table A-1 for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour of the applicable time period.
Table A-1
Land Use/Zone Time of Day Noise Level (dBA)
Residential, Low Density (R-E, H-R, R-L-2, R-L-3)
7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.55
6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.50
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.45
Residential, Medium and High Density, Hospital, Open
Space (OS, R-M, R-H, MHP)
7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.60
6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.55
71 8-400
11/1/2020 Chapter 8.45 NOISE
https://www.qcode.us/codes/ranchomirage/2/3
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.50
Commercial Office, Resort Commercial, Mixed Use,
Institutional (O, P, Rs-H, M-U)
7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.65
6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.60
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.55
Commercial Neighborhood, General Commercial,
Commercial Recreation, Light Industrial (C-N, C-G, I-L) 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.70
6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.65
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.60
B. For cumulative periods of time less than thirty minutes in an hour, all the noise standards in Table A-1 are increased according to Table B-1.
Table B-1
Duration of Sound dBA Adjustment
15—30 minutes per hour + 3
10—15 minutes per hour + 5
5—10 minutes per hour + 10
1—5 minutes per hour + 15
Any period of time less than 1 minute per hour + 20
C. If the measured ambient noise level exceeds the dBA limits in Table A-1, the noise limits and their adjustments for the first three categories in Table B-1 shall be increased in five dBA increments as needed to encompass or reflect said ambient noise level. The maximum noise level under the last two categories in Table B-1 shall be increased, if necessary, only to equal the ambient noise level. (Ord. 1015 § 2, 2011; Ord. 633 § 1(Exh. A), 1995)
8.45.040 Noise level measurement.
A. The location selected for measuring exterior noise levels shall be at the point of the property line of the affected property nearest the alleged offending noise source. If possible, the ambient noise shall be measured at the same location along the property line.
B. If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different locations, the noise level limit applicable to the lower noise zone shall apply.
C. Upon receipt of a complaint or a request to investigate, the code compliance officer, equipped with an American National Standards Institute Type 2 or better sound level meter, may investigate the complaint. The investigation shall consist of measurements and the gathering of data to adequately define the noise problem and shall include the following:
1. Type and measurement of noise source;
2. Location of noise source relative to complainant’s or affected property;
3. Time period during which noise source is considered to be intrusive;
4. Total duration of noise levels measured;
5. Date(s) and time(s) of noise measurement survey. (Ord. 633 § 1(Exh. A), 1995)
8.45.050 Special provisions and exemptions.
The following activities and noise sources shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter:
A. School bands, school athletic and other activities occurring on a school campus; 72 8-401
11/1/2020 Chapter 8.45 NOISE
https://www.qcode.us/codes/ranchomirage/3/3
B. Outdoor gatherings, dance, shows, entertainment for events authorized through the city’s special events process; C. Activities conducted in public parks and public playgrounds that are dependent upon such facilities for their operation;
D. Any emission of sound for purposes of alerting persons to an emergency or the general emission of sound during performance of emergency work;
E. Construction, alteration, repair, grading or improvement of any building, structure, road or improvement to real property for which a permit has been issued by the city if said construction occurs within the allowable hours set forth in Section 15.04.030(A)(10);
F. The operation of any equipment and machinery at any time within any zone by the city, its employees, or any agent or franchisee of the city in the course of performing maintenance, construction or trash collection. (Ord. 633 § 1(Exh. A), 1995)
8.45.060 Additional prohibition.
It is unlawful and a nuisance for any person to keep, maintain or permit upon any lot or parcel of land within the city under his or her control any animal, including any fowl, which by any sound or cry shall habitually disturb the peace and comfort of any person in the reasonable and comfortable enjoyment of life or property. (Ord. 633 § 1(Exh. A), 1995)
8.45.065 Landscape maintenance.
A. It is unlawful and a public nuisance for any person to permit or perform for-hire landscape and non- emergency exterior hardscape maintenance activities such as, but not limited to, tree trimming, re-seeding, lawn mowing, leaf blowing, dust and debris clearing and any other landscaping or nonemergency exterior hardscape maintenance activities which utilize any motorized saw, sander, drill, grinder, leaf-blower, lawnmower, hedge trimmer, edger, or any other similar tool or device any time on Saturday and Sunday and between the hours of six p.m. and seven a.m. the next day during weekdays, unless otherwise provided in this section.
B. The regular mowing or grooming of golf courses, grass tennis courts, grass croquet courts, and lawn bowling areas shall be exempt from the restrictions set forth in this section. The allowed work hours for mowing or green preparation for golf courses, grass tennis courts, grass croquet courts, and lawn bowling areas shall be between five thirty a.m. and seven p.m., seven days per week and during all seasons of the year.
C. Nothing set forth in this section shall permit any person from engaging in any activities that exceed the exterior noise level limits set forth in Section 8.45.030 or otherwise constitute a public nuisance as set forth in Section 14.60.325 of the Municipal Code. (Ord. 979, § 1, 2009; Ord. 936, § 3, 2006)
8.45.070 Administration.
The noise control program established by this chapter shall be administered by and is the responsibility of the code compliance division as directed by the director of the community development department. (Ord. 633 § 1(Exh. A), 1995)
8.45.080 Violations and enforcement procedures.
Violations of this chapter are declared to be a nuisance and subject to the procedures, remedies and penalties set forth in Title 14. (Ord. 916 §4, 2006; Ord. 633 § 1(Exh. A), 1995)
View the mobile version.
73 8-402
11/1/2020 15.04.030 Adoption, modifications, amendments and deletions to Chapter 1 of the Building Code. https://www.qcode.us/codes/ranchomirage/1/3
Rancho Mirage Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames
Title 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION
Chapter 15.04 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, 2019 EDITION
15.04.030 Adoption, modifications, amendments and deletions to Chapter 1 of the Building Code.
A. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the California Building Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 2, Volume 1, Chapter 1, Division II, “Scope and Administration,” including any and all amendments thereto that may hereafter be made and adopted by the state of California, is hereby adopted as the Administrative Code of the city. This administrative chapter shall apply to all codes listed in this title.
1. Section 101.1 is deleted in its entirety.
2. Section 101.5 is added to define the term “Holiday” and shall read as follows:
101.5 Holidays. “Holiday” as used in the Building Code shall mean New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas.
3. Section 102.2 is amended to read as follows:
102.2 Other laws. The provisions of this code shall not be deemed to nullify any provisions of local, state or federal law.
In the event of discrepancies between this chapter and Chapter 1, General Code Provision, the latter shall take precedence.
4. Section 103.1 is amended to read as follows:
103.1 Creation of enforcement agency. There is established within the City, a division of the Administrative Services Department to be known as the “Building and Safety Division” which shall be under the administrative and operational control of the City Building Official hereinafter referred to as the building official.
5. Section 105.2 is amended by adding a new exemption to the list of structures for which a permit shall not be required:
14. Masonry freestanding block walls not over 30″ above grade.
(The other provisions of Section 105.2 remain the same)
6. Section 105.5 is amended to read as follows:
105.5 Expiration. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work on the site authorized by such permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance, or if the work authorized on the site by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after the time the work is commenced. The building official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more extensions of time, for periods not more than 180 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated.
Exception: For residential occupancies a permit shall remain valid for the purposes of this part if the work on the site authorized by that permit is commenced within 12 months after its issuance, unless the permittee has abandoned the work authorized by the permit.
74 8-403
11/1/2020 15.04.030 Adoption, modifications, amendments and deletions to Chapter 1 of the Building Code. https://www.qcode.us/codes/ranchomirage/2/3
7. Section 109.1 is amended to read as follows:
109.1 Payment of fees. On buildings, structures, electrical, gas, mechanical, and plumbing systems or alterations requiring a permit under this Building Code, a fee for each permit shall be paid as required, in accordance with the fees set forth in the City of Rancho Mirage Master Fee Schedule, a copy of which is on file with the Division of Building and Safety.
8. Section 113.4 is added to provide for the filing of appeals and shall read as follows:
113.4 Filing of appeals. All appeals shall be made in writing and shall specify the order, decision or determination made by the building official which is being appealed and wherein the building official erred in making the order, decision or determination. The appeal shall be accompanied by a fee as established by the City Council. If, after reviewing the information submitted, the building official determines the appeal does not merit a change in his or her order, decision, or determination, the building official shall schedule a hearing by the Appeals Board and the appellant shall be notified in writing of the date and time of the hearing.
9. Section 114 is amended to read as follows:
Section 114 VIOLATIONS.
114.1 Unlawful acts. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to erect, construct, alter, extend, repair, move, remove, demolish or occupy any building, structure or equipment regulated by this code, or to cause the same to be done, in conflict with or in violation of any provisions of this code. It shall be unlawful for any person to erect, construct, alter or repair a building or structure in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the building official or of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code.
114.2 Public nuisance; Abatement. Any violation of this Building Code, including the adopted appendices, is a public nuisance and may be abated in accordance with Title 14 of the City’s Municipal Code.
114.3 Penalties. Any person who violates a provision of this Building Code, including the adopted appendices, or fails to comply with any of the requirements thereof or who erects, constructs, alters or repairs a building or structure in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the building official, or of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this Building Code shall be guilty of an infraction violation, and the violator shall be subject to the provisions set forth in Chapter 14.100 (Infractions) of the City’s Municipal Code, including, but not limited to, the imposition of any and all civil and criminal penalties set forth therein.
10. Section 116 is amended to read as follows:
Section 116 UNSAFE STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.
116.1 Conditions. Structures or existing equipment that are or hereafter become unsafe, unsanitary or deficient because of inadequate means of egress facilities, inadequate light and ventilation, or which constitute a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life or the public welfare, or that involve illegal or improper occupancy or inadequate maintenance shall be deemed an unsafe condition.
116.1.1 Unlawful acts. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to maintain as unsafe structures or equipment regulated by this code, or cause the same to be done in conflict with or in violation of any provisions of this758-404
11/1/2020 15.04.030 Adoption, modifications, amendments and deletions to Chapter 1 of the Building Code. https://www.qcode.us/codes/ranchomirage/3/3
code.
11. Section 117 is added to limit the hours of construction work and shall read as follows:
Section 117 HOURS OF WORK.
117.1. Restricted hours; Construction work. Except as otherwise provided herein, no person other than the person actually occupying any buildings to be altered, repaired or improved, shall be engaged or employed, nor shall any person cause any other person to be engaged or employed in any work of construction, erection, alteration, repair, addition to or improvement of any building, structure, road or improvement to realty, between the hours of seven p.m. of each day and seven a.m. of the next succeeding day or on Sundays and holidays, without written permission of the Building Official being first obtained. The Building Official may grant permission to work during those periods under appropriate circumstances after first having determined that such work will not unduly or unreasonably interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of property adjacent to such work.
117.2 Restricted hours; Landscape maintenance. Within gated communities, shopping centers, commercial centers, vacant residential or commercial parcels, or developed residential or commercial parcels, landscape activities such as leaf blowing, tree trimming, re-seeding, or mowing of grass as associated with the re-seeding process and any other landscaping activities which generate unusual noise, are prohibited between the hours of seven p.m. of each day and seven a.m. of the next succeeding day or on Sundays or on holidays.
117.3 Restricted hours; Golf courses. In order to assure the excellence and readiness of golf courses within the City, mowing and green preparation of golf courses is permitted between 5:30 a.m. and 7 p.m., seven days per week and during all seasons of the year.
12. Section 118 is added to require removal and disposal of trash and debris at building sites and shall read as follows:
Section 118 REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF TRASH AND DEBRIS.
118.1 Required removal. Any person to whom a building permit has been issued shall keep the building site free and clear of trash and debris. As used in this section, trash and debris shall include papers, cartons, bottles, cans, garbage, roofing materials, plaster, concrete and other substances that may accumulate as a result of construction activities.
118.2 Container. A trash container shall be located on every construction site and shall remain in place until construction is completed. The container shall be adequate in size to store the trash and debris generated on the building site until it can be removed.
118.3 Disposal. Trash and debris shall be removed from the site and transported to a legally established dump site either by the City’s refuse contractor or the permittee.
