Rancho Mirage City Council
April 18, 2024

2/26/2018http://www.qcode.us/codes/ranchomirage/view.php?topic=8-8_45&showAll=1&frames=on 7-1269
'-=-_ ..... II ... ---==-----_.....1--=1 =----•II .... =---- ...... 11•-=-------'1'--=1 =---------'1'--=1 =----____,I..._I ---='--------' 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
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.

2/26/2018http://www.qcode.us/codes/ranchomirage/view.php?topic=8-8_45&showAll=1&frames=on 7-1270
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; 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.

2/26/2018http://www.qcode.us/codes/ranchomirage/view.php?topic=8-8_45&showAll=1&frames=on 7-1271
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.

2/26/2018http://www.qcode.us/codes/ranchomirage/view.php?topic=8-8_45&showAll=1&frames=on 7-1272
7-1273
PETERS
&

FREEDMAN,
L.L.P.

ATTORNEYS
AT
LAW
DAVID
M.

PETERS
JAMES
R.

McCORMICK
JR.,
CCAL

STEPHEN
M.

KIRKLAND

CHRISTINA
M.

BAINE
DeJARDIN
KYLE
E.

LAKIN
43100
COOK
STREET
, SUITE
202
PALM

DESERT,
CA
92211

ZACHARY
R. SMITH
TRACY
F. LINKOWSKI
LAURIE
F.

MASOTTO

JEFFREY
D.

PAAPE
KEENAN
A.

PARKER
DYANNE
L.

PETERS
LAURIE
S. POOLE,
CCAL

TIFFANY
N. SMITH-NGUYEN
SIMON
J.

FREEDMAN
(RET)
Via
Electronic
and
First
Class
Mail
Steven
B.

Quintanilla,
City
Attorney
City
of
Rancho
Mirage
Tel:
(760)
773-4463
Fax:
(760)
773-0919
September
26,
2017
Law
Offices
of
Quintanilla
&
Associates
P.O.

Box
176
Rancho
Mirage,
California
92270
www.HOALAW
.com
mail@HOALA
W.
com

ENCINITAS
OFFICE
191
CALLE

MAGDALENA,
STE
. 220

ENCINITAS,
CA
92024
Tel:
(760)
436-3441
Fax
: (760)
436-3442
ORANGE
COUNTY
OFFICE
16 JOURNEY,
BLDG.

A, STE.
200
ALISO
VIEJO,
CA
92656
Tel
: (949)
390-2977
Fax
: (949)
335-9044
Re:

Mira
Vista
at
Mission
Hills
Homeowners
Association
\ Ramon
Road
Widening
Our
File
No.
2104
Dear
Mr.

Quintanilla:

As
you
know,
the
Law
Firm
of
Peters
&
Freedman,
L.L.P
., represents
the
Mira
Vista
at
Mission
Hills
Homeowners
Association
("Association").

The
purpose
of
this
correspondence
is
to
request
that
the
City
of
Rancho
Mirage
("City'')
take
action
to
abate
the noise
that
is
being
generated
by
traffic
on
Ramon
Road.

As
you
are
aware,
a Noise
Impact
Analysis
was
commissioned
in
February
2003
in
relation
to
the
City-proposed
widening
of
Ramon
Road
from
two
to
six
lanes
for
the
one-mile
stretch
between
Da
Vall
Drive
and
Los
Alamos
Road.

It
is
surprising
that
the
"country
club
homes"
were
not
included
in
the
area
of
potential
effect
("APE")
since
the
Specific
Plan
for
Mission
Hills
North
explicitly
contemplates
noise
impacts
on
the
residences
from
nearby
existing
and
future
roadways
and
indicates
that
modifications
to
the
wall
along
Ramon
Road
may
be
necessary
to
reduce
noise
in
the
residential
areas
closest
to
the
street.

Amendments
to
the
Specific
Plan
also
recommend
mitigation
measures,
such
as
acoustic
berms
or
berm
and
barrier
combinations,
to
minimize
noise
impacts.

Despite
the
fact
that
the
"country
club
homes"
were
not
considered
part
of
the
APE,
the
Analysis
concludes
that
"extrapolation
of
the
near-field
predicted
noise
levels
suggests
that
the
closest
homes
currently
under
construction
could
be
noise
impacted
in
the
future."
This
prediction
has
unfortunately
come
to
pass.

The
Association
hired
a consultant
to
prepare
its
own
Highway
Noise
Mitigation
Prediction
Study.

A
copy
of
this
Study
has
been
provided
to
the
City.

The
Study
concludes
that
the
noise
levels
generated
by
the
traffic
on
Ramon
Road
exceed
the
maximum
allowable
decibel
limits
for
medium/
7-1274
Steven
B.

Quintanilla
September
26,
2017
Page2 high
density residential
areas
as
stated
in
the
City's
noise
ordinance.
(Rancho
Mirage
Municipal
Code,
Chapter

8.45.)
As
stated
in
the
noise
ordinance,
no
person,
including
public
agencies,
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
to
exceed
specified
limits.

The
City
has
allowed
the
noise
on
Ramon
Road
to
exceed
the
allowable
decibel
limits
to
the
detriment
of
the
residents
at
the
Association.

In
fact,
property
values
are
being
impacted
as
a result
of
this
noise.

According
to
a real
estate
analysis
prepared
for
the
Board
of
Directors,
homes
facing
Ramon
Road
are
taking
longer
to
sell
and
are
selling
for
less
than
comparable
homes
that
do
not
face
Ramon
Road.

It
is
the
Association's
position
that
the
City
had
an
obligation
to
ensure
that
some
type
of
sound
barrier
was
installed
at
the
time
that
Mira
Vista
was
being
built,
or
at
least
when
Ramon
Road
was
widened.

Rather
than
looking
backward,
however,
the
Association
wishes
to
move
forward
towards
resolution.

This
is
becoming
increasingly
important
as
we
see
new
residential
developments
being
constructed
in
the
vicinity
of
Mira
Vista,
a middle
school
being
proposed
on
the
north
side
of
Ramon
Road,
and
a large,
commercially
zoned property
waiting
to
be
developed.

With
the
construction
of
these
new
"destinations,"
traffic
on
Ramon
Road
will
increase
exponentially.

This
will,
in
tum,
dramatically
increase
the
noise.

The
Association
requests
that
the
City
take
prompt
action
to
investigate
and
construct
a sound
barrier
that
will
decrease
the
noise
from
Ramon
Road
such
that
it falls
within
acceptable
limits
established
in
the
noise ordinance.

The
Association
also
requests
that
its
representatives
be
present
during
any
testing
at
the
property
and
that
it
be
included
in
the
City's
decision-making
process.

The
Association
also
requests
an
update
from
your
office
regarding
whether
any
monies
were
set
aside
for
noise
mitigation
measures
as
part
of
the
Ramon
Road
widening
project.

It
was
our
understanding
that
you
were
investigating
this
and
would
be
providing
a response.

We
hope
that
the
City
is
responsive
to
this
issue
and
is
willing
to
work
with
the
Association
to
come
to
a resolution.

If
it
is
not,
we
anticipate
that
homeowners
will
be
ready
and
willing
to
share
their
concerns
with
both
the
City
Council
as
well
as
local
media
outlets.

Thank
you
in
advance
for
your
prompt
response.

Very
truly
yours,
PETERS
&

FREEDMAN,
L.L.P.
~JL
¼C~/{
Christina
Baine
DeJ
ardin
CBD\cmb\dlr cc:

Board
of
Directors
G:\21\2104'cbd\ltr\ltr
Quintanilla
01 Ramon
Road.wpd
7-1275
Giroux
&
Associates
Environmental
Consultants
Project
No.:

P02-076
NOISE
IMPACT

ANALYSIS
RAMON
ROAD

WIDENING
RANCHO

MIRAGE,

CALIFORNIA
Prepared
for:

Willdan
Associates
Attn:

Dean
Sherer
t 3 t 91
Crossroads
Parkway
North,
Suite
405
City
oflndustry,
California
91646-3497
Date:

February
12,
2003
7-1276
INTRODUCTION Background The
City
of
Rancho
Mirage
proposes
to
widen
Ramon
Road
for
a

1.0 mile
segment
between
DaVall
Drive
and
Los
Alamos
Road.

The
proposed
widening
would
expand
the
existing
two­
lane
roadway
with
a
six-lane
roadway
and
a
16-foot
wide
median
within
a
total
right-of-way
width
of
120
feet.

The
regional
vicinity
is
shown
in
Figure
I.

The
project
location
detail
is
shown
in
Figure

2. The
existing
line
configuration
is
six
lanes
west
of
the
project
site,
and
a
planned
six-lane
segment
east
of
Los
Alamos
to
Bob
Hope
Drive
and
the
planned
Ramon
Road/I-IO
Interchange
improvement.

The
roadway
east
of
Los
Alamos
has
been
widened
to
three
eastbound
lanes
south
of
the
Ramon
Road
centerline.

The
westbound
widening
is
anticipated
to
occur
in
conjunction
with
development
of
the
parcel
north
of
Ramon.

The
existing
lane
configuration
is
as
follows:

West
of
Project
Project
Site
WB
3•
EB
3*
•Three
lanes
wide,
but
currently
striped
for
two
lanes
.
..

Planned
for
three
lanes
by
Riverside
County.

I I
Los
Alamos/
Bob
Bob
Hope
Hope/1-10
1••
2 3
3 The
proposed
project
is
needed
to
meet
the
east-west
traffic
capacity
demand
that
will
soon
exceed
the
current
two-lane
capacity
of
this
roadway
section.

The
improvement
is
consistent
with
the
designation
of
this
roadway
as
a "primary
arterial."
Existing
traffic
volumes
of
24,615
ADT
exceed
the
design
capacity
of
a
two-lane
roadway.

The
traffic
volume
standard
(LOS=C)
for
a two-lane
roadway
in
Riverside
County
is
14,400
ADT.

The
maximum
theoretical
capacity
is
around
20,000
ADT.

The
current
roadway
volume
is
well
in
excess
of
its
theoretical
capacity.

The
design
capacity
of
the
6-lane
roadway
is
67,000
ADT.

If
travel
speeds
and
vehicle
mixes
remain
similar
to
currently
observed
patterns,
the
higher
traffic
volume
accommodated
by
the
widened
roadway
will
create
an
increased
traffic
noise
level
of
approximately
+4
dBA
from
existing
conditions.

Existing
uses
along
the
segment
proposed
for
widening
includes
a country
club
and
the
Desert
Center
Braille
Institute
(Institute).

The
nearest
country
club
homes
are
set
back
from
the
roadway
with
golf
course
fairways
acting
as
a distance
buffer.

The
Institute
is
the
only
sensitive
receiver
within
the
area
of
potential
efTect
(APE).

Although
the
nearest
country
club
homes
are
outside
the
APE,
extrapolation
of
the
near-field
predicted
noise
levels
suggests
that
the
closest
homes
currently
under
construction
could
be
noise
impacted
in
the
future.