(Ord. 1161 § 3, 2019; Ord. 1109 § 3, 2016; Ord. 1075 § 2, 2013; Ord. 1051 § 1, 2012; Ord. 1001 § 2, 2010; Ord. 973 § 1, 2009; Ord. 961 § 2, 2007)
View the mobile version.
76 8-405
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
APPENDIX 5.1:
STUDY AREA PHOTOS
77 8-406
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
78 8-407
JN: 14271 Study Area Photos
L1_E
33, 47' 55.620000"116, 23' 27.900000"
L1_N
33, 47' 55.790000"116, 23' 27.900000"
L1_S
33, 47' 55.750000"116, 23' 27.870000"
L1_W
33, 47' 55.620000"116, 23' 27.930000"
L2_E
33, 47' 27.290000"116, 23' 9.220000"
L2_N
33, 47' 27.380000"116, 23' 9.280000"
79 8-408
JN: 14271 Study Area Photos
L2_S
33, 47' 27.350000"116, 23' 9.170000"
L2_W
33, 47' 27.290000"116, 23' 9.300000"
L3_E
33, 47' 30.390000"116, 23' 33.010000"
L3_N
33, 47' 30.420000"116, 23' 33.090000"
L3_S
33, 47' 30.390000"116, 23' 33.030000"
L3_W
33, 47' 30.390000"116, 23' 33.030000"
80 8-409
JN: 14271 Study Area Photos
L4_E
33, 47' 36.560000"116, 23' 35.640000"
L4_N
33, 47' 36.560000"116, 23' 35.640000"
L4_S
33, 47' 36.540000"116, 23' 35.640000"
L4_W
33, 47' 36.540000"116, 23' 35.640000"
L5_E
33, 47' 46.620000"116, 23' 53.610000"
L5_N
33, 47' 46.640000"116, 23' 53.630000"
81 8-410
JN: 14271 Study Area Photos
L5_S
33, 47' 46.620000"116, 23' 53.630000"
L5_W
33, 47' 46.620000"116, 23' 53.610000"
L6_E
33, 47' 56.410000"116, 23' 42.670000"
L6_N
33, 47' 56.440000"116, 23' 42.730000"
L6_S
33, 47' 56.410000"116, 23' 42.700000"
L6_W
33, 47' 56.370000"116, 23' 42.700000"
82 8-411
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
APPENDIX 5.2:
NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS
83 8-412
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
84 8-413
Date:Location:Meter:Piccolo II JN:14271
Project:Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Source:Analyst:A. Khan Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99%L eq Adj.Adj. L eq 0 52.5 56.3 50.6 55.9 55.6 54.9 54.4 52.8 52.1 51.2 51.0 50.7 52.5 10.0 62.5 1 49.5 51.1 48.4 50.9 50.8 50.4 50.3 49.7 49.3 48.8 48.6 48.5 49.5 10.0 59.5 2 46.8 47.8 46.0 47.7 47.6 47.4 47.3 47.0 46.7 46.3 46.2 46.0 46.8 10.0 56.8 3 46.7 48.4 45.6 48.2 48.1 47.8 47.7 47.0 46.6 46.0 45.9 45.7 46.7 10.0 56.7 4 48.3 50.0 47.2 49.8 49.7 49.3 49.1 48.6 48.2 47.6 47.4 47.3 48.3 10.0 58.3 5 47.6 50.6 46.3 50.2 49.9 49.1 48.7 48.0 47.4 46.7 46.6 46.4 47.6 10.0 57.6 6 49.8 52.9 48.2 52.6 52.4 51.9 51.5 50.2 49.3 48.6 48.4 48.3 49.8 10.0 59.8 7 50.3 52.5 48.9 52.3 52.0 51.7 51.4 50.7 50.0 49.3 49.2 49.0 50.3 0.0 50.3 8 56.7 62.7 54.3 62.0 61.5 58.9 57.6 57.1 56.6 54.6 54.5 54.4 56.7 0.0 56.7 9 59.5 65.2 57.5 64.5 63.8 61.3 60.5 59.7 59.3 57.8 57.7 57.6 59.5 0.0 59.5 10 55.1 59.7 52.9 59.2 58.7 57.7 57.0 55.5 54.6 53.4 53.2 52.9 55.1 0.0 55.1 11 54.9 57.1 53.3 56.8 56.7 56.3 56.1 55.4 54.8 53.7 53.6 53.4 54.9 0.0 54.9 12 51.2 56.0 49.6 55.2 54.5 53.2 52.6 51.4 50.9 50.1 49.9 49.7 51.2 0.0 51.2 13 56.2 58.6 54.3 58.5 58.2 57.7 57.5 56.8 55.9 54.7 54.6 54.4 56.2 0.0 56.2 14 55.1 58.4 53.2 58.0 57.7 57.1 56.8 55.7 54.8 53.6 53.5 53.3 55.1 0.0 55.1 15 54.7 56.5 53.4 56.4 56.2 55.9 55.7 55.1 54.6 53.8 53.7 53.5 54.7 0.0 54.7 16 53.3 55.9 51.5 55.7 55.5 55.2 54.9 53.7 53.0 52.0 51.8 51.6 53.3 0.0 53.3 17 50.7 52.4 49.4 52.2 52.0 51.8 51.6 51.1 50.6 49.9 49.7 49.5 50.7 0.0 50.7 18 52.4 54.5 50.6 54.4 54.2 53.9 53.7 53.0 52.2 51.0 50.9 50.7 52.4 0.0 52.4 19 54.2 55.7 53.1 55.6 55.4 55.1 55.0 54.5 54.1 53.5 53.3 53.2 54.2 5.0 59.2 20 53.1 55.5 51.7 55.3 55.1 54.7 54.4 53.4 52.8 52.1 52.0 51.7 53.1 5.0 58.1 21 51.7 54.9 50.2 54.5 54.2 53.4 52.9 52.0 51.4 50.8 50.6 50.3 51.7 5.0 56.7 22 49.3 52.3 47.8 52.0 51.7 51.2 50.8 49.6 49.0 48.2 48.1 47.9 49.3 10.0 59.3 23 50.6 53.7 48.5 53.5 53.3 52.8 52.3 51.2 50.4 49.1 48.8 48.6 50.6 10.0 60.6 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99% Min 50.3 52.4 48.9 52.2 52.0 51.7 51.4 50.7 50.0 49.3 49.2 49.0 Max 59.5 65.2 57.5 64.5 63.8 61.3 60.5 59.7 59.3 57.8 57.7 57.6
54.7 56.7 56.4 55.6 55.2 54.3 53.7 52.7 52.5 52.3
Min 46.7 47.8 45.6 47.7 47.6 47.4 47.3 47.0 46.6 46.0 45.9 45.7 Max 52.5 56.3 50.6 55.9 55.6 54.9 54.4 52.8 52.1 51.2 51.0 50.7
49.4 51.2 51.0 50.5 50.2 49.3 48.8 48.0 47.9 47.7
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Night
Wednesday, August 11, 2021 L1 - Located north of the Project site near SJVC Rancho Mirage at 34275 Monterey Avenue.
Night
Day
Day
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:
Average:
24-Hour Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)
53.3 54.7 49.4
52 .
5 49
.
5 46
.
8 46
.
7 48
.
3 47
.
6 49
.
8 50
.
3 56
.
7 59
.
5 55
.
1 54
.
9 51
.
2 56
.
2 55
.
1 54
.
7 53
.
3 50
.
7 52
.
4 54
.
2 53
.
1 51
.
7 49
.
3 50
.
6 35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ho
u
r
l
y
L
eq
(d
B
A
)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14100-14500\_14200\14271\04_noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\14271_L1_K 85 8-414
Date:Location:Meter:Piccolo II JN:14271
Project:Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Source:Analyst:A. Khan Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99%L eq Adj.Adj. L eq 0 42.4 46.2 39.6 46.0 45.6 44.8 44.4 43.1 42.0 40.4 40.0 39.7 42.4 10.0 52.4 1 42.5 53.3 38.3 52.5 51.4 48.3 45.4 41.1 39.9 38.8 38.6 38.4 42.5 10.0 52.5 2 43.1 52.8 38.9 51.5 50.4 47.0 45.7 43.4 41.4 39.4 39.2 39.0 43.1 10.0 53.1 3 47.3 53.1 43.3 52.8 52.5 51.4 50.6 48.3 45.6 43.9 43.7 43.4 47.3 10.0 57.3 4 53.3 59.6 50.1 59.3 58.8 57.4 56.2 53.3 52.2 50.8 50.5 50.2 53.3 10.0 63.3 5 52.5 56.7 49.9 56.4 56.1 55.3 54.8 53.2 51.8 50.5 50.3 50.1 52.5 10.0 62.5 6 53.6 62.1 47.7 61.4 60.8 58.8 57.7 53.7 51.3 48.6 48.2 47.9 53.6 10.0 63.6 7 56.2 67.4 49.6 67.0 66.6 64.7 62.7 58.6 53.8 50.5 50.1 49.7 56.2 0.0 56.2 8 53.7 63.9 46.7 63.4 62.8 60.4 58.7 53.8 51.0 47.8 47.2 46.8 53.7 0.0 53.7 9 52.9 64.6 46.6 64.2 63.8 61.3 58.6 52.7 50.2 47.4 47.1 46.7 52.9 0.0 52.9 10 53.5 68.3 45.8 67.9 67.4 65.5 64.0 55.1 49.3 46.6 46.3 45.9 53.5 0.0 53.5 11 54.4 66.9 47.3 66.7 66.3 64.1 62.3 56.5 52.1 48.2 47.9 47.5 54.4 0.0 54.4 12 53.9 69.6 54.0 69.2 68.5 66.5 65.2 59.0 56.1 54.5 54.3 54.1 53.9 0.0 53.9 13 54.7 66.2 52.6 65.9 65.4 63.8 62.4 57.2 54.8 53.0 52.9 52.7 54.7 0.0 54.7 14 55.9 64.9 50.4 64.6 64.1 62.2 60.4 55.3 52.6 51.0 50.8 50.5 55.9 0.0 55.9 15 54.1 64.4 47.3 63.9 63.2 60.5 58.3 53.1 50.5 48.0 47.7 47.4 54.1 0.0 54.1 16 54.2 62.9 47.6 62.5 62.0 60.6 59.0 53.6 51.1 48.4 48.1 47.7 54.2 0.0 54.2 17 51.8 61.3 46.1 60.8 59.9 57.6 56.0 51.2 49.3 46.9 46.5 46.2 51.8 0.0 51.8 18 55.0 62.0 51.9 61.6 61.2 59.4 57.6 55.1 53.8 52.5 52.3 52.1 55.0 0.0 55.0 19 53.1 63.1 48.2 62.6 62.3 61.0 60.0 54.6 51.2 49.0 48.7 48.4 53.1 5.0 58.1 20 51.7 59.2 45.9 59.0 58.6 57.1 55.7 52.2 49.5 46.6 46.3 46.0 51.7 5.0 56.7 21 52.3 60.9 48.1 60.6 60.0 57.7 55.9 51.8 50.0 48.6 48.4 48.2 52.3 5.0 57.3 22 48.1 56.2 41.9 55.7 54.9 53.3 52.2 48.8 45.7 42.7 42.4 42.1 48.1 10.0 58.1 23 50.6 58.5 45.4 58.2 57.7 55.7 54.1 51.0 48.6 46.2 45.9 45.5 50.6 10.0 60.6 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99% Min 51.7 59.2 45.8 59.0 58.6 57.1 55.7 51.2 49.3 46.6 46.3 45.9 Max 56.2 69.6 54.0 69.2 68.5 66.5 65.2 59.0 56.1 54.5 54.3 54.1
54.0 64.0 63.5 61.5 59.8 54.7 51.7 49.3 49.0 48.7
Min 42.4 46.2 38.3 46.0 45.6 44.8 44.4 41.1 39.9 38.8 38.6 38.4 Max 53.6 62.1 50.1 61.4 60.8 58.8 57.7 53.7 52.2 50.8 50.5 50.2
50.1 54.9 54.2 52.4 51.2 48.4 46.5 44.6 44.3 44.0
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Night
Wednesday, August 11, 2021 L2 - Located southeast of the Project site near The Enclave Condominium Rentals at 35751 Gateway Drive.