These
residences
were
included
in
the
noise
impact
assessment
even
though
they
are
outside
the
APE.

Under
federal
guidelines,
a
golf
course
is
considered
a noise-sensitive
land
use.

Various
locations
of
the
country
club
closest
to
Ramon
Road
were
therefore
also
evaluated
for
potential
noise
impact.

C':IMY
DOCUMEITTS\llEPORTSINOISE\2002\!'02.076
RAMON
RD
WDNO-NOISl!
.DOC
)
•
7-1277
0 .-,
wiibw
Ln
L. 0
Agua
c aliente
Indian
Reservation
Figure
1 Areawide
Project
Context
.. .
.
.....
. ..
.
,,
............
, .......
..
.......
f"'·
..
, ..
. , ..
. ,.;t
.. ~.

Agua
Caliente Indian
Reser·vation
i:
7-1278
- ~, \.__
25 ---- --r
J
-----' ~
c§
. ~
-- a:1---
-- 0 --
-- --r
_J
---------
J
~
·c§
-$-
lfo Seal•
--r
---+-
' w,~
i~
al~
----r
-------' ~ w
;I ~ ~ 3 a,
* RESTRIPING BY CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
' PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS
PROJECT.
\llwiLLDAN
Ramon Road
--
--------
----- r
- ---'
~,(I) (I) ...J
;~
--- ---' ~
--r
~1~ 0 a: ..JC
Existing Lane Configuration
Ramon Road ------- -- -- ----- r -- - r -- -- ---- -- - _J
-- - ----- -- - -----z
---0 (I)
ii; ~ 0
~w
~ ... ::;; :i:
§~
Post Project Lane Configuration
·- ---
c· r
~ _j 1-- --- ------ --+-
----+-
------
---~
~lw al 2: 0 Ir
al C
--IF
_J
-1------ ---w
Q.
0 ::Clw a:, 2:
0 a:
al C
FIGURE-2
7-1279
Purpose
of
the
Study
The
purpose
of
this
study
is
to
comply
with
NEPA
requirements
for
evaluation
of
noise
impacts/abatement
relative
to
the
proposed
widening
project.

Because
the
project
entails
STIP
Discretionary
Funds,
Cattrans
will
be
a
receiving
agency.

Callrans
uses
analysis
protocols
that
are
based
upon
federal
(FHWA)
guidelines.

Scope
of
the
Study
The
noise
analysis
includes
the
following
components:

1. Identification
of
sensitive
NAC
Category
B
receptors.

2. Baseline
noise
measurements
and
traffic
mix
counts.

3. Noise
projections
using
the
SOUND32
computer
model.

4. _Evaluation
of
impacts
and
abatement.

5. Analysis
of
reasonableness
and
feasibility
of
any
abatement
options.

C:IMV
DOCtJMENrnREPORTSINOISE\2002\POl-076
RAMON
RD
WDNG-NOISE.DOC
4 7-1280

PROJECT

DESCRIPTION
AND
MAJOR

PROJECT

FEATURES
The
City
of
Rancho
Mirage
proposes
to
replace
an
existing

1.0 mile
segment
oftwo-lane
,primary
arterial
roadway
with
a six-lane
roadway
with
a 16-foot
wide
median
island
having
a total
right­
of-way
width
of
. 120
feet.

The
road
replacement
project
is
needed
to
accommodate
future
traffic
in
the
vicinity
of
the
Agua
Caliente
Casino,
to
complete
the
six-lane
road
segment
between
DaVall
Drive
and
Los
Alamos
Road
segment,
and
to
address
public
safety
concerns.

Alternative
l
-
Six
Lane
Arterial
Roadway
Improvement
for

1.0 mile
of
Ramon
Road
Between
DaVall
Drive
and
Los
Alamos
Road
This
alternative
provides
for
the
construction
of
a six-lane
replacement
of
the
existing
two-lane
primary
arterial
roadway
between
Da
Vall
Drive
and
Los
Alamos
Road.

A
new

1.0 mile
section
of
a
planned
six-lane
divided
primary
arterial
highway
would
be
constructed
which
would
accommodate
three
traffic
lanes
in
each
direction,
a
16-foot
wide
landscaped
raised
median
strip,
and
an
8-foot
meandering
sidewalk
on
the
south
side.

A
new
traffic
signal
would
be
instaHed
at
the
intersection
of
Los
Alamos
and
Ramon
Roads.

Alternative
2 -No
Project
Alternative
The
no-project
alternative
would
maintain
a two-lane
segment
along
Ramon
Road
with
six-lane
segments
east
and
west
of
the
project
site.

This
alternative
would
fail
to
meet
forecast
demand
and
operate
at
a
vehicle
to
capacity
ratio
for
an
excess
of

1.0. The
project
site
would
be
a
"bottleneck"
to
Ramon
Road
traffic
flow
without
any
widening
as
proposed.

The
transition
from
three
lanes
down
to
one
lane
would
create
potential
vehicle
conflicts
at
both
ends
of
the
project
site.

Failure
to
construction
the
proposed
improvements
would
be
contrary
to
the
City
of
Rancho
Mirage
Circulation
Element.

The
Circulation
Element
is
incorporated
into
the
Regional
Transportation
Plan
(RTP).

The
No-Project
Alternative
would
be
fail
to
meet
project
objectives
and
would
be
inconsistent
with
areawide
transportation
planning.

This
alternative
is
not
considered
a viable
option,
and
is
not
further
analyzed.

C:IMV
DOCUMENTS\llEPORTS\NOISEl2002IP02.076
RAMON
RD
WONG-NOISE.DOC
5 7-1281
SETTING Noise
Descriptors
Sound
is
mechanical
energy
transmitted
by
pressure
waves
in
a
compressible
medium
such
as
air.

Noise
is
commonly-defined
as
unwanted
sound.

The
sound
pressure
)eve)
has
become
the
most
common
descriptor
used
to
characterize
ambient
sound
levels.

The
unit
of
sound
pressure
level
ratioed
to
the
level
detectable
by
a
young
person
with
good
auditory
acuity
is
called
a
decibel (dBA).

Because
sound
or
noise
can
vary
in
intensity
by
over
one
million
times
within
the
range
of
human
hearing,
a .logarithmic
loudness
scale
similar
to
the
Richter
Scale
for
earthquake
magnitude
is
used
to
keep
sound
intensity
numbers
at
a manageable
level.

Since
the
human
ear
is
not
equally
sensitive
to
all
sound
frequencies
within
the
entire
spectrum,
noise
levels
at
maximum
human
sensitivity
(middle
A
and
its
higher
harmonics)
are
factored
more
heavily
into
sound
characterizations
in
a
process
called
"A-weighting"
written
as
dBA.

In
the
following
discussion,
aJI
noise
levels
written
as
"dBA"
wiJJ
be
understood
to
be
A-weighted
levels,
i.e.,
dBA. Ambient
noise
is
comprised
of
a large
number
of
rapid
variations
of
sound
intensity.

In
order
to
characterize
the
acoustic
environment
over
some
period
of
time,
the
peaks
and
valleys
of
the
instantaneous
noise
profile
need
to
be
smoothed
out.

A
factor
called
the
energy
equivalent
level
(called
Leq)
is
the
most
common
way
of
describing
noise
exposure
over
some
length
of
time
(often
hourly).

The
Leq
of
a
rapidly
changing
noise
field
is
thus
equivalent
to
a single
steady
lone
that
has
the
same
energy
content
as
the
summation
of
all
the
time-varying
events.

Fina11y,
because
community
receptors
are
more
sensitive
to
unwanted
noise
intrusion
during
the
evening
and
at
night,
state
law
requires
that,
for
planning
purposes,
artificial
decibel
increments
be
added
lo
quiet
time
noise
levels
in
the
evening
and
to
extra
quiet
times
at
night
in
a
24-hour
noise
descriptor
caJled
the.

Community
Noise
Equivalent
Leve)
(CNEL).

An
interior
CNEL
of
45 dBA
is
mandated
for
multiple
family
dwellings
in
Title
24 of
the
California
Code
of
Regulations,
and
is
considered
a
desirable
noise
exposure
limit
for
single
family
dwelling
units
as
well.

Since
typical
noise
attenuation
within
residential
structures
with
c1osed
windows
is
about
20 dBA,
an
exterior
noise
exposure
of
65 dBA
CNEL
is
generally
the
noise/
land
use
compatibility
guideline
for
new
residential
dwellings
in
Califomia.

Because
commercial
or
industrial
uses
are
not
occupied
on
a
24-hour
basis,
the
exterior
noise
exposure
standard
for
less
sensitive
land
uses
generally
is
somewhat
Jess
stringent.

The
proposed
project
involves
use
of
STIP
discretionary
funding.

Caltrans
review
of
such
an
endeavor
is
required.

Caltrans
noise
analysis/review
procedures
are
based
upon
Federal
Highway
Administration
(FHW
A)
guidelines.

FHWA
and
Caltrans
noise
exposure
standards
are
based
upon
the
noisiest
single
)-hour
period
cal1ed
"Leq(h)."
In
practice,
the
Caltrans/FHWA
standard
for
residential
and
other
noise-sensitive
land
uses
is
very
similar
to
lhe
City
of
Rancho
Mirage
CNEL-based
standards
for
the
same
uses.

C:IMY
DOCVMENTSIR!:PORTSINOJSE\2002\J'Ql-(176
RAMON
RD

WONG-NOISE
.DOC
6 •
7-1282
Responsible
Agency
Guidelines
Noise
Abatement
Criteria
The
FHW
A
has
_adopted
and
published
design
noise
standards
for
highway
construction
projects
.

These
standards
are
established
under
23 CFR
772.

The
following
noise
standards
are
taken
from
FAPG
772:

NOISE
STANDARDS.

The
highway
traffic
noise
prediction
requirements,
noise
analyses,
noise
abatement
criteria,
and
requirements
for
infonning
local
officials
in
this
directive
constitute
the
noise
standards
mandated
by
23 U.S.C.
109
(i).

AIJ
highway
projects
which
are
developed
in
confonnance
with
this
directive
shall
be
deemed
to
be
in
conformance
with
FHW
A
noise
standards.

The
federal
Noise
Abatement
Criteria
(NAC)
are
67 dBA
Leq
for
noise-sensitive
exteriors
and
52 dBA
Lcq
for
noise-sensitive
interiors.

A
noise
impact
is
presumed
lo
exist
if
levels
"approach
or
exceed"
the
NAC.

Caltrans
defines
"approach"
as
1 dBA
within
the
NAC
of
67 dBA
Leq.

The
federal
NAC
are
shown
in
Table
I.

The
67 dBA
exterior
standard
is
evaluated
during
the
single
noisiest
hour
of
the
day.

FHWA
concurrence
is
required
for
many
projects,
including
all
interstate
highway
projects
and
those
with
federal
funding.

In
all
projects
for
which
federal
funds
are
requested,
or
in
which
FHW
A/NEPA
action
is
required,
Caltrans
utilizes
federal
NAC
in
its
environmental
reviews.