Night
Day
Day
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:
Average:
24-Hour Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)
52.9 54.0 50.1
42 .
4 42
.
5 43
.
1 47
.
3 53
.
3 52
.
5 53
.
6 56
.
2 53
.
7 52
.
9 53
.
5 54
.
4 53
.
9 54
.
7 55
.
9 54
.
1 54
.
2 51
.
8 55
.
0 53
.
1 51
.
7 52
.
3 48
.
1 50
.
6 35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ho
u
r
l
y
L
eq
(d
B
A
)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14100-14500\_14200\14271\04_noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\14271_L2_V 86 8-415
Date:Location:Meter:Piccolo II JN:14271
Project:Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Source:Analyst:A. Khan Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99%L eq Adj.Adj. L eq 0 54.7 59.4 51.1 58.8 58.1 57.3 56.9 55.6 54.3 52.1 51.7 51.2 54.7 10.0 64.7 1 49.5 54.7 46.1 53.8 53.0 52.0 51.5 50.3 49.1 47.1 46.7 46.3 49.5 10.0 59.5 2 42.3 44.6 40.9 44.3 44.2 43.9 43.5 42.9 41.9 41.2 41.1 41.0 42.3 10.0 52.3 3 43.3 45.8 41.8 45.6 45.4 45.1 44.9 43.7 43.0 42.1 42.0 41.8 43.3 10.0 53.3 4 45.8 47.6 44.2 47.5 47.3 47.0 46.8 46.2 45.7 44.7 44.5 44.3 45.8 10.0 55.8 5 44.4 47.0 42.8 46.8 46.5 46.0 45.7 44.9 44.2 43.3 43.0 42.8 44.4 10.0 54.4 6 47.9 54.2 45.0 53.8 53.5 52.8 52.1 49.8 47.7 45.5 45.3 45.1 47.9 10.0 57.9 7 47.0 52.5 44.3 51.9 51.3 50.0 49.2 47.6 46.4 44.8 44.6 44.4 47.0 0.0 47.0 8 44.1 53.1 41.4 52.7 52.3 51.1 50.4 46.7 44.2 41.9 41.7 41.5 44.1 0.0 44.1 9 50.7 52.9 48.7 52.7 52.5 52.2 52.0 51.3 50.6 49.4 49.1 48.8 50.7 0.0 50.7 10 53.5 55.1 52.4 54.9 54.7 54.5 54.3 53.8 53.4 52.7 52.6 52.4 53.5 0.0 53.5 11 53.3 59.0 52.3 58.6 58.2 57.4 56.7 54.5 53.1 52.6 52.5 52.4 53.3 0.0 53.3 12 52.6 55.7 51.3 55.3 55.0 54.5 54.2 53.1 52.1 51.4 51.4 51.3 52.6 0.0 52.6 13 54.4 56.2 53.1 56.0 55.9 55.6 55.4 54.8 54.2 53.5 53.3 53.1 54.4 0.0 54.4 14 54.1 57.4 52.5 57.0 56.7 56.3 56.1 54.7 53.5 52.8 52.7 52.5 54.1 0.0 54.1 15 52.6 53.6 51.9 53.5 53.5 53.3 53.2 52.9 52.6 52.1 52.1 52.0 52.6 0.0 52.6 16 52.8 57.5 51.5 57.2 56.9 56.4 55.9 53.2 52.3 51.7 51.7 51.6 52.8 0.0 52.8 17 51.3 52.5 50.7 52.3 52.2 51.9 51.8 51.5 51.3 50.9 50.9 50.7 51.3 0.0 51.3 18 47.0 50.0 45.2 49.6 49.3 48.8 48.4 47.5 46.7 45.7 45.5 45.3 47.0 0.0 47.0 19 50.8 53.8 49.7 52.9 52.5 52.0 51.7 51.1 50.7 50.0 49.9 49.7 50.8 5.0 55.8 20 48.7 53.3 46.3 52.9 52.7 52.0 51.5 49.0 47.8 46.7 46.6 46.3 48.7 5.0 53.7 21 46.1 49.5 44.3 49.3 49.1 48.5 47.8 46.5 45.7 44.7 44.6 44.4 46.1 5.0 51.1 22 46.1 49.9 43.8 49.5 49.2 48.7 48.3 46.8 45.5 44.3 44.1 43.9 46.1 10.0 56.1 23 47.3 51.2 44.9 50.8 50.4 49.5 49.0 47.8 46.9 45.6 45.2 45.0 47.3 10.0 57.3 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99% Min 44.1 49.5 41.4 49.3 49.1 48.5 47.8 46.5 44.2 41.9 41.7 41.5 Max 54.4 59.0 53.1 58.6 58.2 57.4 56.7 54.8 54.2 53.5 53.3 53.1
51.6 53.8 53.5 53.0 52.6 51.2 50.3 49.4 49.3 49.1
Min 42.3 44.6 40.9 44.3 44.2 43.9 43.5 42.9 41.9 41.2 41.1 41.0 Max 54.7 59.4 51.1 58.8 58.1 57.3 56.9 55.6 54.3 52.1 51.7 51.2
48.6 50.1 49.7 49.1 48.7 47.6 46.5 45.1 44.9 44.6
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Night
Wednesday, August 11, 2021 L3 - Located south of the Project site near single-family residence at 12 Chandon Court.
Night
Day
Day
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:
Average:
24-Hour Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)
50.7 51.6 48.6
54 .
7 49
.
5 42
.
3 43
.
3 45
.
8 44
.
4 47
.
9 47
.
0 44
.
1 50
.
7 53
.
5 53
.
3 52
.
6 54
.
4 54
.
1 52
.
6 52
.
8 51
.
3 47
.
0 50
.
8 48
.
7 46
.
1 46
.
1 47
.
3 35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ho
u
r
l
y
L
eq
(d
B
A
)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14100-14500\_14200\14271\04_noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\14271_L3_X 87 8-416
Date:Location:Meter:Piccolo II JN:14271
Project:Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Source:Analyst:A. Khan Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99%L eq Adj.Adj. L eq 0 44.2 51.9 40.4 50.6 49.4 47.4 46.6 44.8 43.3 41.1 40.8 40.5 44.2 10.0 54.2 1 39.3 43.1 37.2 42.8 42.5 41.8 41.2 39.7 38.9 37.7 37.5 37.2 39.3 10.0 49.3 2 36.6 40.4 34.9 39.9 39.5 38.8 38.3 37.0 36.3 35.4 35.2 35.0 36.6 10.0 46.6 3 43.4 49.8 39.8 49.4 48.7 47.6 47.0 44.2 41.8 40.4 40.1 39.9 43.4 10.0 53.4 4 49.3 52.6 46.8 52.4 52.1 51.4 51.0 49.9 48.9 47.5 47.2 46.9 49.3 10.0 59.3 5 48.8 51.5 46.9 51.3 51.0 50.5 50.2 49.3 48.6 47.5 47.3 47.0 48.8 10.0 58.8 6 48.8 58.1 44.1 57.5 57.0 56.1 55.5 52.0 48.3 45.0 44.6 44.3 48.8 10.0 58.8 7 47.2 52.1 43.2 51.7 51.4 50.8 50.4 48.4 45.8 43.8 43.6 43.4 47.2 0.0 47.2 8 46.0 54.0 40.2 53.8 53.4 52.9 52.4 49.1 46.2 41.1 40.7 40.4 46.0 0.0 46.0 9 44.3 49.3 40.4 49.0 48.8 47.9 47.3 45.1 43.5 41.0 40.8 40.5 44.3 0.0 44.3 10 45.0 50.3 41.1 49.9 49.4 48.4 47.7 45.8 44.3 41.7 41.5 41.3 45.0 0.0 45.0 11 46.5 56.6 41.6 56.1 55.8 55.1 54.0 49.7 46.4 42.8 42.3 41.8 46.5 0.0 46.5 12 44.7 53.9 37.6 53.2 52.6 52.0 51.3 47.7 42.2 38.6 38.2 37.7 44.7 0.0 44.7 13 47.3 54.8 45.0 54.0 53.4 52.3 51.2 48.8 47.1 45.6 45.4 45.1 47.3 0.0 47.3 14 49.3 58.0 45.6 57.6 57.0 56.1 55.3 51.9 48.4 46.1 45.9 45.7 49.3 0.0 49.3 15 45.3 51.2 42.5 50.7 50.3 49.0 48.4 46.0 44.1 42.9 42.7 42.6 45.3 0.0 45.3 16 42.6 60.0 43.5 59.4 58.9 57.8 56.1 50.3 47.0 44.5 44.1 43.6 42.6 0.0 42.6 17 42.4 48.1 39.4 47.4 46.6 45.4 44.8 43.1 41.5 40.0 39.8 39.5 42.4 0.0 42.4 18 42.1 46.4 39.6 46.0 45.4 44.5 44.0 42.7 41.6 40.3 40.0 39.7 42.1 0.0 42.1 19 46.1 50.2 43.4 50.0 49.6 49.0 48.7 47.0 45.2 43.8 43.7 43.5 46.1 5.0 51.1 20 45.6 53.2 39.2 52.8 52.3 51.3 50.5 46.3 42.6 39.9 39.6 39.3 45.6 5.0 50.6 21 40.9 47.6 37.7 46.6 45.5 44.0 43.3 41.4 39.9 38.2 38.0 37.8 40.9 5.0 45.9 22 43.7 49.7 37.7 49.4 49.0 48.4 47.8 45.4 41.5 38.5 38.2 37.8 43.7 10.0 53.7 23 44.4 48.7 41.5 48.2 47.8 47.1 46.7 45.3 43.8 42.1 41.9 41.6 44.4 10.0 54.4 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99% Min 40.9 46.4 37.6 46.0 45.4 44.0 43.3 41.4 39.9 38.2 38.0 37.7 Max 49.3 60.0 45.6 59.4 58.9 57.8 56.1 51.9 48.4 46.1 45.9 45.7
45.6 51.9 51.4 50.4 49.7 46.9 44.4 42.0 41.8 41.5
Min 36.6 40.4 34.9 39.9 39.5 38.8 38.3 37.0 36.3 35.4 35.2 35.0 Max 49.3 58.1 46.9 57.5 57.0 56.1 55.5 52.0 48.9 47.5 47.3 47.0
45.9 49.0 48.6 47.7 47.2 45.3 43.5 41.7 41.4 41.1
Day
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:
Average:
24-Hour Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)
45.7 45.6 45.9
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Night
Wednesday, August 11, 2021 L4 - Located south of the Project site near single-family residence at 72740 Via Florencia.
Night
Day
44 .
2 39
.
3 36
.
6 43
.
4 49
.
3 48
.
8 48
.
8 47
.
2 46
.
0 44
.
3 45
.
0 46
.
5 44
.
7 47
.
3 49
.
3 45
.
3 42
.
6 42
.
4 42
.
1 46
.
1 45
.
6 40
.
9 43
.
7 44
.