Federal
Policies
The
23 CFR
Part
772
defines
a
traffic
noise
impact
as
one
where
the
predicted
noise
level
approaches
or
exceeds
NAC.
"Approaches"
is
not
defined
under
federal
Jaw.

Current
FHWA
guidelines,
however,
require
state
highway
agencies
(e.g.,
Caltrans)
to
quantify
"approaches."
In
California,
"approaches"
is
defined
as
a predicted
noise
level
that
is
no
more
than
l dBA
below
the
appropriate
NAC.

If
a traffic
noise
impact
is
predicted,
FHW
A
requires
that
all
reasonable
and
feasible
abatement
must
be
implemented.

Abatement
at
noise-sensitive
uses
generalJy
focuses
on
meeting
the
exterior
NAC
of
67 dBA
Leq.

If
a noise-sensitive
land
use
has
no
usable
exterior
space,
then
the
NAC
Category
E
standard
of
52 dBA
Leq
becomes
the
critical
compliance
criterion.

FHW
A
guidelines
similarly
require
an
assessment
of
NAC=C
compliance
(72
dBA
Leq)
for
less
noise­
sensitive
land
uses.

While
noise
impacts
to
non-Category
B
uses
may
be
identified,
noise
abatement
is
nonnally
not
considered
reasonable
for
commercial
uses
or
for
parking
lots.

Abatement
may
incJude
avoidance,
noise
barriers,
property
acquisition,
or
traffic
management.

Publicly
owned
structures
may
be
noise-insulated
as
an
alternative
lo
exterior
noise
mitigation.

Expenditure
of
public
funds
to
insulate
private
dwellings
against
noise
has
generally
not
been
aJlowed.

Federal
guidelines,
however,
alJow
for
private
residence
noise
insulation
for
severe
noise
exposures
if
approved
on
a case-by-case
basis
by
FHW
A.

C:IMY
DOCUMEl'lTSIREPORTS\NOISE\2002\P02-076
RAMON
RD
WDNG•NOISl!.DOC
7 •
7-1283
TABLE
1 FHWA
NOISE
ABATEMENf

CRITERIA
(The
noise
abatement
criteria
specified
by
the
FHW
A
are
presented
in
terms
of
the
maximum
one
hour
Equivalent
Noise
Level
(LEQ)
Activity Category
A e C D E
Noise
Abatement
Criteria Level
-Leg
57 (exterior)
67 (exterior)
72 (exterior)
52 (interior)
Description
of
Activity
Category
Tracts
of
land
in
which
serenity
and
quiet
are
of
extraordinary
significance
and
serve
an
important
public
need
and
where
the
preservation
of
those
qualities
is
essential
if
the
area
is
to
continue
to
serve
its
intended
purpose.

Such
areas
could
include
amphitheaters,
particular
parks
or
portions
of
open
spaces,
or
historic
districts
which
are
cfodicated
or
recognized
by
appropriate
local
officials
for
activities
requiring
special
qualities
of
serenity
and
quiet.

Picnic
areas,
recreation
areas,
playgrounds,
active
sports
areas
and
parks
which
are
not
included
in
category
A
and
residences,
motels,
hotels,
public
meeting
rooms,
schools,
churches,
libraries,
and
hospitals. Developed
lands,
properties
or
activities
not
included
in
Category
A
or
B
above.

Undeveloped
lands
which
may
or
may
not
have
associated
noise
abatement
criteria.

Residences,
motels,
hotels,
public
meeting
rooms,
schools,
churches,
libraries,
hospitals,
and
auditoriums.
3 7-1284
Cl,apter
1100,
Ca/trans
Policies
Chapter
1100
of
the
Caltrans
Highway
Design
Manual
contains
dimensional
noise
barrier
design
criteria
that,
when
combined
with
engineering
data
on
a specific
roadway,
are
used
to
determine
whether
barriers
meet
Caltrans
standards.

These
guidelines
require
the
use
of
a 20-year
horizon
for
impact
assessment.

Chapter
30 of
the
Caltrans
Project
Development
Procedures
Manual
(PDPM)
includes
standardized
State
policies
on
evaluating
the
reasonableness
and
feasibility
of
noise
abatement.

Reasonable
and
Feasible
A
minimum
noise
level
benefit
of
5 dBA
must
be
achieved
for
a
candidate
noise
barrier
to
be
considered
"feasible."
Feasibility
includes
considerations
of
(1)
topography,
(2)
access
requirements
for
driveways,
ramps
or
emergency
equipment,
(3)
presence
of
cross
streets,
and
(4)
other
noise
contributors
in
the
area.

Historically,
feasibility
has
been
determined
by
engineers
and
noise
analysts,
while
reasonableness
has
been
a project management
decision.

Reasonableness
encompasses
a
wide
variety
of
criteria.

The
criteria
to
be
considered
m
evaluating
noise
mitigation
reasonableness
include:
•
Cost
effectiveness
-Begins
with
a $17,000
allowance
per
benefited
residence
(2002
dollars),
including
costs
of
a
wa]]
or
earth
benn,
footings,
traffic
control,
drainage,
modifying
planting,
etc.

Then
the
above
base
cost
per
benefitted
residence
is
adjusted
by
four
reasonableness
factors.

The
final
result
is
the
total
reasonable
allowance per
residence
receiving
minimum
5 dBA
noise
level
reduction.

Therefore,
the
total
budget
allowance
for
an
individual
noise
barrier
would
be
the
total
number
of
benefiting
residences
multiplied
by
the
"reasonable"
cost
allowance
per
residence.

For
non-residential
noise-sensitive
(NAC=B)
land
uses,
l 00
feet
of
horizontal
barrier
extent
is
considered
functionally
equivalent
to
a
single
residence
for
purposes
of
cost
effectiveness
analysis.
•
Change
in
noise
levels
-How
much
can
the
minimum
improvement
target
of
5 dBA
be
exceeded?
•
Noise
abatement
benefit
-How
many
residents
are
benefitted?
•
Other
impacts
-scenic
corridors,
graffiti,
etc.
•
Development
history
-How
good
are
land
use
controls?
When
did
development
occur
relative
to
roadway
history?
Subjective
criteria
such
as
the
desire
of
affected
residents,
as
well
as
future
land
use
plans,
should
also
be
considered
in
developing
a mitigation
recommendation.

If
a majority
of
benefited
receivers
do
not
wish
to
have
a
barrier
and
this
desire
is
stated
in
writing
as
part
of
the
project
environmental
record,
that
choice
generally
takes
precedence.

An
expressed
desire
to
not
include
a feasible
barrier
generally
overrides
any
other
reasonableness
consideration.

C:IMY
DOCUMENTS\llEPORTSINOISE\lOOllP02-076
RAMON
RO
WDNCi-NOISEJ)OC
9 7-1285
Future
Traffic
Projections
Callrans/FHW
A
guidelines
require
that
analyzed
traffic
noise
impacts
be
based
upon
predicted
20-year
traffic
volumes.

An
extended
horizon
year
is
intended
to
prevent
problems
of
building
a
noise
barrier
for
interim
volumes,
and
then
having
to
tear
down/
rebuild
the
wall
for
long-term
volumes
because
the
interim
wall
was
inadequately
engineered
to
accommodate
the
final
needed
wall
height.

These
same
guidelines
also
require
that
abatement
design
be
based
upon
actµal
traffic
speeds
because
speed
is
an
important
detenninant
in
vehicular
noise
generation.

If
actual
speeds
exceed
the
posted
speed,
then
the
actual
speed
is
used.

If
travel
speeds
are
typically
less
than
the
posted
speed,
the
posted
speed
is
the
recommended
input
criterion
as
a worst-case
basis.
'
Traffic
noise
exposure
depends
on
a number
of
factors,
including
vehicle
volumes,
percent
heavy
vehicles,
travel
speed
and
source-receiver
geometries.

NAC,
as
the
basis
for
analysis,
refers
to
the
noisiest
hour
of
the
day.

This
hour
often
is
not
the
peak
traffic
hour,
especially
in
congested
traffic
environments.

As
a
worst-case
assumption,
predicted
year
2025
peak
hour
traffic
volumes
were
assumed
to
create
the
maximum
noise
condition
for
the
proposed
project
since
peak
hour
volumes
were
slightly
higher
than
the
usual
80 percent
volume/
capacity
"default"
nois~
analysis
assumption.

The
roadway
design
capacity
is
67,000
ADT.

The
peak
hour
capacity
is
IO
percent
of
ADT,
or
6,700
vehicles
per
hour
(VPH).

The
80 percent
level
is
5,360
vehicles.

The
forecast
2025
ADT
on
Ramon
Road
is
59,600
ADT.

The
peak
hour
volume
(10
percent
of
ADT)
is
5,960
VPH.

The
5,960
hourly
level
was
therefore
used
as
the
most
conservative
traffic
noise
generation
value.

Baseline
Noise
Levels
On-site
noise
measurements
were
conducted
for
a
48-hour
period
at
a
location
along
Ramon
Road
near
the
Braille
Institute.

These
measurements
were
designed
to
establish
existing
baseline
noise
conditions,
and
to
determine
the
peak
noise
hours
(FHW
A/Caltrans
standard).

Noise
measurements
were
made
at
a point
60 feet
south
of
the
Ramon
Road
centerline
near
the
BrailJe
Institute
back
entrance
gate.

The
Braille
Institute
is
similar
to
a school.

Except
for
the
golf
course
that
experiences
only
transient
occupancy,
the
Braille
Institute
is
the
only
NAC=B
receiver
site
within
the
area
of
potential
effect
(APE).

Measurements
were
made
from
4 p.m.
on
May
9 to
IO
p.m.
on
May
11,
2001.

The
difference
between
the
first
24 hours
and
the
second
24 hours
of
data
was
less
than

0.2 dBA
for
the
entire
period,
such
that
the
two
24-hour
measurement
periods
were
essentially
completely
identical.

C:IMY
DOCUMENTS\REPORTSINOISE\lOOZ\P02.076
RAMON
RD
WONG-NOISE.DOC
} 0
7-1286
Hourly
noise
levels
from
around
5 a.m.
lo
11 p.m.
were
all
near
70 dBA
Leq
with
only
a very
minor
difference
during
the
morning
or
evening
peak
traffic
hours.

The
daily
data
distribution
between
the
first
full
24-hour
period
and
the
second
full
24-hour
data
period
was
as
follo_ws
from
5 a.m.
to
11 p.m.:
•
Number
of
Hours
Noise
Level
I
(dBA
Leg)
Day
1 Day2
72 1
0 71
4 4
I
70 8
10 69
3 3
68 2
1 Avg.

Leq
70 70
(5
a.m.
to
11 p.m.)
The
measurement
detail
is
shown
in
Table

2. Peak
hourly
Leg
levels
of
71-
72 dBA
at
60 feet
from
the
roadway
centerline
are
well
in
excess
of
the
67 dBA
Leq
(peak
hour)
considered
acceptable
for
noise-sensitive
land
uses
by
State/federal
guidelines.