4 35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ho
u
r
l
y
L
eq
(d
B
A
)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14100-14500\_14200\14271\04_noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\14271_L4_Z 88 8-417
Date:Location:Meter:Piccolo II JN:14271
Project:Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Source:Analyst:A. Khan Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99%L eq Adj.Adj. L eq 0 51.9 56.3 48.0 56.1 55.8 55.0 54.5 52.8 51.2 49.1 48.7 48.2 51.9 10.0 61.9 1 47.7 52.3 44.6 51.8 51.4 50.5 49.9 48.3 47.1 45.3 45.0 44.7 47.7 10.0 57.7 2 44.8 47.9 42.6 47.7 47.5 46.8 46.4 45.4 44.5 43.3 43.0 42.7 44.8 10.0 54.8 3 41.7 46.0 39.0 45.6 45.1 44.5 43.9 42.4 41.1 39.6 39.4 39.1 41.7 10.0 51.7 4 42.9 46.2 40.8 45.9 45.6 44.9 44.5 43.3 42.6 41.4 41.2 40.9 42.9 10.0 52.9 5 42.1 46.3 39.7 46.0 45.6 45.0 44.5 42.6 41.6 40.2 40.0 39.8 42.1 10.0 52.1 6 47.3 53.2 44.4 52.7 52.3 51.6 51.1 49.6 47.2 45.1 44.8 44.5 47.3 10.0 57.3 7 46.3 49.6 44.1 49.3 49.0 48.5 48.2 47.0 45.9 44.6 44.4 44.2 46.3 0.0 46.3 8 43.9 51.4 40.0 51.0 50.6 49.8 49.1 46.1 43.7 40.8 40.5 40.2 43.9 0.0 43.9 9 44.3 49.6 40.5 49.3 48.8 47.9 47.3 45.3 43.0 41.2 40.9 40.6 44.3 0.0 44.3 10 44.3 48.7 41.8 48.3 47.8 46.8 46.2 44.8 43.9 42.5 42.3 42.0 44.3 0.0 44.3 11 46.9 53.9 43.8 53.6 53.1 52.2 51.7 49.6 46.7 44.5 44.2 43.9 46.9 0.0 46.9 12 45.6 51.2 42.1 50.8 50.4 49.8 49.3 47.6 45.7 42.8 42.6 42.3 45.6 0.0 45.6 13 45.9 51.6 42.0 51.2 50.7 49.5 48.9 46.7 44.7 42.9 42.6 42.1 45.9 0.0 45.9 14 45.3 55.3 40.0 54.7 54.1 53.3 52.6 49.6 46.1 41.3 40.7 40.1 45.3 0.0 45.3 15 42.3 50.0 38.7 49.3 47.8 46.0 44.8 42.6 41.3 39.3 39.1 38.9 42.3 0.0 42.3 16 45.6 56.1 39.2 55.7 55.2 54.4 53.1 48.1 44.0 40.7 40.1 39.6 45.6 0.0 45.6 17 41.7 45.9 38.9 45.6 45.2 44.4 43.9 42.3 41.3 39.6 39.3 39.1 41.7 0.0 41.7 18 40.8 45.2 38.0 44.9 44.5 43.8 43.3 41.5 40.2 38.5 38.3 38.1 40.8 0.0 40.8 19 43.5 47.9 40.4 47.5 47.2 46.5 45.9 44.4 42.8 41.0 40.8 40.5 43.5 5.0 48.5 20 47.2 52.4 44.2 52.0 51.5 50.7 50.0 47.9 46.3 44.7 44.5 44.3 47.2 5.0 52.2 21 45.9 50.9 43.6 50.1 49.1 48.3 47.8 46.3 45.3 44.2 44.0 43.7 45.9 5.0 50.9 22 46.8 51.9 43.7 51.5 51.2 50.1 49.3 47.5 46.0 44.4 44.1 43.8 46.8 10.0 56.8 23 47.7 50.5 45.4 50.3 50.1 49.6 49.3 48.2 47.4 46.2 45.9 45.5 47.7 10.0 57.7 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99% Min 40.8 45.2 38.0 44.9 44.5 43.8 43.3 41.5 40.2 38.5 38.3 38.1 Max 47.2 56.1 44.2 55.7 55.2 54.4 53.1 49.6 46.7 44.7 44.5 44.3
45.0 50.2 49.7 48.8 48.1 46.0 44.1 41.9 41.6 41.3
Min 41.7 46.0 39.0 45.6 45.1 44.5 43.9 42.4 41.1 39.6 39.4 39.1 Max 51.9 56.3 48.0 56.1 55.8 55.0 54.5 52.8 51.2 49.1 48.7 48.2
47.0 49.7 49.4 48.7 48.2 46.7 45.4 43.8 43.6 43.2
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Night
Wednesday, August 11, 2021 L5 - Located west of the Project site near single-family residence at 34620 Via Josefina.
Night
Day
Day
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:
Average:
24-Hour Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)
45.9 45.0 47.0
51 .
9 47
.
7 44
.
8 41
.
7 42
.
9 42
.
1 47
.
3 46
.
3 43
.
9 44
.
3 44
.
3 46
.
9 45
.
6 45
.
9 45
.
3 42
.
3 45
.
6 41
.
7 40
.
8 43
.
5 47
.
2 45
.
9 46
.
8 47
.
7 35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ho
u
r
l
y
L
eq
(d
B
A
)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14100-14500\_14200\14271\04_noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\14271_L5_O 89 8-418
Date:Location:Meter:Piccolo II JN:14271
Project:Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Source:Analyst:A. Khan Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99%L eq Adj.Adj. L eq 0 51.9 55.4 49.6 55.3 55.0 54.5 54.1 52.9 51.7 50.4 50.1 49.7 51.9 10.0 61.9 1 48.4 52.9 46.3 52.0 51.2 50.2 49.8 48.8 48.0 47.0 46.7 46.4 48.4 10.0 58.4 2 44.4 46.9 42.4 46.8 46.6 46.1 45.8 44.9 44.2 43.0 42.7 42.5 44.4 10.0 54.4 3 43.9 47.9 41.4 47.6 47.2 46.5 46.0 44.6 43.3 42.0 41.8 41.5 43.9 10.0 53.9 4 47.2 50.2 45.0 50.0 49.7 49.1 48.8 47.7 46.8 45.7 45.5 45.1 47.2 10.0 57.2 5 47.5 54.2 44.1 53.3 52.7 51.6 50.9 48.0 46.0 44.7 44.5 44.2 47.5 10.0 57.5 6 52.3 76.7 47.9 75.0 72.6 68.4 66.8 53.5 50.4 48.6 48.4 48.1 52.3 10.0 62.3 7 50.4 65.0 47.5 63.3 62.0 59.5 57.5 50.6 49.3 48.0 47.8 47.6 50.4 0.0 50.4 8 48.2 53.2 44.8 52.7 52.2 51.3 50.9 49.2 47.2 45.4 45.2 44.9 48.2 0.0 48.2 9 52.1 57.7 52.3 57.5 57.3 57.0 56.7 55.9 55.2 53.7 52.8 52.4 52.1 0.0 52.1 10 47.7 53.3 45.3 52.7 51.9 50.4 49.8 48.1 47.1 45.8 45.6 45.4 47.7 0.0 47.7 11 50.3 55.0 47.4 54.5 54.1 53.3 52.8 51.1 49.4 48.0 47.8 47.5 50.3 0.0 50.3 12 53.3 57.9 52.0 57.5 57.2 56.8 56.6 55.6 54.7 52.5 52.2 52.1 53.3 0.0 53.3 13 52.2 56.3 49.0 55.7 55.3 54.5 54.2 53.0 51.8 49.8 49.5 49.1 52.2 0.0 52.2 14 52.2 57.7 48.4 56.9 56.2 55.2 54.7 53.3 51.3 48.9 48.8 48.5 52.2 0.0 52.2 15 48.7 56.9 45.8 56.8 56.7 56.6 56.5 55.4 54.4 48.0 47.6 46.3 48.7 0.0 48.7 16 52.1 58.1 50.1 57.9 57.7 57.1 56.9 55.2 53.5 50.6 50.4 50.2 52.1 0.0 52.1 17 47.9 53.8 49.2 53.6 53.4 53.1 52.7 52.0 50.1 49.6 49.5 49.3 47.9 0.0 47.9 18 48.8 55.3 49.4 54.8 54.4 53.8 53.5 51.4 50.9 49.9 49.8 49.6 48.8 0.0 48.8 19 51.3 60.6 53.3 59.9 59.4 58.3 57.6 56.1 55.4 53.7 53.6 53.3 51.3 5.0 56.3 20 49.2 53.6 47.0 53.1 52.8 51.9 51.3 49.8 48.6 47.5 47.3 47.1 49.2 5.0 54.2 21 48.8 51.9 47.0 51.6 51.4 50.8 50.4 49.2 48.4 47.5 47.3 47.1 48.8 5.0 53.8 22 49.2 53.9 46.8 53.4 52.8 51.6 51.1 49.8 48.7 47.4 47.2 46.9 49.2 10.0 59.2 23 51.3 53.9 49.0 53.7 53.5 53.0 52.8 51.9 51.1 49.6 49.4 49.1 51.3 10.0 61.3 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99% Min 47.7 51.9 44.8 51.6 51.4 50.4 49.8 48.1 47.1 45.4 45.2 44.9 Max 53.3 65.0 53.3 63.3 62.0 59.5 57.6 56.1 55.4 53.7 53.6 53.3
50.6 55.9 55.5 54.6 54.1 52.4 51.2 49.3 49.0 48.7
Min 43.9 46.9 41.4 46.8 46.6 46.1 45.8 44.6 43.3 42.0 41.8 41.5 Max 52.3 76.7 49.6 75.0 72.6 68.4 66.8 53.5 51.7 50.4 50.1 49.7
49.3 54.1 53.5 52.3 51.8 49.1 47.8 46.5 46.2 45.9
Day
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:
Average:
24-Hour Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)
50.1 50.6 49.3
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Night
Wednesday, August 11, 2021 L6 - Located northwest of the Project site near Rancho Mirage Dog Park at 34100 Key Largo Avenue.
Night
Day
51 .
9 48
.
4 44
.
4 43
.
9 47
.
2 47
.
5 52
.
3 50
.
4 48
.
2 52
.
1 47
.
7 50
.
3 53
.
3 52
.
2 52
.
2 48
.
7 52
.
1 47
.
9 48
.
8 51
.
3 49
.
2 48
.
8 49
.
2 51
.
3 35.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ho
u
r
l
y
L
eq
(d
B
A
)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14100-14500\_14200\14271\04_noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\14271_L6_F 90 8-419
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
APPENDIX 7.1:
OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS
91 8-420
Rancho Monterey Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 14271-03 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
92 8-421
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:n/o Varner Rd.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:Existing
15,500
10.00%
59.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,550 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
59.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:54 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%
-0.45
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
82.40 -18.16 -0.42 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -22.11 -0.43 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.35
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
52.697
52.529
52.546
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 67.3 65.6 59.5 68.768.1
62.6 62.7
61.1 54.8 53.2 61.961.7
61.2 52.2 53.4 61.961.8
Vehicle Noise:70.8 69.0 66.1 61.2 70.269.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
57 123 569264
61 132 612284
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Varner Rd.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:Existing
30,800
10.00%
59.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,080 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
59.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:54 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.06 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%
-0.45
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
82.40 -15.18 -0.42 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -19.13 -0.43 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.35
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
52.697
52.529
52.546
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
72.2 70.3 68.5 62.5 71.771.1
65.6 65.6
64.1 57.7 56.2 64.964.7
64.2 55.2 56.4 64.964.8
Vehicle Noise:73.8 72.0 69.1 64.2 73.272.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
90 194 899417
97 208 967449
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:Existing
51,900
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:5,190 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
4.33 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%
-1.74
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
82.40 -12.91 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -16.87 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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 71.3 69.5 63.5 72.772.1
66.6 66.6
65.1 58.7 57.2 65.865.6
65.2 56.1 57.4 65.965.8
Vehicle Noise:74.8 73.0 70.0 65.2 74.273.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
133 286 1,327616
143 308 1,427663
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Key Largo Av.
Road Name:Dinah Shore Dr.
Scenario:Existing
26,900
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,690 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.35 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%
1.01 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 -14.89 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -18.85 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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 68.7 67.0 60.9 70.169.5
64.4 65.2
62.9 56.5 55.0 63.763.4
63.8 54.8 56.0 64.564.4
Vehicle Noise:72.5 70.7 67.6 62.9 71.971.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
75 161 748347
80 173 802372
Thursday, April 28, 2022
93 8-422
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Key Largo Av.
Road Name:Dinah Shore Dr.
Scenario:Existing
31,000
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,100 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 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%
1.01 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 -14.28 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -18.23 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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 69.3 67.6 61.5 70.770.1
65.0 65.9
63.5 57.1 55.6 64.364.1
64.4 55.4 56.7 65.165.0
Vehicle Noise:73.1 71.3 68.2 63.5 72.572.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
82 177 822382
88 190 882409
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Dinah Shore Dr.
Scenario:Existing
24,800
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,480 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 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%
-1.74
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 -15.24 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -19.20 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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 65.6 63.9 57.8 67.066.4
61.3 62.1
59.8 53.4 51.9 60.660.3
60.7 51.7 52.9 61.461.3
Vehicle Noise:69.4 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
58 125 580269
62 134 622289
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Road Name:Key Largo Av.