However,
all
existing
homes
are
localed
far
outside
the
area
of
potential
effect
(APE).

The
only
noise-sensitive
use
within
the
APE
is
the
Braille
Institute.

The
Institute
has
no
exterior
recreational
uses
exposed
to
roadway
noise.

NAC
compliance
for
this
receiver
would
be
confined
to
Category
E
(interior)
noise
exposures
of
52 dBA
Leq.

The
Institute
fa~ade
is
located
at
90 feet
from
the
roadway
centerline.

The
building
fa~ade
is
30 feet
farther
from
the
centerline
than
the
noise
measurement
location.

The
additional
distance
between
the
noise
monitor
and
the
building
will
reduce
measured
levels
by
2 dBA.

The
existing
peak
hour
noise
loading
at
the
Institute
is
70 dBA
Leq
based
upon
a
measured
72 dBA
Leq
closer
to
the
centerJine.

Interior
noise
levels
at
the
Braille
Institute
were
estimated
based
upon
the
buildings'
apparent
structural
design
and
fixed
sash
glazing.

The
standard
equation
for
structural
attenuation
is
given
by:

LINT.
=
LEXT.
-
STC
+
10 log
(S/
A)
+
ADJ
where:

LINT.
=
Interior
Leq
LEXT.
=
Exterior
Leq
STC
=
Composite
sound
transmission
class
for
wall/windows,
STC
::

30. SI
A
=
Surface
area
of
room/absorption
in
sabins.

For
classrooms,
S/
A
::._2.

ADJ
=
Building
fa~ade
correction,::

3. C:IMY
DOCUMEHTS\llEPORTSINOISE\20021'°2-076
RAMON
RD
WONG-NOISE.DOC
)
J
7-1287
Table
2 Noise
Measurement
Detail
(dBA)
(60
feet
S
of
centerline,
May
9-ll,
2001)
Parameter
Day
l
Day2
Peak
I Hour
Leq
72 71
When
Observed
(?)
5-6
p.m.
6-9
a.m.
5-6
p.m.
2nd
High
Hour
71 70
When
Observed
(?)
6-8
a.m.
9-5
p.m.
6-7
p.rn.
6-8
p.m.

Minimum
l Hour
61 S9
When
Observed
(?)
2-4
a.m.
3-4
a.m.

C:IMY
DOCUMEHT$\JlEPORTSINOISE\200N'Ol-076
IIAMOl'I
RD
WONG-NOISE.DOC
J 2
7-1288
The estimated interior level is calculated by:

LINT. == 70 -30 + 3 + 3 (dBA)
= 46dBA Leq
The calculated existing interior level does not presently approach or exceed the Category E NAC for this use.

The nearest Mission Hills North Country Club homes are 400 feet south of the Ramon Road centerline. The rate of noise decay with distance across the irregular terrain o"r the golf course fairway and rough is 4.5 dB per distance doubling. The noise attenuation of the peak measured hour of 72 dBA Leq at 60 feet is 12 dB at 400 feet from the roadway. Predicted existing noise levels under acoJstically "soft" conditions are 60 dBA Leq at the new homes under construction.

If, however, one assumes a more conservative "hard" site drop-off rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance, the extrapolation of existing noise data, predicts an existing noise exposure of 64 dBA Le'q, as follows:

Measured @ 60 feet to centerline
Distance spreading losses (hard site)
Buildout exposure
72 -8
64dBALeq
If additional traffic growth were to increase noise levels by +2 dBA or more, noise levels at new residences under residential construction along the golf course fairway could approach or exceed the Category B NAC under direct line of sight conditions and a "hard" site assumption.

Although the closest homes under construction are outside the APE, evaluation of their noise exposure is warranted. The golf course is closer to the roadway than the homes, and may be noise impacted. An analysis of golf course noise exposure is also required as part of this project because a golf course is an "active sports area" that is a Category B land use under federal guidelines.

Noise impact assessment is generally conducted using a computer model of noise propagation.

In order to assess the validity of using such a model, standard analysis protocol requires a model calibration to evaluate any unique localized propagation conditions. A model "calibration" measurement was conducted along Ramon Road on June 21, 2001. The noise meter was deployed at exactly 50 feet south of the existing roadway centerline near the Braille Institute "back" parking entrance. Measurements and vehicle counts were made for 30 minutes from I: 15 - I :45 p.m. Predicted results using the SOUND32 model were compared to the measurements with the following results:

Traffic (1-hour)
Auto = 1030VPH Speed = 50 mph
Medium = 30VPH
C;IMY OOCUMEl'ITS\REPORTS\NOISE'2002\l'02-076 RAMON RD WONG-NOISE.DOC 13 7-1289
Heavy
=
l0VPH
Predicted
Leg
=

70.1 dBA
=
70 dBA
(rounded)
Measured
Leq
=

70.4 dBA
=
70 dBA
(rounded)
Measurement
and
modeling
produced
nearly
identical
results
requiring
no
model
adjustment
in
order
to
apply
the
model
for
buildout
traffic
noise
calculations.

C:IMV
DOCtJMENTS\REPORTSINOISE\2002\l'02-076
RAMON
RD
WONG-NOISE.DOC
J 4
7-1290
NOISE

IMPACTS
Noise
impacts
due
to
roadway
improvements
may
be
caused
by
changes
in
roadway
geometry,
traffic
volumes,
travel
speeds,
and/or
traffic
mixes.

Because
any
changes
in
auto/truck
percentages
are
speculative,
the
future
patterns
were
assumed
to
remain
relatively
unchanged
from
the
traffic
mixes
observed
during
the
model
calibration
monitoring
in
2001.

Short-term
noise
generation
from
construction
will
also
accompany
roadway
project
development.

FHWA
Traffic
Noise
Impacts
A
"traffic
noise
impact"
occurs
when
predicted
("with
project")
noise
levels
approach
or
exceed
the
applicable
NAC,
or
when
there
is
a
substantial
increase
over
levels
without
the
project.

FHWA
requires
that
state
departments
of
transportation
(DOTs)
establish
numerical
standards
that
define
the
~eneral
tem1s
"approaching"
and
"substantial."
Consistent
with
FHWA
requirements,
Caltrans
has
defined
"approaching"
to
mean
within
one
dBA
of
the
NAC.
"Substantial"
is
defined
as
a+
12 dBA
increase
attributable
to
the
project.

If
a noise
impact
is
identified,
a noise
abatement
analysis
is
required.

To
receive
FHWA
project
approval,
abatement
must
be
both
"reasonable
0 and
"feasible."
Federal
guidelines
have
been
developed
that
provide
guidance
to
the
Project
Engineer
(PE)
on
arriving
at
a reasonableness
and
feasibility
decision.

Impact
Analysis
Traffic
Projections
Year
2025
peak
hour
traffic
volumes
were
used
to
determine
bui]dout
noise
~oading
at
various
analysis
locations.

The
peak
traffic
hour
was
assumed
to
carry
ten
(10)
percent
of
the
predicted
buildout
traffic
volume
of
59,587
ADT
or
5,960
vehicles
per
hour
(VPH).

This
traffic
projection
exceeds
the
traffic
level
that
would
be
predicted
using
an
LOS=C
capacity
"default"
assumption,
and
was
therefore
used
as
a worst-case
value.

These
vehicles
were
assigned
a
55/45
directional
spJit
and
a 50
mph
travel
speed.

Truck
percentages
observed
during
the
on-site
noise
readings
of
96 percent
auto,
3 percent
medium
trucks
and
1 percent
heavy
trucks
(3
or
more
axles)
were
assumed
to
persist
into
the
future.

The
traffic
input
parameters
for
the
modeling
were
thus
as
follows:

Autos
Med.

Trucks
Heavy
Trucks
Eastbound
-26'
S
of
C.L.
3,147
VPH
98VPH
33VPH
Westbound
-26'
N
of
C.L.
2,575
VPH
80VPH
27VPH
Travel
Speed
=
50 mph
The
noise
impact
analysis
was
conducted
at
the
BraiJle
Institute
building
fa~ade
to
determine
interior
noise
levels.

An
exterior
noise
analysis
was
conducted
for
three
residences
currently
under
construction.

These
three
residences
were
presumed
to
be
acoustically
equivalent
to
the
other
13 homes
currently
under
construction.

The
analysis
incorporated
the
partial
sound
wall
C:IMY
DOCUMENTS\REPORTS\NOIS6\200l\l'02-076
RAMON
IU)

WONG-NOISE
.DOC'
) 5
7-1291
and
the
fairway
edge
berm
on
the
golf
course.

A
noise
impact
at
these
residences
would
occur
if
the
e~terior
NAC
of
67 dBA
Leq
were
to
be
approached
or
exceeded.

Because
a golf
course
could
be
interpreted
as
an
"active
sports
area,"
various
golf
course
locations
were similarly
analyzed
in
tenns
of
NAC=B
exterior
compliance.

Predicted
Future
.Buildout
Noise
Levels
Braille
/11stitute
Interior
Levels.

The
SOUND32
model
was
used
to
calculate
the
exterior
bui1ding
facade
noise
level
at
the
Braille
Institute.

For
acoustically
"hard"
propagation
conditions,
the
exterior
noise
loading
is
calculated
to
be
74 dBA
Leq
(peak
hour)
as
shown
in
the
attached
model
input/output.

A
74 dBA
Leq
loading
requires
22 dBA
of
structural
attenuation
to
meet
the
interior
Category
E
noise
standard
of
52 dBA
Leq.

Based
upon
the
structural
features
along
the
northern
Institute
fa~ade,
exterior
to
interior
noise
attenuation
of
at
least
24 dBA
was
calculated.

Worst-case
interior
noise
levels
would
be
50 dBA
Leq.

Maximum
interior
room
noise
levels
would
not
approach
or
exceed
the
NAC=E
criterion
of
52 dBA
Leq.

There
will
be
no
noise
impact
to
interior
rooms
at
the
Institute.

NA
C=B
Exterior
Noise
Levels.

Exterior
noise
levels
at
three
residences
currently
under
construction
were
evaluated.

The
SOUND32
model
input
and
output
is
included
in
the
appendix
for
buildout
conditions.

The
predicted
peak
hour
Leq
in
2025
were
as
follows:

Lot65 Lot
70 Lot
74 64
dBA
Leg
62 dBA
Leq
63 dBA
Leg
The
NAC=B
"approaches
or
exceeds"
threshold
is
not
reached.

The
residential
development
is
not
considered
noise
impacted.

No
abatement
analysis
is
required
for
these
residences.

A
golf
course
is
an
"active
sports
area"
under
federal
noise
abatement
guidelines.

The
tees,
green
and
fairway
directly
east
of
the
Braille
Institute
were
used
to
calculate
the
golf
course
exposure
to
roadway
noise.

This
hole
was
considered
acoustically
equivalent
for
all
holes
within
the
country
club
that
are
parallel
to
Ramon
Road.

Tees
and
greens
are
elevated
close
to
the
same
elevation
as
Ramon
Road.

The
fairway,
cart
paths
and
water
hazards
are
depressed
by
IO
feet
or
more
to
function
as
a
flood
control
system.

The
depressed
features
are
deep
within
the
"noise
shadow"
of
the
elevated
perimeter
bcnn
separating
the
golf
course
from
the
roadway.

The
SOUND32
model
input/output
for
the
golf
course
is
similarly
included
in
the
appendix.

The
results
of
the
golf
course
noise
analysis
are
summarized
in
Table

3. The
green
may
have
noise
levels
of
70 dBA
Leq.

Two
nearby
tee
areas
may
experience
noise
levels
of
66 dBA
Leq.

These exposures
approach
or
exceed
the
NAC=B
threshold
of
67 dB
A
Leq.

C:IMY
DOCIJMENTS\JlliPORTS\NOISE\2002\P02-076
RAMON
RD
WDNCi-NOISE.DOC
} 6
7-1292
Table3
Exterior
Noise
Abatement
Analysis
Summary
Future
Noise
Levels
[dBA
Leq]
2002
Replace
Exist.

Exist.

Wrought
Iron
Receiver
I.D.

Levels
Barriers
6 ft
Lot65
60 64
62 Lot
70 58
62 61
Lot74
59 63
63 Tee
1 62
66 8
Green
66 70
8 Tee2
62 66
8 Fairway
57 61
60 Cart
Path
58 62
62 • Approaches
or
exceeds
NAC.
b Shaded
configurations
meet
5 dBA
improvement
threshold.
•=
See
Figure
3 for
wall
locations
wan·=
Wall•=
8 ft
10 ft
61 61
61 61
63 63
60 59
62 62
Wal
.. =
12 ft
60 60 63 59 62
Note:

Meeting
the
5 dBA
improvement
criterion
requires
replacement
of
an
existing
600-foot-long
part-masonry,
part
-wrought
iron
wall
in
proximity
to
the
two
tee
areas
and
the
green
closest
to
the
Braille
Institute.

The
fairway
and
cart
path
receivers
are
belowgrade
and
protected
by
existing
walls
and
berms.

The
new
homes
are
partly
shielded
and
far
enough
away
to
not
be
noise-impacted.

C:IMY
DOCUMl!NTS\IU:PORTS\NOISE\200Z\P02
•076
RAMON
RD
WONG-NOISE.DOC
J 7
7-1293
Noise
abatement
was
evaluated
by
first
considering
conversion
of
the
wrought
iron
portion
of
the
existing
perimeter
wall
into
solid
masonry,
and
then
by
increasing
the
barrier
height
in
2-foot
increments
u·ntil
the
required
"-5
dBA"
benefit
was
attained
at
all
receivers.

The
results
are
included
in
Table

3. A
wall
height
of
up
to
12 feet
could
be
required
to
meet
the
abatement
effectiveness
criterion
at
all
receivers
as
shown
in
Figure

3. Reasonable
and
Feasible
Given
that
the
candidate
barrier
would
replace
an
existing
wall,
installation
of
higher
walls
is
likely
considered
technically feasible.

I
However,
the
existing
6-foot
wall has
filled
in
with
trapped
sand
on
its
northern
face
at
many
locations.

A
12-foot
wall
would
similarly
fill
in
with
sand
over
time
and
create
an
artificial
sand
dune
that
would
choke
out
any
landscaping
on
the
southern
Ramon
Road
frontage.

The
weight
of
the
sand
could
compromise
the
wall
integrity
unless
the
wall
is
designed
as
a
full
retaining
wall
instead
of
a
masonry
sound
wall.

Such
constmction,
albeit
more
costly,
is
nevertheless
considered
feasibJe
.

Incorporation
of
a waJJ
of
such
dimensions
should
be
considered
in
project
design
if
it were
to
also
be
considered
a reasonable
abatement
measure
.

Reasonable
would
entail
both
an
objective
evaluation
of
the
cost-effectiveness
of
the
abatement
measure,
as
well
as
secondary
considerations
of
aesthetics,
desires
of
the
country
club
ownership,
etc.

The
management
of
Mission
Hills
Country
Club
has
indicated
that
they
do
not
support
construction
of
this
wall
as
indicated
(B.

Harry,
City
of
Rancho
Mirage,
2003).

A
letter
indicating
nonsupport
of
such
abatement
is
included
in
the
appendix.

The
candidate
abatement
is
not
considered
reasonable
because
the
property
owner
does
not
wish
the
abatement
at
his
property
line.

The
country
club
management
believes
that
the
measure
would
create
secondary
impacts
to
views
experienced
by
the
traveling
pubiic
or
golf
course
users.

The
property
owners
further
note
that
the
typical
golfer
exposure
duration
is
only
a few
minutes
whereas
the
NAC
is
a
I -hour average
noise
level.

Because
of
impacts
to
view
and
aesthetics,
the
wishes
of
the
property
owner
are
considered
to
take
precedence
over
any
other
reasonableness
consideration.

Incorporation
of
any
noise
abatement
barriers
is
not
recommended
for
inclusion
in
the
proposed
project. Construction
Noise
Construction
activities
will
be
restricted
to
hours
of
lesser
noise
sensitivity
by
the
City
of
Rancho
Mirage
Municipal
Code.

Daytime
construction
equipment
noise
will
be
masked
by
roadway
traffic
that
will
continue
during
the
construction
period.

Equipment
activities
in
close
proximity
to
the
Institute
during

1.0 mile
of
roadway
improvements
will
be
relatively
brief.

The
combination
of
limited
duration,
time
restrictions
and
masking
background
noise
wm
minimally
affect
the
interior
noise
environment
at
the
Institute.

Construction
noise
for
golf
course
users
would
be
similar
to
the
noise
experienced
by
golfers
during
current
construction
of
homes
along
the
southern
fairway.

The
very
limited
duration
of
such
exposure,
plus
the
grade
separation
between
the
roadway
and
the
airway,
will
minimize
adverse
construction
noise
impacts.

C:IMY
DOruMl!NTS\REPORTSINOISE\2002\POl-076
RAMON
RD
WONG-NOISE.DOC
] 8
7-1294
3, .. I . I ; , .. : ' ' 337'3 . -,8 5 •·. 337.,, . I I \ •. • -•• ,--... - ) .336.8 337.J • •. I •. , · ' : Jli 4' -.. . ·3370 .. 337.3 \ r , J;j5.J -3356 • .J 353
JJ6'4 • 336.8 • .. J.fr.;i ' . .. ... \ ._J4b.J,~· 3
3:jl.8 .338.6 ' ._ ,· ', .JJ6.9 • • .. _r······ ,, -..,· . • .. "6.J,. ~3~.9 .JJ6.2 • ~.' • .,·• • ;" • .. . 3378 •·•• - . .._., ._ Ji ~l·11 . . JJ7.2.. .. • •• -,. -. • Jj'>.9 ••• - .~.4 ~..,3&.5_ •• • . •, ' ·, ', :)\ \ \ .. _., • '• • ,' '\ , . JJ7 J I - \ ......_ ....... •• ',fl , I 1 •.. : , " ·-., rJ .. .. ' JJ98... ·- ; I' . ' · , ... ~r- , - · • ' : ; 1 f1,lf•6 (" : ~ - ••• JJ78 -. •• - -' .3371 .. . _ \ '- l •-.-~ - • J,:f7,'1:', •• , ,.' .~ \ t• \ •• / , • t • -,,." • • • , .. ._,, , , 1 •,•• "' • .. , l .. •• • ·. < 11 .• 337.4 JJ86 1 •.'·,. ·., •·3393 ,338. \ ,. • ' -·· ' _337.9, -"~~ JJ7.7 J~7 .7
,338.2
\