Scenario:Existing
1,600
10.00%
30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:160 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
30.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-9.91
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%
3.26 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 -27.15 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -31.10 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
29.816
29.518
29.547
Grade Adjustment:0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
60.6 58.7 56.9 50.9 60.159.5
54.4 55.3
52.9 46.6 45.0 53.753.5
53.9 44.8 46.1 54.554.4
Vehicle Noise:62.5 60.7 57.6 52.9 61.961.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
8 17 8137
9 19 8740
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:Existing
32,600
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,260 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.31 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.93 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.88 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
73.9 72.0 70.2 64.2 73.472.8
67.3 67.4
65.8 59.4 57.9 66.666.4
65.9 56.9 58.1 66.666.5
Vehicle Noise:75.5 73.7 70.8 65.9 74.974.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
119 256 1,188551
128 275 1,278593
Thursday, April 28, 2022
94 8-423
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Dick Kelly Dr.
Scenario:Existing
5,400
10.00%
54.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:540 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
54.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-4.63
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%
0.08 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 -21.87 0.10 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -25.82 0.10 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.39
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
48.631
48.449
48.467
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
62.7 60.8 59.0 53.0 62.261.6
56.5 57.3
55.0 48.6 47.1 55.855.5
55.9 46.9 48.1 56.656.5
Vehicle Noise:64.6 62.8 59.7 55.0 64.063.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
20 43 20093
21 46 214100
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Dick Kelly Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:Existing
32,900
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,290 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.35 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.89 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.84 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
73.9 72.0 70.3 64.2 73.472.8
67.4 67.4
65.8 59.5 57.9 66.666.4
66.0 56.9 58.2 66.766.5
Vehicle Noise:75.5 73.8 70.8 65.9 75.074.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
120 258 1,195555
129 277 1,286597
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Gerald Ford Dr.
Scenario:Existing
16,500
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,650 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.23
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%
0.30 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
81.00 -17.47 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -21.43 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 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
69.1 67.2 65.4 59.4 68.668.0
62.7 63.1
61.1 54.8 53.2 61.961.7
61.7 52.6 53.9 62.362.2
Vehicle Noise:70.8 69.0 66.0 61.2 70.269.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
53 114 528245
57 122 568263
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Gerald Ford Dr.
Scenario:Existing
14,500
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,450 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 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%
-1.74
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 -18.03 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -21.99 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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 64.6 62.8 56.8 66.065.4
60.0 60.5
58.5 52.2 50.6 59.359.1
59.0 50.0 51.3 59.759.6
Vehicle Noise:68.2 66.4 63.4 58.6 67.667.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
48 104 483224
52 112 519241
Thursday, April 28, 2022
95 8-424
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Gerald Ford Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:Existing
33,300
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,330 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.40 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.84 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.79 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.0 72.1 70.3 64.3 73.572.9
67.4 67.4
65.9 59.5 58.0 66.766.5
66.0 57.0 58.2 66.766.6
Vehicle Noise:75.6 73.8 70.9 66.0 75.074.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
121 260 1,205559
130 279 1,296602
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Frank Sinatra Dr.
Scenario:Existing
16,100
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,610 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.75
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
82.40 -17.99 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -21.95 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 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
70.1 68.2 66.5 60.4 69.669.0
63.5 63.6
62.0 55.7 54.1 62.862.6
62.1 53.1 54.4 62.862.7
Vehicle Noise:71.7 69.9 67.0 62.1 71.170.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
61 131 610283
66 141 656305
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Frank Sinatra Dr.
Scenario:Existing
16,000
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,600 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 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%
-1.74
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 -17.61 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -21.56 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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 65.0 63.2 57.2 66.465.8
60.5 60.9
59.0 52.6 51.1 59.859.5
59.5 50.4 51.7 60.260.0
Vehicle Noise:68.6 66.8 63.8 59.0 68.067.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
52 111 516240
55 119 554257
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:Existing
35,800
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,580 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.72 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.52 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.48 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.3 72.4 70.6 64.6 73.873.2
67.7 67.8
66.2 59.9 58.3 67.066.8
66.3 57.3 58.6 67.066.9
Vehicle Noise:75.9 74.1 71.2 66.3 75.374.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
126 272 1,265587
136 293 1,360631
Thursday, April 28, 2022
96 8-425
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Country Club Dr.
Scenario:Existing
24,900
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,490 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
1.55 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%
0.30 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
81.00 -15.68 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -19.64 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 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 69.0 67.2 61.1 70.469.8
64.4 64.9
62.9 56.6 55.0 63.763.5
63.4 54.4 55.7 64.164.0
Vehicle Noise:72.6 70.8 67.8 63.0 72.071.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
70 150 695323
75 161 747347
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Country Club Dr.
Scenario:Existing
24,900
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,490 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 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%
-1.74
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 -15.23 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -19.18 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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 65.6 63.9 57.8 67.066.4
61.3 62.1
59.8 53.4 51.9 60.660.3
60.7 51.7 52.9 61.461.3
Vehicle Noise:69.4 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
58 125 582270
62 134 624290
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Country Club Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:Existing
38,000
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,800 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
3.39 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%
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
81.00 -13.85 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -17.80 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 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
72.7 70.8 69.0 63.0 72.271.6
66.3 66.7
64.8 58.4 56.9 65.665.3
65.3 56.2 57.5 66.065.8
Vehicle Noise:74.4 72.6 69.6 64.8 73.873.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
92 199 921428
99 213 990459
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:n/o Varner Rd.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:E+P Alt1
15,800
10.00%
59.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,580 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
59.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:54 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.84
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%
-0.45
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
82.40 -18.07 -0.42 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -22.03 -0.43 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.35
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
52.697
52.529
52.546
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 67.4 65.6 59.6 68.868.2
62.7 62.7
61.2 54.8 53.3 62.061.8
61.3 52.3 53.5 62.061.9
Vehicle Noise:70.9 69.1 66.2 61.3 70.369.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
58 124 576267
62 134 620288
Thursday, April 28, 2022
97 8-426
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Varner Rd.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:E+P Alt1
32,000
10.00%
59.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,200 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
59.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:54 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%
-0.45
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
82.40 -15.01 -0.42 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.97 -0.43 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.35
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
52.697
52.529
52.546
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
72.4 70.5 68.7 62.6 71.971.3
65.8 65.8
64.3 57.9 56.4 65.064.8
64.4 55.3 56.6 65.165.0
Vehicle Noise:73.9 72.2 69.2 64.4 73.472.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
92 199 922428
99 214 992461
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:E+P Alt1
55,200
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:5,520 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
4.60 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%
-1.74
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
82.40 -12.64 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -16.60 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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
73.4 71.5 69.8 63.7 72.972.3
66.8 66.9
65.3 59.0 57.4 66.165.9
65.5 56.4 57.7 66.166.0
Vehicle Noise:75.0 73.3 70.3 65.4 74.574.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
138 298 1,383642
149 320 1,487690
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Key Largo Av.
Road Name:Dinah Shore Dr.
Scenario:E+P Alt1
28,900
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,890 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.66 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%
1.01 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 -14.58 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -18.54 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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 69.0 67.3 61.2 70.469.8
64.7 65.6
63.2 56.8 55.3 64.063.8
64.1 55.1 56.3 64.864.7
Vehicle Noise:72.8 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
78 169 784364
84 181 841391
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Key Largo Av.
Road Name:Dinah Shore Dr.
Scenario:E+P Alt1
32,200
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,220 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
3.13 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%
1.01 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 -14.11 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -18.07 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
71.4 69.5 67.7 61.7 70.970.3
65.2 66.0
63.7 57.3 55.8 64.564.2
64.6 55.6 56.8 65.365.2
Vehicle Noise:73.2 71.5 68.3 63.7 72.772.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
84 182 843391
90 195 904420
Thursday, April 28, 2022
98 8-427
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Dinah Shore Dr.
Scenario:E+P Alt1
24,800
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,480 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 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%
-1.74
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 -15.24 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -19.20 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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 65.6 63.9 57.8 67.066.4
61.3 62.1
59.8 53.4 51.9 60.660.3
60.7 51.7 52.9 61.461.3
Vehicle Noise:69.4 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
58 125 580269
62 134 622289
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Road Name:Key Largo Av.
Scenario:E+P Alt1
2,800
10.00%
30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:280 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
30.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-7.48
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%
3.26 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 -24.72 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -28.67 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
29.816
29.518
29.547
Grade Adjustment:0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
63.0 61.1 59.4 53.3 62.661.9
56.9 57.7
55.4 49.0 47.4 56.155.9
56.3 47.2 48.5 57.056.8
Vehicle Noise:64.9 63.2 60.0 55.3 64.363.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
12 25 11754
13 27 12658
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:E+P Alt1
35,100
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,510 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.63 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.61 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.56 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.2 72.3 70.6 64.5 73.773.1
67.6 67.7
66.1 59.8 58.2 66.966.7
66.3 57.2 58.5 66.966.8
Vehicle Noise:75.8 74.0 71.1 66.2 75.274.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
125 269 1,248579
134 289 1,343623
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Dick Kelly Dr.
Scenario:E+P Alt1
5,800
10.00%
54.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:580 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
54.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:48 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%
0.08 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 -21.56 0.10 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -25.51 0.10 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.39
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
48.631
48.449
48.467
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 61.1 59.4 53.3 62.561.9
56.8 57.6
55.3 48.9 47.4 56.155.8
56.2 47.2 48.4 56.956.8
Vehicle Noise:64.9 63.1 60.0 55.3 64.363.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
21 45 21097
22 48 225104
Thursday, April 28, 2022
99 8-428
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Dick Kelly Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:E+P Alt1
36,800
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,680 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.84 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.40 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.36 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.4 72.5 70.8 64.7 73.973.3
67.8 67.9
66.3 60.0 58.4 67.166.9
66.5 57.4 58.7 67.267.0
Vehicle Noise:76.0 74.3 71.3 66.4 75.575.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
129 278 1,288598
139 299 1,386643
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Gerald Ford Dr.
Scenario:E+P Alt1
17,800
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,780 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
0.10 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
81.00 -17.14 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -21.10 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 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
69.4 67.5 65.7 59.7 68.968.3
63.0 63.4
61.5 55.1 53.6 62.362.0
62.0 52.9 54.2 62.762.5
Vehicle Noise:71.1 69.3 66.3 61.5 70.570.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
56 120 556258
60 129 597277
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Gerald Ford Dr.
Scenario:E+P Alt1
15,700
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,570 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.45
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%
-1.74
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 -17.69 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -21.64 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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
66.8 64.9 63.2 57.1 66.365.7
60.4 60.8
58.9 52.5 51.0 59.759.4
59.4 50.4 51.6 60.160.0
Vehicle Noise:68.5 66.8 63.7 58.9 67.967.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
51 110 510237
55 118 547254
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Gerald Ford Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:E+P Alt1
36,200
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,620 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.47 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.43 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.4 72.5 70.7 64.6 73.973.3
67.8 67.8
66.3 59.9 58.4 67.166.8
66.4 57.3 58.6 67.167.0
Vehicle Noise:75.9 74.2 71.2 66.4 75.474.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
127 274 1,274591
137 295 1,371636
Thursday, April 28, 2022
100 8-429
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Frank Sinatra Dr.
Scenario:E+P Alt1
16,500
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,650 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
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
82.40 -17.89 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -21.84 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 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 68.3 66.6 60.5 69.769.1
63.6 63.7
62.1 55.8 54.2 62.962.7
62.3 53.2 54.5 63.062.8
Vehicle Noise:71.8 70.1 67.1 62.2 71.370.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
62 134 620288
67 144 667310
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Frank Sinatra Dr.
Scenario:E+P Alt1
16,300
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,630 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.29
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%
-1.74
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 -17.53 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -21.48 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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
67.0 65.1 63.3 57.3 66.565.9
60.6 61.0
59.0 52.7 51.1 59.859.6
59.6 50.5 51.8 60.260.1
Vehicle Noise:68.7 66.9 63.9 59.1 68.167.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
52 113 522242
56 121 561261
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:E+P Alt1
37,100
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,710 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.87 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.37 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.32 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.5 72.6 70.8 64.7 74.073.4
67.9 67.9
66.4 60.0 58.5 67.266.9
66.5 57.5 58.7 67.267.1
Vehicle Noise:76.0 74.3 71.3 66.5 75.575.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
130 279 1,295601
139 300 1,393647
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Country Club Dr.
Scenario:E+P Alt1
25,200
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,520 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
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
81.00 -15.63 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -19.59 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 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 69.0 67.2 61.2 70.469.8
64.5 64.9
63.0 56.6 55.1 63.863.5
63.5 54.5 55.7 64.264.1
Vehicle Noise:72.6 70.9 67.8 63.0 72.071.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
70 151 701325
75 162 753349
Thursday, April 28, 2022
101 8-430
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Country Club Dr.
Scenario:E+P Alt1
25,100
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,510 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 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%
-1.74
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 -15.19 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -19.15 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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 65.7 63.9 57.8 67.166.5
61.3 62.2
59.8 53.5 51.9 60.660.4
60.8 51.7 53.0 61.561.3
Vehicle Noise:69.4 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
58 126 585271
63 135 627291
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Country Club Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:E+P Alt1
38,700
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,870 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
3.47 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%
0.30 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
81.00 -13.77 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -17.73 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 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 70.9 69.1 63.1 72.371.7
66.4 66.8
64.8 58.5 56.9 65.665.4
65.4 56.3 57.6 66.065.9
Vehicle Noise:74.5 72.7 69.7 64.9 73.973.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
93 201 933433
100 216 1,002465
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:n/o Varner Rd.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:E+P Alt2
15,800
10.00%
59.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,580 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
59.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:54 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.84
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%
-0.45
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
82.40 -18.07 -0.42 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -22.03 -0.43 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.35
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
52.697
52.529
52.546
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 67.4 65.6 59.6 68.868.2
62.7 62.7
61.2 54.8 53.3 62.061.8
61.3 52.3 53.5 62.061.9
Vehicle Noise:70.9 69.1 66.2 61.3 70.369.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
58 124 576267
62 134 620288
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Varner Rd.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:E+P Alt2
32,100
10.00%
59.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,210 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
59.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:54 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.24 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%
-0.45
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
82.40 -15.00 -0.42 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.95 -0.43 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.35
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
52.697
52.529
52.546
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
72.4 70.5 68.7 62.7 71.971.3
65.8 65.8
64.3 57.9 56.4 65.164.8
64.4 55.4 56.6 65.165.0
Vehicle Noise:74.0 72.2 69.2 64.4 73.472.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
92 199 924429
99 214 994461
Thursday, April 28, 2022
102 8-431
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:E+P Alt2
55,200
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:5,520 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
4.60 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%
-1.74
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
82.40 -12.64 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -16.60 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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
73.4 71.5 69.8 63.7 72.972.3
66.8 66.9
65.3 59.0 57.4 66.165.9
65.5 56.4 57.7 66.166.0
Vehicle Noise:75.0 73.3 70.3 65.4 74.574.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
138 298 1,383642
149 320 1,487690
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Key Largo Av.
Road Name:Dinah Shore Dr.
Scenario:E+P Alt2
27,500
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,750 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 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%
1.01 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 -14.80 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -18.75 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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 68.8 67.0 61.0 70.269.6
64.5 65.3
63.0 56.6 55.1 63.863.5
63.9 54.9 56.1 64.664.5
Vehicle Noise:72.6 70.8 67.7 63.0 72.071.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
76 163 759352
81 175 814378
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Key Largo Av.
Road Name:Dinah Shore Dr.
Scenario:E+P Alt2
32,400
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,240 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
3.15 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%
1.01 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 -14.08 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -18.04 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
71.4 69.5 67.8 61.7 70.970.3
65.2 66.1
63.7 57.3 55.8 64.564.3
64.6 55.6 56.8 65.365.2
Vehicle Noise:73.3 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
85 182 847393
91 196 908421
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Dinah Shore Dr.
Scenario:E+P Alt2
24,800
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,480 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 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%
-1.74
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 -15.24 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -19.20 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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 65.6 63.9 57.8 67.066.4
61.3 62.1
59.8 53.4 51.9 60.660.3
60.7 51.7 52.9 61.461.3
Vehicle Noise:69.4 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
58 125 580269
62 134 622289
Thursday, April 28, 2022
103 8-432
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Road Name:Key Largo Av.
Scenario:E+P Alt2
2,600
10.00%
30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:260 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
30.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-7.80
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%
3.26 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 -25.04 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -29.00 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
29.816
29.518
29.547
Grade Adjustment:0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
62.7 60.8 59.1 53.0 62.261.6
56.5 57.4
55.0 48.7 47.1 55.855.6
56.0 46.9 48.2 56.756.5
Vehicle Noise:64.6 62.8 59.7 55.0 64.063.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
11 24 11152
12 26 12056
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:E+P Alt2
35,100
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,510 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.63 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.61 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.56 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.2 72.3 70.6 64.5 73.773.1
67.6 67.7
66.1 59.8 58.2 66.966.7
66.3 57.2 58.5 66.966.8
Vehicle Noise:75.8 74.0 71.1 66.2 75.274.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
125 269 1,248579
134 289 1,343623
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Dick Kelly Dr.
Scenario:E+P Alt2
5,800
10.00%
54.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:580 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
54.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:48 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%
0.08 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 -21.56 0.10 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -25.51 0.10 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.39
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
48.631
48.449
48.467
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 61.1 59.4 53.3 62.561.9
56.8 57.6
55.3 48.9 47.4 56.155.8
56.2 47.2 48.4 56.956.8
Vehicle Noise:64.9 63.1 60.0 55.3 64.363.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
21 45 21097
22 48 225104
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Dick Kelly Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:E+P Alt2
35,800
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,580 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.72 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.52 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.48 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.3 72.4 70.6 64.6 73.873.2
67.7 67.8
66.2 59.9 58.3 67.066.8
66.3 57.3 58.6 67.066.9
Vehicle Noise:75.9 74.1 71.2 66.3 75.374.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
126 272 1,265587
136 293 1,360631
Thursday, April 28, 2022
104 8-433
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Gerald Ford Dr.
Scenario:E+P Alt2
17,000
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,700 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.10
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
81.00 -17.34 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -21.30 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 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 67.3 65.5 59.5 68.768.1
62.8 63.2
61.3 54.9 53.4 62.161.8
61.8 52.7 54.0 62.562.4
Vehicle Noise:70.9 69.1 66.1 61.3 70.369.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
54 116 539250
58 125 579269
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Gerald Ford Dr.
Scenario:E+P Alt2
15,000
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,500 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 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%
-1.74
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 -17.89 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -21.84 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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 64.7 63.0 56.9 66.165.5
60.2 60.6
58.7 52.3 50.8 59.559.2
59.2 50.2 51.4 59.959.8
Vehicle Noise:68.3 66.6 63.5 58.7 67.867.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
49 106 494229
53 114 531246
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Gerald Ford Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:E+P Alt2
35,200
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,520 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.64 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.60 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.55 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.2 72.3 70.6 64.5 73.773.1
67.7 67.7
66.1 59.8 58.2 66.966.7
66.3 57.2 58.5 67.066.8
Vehicle Noise:75.8 74.1 71.1 66.2 75.374.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
125 269 1,250580
135 290 1,345624
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Frank Sinatra Dr.
Scenario:E+P Alt2
16,500
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,650 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
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
82.40 -17.89 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -21.84 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 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 68.3 66.6 60.5 69.769.1
63.6 63.7
62.1 55.8 54.2 62.962.7
62.3 53.2 54.5 63.062.8
Vehicle Noise:71.8 70.1 67.1 62.2 71.370.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
62 134 620288
67 144 667310
Thursday, April 28, 2022
105 8-434
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Frank Sinatra Dr.
Scenario:E+P Alt2
16,300
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,630 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.29
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%
-1.74
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 -17.53 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -21.48 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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
67.0 65.1 63.3 57.3 66.565.9
60.6 61.0
59.0 52.7 51.1 59.859.6
59.6 50.5 51.8 60.260.1
Vehicle Noise:68.7 66.9 63.9 59.1 68.167.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
52 113 522242
56 121 561261
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:E+P Alt2
37,100
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,710 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.87 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.37 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.32 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.5 72.6 70.8 64.7 74.073.4
67.9 67.9
66.4 60.0 58.5 67.266.9
66.5 57.5 58.7 67.267.1
Vehicle Noise:76.0 74.3 71.3 66.5 75.575.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
130 279 1,295601
139 300 1,393647
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Country Club Dr.
Scenario:E+P Alt2
25,200
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,520 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
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
81.00 -15.63 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -19.59 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 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 69.0 67.2 61.2 70.469.8
64.5 64.9
63.0 56.6 55.1 63.863.5
63.5 54.5 55.7 64.264.1
Vehicle Noise:72.6 70.9 67.8 63.0 72.071.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
70 151 701325
75 162 753349
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Country Club Dr.
Scenario:E+P Alt2
25,100
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,510 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 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%
-1.74
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 -15.19 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -19.15 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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 65.7 63.9 57.8 67.166.5
61.3 62.2
59.8 53.5 51.9 60.660.4
60.8 51.7 53.0 61.561.3
Vehicle Noise:69.4 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
58 126 585271
63 135 627291
Thursday, April 28, 2022
106 8-435
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Country Club Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:E+P Alt2
38,700
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,870 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
3.47 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%
0.30 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
81.00 -13.77 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -17.73 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 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 70.9 69.1 63.1 72.371.7
66.4 66.8
64.8 58.5 56.9 65.665.4
65.4 56.3 57.6 66.065.9
Vehicle Noise:74.5 72.7 69.7 64.9 73.973.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
93 201 933433
100 216 1,002465
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:n/o Varner Rd.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OY
15,300
10.00%
59.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,530 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
59.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:54 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.98
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%
-0.45
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
82.40 -18.21 -0.42 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -22.17 -0.43 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.35
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
52.697
52.529
52.546
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 67.3 65.5 59.4 68.768.1
62.6 62.6
61.1 54.7 53.2 61.861.6
61.2 52.1 53.4 61.961.7
Vehicle Noise:70.7 69.0 66.0 61.2 70.269.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
56 121 564262
61 131 607282
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Varner Rd.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OY
31,000
10.00%
59.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,100 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
59.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:54 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%
-0.45
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
82.40 -15.15 -0.42 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -19.10 -0.43 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.35
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
52.697
52.529
52.546
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
72.2 70.3 68.6 62.5 71.771.1
65.6 65.7
64.1 57.8 56.2 64.964.7
64.2 55.2 56.5 64.964.8
Vehicle Noise:73.8 72.0 69.1 64.2 73.272.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
90 195 903419
97 209 971451
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OY
51,500
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:5,150 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
4.30 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%
-1.74
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
82.40 -12.94 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -16.90 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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
73.1 71.2 69.5 63.4 72.672.0
66.5 66.6
65.0 58.7 57.1 65.865.6
65.2 56.1 57.4 65.865.7
Vehicle Noise:74.7 73.0 70.0 65.1 74.273.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
132 284 1,320613
142 306 1,420659
Thursday, April 28, 2022
107 8-436
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Key Largo Av.
Road Name:Dinah Shore Dr.
Scenario:OY
22,900
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,290 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 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%
1.01 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 -15.59 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -19.55 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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 68.0 66.3 60.2 69.468.8
63.7 64.5
62.2 55.8 54.3 63.062.7
63.1 54.1 55.3 63.863.7
Vehicle Noise:71.8 70.0 66.9 62.2 71.270.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
67 145 672312
72 155 720334
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Key Largo Av.
Road Name:Dinah Shore Dr.
Scenario:OY
27,900
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,790 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.51 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%
1.01 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 -14.73 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -18.69 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
70.8 68.9 67.1 61.1 70.369.7
64.6 65.4
63.1 56.7 55.1 63.863.6
64.0 54.9 56.2 64.764.6
Vehicle Noise:72.6 70.9 67.7 63.1 72.071.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
77 165 766356
82 177 822381
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Dinah Shore Dr.