40.7 j'i.~,9
_337~ ,l .JJ7s3 38•1 ,33BJ .. : 3~!!17 Jj\. ,~ ·~ .JJ7.8 • •. '· .. ( l ! i •• _/ ·-.. .. , · •• ,.\ .. '- , .J¥ll \ '·· ·v ···. •• ,33 :~ \:;,38 ,t ., 338 e • ·· . ' • ~ 1 • _ ' • ' • • i l38 2 • ,•, :> ! • I • _JJS,6 • • • ,J:l8.6 • .... ~J7•7 ,JJ8 .J ,3311.2 "'39 ,. Ji ,.. \ (t ,. ~- ·-' 337 6 • •••• ••• 3377 _JJ7.4 337.3 336-ir· ,I' ~ · - --.. _ 3353) • •. ___ .• --- • • . .337.4 ,337.J ,337.\' .• ·: • • ....... __ . , ,338.8 ,3JB 6 ! • \ / . 7 5 _'., • • ··- )37 .9 \ _; • 5 .337.7 --. ( -- •• .338 .6 .J.38.6 ,3383 ,,a 4 .338 . 3.,;} 8 ,' '° •::_•a- "+ _ .. -·-• , ____ .. _,-.._. ____ _:,. --• •••• .. --, ·•. _\ ,JJ6.7 ··• ,. • .~. , I • -...,...., 7 - -- --· 4 --
-. . : ' '·· - ···- ~ . 1 ,' ' • ,., ___ , - -- 1l, . , ---- ------- --- ~ !.- ··----- ,,._, .,., _. ,,._, .,.,_, ·"' ' .. , , . •··· . J 6,... • , .,., ,-. J • .. k • ·--.... .. ~ , ,.n~;1;;1;.':".-k-, ;"·~•--:~=-""c-d ~~ "I l;;--~!:I& 'ii,'\;, • --- .-_,,.,_ """ ----c,,a -'< a i;;. __ -,,~, - .=-• ,,. ' >";' .. ·'"·' .. ---· "J-'8.5 - __ j3,:e • - ·- - -·-·· ·- ·- . .- i< Qil.'6J~~~s~ - 2.~,.. .336 3 ·--;J,e.:t- -~ ~ .in---·--·~:.:.- - -· - ·- - ---- -· ·-- · • ----------:-3~s· .3.3~.c- S:!l
"'"~~•- ~-==3 .•· 1-=-""""----'l.p lf!~ WC-11-ll· - 1-> ::~::~.:.:.· -~~-=-?36~·==- -: . .:-=: ., ~-.... --.· -·,zFT·~ --- :J.l!):r-~:.•c•v.i:'.\tl_J,l:ii'. -~3~5...._.J,J!l..i..--l--·----. Q . . , a I ·. / .... HI ,, f\ :· ···-~ 1"1 -- . - - · - - - • :37:S- 3J58 ••••• ···-·--- --J ,,· ! •"JJ•2, · 1 .:, .•. ·--- . .'':::::; \ . · • \,3~ ,1 ; I 34i.~, - - ·· ~ --•-;-·, ••·-·=·r G!1 • • .~•-·-·-···-- .----:;J38·4 •• --.... • • ••• 335.4 \ ,334.6 r, '3JB 1" .c..•-~37:... __;• · ' . ' ' :' •. ' ---, ,· , .• ..._ ., ' ,-3 ,-.,, ,.,._ -·- ·--· ., •• 1" .. -····•"'-' ---•-,-.. • •• ••• P JJSJ ~ '. -~. sr::.>,1 .. :· .. ' • ,: ~,: , >.<;;,,; "'-~"--~ '"'"'' "- ::y,i ;a:-::_: '!' '"'!">•c•::;,:~ : --•-=,;: :;;:::::_::_;: ~ -~"-:;:':::'-; ;.'.:~ · 11;; .nn "" ~'" , ;'~~p;;;,u/il~if~'it~S:}t~-Wi;, ~~~~57'''if;§;iii,,,..,,'iI>'I..~~--:-.'.'"i 0 ~~,,.:;> ·'--,,.,.,:--~~:$.}t.~:i.lzr·,.---- .:: . . --.,.,;,./. ,,;::.~ ;e:.!-,:, ~&:;;.,~ £:., ... ,·f;:1:. •.J.,:e :.--- --:,-,:-,.--=-·,);.;.~""""°" '~-;--;; ,.;;;;:·• -~ \,i!::,o-·-.;.""';t ;·i1-~~-r'" ~:-·". r (JJ~ , .,,~~· -~;;.:'~.\~-;•.· fi(~.:C..~'!.t,1\:;t,}T, .. :.-~i·r~:.~ ;~,;~J ~-;~~'.E-g.m7W 0 ~} :;.':f •• :·:~--;_.,.;~~~~f~
_ . . , .. ! ··· 3':}!,.l~;;~?Ai'1cd -~~..:~~i*;~~~:~. -;(~~~~:~~~~~~;;~i=~'f~;,~~~.,~~f¥~4"~~:it~ ·· 'S:n s JJ.n~·!•;", -t:r- ~ GREEN ,;·;;.-:. . . \!:':f::.~ "'· •. •• _'-ic",....-:;:.--·--··325·2- ···- ;; .. _. s-i~~f'-.;_,_..,...- ll""-':~\:-:, - _ 7=,_-,.·-=.::.-:::::::::. ,;-7" ·.::.-·( . .,_._,•:_··., .. ·>"'"" •"- ··-c~::·.-., - • ;··- 0,..· •• _. 'a!:!'- •• -.: __ , __ "' •• >,n•:,-.=- .;-:-w•-:ia-:,c---., . . -;~\t.r:i:1.; EL 332:5 ,.. ·-'-;;.-· · ,,.:.:.EL.,332;4··-~-- ;.,tt 7 -·.:m :r-·::"· -.. .324.1 ____ .!; • •• ,:'\ ·~·, . "1'fp;Jn;. •. 325 2 .m.'- • • .J24 z , '• ,324.6 32 ·. _ _____ ' .. i. TEEt .. '?.1 · ,..1·c ,326s\ • • • '. ,,,,_ ; :s:u·., • :··---- -~"-·· JJ,l.i~ .. ~ ~~ ;'/ • ' ·.. ,. .... , ·-. :524.J • ·~ .. , r., I'[.. "I' /2 ' . . ~--- --,:' . .:, ·.,,_ '~- l.,.. !I=~•· .• 1 •. • •• • •• E:AIDWAY • J24 3 •• ___:;-.~-- 2tt·· -.:J: • . //,/·:f-rfl.l'.4.:~'/, ,1J'~ /7,_ ·• 12i:::~ tr· -7W~t4'!l~~r~ :,:~~·<%.:: :", ::"\\\~.,..:, ,c,-(2::'"'·--·---. \'.~~--,?;.--:::~·~.--'·,,___--=::~i"~.zs. ~~ -1,:~-;- 2 ·~::~ .s:~.-.------""'7""'~ ~i ~ - ·"'--= ~ ,, §/' 12:,_;f.,,,r.,.,:F 1· ..,.i;:4 •P--- :'~~~~:.--- .,...., .. ,\~;:; ~-- •• ·1'"-'·~,,-- - --.. -·-·•--"""'"" - .,.,., • J _.,~ 5(', ~ f'' /..'d / 1/7 [! /P' ,:---- --:,,,a..C.:,.;-co ¾"=""''>~ '- ' ,,..,;,;,, .. -::,>• •• ;\ c•""-=" cc;,._c::. '7@"eoSC--· •• a,;'f';:,. -:. "].cC,:C., •• • '·ft ~l~-, ,d~~~~- __ •• . @ ,}. • ~- .r?"", -"',' '\~! ' - c ,.,. ,., ' ,., , ,ru- ~ -: d-!'.,' 1;;r11,~'iifii;,• >' "'::i,~[l:'~t ;l'ff: P,!i!:,,-,,;:.~:::,::,;a;,~"'<~--, ; . JJ9J,,,,3 ,,,· ... r,.._.o-· . . /· \ ._..1 ,·1:..,·.,,_,:::__-.....__, ··\7,lr,:, .• -·\ ._"r ..;· ...... , ~\1·'-.:·~r''' ,•· ~:·.·':·;;,~i•'"•.'·'::;;::.~•:-:-:,~,~-~~--b.~.-:.~~ ,,_,.. .-•- . . . ,- . "' . . , --- __ _ , • ' ••••• . • . • . • , • .,,., • • ••• ~-. ·- __ , v:'(t '- ' .. 1//:,?-. ,··' .. ('1 \\ • \ J•t B ,' , '•. ·- ---...:...-- _ -•· +.:::' • ·_--- , •• -:.__\ ,>-"":" --J3ij -_-·--- ,. c==:,-,;,,.-{{$,<-.. _,, ,, .. ) ,..,_, " ' \\ . -/ . ·'"·, ,.,, .,_u6 ·"" ,._, ) _, .. , ; -·- -'~ •• ---... .,,., >~• ·"'" • ' - ~ -~.- /!E' -✓- - i· .. . . 1· , , ,... . .. - --~ - . - --.. ,~ -= \. , - • - •·-- •• _, .,, • -=-·~·1: ~r'" >'·_.., ·<.;J".,· ' .. ./. '..· • 340 I \\ , ' ---->
1 ·0"' ""' ' • 9 5 ._ -
,-... ~.;: ,.. ..;;,:.-·' . , \ \\ .·,, '- ''. v., I -...""!.&......::i-.a • ' • ....~-- • ,·• - - .... , .,_. ,.., ' ,.., _, •, \ \ ,.. . . El.'341.4 _,... , '-- ' "' ' ,,,., ·"" '" • -n · ,.., ' . . . - -., \"'" ·"' , ·"' _, ,,-.;,,, ,.,_, _,.., _, " .. -·' t' .,. ~ ., • _. • • - • LI? , . ., · 1 • 3 •
0 -t \•. / / / . .l'4ll.5 1 ·, • 339 '=L ~.5 J38. 1 ,,jl39. -;-, ...... ,. ---·· - .. i:L SCALE: 1"•150'
' I \\ . '/' / .J40.3\ • ,J39.2 _ ...... '. • (" / _;,_-.:.: ••••• •· • . I , ,,Al II I ) '~38.7 (~"!!,!l ·• ,·;~7.7•• ., -.. - ' -· • .•.,,. ••• ) :n!I .. , f ·'-'" 7 ~n, 7,. ,.-, •• ~ ,

APROX CONST GOST

WAU COST
HOGH"I' {rT) I/fl
6 225
8 300
10 375
12 450
'Ii;
s f:!:c 372
FIGURE 3 .

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE

RAMON ROAD

NOISE ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
w

WILLDAN
SemlgN>lcAgenclea
21042 Taa,e Centre Dr1M. Ue 270, Foo1t Fllrd\ Cdnia "'11 t49/'7Hl«I tu N/77IH04I
7-1295
,'

APPENDIX
SOUND32 Model Input/Output
a. Model Calibration
b. Braille Institute Facade
c. Mission Hills North (Lots 65, 70 and 74)
and Golf Course Receivers
Mission Hills Country Club Letter
Re: No desire for sound wall
7-1296
lon
Road
C
f\l..1
BRAnoA>
~ astbound,
1 5 ,
50 ,
15 ,
50 , 5 ,
50 estbound,
2 15
,
50 ,
15 ,
50 , 5 ,
50 ~-~44,0, zooo.
,44,0,
L.-~s6,o, ~000.
,56,0,
1 ,
67 ,soo
~0
IO
':5 •
I
' r r l t f
R.utJ
-·
SD'
tu
C.

L.
\,
....._,_
, ...
'
'
~~
' '.,1
f
..

I
7-1297
ruND32
-
RE.LEASE
07/30/91
[TLE: tmon
Road
-CALtl\,u\not.>
BASED
ON
FHWA-RD-108
AND
~ALIFORHIA

REFERENCE
ENERGY
MEAN

EMISSION
LEVELS
t

RECEIVER
LEO
---------------R-1

70.1 ...........
-....
f
..
7-1298
,n
noad
1 50
,
33 ,
50 ! etbound, 7,
50,
istbonnd, l~ ,
50 ,
90 ,
2 00
,
50 ,
2·,
,
50 ,09,·0, oo.
,09,0,
,~141,0, 100.,141,0, .
,

6.,
,soo
I, o,
s .. ,
t
I
~NDJ2
-

RELEASE
07/J0/91
fLE:
~
~on
noad
81\SEU
OH
FIIW.1\-
nn-100
.I\HI)
~LI
FORNJA
llEFEHEHCF.

EHEHGY
tlEI\H
t:tH
US
J OIi
l.f.:VEl.6
r J' t
-, .......
..
8-tA
1Ll't·
I /JS
nu.:;g·
7-1299
t. mon
-
New
Homes
-1:;l-fot>T
euRl.L
CSCE1JAil10
~astbound,
1 l41
,
so
,
98 ,
so
,
33 ,
so
rlestbound,
2 r1s,
so,
ao,
50,
21,
so
~.~545,340, 1000,,555,337, ro~o.,565,336, ).,595,340, ~000,,605,337, tooo.,615,336, alock Wall,
1 , 2 , 0
,0

30.,505,337,343, .0.,510,335,341, bolf
Course
Berm,
2 , 1 ,
o
,o
).,470,336,341, bo.,470,337,341, ko.,475,336,342, 10.
,475,336,337,
f0.,480,336,343, ~0.,480,336,342, iorthwest
Wall,
3 ,
2,
O
,o
,.,300,339,345, f,,490,338,344, >.,490,338,344, f ~ast
of
Gate,
4 , 2 , O
,0
.,490,338,344, .,490,337,343, )torege
Yard,
5 , 2 , O
,0
,.,380,337,349, ~.,470,336,348, L
,495,336,348,
! rought
Iron
Replace;
6 , 2
_,
o
,O
.,495,336,348, o.,soS,337,349, 1,
67 ,500
~0,180,345.,Lot
70 2 ,
67 , 500
i0,180,343.,Lot
74 tJ
,
67 ,500
~ , 215
, 3
4 7 . ,
Lo
t
6 5
4 ,
67 ,500
1,385,338.
,Teel
,.5
,
67 , 500
1,425,330.
,Green
r 6
,
67 , 500
,425,337.,Tee2 7 ,
67 ,500
.0,360,330.,Fairway •8
I
67 ,500
,0,400,300.,CartPath
' f
..
7-1300
buNnJ2
-

RELEASE
01/30/91
b:TLE: ~mon
-
New
Homes
...