Scenario:OY
22,700
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,270 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 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%
-1.74
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 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -19.58 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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 65.2 63.5 57.4 66.666.0
60.9 61.7
59.4 53.0 51.5 60.259.9
60.3 51.3 52.5 61.060.9
Vehicle Noise:69.0 67.2 64.1 59.4 68.467.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
55 118 547254
59 126 587272
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Road Name:Key Largo Av.
Scenario:OY
1,900
10.00%
30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:190 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
30.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-9.16
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%
3.26 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 -26.40 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -30.36 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
29.816
29.518
29.547
Grade Adjustment:0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
61.4 59.5 57.7 51.6 60.960.3
55.2 56.0
53.7 47.3 45.8 54.554.2
54.6 45.6 46.8 55.355.2
Vehicle Noise:63.2 61.5 58.3 53.6 62.662.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
9 19 9042
10 21 9745
Thursday, April 28, 2022
108 8-437
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OY
33,400
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,340 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.82 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.78 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.0 72.1 70.3 64.3 73.572.9
67.4 67.5
65.9 59.6 58.0 66.766.5
66.0 57.0 58.2 66.766.6
Vehicle Noise:75.6 73.8 70.9 66.0 75.074.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
121 260 1,207560
130 280 1,299603
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Dick Kelly Dr.
Scenario:OY
5,500
10.00%
54.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:550 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
54.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-4.55
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%
0.08 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 -21.79 0.10 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -25.74 0.10 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.39
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
48.631
48.449
48.467
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 60.9 59.1 53.1 62.361.7
56.6 57.4
55.1 48.7 47.2 55.855.6
56.0 47.0 48.2 56.756.6
Vehicle Noise:64.6 62.9 59.7 55.1 64.163.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
20 44 20294
22 47 217101
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Dick Kelly Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OY
33,400
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,340 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.82 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.78 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.0 72.1 70.3 64.3 73.572.9
67.4 67.5
65.9 59.6 58.0 66.766.5
66.0 57.0 58.2 66.766.6
Vehicle Noise:75.6 73.8 70.9 66.0 75.074.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
121 260 1,207560
130 280 1,299603
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Gerald Ford Dr.
Scenario:OY
15,700
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,570 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.45
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
81.00 -17.69 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -21.64 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 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 67.0 65.2 59.1 68.467.8
62.4 62.9
60.9 54.6 53.0 61.761.5
61.4 52.4 53.6 62.162.0
Vehicle Noise:70.6 68.8 65.8 61.0 70.069.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
51 110 511237
55 118 549255
Thursday, April 28, 2022
109 8-438
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Gerald Ford Dr.
Scenario:OY
13,300
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,330 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.17
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%
-1.74
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 -18.41 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -22.36 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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
66.1 64.2 62.4 56.4 65.665.0
59.7 60.1
58.2 51.8 50.3 58.958.7
58.7 49.6 50.9 59.459.2
Vehicle Noise:67.8 66.0 63.0 58.2 67.266.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
46 98 456212
49 106 490227
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Gerald Ford Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OY
34,100
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,410 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.51 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.73 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.69 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.1 72.2 70.4 64.4 73.673.0
67.5 67.5
66.0 59.6 58.1 66.866.6
66.1 57.1 58.3 66.866.7
Vehicle Noise:75.7 73.9 71.0 66.1 75.174.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
122 264 1,224568
132 284 1,317611
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Frank Sinatra Dr.
Scenario:OY
15,400
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,540 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.95
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
82.40 -18.19 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -22.14 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 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 68.0 66.3 60.2 69.468.8
63.3 63.4
61.8 55.5 53.9 62.662.4
62.0 52.9 54.2 62.762.5
Vehicle Noise:71.5 69.8 66.8 61.9 71.070.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
59 128 592275
64 137 637296
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Frank Sinatra Dr.
Scenario:OY
15,500
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,550 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 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%
-1.74
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 -17.74 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -21.70 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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
66.8 64.9 63.1 57.0 66.365.7
60.3 60.8
58.8 52.5 50.9 59.659.4
59.3 50.3 51.5 60.059.9
Vehicle Noise:68.5 66.7 63.7 58.9 67.967.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
51 109 505234
54 117 543252
Thursday, April 28, 2022
110 8-439
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OY
36,600
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,660 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.81 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.43 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.38 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.4 72.5 70.7 64.7 73.973.3
67.8 67.9
66.3 60.0 58.4 67.166.9
66.4 57.4 58.6 67.167.0
Vehicle Noise:76.0 74.2 71.3 66.4 75.475.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
128 277 1,283596
138 297 1,381641
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Country Club Dr.
Scenario:OY
22,800
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,280 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
1.17 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
81.00 -16.07 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -20.02 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 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
70.5 68.6 66.8 60.8 70.069.4
64.1 64.5
62.6 56.2 54.6 63.363.1
63.1 54.0 55.3 63.863.6
Vehicle Noise:72.2 70.4 67.4 62.6 71.671.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
66 141 656304
70 152 704327
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Country Club Dr.
Scenario:OY
23,100
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,310 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 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%
-1.74
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 -15.55 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -19.51 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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
67.2 65.3 63.5 57.5 66.766.1
61.0 61.8
59.5 53.1 51.6 60.360.0
60.4 51.4 52.6 61.161.0
Vehicle Noise:69.0 67.3 64.2 59.5 68.568.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
55 119 553257
59 128 594275
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Country Club Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OY
37,700
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,770 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
3.35 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
81.00 -13.88 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -17.84 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 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
72.7 70.8 69.0 62.9 72.271.6
66.2 66.7
64.7 58.4 56.8 65.565.3
65.2 56.2 57.5 65.965.8
Vehicle Noise:74.4 72.6 69.6 64.8 73.873.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
92 197 917425
98 212 985457
Thursday, April 28, 2022
111 8-440
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:n/o Varner Rd.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OYP Alt1
15,600
10.00%
59.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,560 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
59.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:54 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.89
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%
-0.45
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
82.40 -18.13 -0.42 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -22.09 -0.43 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.35
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
52.697
52.529
52.546
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 67.3 65.6 59.5 68.868.1
62.6 62.7
61.1 54.8 53.2 61.961.7
61.3 52.2 53.5 62.061.8
Vehicle Noise:70.8 69.1 66.1 61.2 70.369.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
57 123 571265
61 132 615285
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Varner Rd.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OYP Alt1
32,200
10.00%
59.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,220 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
59.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:54 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.26 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%
-0.45
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
82.40 -14.98 -0.42 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.94 -0.43 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.35
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
52.697
52.529
52.546
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
72.4 70.5 68.7 62.7 71.971.3
65.8 65.8
64.3 57.9 56.4 65.164.8
64.4 55.4 56.6 65.165.0
Vehicle Noise:74.0 72.2 69.3 64.4 73.472.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
93 200 926430
100 215 996462
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OYP Alt1
54,700
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:5,470 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
4.56 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%
-1.74
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
82.40 -12.68 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -16.64 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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
73.4 71.5 69.7 63.7 72.972.3
66.8 66.8
65.3 58.9 57.4 66.165.8
65.4 56.4 57.6 66.166.0
Vehicle Noise:75.0 73.2 70.3 65.4 74.473.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
137 296 1,374638
148 318 1,478686
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Key Largo Av.
Road Name:Dinah Shore Dr.
Scenario:OYP Alt1
23,500
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,350 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
1.76 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%
1.01 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 -15.48 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -19.43 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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 68.1 66.4 60.3 69.568.9
63.8 64.7
62.3 55.9 54.4 63.162.9
63.2 54.2 55.4 63.963.8
Vehicle Noise:71.9 70.1 67.0 62.3 71.370.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
68 147 683317
73 158 733340
Thursday, April 28, 2022
112 8-441
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Key Largo Av.
Road Name:Dinah Shore Dr.
Scenario:OYP Alt1
28,400
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,840 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.58 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%
1.01 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 -14.66 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -18.61 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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 69.0 67.2 61.1 70.469.8
64.6 65.5
63.1 56.8 55.2 63.963.7
64.1 55.0 56.3 64.864.6
Vehicle Noise:72.7 71.0 67.8 63.1 72.171.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
78 167 775360
83 179 832386
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Dinah Shore Dr.
Scenario:OYP Alt1
22,700
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,270 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 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%
-1.74
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 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -19.58 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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 65.2 63.5 57.4 66.666.0
60.9 61.7
59.4 53.0 51.5 60.259.9
60.3 51.3 52.5 61.060.9
Vehicle Noise:69.0 67.2 64.1 59.4 68.467.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
55 118 547254
59 126 587272
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Road Name:Key Largo Av.
Scenario:OYP Alt1
3,000
10.00%
30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:300 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
30.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-7.18
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%
3.26 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 -24.42 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -28.37 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
29.816
29.518
29.547
Grade Adjustment:0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
63.3 61.4 59.7 53.6 62.962.2
57.2 58.0
55.7 49.3 47.7 56.456.2
56.6 47.5 48.8 57.357.1
Vehicle Noise:65.2 63.5 60.3 55.6 64.664.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
12 26 12357
13 28 13261
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OYP Alt1
35,800
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,580 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.72 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.52 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.48 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.3 72.4 70.6 64.6 73.873.2
67.7 67.8
66.2 59.9 58.3 67.066.8
66.3 57.3 58.6 67.066.9
Vehicle Noise:75.9 74.1 71.2 66.3 75.374.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
126 272 1,265587
136 293 1,360631
Thursday, April 28, 2022
113 8-442
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Dick Kelly Dr.
Scenario:OYP Alt1
5,900
10.00%
54.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:590 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
54.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-4.24
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%
0.08 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 -21.48 0.10 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -25.44 0.10 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.39
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
48.631
48.449
48.467
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 61.2 59.4 53.4 62.662.0
56.9 57.7
55.4 49.0 47.5 56.155.9
56.3 47.3 48.5 57.056.9
Vehicle Noise:64.9 63.2 60.0 55.4 64.463.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
21 46 21298
23 49 227106
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Dick Kelly Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OYP Alt1
36,500
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,650 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.80 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.44 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.39 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.4 72.5 70.7 64.7 73.973.3
67.8 67.8
66.3 59.9 58.4 67.166.9
66.4 57.4 58.6 67.167.0
Vehicle Noise:76.0 74.2 71.3 66.4 75.474.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
128 276 1,281595
138 297 1,378640
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Gerald Ford Dr.
Scenario:OYP Alt1
16,200
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,620 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.31
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
81.00 -17.55 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -21.51 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 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 67.1 65.3 59.3 68.567.9
62.6 63.0
61.1 54.7 53.2 61.961.6
61.6 52.5 53.8 62.362.1
Vehicle Noise:70.7 68.9 65.9 61.1 70.169.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
52 112 522242
56 121 561260
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Gerald Ford Dr.
Scenario:OYP Alt1
13,800
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,380 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.01
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%
-1.74
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 -18.25 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -22.20 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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 64.4 62.6 56.5 65.865.2
59.8 60.2
58.3 52.0 50.4 59.158.9
58.8 49.8 51.0 59.559.4
Vehicle Noise:68.0 66.2 63.2 58.4 67.466.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
47 101 468217
50 108 502233
Thursday, April 28, 2022
114 8-443
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Gerald Ford Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OYP Alt1
36,000
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,600 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.74 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.50 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.45 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.3 72.4 70.7 64.6 73.873.2
67.7 67.8
66.2 59.9 58.3 67.066.8
66.4 57.3 58.6 67.166.9
Vehicle Noise:75.9 74.2 71.2 66.3 75.474.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
127 273 1,269589
137 294 1,365634
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Frank Sinatra Dr.
Scenario:OYP Alt1
15,700
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,570 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.86
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%
0.30 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
82.40 -18.10 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -22.06 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 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 68.1 66.4 60.3 69.568.9
63.4 63.5
61.9 55.6 54.0 62.762.5
62.0 53.0 54.3 62.762.6
Vehicle Noise:71.6 69.8 66.9 62.0 71.070.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
60 129 600278
65 139 645299
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Frank Sinatra Dr.