Got.r
CouR.S'I£

EFFECTIVENESS/
COST
RATIOS
***************************
LE
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1--------------------------------------------~-------
.
'
1 •
-

0.*
•
Bl
Pl
9 lo 11

0. *
o.• 0.
*

0.* 0.* o.• 0.* 0.
*
o.• O.*
I
B2
P1
B2
P2
B2
P3
B2
P4
B2
PS
BJ
Pl
BJ
P2
B4
Pl
B5
Pl
BS
P2
r-----·----------------------------------------------
0 1 2
3 4
5 6 7

BARRIER
DATA
~R

BARRIER

HEIGHTS
BAR
f E
0 1 2
3 4
5 6 7
ID
LENGTH
TYPE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

6.*
.

Bl
Pl
380.0

MASONRY
t !

5.* 5 .
#r

4.• 4.* 7.* 6.* 6.*
' ,,
B2
Pl
=~
:;\
82 P'4
\;
82 p!j
83 Pl
BJ
P2
84 Pl
150.0 ~50.1 14O.l .' 60.
5 110.0 190.0 75.0 05.0

BERM BERM BERM BERM BERM MASONRY MASONRY MASONRY

6.*
85 Pl
290.9

MASONRY
L

6. *
ns
P2

25. O

MASONRY
~---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
fC
REC
ID
DNL
PEOPLE

LEQ(CAL)
r------------------------------L
Lot
7 O 6 7 . 5 0 0 . 6 2 .
o
,
Lot
7 4
6 7 . 5 0 0 . 6
3 . 1
3 Lot
6 5 6 7 .
5 0 0 . 6
4 . 2
I I
Teel

67. 500.

66. 0
7-1301
r
l
Tee2

67. 500.

65. 9
Fairway
-

67. 500.

61. 2
J
CartPath

67. 500.

57. 9
t------------------------------~RRIER
TYPE
COST
[;;------------------i~i;;~----.SONRY
55436.
e~;;~~~:::::
____________
;~----
TOTAL
COST=$
66000.
r-RRIER

IIEIGIIT
INDEX
FOR
EACH

BARRIER

SECTION
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I RRESPONDING

BARRIER

HEIGHTS
FOR
EACH

SECTION
.

5. 5.

4. 4.

7. 6.

6. 6. 6.

6. 7-1302
)UND32
-

RELEASE
07/30/91
t·TLE: 1mon
-
New
Homes
-t
GaLF
Coull.~
e
(,'lrPt.fic.l,
~hfJGII,
1/lo#J
oJJLY)
,~ 4 I! I~ 9 Jo L1 fi2

EFFECTIVENESS/
COST
RATIOS
***************************

0.* 0.* 0.*
I

0.* O.* o.•
o.• 0.* o.• 0.* o.•
82 Pl
B2
P2
·
B2
PJ
82 P4
B2
PS
BJ
Pl
B3
P2
B4
Pl
85 Pl
B5
P2
B6
Pl
-------------------------------------------~---------
0 1 2

BARRIER
DATA
************
3 4 5
6 7

BARRIER

HEIGHTS
BAR
.E
0 1 2 3
4 .
5 6 7
ID
LENGTH
TYPE
r-----=---;~~---------------~~--------------;i-;i------;;~~~--~;;~;;;-------,

5.*
-.....
.......

B2
Pl',
150.0
BERM

5.*
B2
P2
\
.
isft.
1 BERM
... I
I

4.*
B2
P3
i40
.1
·
BERM
t'

4.*
B2
P4
60,5
egRH

7."'
B2
P5
110.0
BERM

6.*
B3
Pl
190.0

MASONRY
r

6.*
B3
P2

75.0 MASONRY

6.*
B4
Pl

85.0 MASONRY

6.*
B5
Pl
298.9

MASONRY

6.*
85 P2
25 .o·

MASONRY
r
-

6.*
86 Pl
495.1

MASONRY
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 1 2 3
4 5 6 7
IC
REC
ID
DNL
PEOPLE
l~EQ(
CAL)
7-1303
~
Lot
70 67.
500.

61.2 Lot
74 67.
500.

62.9 I
Lot
65 67.
500.

62.1 Teel

67. 500.

64.0 Green

61. 500.

65.4 6
Tee2

67. 500.

63.5 t
Fairway

67. 500.

60.0 CartPath

67. 500.

57.9 lnRIER
TYPE
cosT

C------------------------------ERH
10169.
~SONRY
01479.
~SONRY/JERSEY
O.

DNCRETE
O.
r-----------------------~------
TOTAL
COST=$
92000.
[ RRIER
HEIGHT
INDEX
FOR
EACH

BARRIER

SECTION
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RRESPONDING

BARRIER

HEIGHTS
FOR
EACH

SECTION
r:

5. 5.

4. 4.

7. 6.

6. 6.

6. 6.

6. ,. f ~ ,. f
\"
__ ,
r
......
[' r. I r !
'\
'
' \1
f
•
,
7-1304
l JUND32
-

RELEASE
07/30/91
~TLE: :1.mon
-
New
Homes
.f
Ge>LF
Coul.\e
Cf.
roar
luAf...Ls)

EFFECTIVENESS/
COST
RATIOS
fc
**
fc
* **
* * *'*1Hr
***
ll
*****•*
*
Jl
tr
~E
O
1 2
3 4
5 6 7
r----------------------------------------------------
.
1 •
-
O.*
B1
Pl
,~

0. *
B2
Pl

0.*
B2
P2
'4
O.*
I
B2
PJ
,:

O.*
B2
P4
O.*
B2
PS
7 O.*
83 Pl
fa
O.*
B3
P2
9 O.*
84 Pl
lo

0.*
B5
Pl
Ll
o.•
B5
P2
• i2
o.•
B6
Pl
----------------------------·-------------------------t 0 1 2

BARRIER
DATA
**********"*
3 4
5 6
1 ~R

BARRIER

HEIGHTS
BAR
iE
O 1 2 3

4. 5 6 7
ID
LENGTH
TYPE
r-----=---;~;---------------\,---------------;;-;i------;;~~~--;~;~;;;------- ....__
....
p1\
.
'
I

5.*
82 150.0
BERM

5.*
B2
P2
~
.
~50.1
BERM
';

4.*
B2
P3
140.1
BERM
f

4.*
82 P4

60.5 BERM

7.*
·
82 PS
110.0
BERM
'

6.*
BJ
Pl
190.0

MASONRY
!

6.*
83 P2

75.0 MASONRY

6.*
D4
Pl

85.0 MASONRY
t
o.•
ns
Pl
298.9

MASONRY

8.*
BS
P2

25.0 MASONRY
J
-

8. *
B6
Pl
495
.1

MASONRY
~----------------------------------------------------------------------------• 0 1 2 3 4
5 6 7
~C
REC
ID
DNL
PEOPLE

LEQ(CAL)
7-1305
1· [ j r,
I ~
Lot
70 67.
500.

61.0 2
Lot
74 ..
67 .
500.

62.9 ~
Lot
65 67.
500.

61.4 Teel

67. 500.

62.4 s·
Green

67. 500.

63.4 fi
Tee2

67. 500.

63.1 ~
Fair:way

67. 500.

59.9 CartPath

67. 500.

57.9 -------------------------------kRRIER
TYPE
COST
~ RH
10169.

SONRY
95565.

SONRY/JERSEY
O.

ONCRETE
O.
r-----------------------~------~
TOTAL
COST=$
106000.
f\RRIER
HEIGHT
INDEX
FOR
EACH

BARRIER
I,
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ORRESPONDING

BARRIER

HEIGHTS
FOR
EACH
r·
s.

5. 4.

4. 7.

6. 6.

6. 8.
o.

8. .........
··-.

SECTION SECTION
7-1306
)UND32
-

RELEASE
07/30/91
f TLE: amon
-
New
Homes
-t
'9oLF
~outi.s
tz:
(to·
Fo6r
wn
Ll.
$)
I ~ iR

EFFECTIVENESS/
COST
RATIOS
**********~****************
E O 1 2 3
4 5 6 7
f---~----------~-------------------------------------1 - O.*
Bl
Fl
,~

0.*
B2
fl

0.*
B2
P2
4 O.*
I
B2
P3
~:
o.•
B2
P4
O.*
B2
PS
7 0,*
BJ
Pl
fa

0.*
83 P2
lg

0.*
B4
Pl

0.*
BS
Pl
.0 .1

0.*
85 P2
12 0.
*
86 Pl
r
0 1 2

BARRIER
DATA
************
3 4
5 6
7 J·
s.•
'--
.....
82 Pl',
...........

5.*
B2
P2
\1
I
l

4.*
82 Pl
f

4.*
82 P4

7.*
B2
PS

6.*
B3
Pl

6.•
83 P2

6.•
D4
Pl
-

10.•
B5
Pl
-

10.•
BS
P2
-

10.*
D6
Pl
iso.o
BERM
~sb.1
BERM
i40.1
BERM

60.5 BERM
110.0
BERM
190.0

MASONRY

75.0 MASONRY

85.0 MASONRY
290.9

MASONRY

25.0 MASONRY
495.1

MASONRY
!
--
--------
0 1
2 3
i fC
REC
ID
DNL
PEOPLE
4 5

LEQ(CAL)
6 7
7-1307
Lot
70 67.
500.

60.6 Lot
74 67.
500.

62.9 ,.

Lot
65 67.
500.

60.7 Teel

67. 500.

60.7 '
Green

67. 500.

61.7 i
Tee2

67. 500.

61. 9
I
Fairway

67. 500.

59.4 CartPath

67. 500.

57.9 /RRIER
TYPE
COST
·------------------------------:RH ! SONRY SONRY/JERSEY >NCRETE 10169. 1-09651. •

0. o. '
' ------------------------------
TOTAL
COST=$
120000.

I .

RRIER

IIEIGHT
INDEX
FOR
EACH

BARRIER
SEC1'ION
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RRESPONDING

BARRIER

HEIGHTS
FOR
EACH

SECTION
1·

5. 5.

4. 4.

7. 6.

6. 6.10.10.10.

I. t
7-1308
)UND32
-

RELEASE
07/30/91
[TLE: 1mon
-
New
Homes
,..

C;col.r
CoolZ.
s e

EFFECTIVENESS/
COST
RATIOS
*********~*****************
0 1
2 3
4 s
6 7
·--------------
.-------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LO Ll l2
0 0.
*
O.* O.* O.*
I
O.* o.• O.* O.* O.* o.• 0.* 0.* 1
2 BARRIER
DATA
************
Bl B2 B2 82 B2 B2 83 B3 B4 D5 B5 B6
3 4
s
6 7
\R

BARRIER

HEIGHTS
BA~
Pl Pl P2 Pl P4 PS P1 P2 Pl Pl P2 Pl
~E
O 1 2
•
3 4
.
5 6 7
ID
LENGTH
TYPE
•---------------------------~-------M---------------------------------------l -

6.*
81 Pl
380.0

MASONRY
..__
....

Pt,
\

5.*
82 150.0
BERM

5.*
B2
P2
\
.
.~50.1
BERM
... ,

4.*
B2
PJ
140.1
BERM

4.*
82 P4

60.5 BERM

7.*
B2
PS
110.0
BERM

6.•
83 Pl
190.0

MASONRY

6.*
BJ
P2

75.0 MASONRY

6.•
04 Pl

85.0 MASONRY
-

12.*
D5
Pl
298.9

MASONRY
-

12.*
BS
P2

25.0 MASONRY
-

12.*
86 Pl
495.1

MASONRY
·--------------------
------------------------
·--------------------------------
0 1
2 3
:c
REC
ID
DNL
PEOPI.E
4 5
1,EQ(
CAr.)
6 .
7 7-1309
Lot
70 67.
500.

60.3 Lot
74 67.
500.

62.B
Lot
65 67.
500.

59.9 Teel

67. 500.

59.2 Green

67. 500.

60.0 Tee2

67. 500.

60.3 Fairway

67. 500.

58.6 CartPath

67. 500.

57.9 ------------------------------~RIER
TYPE
COST
RM
10169.

SONRY
124393.

SONRY/JERSEY

0. NCRETE

0. '
r----;~;;~-~~;;-:-.---i;;~~~~-~RIER

IIEIGIIT
INDEX
FOR
EACH

BARRIER
~
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

RRESPONDIHG

BARRIER

IIEIGIITS
FOR
EACH
r
s.

5. 4.

4. 7.

6. 6.

6.12.12.l.2.
--
......
.........

SECTION SECTION
'\ ' \t
f
-
I
7-1310
~eb
03 03
0 ◄
:54p
Heid~
.. _Jorc;enson
•
WiW...
't
feather
GENHAL
iuNIU.11:11 January
31,
2003
Mr.

Tony
Louka
Chief
of
Eavir~tal
Calirans
Di.strict
8 464
W"l
4•
Slreet
San
Bcmudino,
CA
92402
-
~
THE
WESTIN

MISSION
HILLS
a.uoa.T
~cho
Mira1e
Re:
.Ramon
Road
Street
Improvements
RPSTPL•S412(00S) EA:
08-A00064
PPNO:
08-0000H
Dcac
Mr.

Lollka:
760
.,.,
_P-?155
It
bas
been
brought
to
our
attention
by
the
City
of
Rancho
Mirage
that
the
approval
of
the
environmental
noise
study
for
the
subject
project
is
being
dela)'l:d
due
to
a
recent
request
to
analyze
the
noise
impacts
the
project
may
have
on
aur
eolf
course.
• "Jliis
project
was
originally
scheduled
for
~onstruction
last
summer
and
i5
now
scheduled
for
constru~on
durins
the
summer
of
2003.

The
street
jmprovcmcnts
associated
with
tJlil
projCGt
arc
badly
needed
and
the
parkway
alooi
our
golf
course
is
·in
need
of
the
landscapjng
improvcmi::nts
chat
arc
beins
delayed
until
~
road
impro~ments
are
complete.

I have
been
informed
that
a
25-foot
landscaped
parkway
wm
exist
betweal
the
street
and·our
golf
course
wall. In
fact,.
being
able
to
see
our
golf
course
from
the
public
stn:et
~ces
om
ability
to
draw
the
publk
to
use
our
facilities
and
any
proposed
wund
walls
would
hinder
this
exposure.

Therefore,
the
golf
course
is
nru
in
favor
of
any
sound
walls
in
the
parkway
that
may
be
required
as
a TesuJt
ofthe
project
and
ones
that
would
block
the
views
onto
our
golf
course.

We
an:
hopeful
that
the
project
will
move
forward
and
construction
can
· commeuce
this
summa­
as
scheduled.
cc:

Patric:1c
.Pratt.

City
Manager,
City
of
Rancho
Mirage
Bruce
Ha:ry,
Public
Works
Director~
City
of
Rancho
Mirage
71333
Dinah
Shont
Drive.

R•ncho
Miraft.

CA9:z:z1c>-1so8
Telephone:

C,60)
no-2ui1
Fu:

C,60)
no-n55
lntemet:
tictp;/Jwww,westin.com
From
the
U.S.
or
canada,
call
your
travel
apnt,
or
1-800-WESTIN·t
7-1311

INITIAL
SITE

ASSESSMENT
(ISA)

CHECKLIST
Date:

March
23 1
2001

PROJECT

INFORMATION
District
8 County
RIV
Route
NA
KiloPost
(PM)
NA
RTIP
RIV010216
Description
of
Work:

Ramon
Road
from DaVall
to
Los
Alamos
widen
from
2 to
6 lanes
Project
Engineer
Ken
Steele
Telephone
(949)
470-8884
Environmental
Coordinator
Dean
Sherer
Telephone
(562)
908-6259
Is
the
project
on
the
on
the
exempt
list
(HW2)?
No!ZI
Yes
O
List#
____
N ___ A _____
_
DATE
ISA
NEEDED
July
2002
HW2
Attach
the
project
location
map
and
an
aerial
photo
to
this
checklist
to
show
the
location
of
proposed
R/W
and
all
known
and/or
potential
waste
sites.

1. Projects
Features:

New
RW?
181
Excavation?
~
Railroad
involvement:
0 Structure
Demolition/Modification?
D
Subsurface
Utility
Relocation?
D

2. Project
Setting:

Rural
O
Urban
181
Current
Land
uses:
.:S=tr=ee..,.t,__
__
Adjacent
Land
uses:

Golf
course
and
vacant
desert
(industrial
light
industry,
commercial,
agriculture,
residential,
other)

3. Check
Federal,
State,
and
local
environmental
and
health
regulatory
agency
records
as
necessary
on
the
attached
map
and
attach
additional
sheets
as
needed
to
provide
all
the
information
available
pertinent
to
the
proposed
project.

IS

PROJECT

AFFECTING
SITES
LISTED
ON

CORTESE
LIST?
NO
181
YES
O
IF
YES,

DESCRIBE
SITE:
_____
N:.:...A:....--------------------------

4. Conduct
Field
Inspection
Ken
Steele
Date
3/23/01
Contamination:
(spills,
leaks,
illegal
Storage
Structures/Pipelines:
dumping,
etc)
usrs
None
Surface
Staining
None
Surface
tanks
None
Oil
Sheen
Nooe
Sumps
None
Ponds~
Odors
r:!Qn!i!
Drums
None
Basins
Nmm
Vegetarian
damage
None
Other
Non~
Transfonners
Non!i!
Landfill
None
Other
NQ[]g

5. Other
comments
and/or
observations.

None
Hazardous
Materials:
(asbestos,
lead,
etc.)
Buildings
None
Sprayed-on
None
Fireproofing Pipe
Wrap
None
Friable
Tile
None
Acoustical
None
Plaster SerpenUne
None
Paint
None
Other
None
ISA
DETERMINATION:

The
project
does
not
appear
to
have
hazardous
waste
involvement.

Does
the
project
have
potential
hazardous
waste
Involvement?
....,.....N;:,::o,__
_______________
_
If
there
is
known
or
potential
hazardous
waste
involvement,
is
additional
ISA
work
needed
before
task
orders
can
be
prepared
for
the
Preliminary
Site
Investigation?
If yes,
explain,
and
give
estimates
of
additional
time
required.

No
7-1312
HW2

HAZARDOUS
WASTE
STUDY
-

POTENTIALLY
EXEMPT

PROJECTS
Projects
which
do
not
require
new
right
of
way,
major
excavation,
structure
demolition/modification,
or
utility
relocation
generally
do
not
present
much
risk
of
hazardous
waste
involvement.

Therefore,
the
following
types
of
projects
generally
will
not
require
a
formal
initial
Site
Assessment
(ISA).

However,
the
Project
engineer
and
the
Environmental
Coordinator
are
cautioned
that
this
list
should
not
be
used
without
some
consideration
of
surrounding
land
use
since
even
minor
excavation
could
involve
hazardous
waste
which
has
migrated
from
some
off
site
location.

POTENTIALLY
EXEMPT

PROJECTS
NO.

Project
Type

1. Pavement
reconstruction,
resurfacing
and
placement
of
seal
coal

2. Work
on
bridge
structures
and
appurtenant
facilities
such
as
traffic
or
control
devices
(beware
of
existing
lead
base
paints).

3. Addition
of
lanes:in
the
median
of
a
divided
highway.

4. Repair
and
maintenance
oh
the
highway
and
all
appurtenant
facilities.

5. Removal
and/or
replacement
of
distinctive
roadway
markings
such
as
painted
stripes,
raised
pavement
markers,
thermoplastic
tape,
raised
bars.
etc.

6. Landscaping
within
highway
right
of
way.

7. Bridge
maintenance
painting
when
performed
In
confom,ance
with
the
requirements
of
air
pollutlon
control
and
water
pollution
control
agencies
having
Jurisdiction.

8. Abandonment,
removal,
reconstructing
or
alteration
of
railroad
grade
crossing
protection.

9. Addition
or
replacement
of
devices
such
as
glare
screen,
median
barrier,
fencing,
guardrail,
safety
barriers,
energy
attenuators,
guide
posts,
markers,
safety
cables,
ladders.
signs.

10. lnstalla6on
of
noise
barriers
and
alteration
to
existing
building
to
provide
for
noise
attenuation
(beware
of
friable
asbestos).

11. Projects
to
eliminate
hazards
within
the
operating
areas.
12 .

Modifying
existing
features
such
as
curbs,
dikes,
headwalls,
slopes,
ditches,
etc.,
within
the
right
of
way
to
improve
safety.

13. Maintenance
of
existing
landscaping,
native
growth
and
water
supply
reservoirs
(exduding
the
use
of
economic
poison,
as
defined
in
Division
7,
Chapter
2,
Callf.

Ag.

Code).

14. Maintenance
of
fish
screens,
fish
ladders,
wildlife
habitat.
etc.
to
protect
fish
and
wildlife
resources.

15. Minor
widening
of
less
than
lane
width
and/or
adding
paved
shoulders.

16. Minor
operational
improvements,
such
as
median
and
side
ditch
paving,
drainage
facilities.

17. Installation
or
modification
of
traffic
control
systems
and
devices
including
addition
of
new
elements,
such
as
signs,
signals,
controllers,
etc.

18. Installation,
removal
or
modification
of
regulatory,
warning
and
information
signs
including new
copy
on
existing
on
and
off
premise
signs.

19. Addition
of
auxiliary
lanes
within
existing
right
of
way
(beware
of
contaminated
groundwater
from
nearby
leaklng
tanks).