Scenario:OYP Alt1
15,900
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,590 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.39
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%
-1.74
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 -17.63 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -21.59 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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 65.0 63.2 57.2 66.465.8
60.4 60.9
58.9 52.6 51.0 59.759.5
59.4 50.4 51.7 60.160.0
Vehicle Noise:68.6 66.8 63.8 59.0 68.067.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
51 111 514239
55 119 552256
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OYP Alt1
37,900
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,790 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.27 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.23 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.6 72.7 70.9 64.8 74.173.5
68.0 68.0
66.5 60.1 58.6 67.367.0
66.6 57.5 58.8 67.367.2
Vehicle Noise:76.1 74.4 71.4 66.6 75.675.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
131 283 1,314610
141 304 1,413656
Thursday, April 28, 2022
115 8-444
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Country Club Dr.
Scenario:OYP Alt1
23,100
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,310 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
1.23 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%
0.30 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
81.00 -16.01 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -19.97 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 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
70.5 68.6 66.9 60.8 70.069.4
64.1 64.5
62.6 56.2 54.7 63.463.2
63.1 54.1 55.3 63.863.7
Vehicle Noise:72.2 70.5 67.4 62.7 71.771.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
66 142 661307
71 153 710330
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Country Club Dr.
Scenario:OYP Alt1
23,400
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,340 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
1.74 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%
-1.74
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 -15.50 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -19.45 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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 65.4 63.6 57.5 66.866.2
61.0 61.9
59.5 53.2 51.6 60.360.1
60.5 51.4 52.7 61.161.0
Vehicle Noise:69.1 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
56 120 558259
60 129 599278
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Country Club Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OYP Alt1
38,400
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,840 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
3.43 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%
0.30 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
81.00 -13.80 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -17.76 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 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
72.7 70.8 69.1 63.0 72.271.6
66.3 66.7
64.8 58.5 56.9 65.665.4
65.3 56.3 57.5 66.065.9
Vehicle Noise:74.4 72.7 69.6 64.9 73.973.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
93 200 928431
100 215 997463
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:n/o Varner Rd.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OYP Alt2
15,600
10.00%
59.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,560 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
59.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:54 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.89
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%
-0.45
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
82.40 -18.13 -0.42 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -22.09 -0.43 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.35
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
52.697
52.529
52.546
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 67.3 65.6 59.5 68.868.1
62.6 62.7
61.1 54.8 53.2 61.961.7
61.3 52.2 53.5 62.061.8
Vehicle Noise:70.8 69.1 66.1 61.2 70.369.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
57 123 571265
61 132 615285
Thursday, April 28, 2022
116 8-445
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Varner Rd.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OYP Alt2
32,200
10.00%
59.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,220 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
59.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:54 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.26 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%
-0.45
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
82.40 -14.98 -0.42 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.94 -0.43 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.35
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
52.697
52.529
52.546
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
72.4 70.5 68.7 62.7 71.971.3
65.8 65.8
64.3 57.9 56.4 65.164.8
64.4 55.4 56.6 65.165.0
Vehicle Noise:74.0 72.2 69.3 64.4 73.472.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
93 200 926430
100 215 996462
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:n/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OYP Alt2
54,700
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:5,470 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
4.56 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%
-1.74
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
82.40 -12.68 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -16.64 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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
73.4 71.5 69.7 63.7 72.972.3
66.8 66.8
65.3 58.9 57.4 66.165.8
65.4 56.4 57.6 66.166.0
Vehicle Noise:75.0 73.2 70.3 65.4 74.473.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
137 296 1,374638
148 318 1,478686
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Key Largo Av.
Road Name:Dinah Shore Dr.
Scenario:OYP Alt2
23,500
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,350 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
1.76 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%
1.01 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 -15.48 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -19.43 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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 68.1 66.4 60.3 69.568.9
63.8 64.7
62.3 55.9 54.4 63.162.9
63.2 54.2 55.4 63.963.8
Vehicle Noise:71.9 70.1 67.0 62.3 71.370.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
68 147 683317
73 158 733340
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Key Largo Av.
Road Name:Dinah Shore Dr.
Scenario:OYP Alt2
29,300
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,930 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.72 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%
1.01 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 -14.52 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -18.48 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
71.0 69.1 67.3 61.3 70.569.9
64.8 65.6
63.3 56.9 55.4 64.163.8
64.2 55.2 56.4 64.964.8
Vehicle Noise:72.8 71.1 67.9 63.3 72.371.8
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
79 171 792367
85 183 849394
Thursday, April 28, 2022
117 8-446
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Dinah Shore Dr.
Scenario:OYP Alt2
22,700
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,270 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 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%
-1.74
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 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -19.58 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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 65.2 63.5 57.4 66.666.0
60.9 61.7
59.4 53.0 51.5 60.259.9
60.3 51.3 52.5 61.060.9
Vehicle Noise:69.0 67.2 64.1 59.4 68.467.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
55 118 547254
59 126 587272
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Road Name:Key Largo Av.
Scenario:OYP Alt2
2,900
10.00%
30.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:290 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
30.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:12 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-7.33
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%
3.26 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 -24.57 3.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -28.52 3.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
29.816
29.518
29.547
Grade Adjustment:0.0
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn
63.2 61.3 59.5 53.5 62.762.1
57.0 57.9
55.5 49.1 47.6 56.356.1
56.4 47.4 48.6 57.157.0
Vehicle Noise:65.1 63.3 60.1 55.5 64.564.0
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
12 26 12056
13 28 12960
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Dinah Shore Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OYP Alt2
35,900
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,590 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.73 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.51 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.47 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.3 72.4 70.7 64.6 73.873.2
67.7 67.8
66.2 59.9 58.3 67.066.8
66.3 57.3 58.6 67.066.9
Vehicle Noise:75.9 74.1 71.2 66.3 75.374.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
127 273 1,267588
136 294 1,363633
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Dick Kelly Dr.
Scenario:OYP Alt2
5,900
10.00%
54.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:590 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
54.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:48 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-4.24
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%
0.08 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 -21.48 0.10 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -25.44 0.10 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.39
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
48.631
48.449
48.467
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 61.2 59.4 53.4 62.662.0
56.9 57.7
55.4 49.0 47.5 56.155.9
56.3 47.3 48.5 57.056.9
Vehicle Noise:64.9 63.2 60.0 55.4 64.463.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
21 46 21298
23 49 227106
Thursday, April 28, 2022
118 8-447
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Dick Kelly Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OYP Alt2
36,500
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,650 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.80 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.44 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.39 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.4 72.5 70.7 64.7 73.973.3
67.8 67.8
66.3 59.9 58.4 67.166.9
66.4 57.4 58.6 67.167.0
Vehicle Noise:76.0 74.2 71.3 66.4 75.474.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
128 276 1,281595
138 297 1,378640
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Gerald Ford Dr.
Scenario:OYP Alt2
16,200
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,620 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.31
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
81.00 -17.55 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -21.51 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 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 67.1 65.3 59.3 68.567.9
62.6 63.0
61.1 54.7 53.2 61.961.6
61.6 52.5 53.8 62.362.1
Vehicle Noise:70.7 68.9 65.9 61.1 70.169.7
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
52 112 522242
56 121 561260
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Gerald Ford Dr.
Scenario:OYP Alt2
13,800
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,380 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-1.01
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%
-1.74
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 -18.25 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -22.20 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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 64.4 62.6 56.5 65.865.2
59.8 60.2
58.3 52.0 50.4 59.158.9
58.8 49.8 51.0 59.559.4
Vehicle Noise:68.0 66.2 63.2 58.4 67.466.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
47 101 468217
50 108 502233
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Gerald Ford Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OYP Alt2
36,000
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,600 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.74 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.50 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.45 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.3 72.4 70.7 64.6 73.873.2
67.7 67.8
66.2 59.9 58.3 67.066.8
66.4 57.3 58.6 67.166.9
Vehicle Noise:75.9 74.2 71.2 66.3 75.474.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
127 273 1,269589
137 294 1,365634
Thursday, April 28, 2022
119 8-448
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Frank Sinatra Dr.
Scenario:OYP Alt2
15,700
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,570 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.86
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%
0.30 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
82.40 -18.10 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -22.06 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 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 68.1 66.4 60.3 69.568.9
63.4 63.5
61.9 55.6 54.0 62.762.5
62.0 53.0 54.3 62.762.6
Vehicle Noise:71.6 69.8 66.9 62.0 71.070.6
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
60 129 600278
65 139 645299
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Frank Sinatra Dr.
Scenario:OYP Alt2
15,900
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,590 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.39
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%
-1.74
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 -17.63 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -21.59 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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 65.0 63.2 57.2 66.465.8
60.4 60.9
58.9 52.6 51.0 59.759.5
59.4 50.4 51.7 60.160.0
Vehicle Noise:68.6 66.8 63.8 59.0 68.067.5
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
51 111 514239
55 119 552256
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OYP Alt2
37,900
10.00%
60.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,790 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
60.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:86 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%
1.01 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
82.40 -14.27 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.23 1.04 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
42.143
41.932
41.953
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
74.6 72.7 70.9 64.8 74.173.5
68.0 68.0
66.5 60.1 58.6 67.367.0
66.6 57.5 58.8 67.367.2
Vehicle Noise:76.1 74.4 71.4 66.6 75.675.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
131 283 1,314610
141 304 1,413656
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:w/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Country Club Dr.
Scenario:OYP Alt2
23,100
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,310 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
1.23 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%
0.30 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
81.00 -16.01 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -19.97 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 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
70.5 68.6 66.9 60.8 70.069.4
64.1 64.5
62.6 56.2 54.7 63.463.2
63.1 54.1 55.3 63.863.7
Vehicle Noise:72.2 70.5 67.4 62.7 71.771.2
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
66 142 661307
71 153 710330
Thursday, April 28, 2022
120 8-449
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:e/o Monterey Av.
Road Name:Country Club Dr.
Scenario:OYP Alt2
23,400
10.00%
75.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:2,340 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
75.0Centerline 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
45 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:78 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
1.74 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%
-1.74
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 -15.50 -1.72 -1.20 0.000 0.000
84.25 -19.45 -1.73 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.73
-4.88
-5.25
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
68.46 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
64.257
64.119
64.133
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 65.4 63.6 57.5 66.866.2
61.0 61.9
59.5 53.2 51.6 60.360.1
60.5 51.4 52.7 61.161.0
Vehicle Noise:69.1 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
56 120 558259
60 129 599278
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Country Club Dr.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:OYP Alt2
38,400
10.00%
55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,840 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
50 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:58 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
3.43 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%
0.30 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
81.00 -13.80 0.33 -1.20 0.000 0.000
85.38 -17.76 0.32 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
70.20 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
72.7 70.8 69.1 63.0 72.271.6
66.3 66.7
64.8 58.5 56.9 65.665.4
65.3 56.3 57.5 66.065.9
Vehicle Noise:74.4 72.7 69.6 64.9 73.973.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
93 200 928431
100 215 997463
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:n/o Varner Rd.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:FY
16,000
10.00%
59.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:1,600 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
59.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:54 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
-0.78
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%
-0.45
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
82.40 -18.02 -0.42 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -21.98 -0.43 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.35
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297
8.006
52.697
52.529
52.546
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
69.4 67.5 65.7 59.6 68.968.3
62.8 62.8
61.3 54.9 53.3 62.061.8
61.4 52.3 53.6 62.161.9
Vehicle Noise:70.9 69.2 66.2 61.3 70.469.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
CNEL:
Ldn:
70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA
58 125 581270
63 135 625290
Thursday, April 28, 2022
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA
Project Name:Rancho Monterey Specific
Job Number:14271
Road Segment:s/o Varner Rd.
Road Name:Monterey Av.
Scenario:FY
34,700
10.00%
59.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Average Daily Traffic (Adt):
Peak Hour Percentage:
Peak Hour Volume:3,470 vehicles
Centerline Dist. to Barrier:
59.0Centerline 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
55 mphVehicle Speed:
Near/Far Lane Distance:54 feet
REMEL Traffic Flow Distance
2.58 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%
-0.45
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
82.40 -14.66 -0.42 -1.20 0.000 0.000
86.40 -18.61 -0.43 -1.20 0.000 0.000
-4.69
-4.88
-5.35
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:
71.78 Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Medium Trucks:
Heavy Trucks:
Autos:0.000
2.297