Agenda packet — Rancho Mirage City Council, December 18, 2025 (part 6 of 32)

****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2007 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) (Rational Tabling Version 7.OD)
Release Date: 06/01/2007 License ID 1532
Analysis prepared by:
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 562-01
* EXISTING CONDITION 100-YR (DISCHARGE POINT 1)
*
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: RCEX1.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:56 07/16/2019
*
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:

USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 10 -YEAR STORM 10 -MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.360
10 -YEAR STORM 60 -MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.060
100 -YEAR STORM 10 -MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.630 100 -YEAR STORM 60 -MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.530 SLOPE OF 10 -YEAR INTENSITY -DURATION CURVE = 0.4467076 SLOPE OF 100 -YEAR INTENSITY -DURATION CURVE = 0.4464271 COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA:

STORM EVENT = 100.00 1 -HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.530 SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE = 0.4464
RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C" -VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: COMPUTE CONFLUENCE VALUES ACCORDING TO RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL

AND IGNORE OTHER CONFLUENCE COMBINATIONS FOR DOWNSTREAM ANALYSES *USER -DEFINED STREET -SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER -GEOMETRIES: MANNING

WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:

1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSES««<

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM
DEVELOPMENT IS: UNDEVELOPED WITH POOR COVER
1006

TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 96.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 669.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 657.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 12.00
TC = 0.533*[( 96.00**3)/( 12.00)]**.2 = 5.011
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.664
UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7918
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.55
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.09 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

0.55 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 51 »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) «« ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW«« COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« (STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) ««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 635.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 619.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 230.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 8.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 30.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
1007

STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 10.65 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:

STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.39
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 12.70
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.52
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 2.54
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.59 Tc(MIN.) = 8.43
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.076
SINGLE-FAMILY(1/2 ACRE LOT) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8206
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.58
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.5
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.89
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 12.10
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.40 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 13.40 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.73 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 2.71 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 104.00 = 714.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 105.00 TO NODE 104.00 IS CODE = 81 »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.076
SINGLE-FAMILY(1/2 ACRE LOT) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8206
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.99 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.94
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.5 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 17.04
TC(MIN.) = 8.43
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.5 TC(MIN.) =
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 17.04

8.43 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1008

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2007 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) (Rational Tabling Version 7.OD)
Release Date: 06/01/2007 License ID 1532
Analysis prepared by:
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************ * 562-01
* EXISTING CONDITION 100-YR (DISCHARGE POINT 2)
*
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: RCEX2.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:14 07/16/2019
*
*
*
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:

STORM EVENT = 100.00 1 -HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.530 SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE = 0,4464
RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C" -VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: COMPUTE CONFLUENCE VALUES ACCORDING TO RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL

WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO, (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) („)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:

1. Relati e Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Vero ity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 »» >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS« «<

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM
DEVELOPMENT IS: UNDEVELOPED WITH POOR COVER
1009

TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 57.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 669.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 654.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 15.00
TC = 0.533*[( 57.00**3)/( 15.00)]**.2 = 3.505
COMPUTED TIME OF CONCENTRATION INCREASED TO 5 MIN.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.672
UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7919
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.61
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

0.61 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 51 »» >COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) « « »»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« » >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 635.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 626.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 471.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0,0191 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 15.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 5.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.630
SINGLE-FAMILY(1-ACRE LOT) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7870
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 19.05
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.20 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.63 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.46 Tc(MIN.) = 10.00
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.17 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.18
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 21.64
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.66 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.30
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 203.00 = 925.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 203.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 51 1010

»»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW « » >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) « » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW«« » >COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 584.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 534.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 253.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1976 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 1.00 "Z" FACTOR = 4.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.050 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 5.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.406
UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7539
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 36.16
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.39 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.92 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.50 TC(MIN.) = 10.95
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.67 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.73
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 37.52
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.94 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.46
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 206.00 = 1536.00 FEET.

END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) =

8.3 TC(MIN.) = 10.95

37.52 1011

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1012

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2007 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) (Rational Tabling Version 7.OD)
Release Date: 06/01/2007 License ID 1532
Analysis prepared by:
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************ * 562-01
* EXISTING CONDITION 100-YR (DISCHARGE POINT 3)
*
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: RCEX3.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:10 07/16/2019
*
*
*
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:

1. Relati e Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Vero ity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 21 »» >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS« «<

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM
DEVELOPMENT IS: UNDEVELOPED WITH POOR COVER
1013

TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 84.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 676.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 666.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 10.00
TC = 0.533*[( 84.00**3)/( 10.00)]**.2 = 4.797
COMPUTED TIME OF CONCENTRATION INCREASED TO 5 MIN.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.672
UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7919
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.79
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

0.79 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 301.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 51 »» >COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 666.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 640.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 589.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0441 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 8.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.035 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.214
UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7702
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 5.03
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.26 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.44 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.02 TC(MIN.) = 8.02
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.76 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.42
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.21
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.55 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.78
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 302.00 = 673.00 FEET.

END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) =

1.9 TC(MIN.) = 8.02

9.21 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1014

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY DATA SHEET
Proj:

Date:

Description:

Drawing Path:

Job#:

Ritz Carlton - Sky Mesa
Existing Condition (CEQA Drainage Study)
562-01
U/S
NODE
D/S
NODE
AES
CODE
U/S
ELEV
D/S
ELEV
LENGTH
(feet)
Imperv.

Area (sf)
%Impery
AREA
(acres)
NOTES
400.0
401.0
2 670.0
656.0
71 0

0.0%

0.04 401.0
402.0
5 656.0
640.0
144
1150

5.8%

0.46 TOTAL

0.50 500.0
501.0
2 663.0
656.0
38 0

0.0%

0.02 501.0
502.0
5 656.0
642.0
255
0 0.0%

0.78 502.0
503.0
5 642.0
556.0
321
0 0.0%

1.25 TOTAL

2.04 File: AESDatlwO-c ff5_562-01.xIs

Page 1 of 1 ends

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2007 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) (Rational Tabling Version 7.OD)
Release Dote: 06/01/2007 License ID 1532
Analysis prepared
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 562-01
* EXISTING CONDITION 100-YR (DISCHARGE POINT 4 - SKY MESA) *
FILE NAME: RCEX4.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 17:15 08/30/2019
*
*
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:

1. Releti e Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Cenetraint = 6,0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 401.00 IS CODE = 21 » »>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««<

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM
DEVELOPMENT IS: UNDEVELOPED WITH POOR COVER
1016

TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 71.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 670.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 656.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 14.00
TC = 0.533*[( 71:00**3)/( 14.00)]**,2 = 4.054
COMPUTED TIME OF CONCENTRATION INCREASED TO 5 MIN,
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.672
UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7919
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.24
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

0.24 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 401.00 TO NODE 402.00 IS CODE = 51 » »>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW« « TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) «< < ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 656.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 640.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 144.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1111 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 3.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 5,00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.352
UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7877
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.57
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.79 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.33 TRAVEL TIME(MIN,) = 0.50 TC(MIN.) = 5.50
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.46 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.66
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.91
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.42 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.58
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 402.00 =
215.00 FEET.

END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.5 TC(MIN.) = 5.50
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.91

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1017

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2007 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) (Rational Tabling Version 7.OD)
Release Dote: 06/01/2007 License ID 1532
Analysis prepared
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 562-01
* EXISTING CONDITION 100-YR (DISCHARGE POINT 5 - SKY MESA) *
FILE NAME: RCEX5.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 08:31 09/03/2019
*
*
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:

1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6,0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 501.00 IS CODE = 21 » »>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««<

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM
DEVELOPMENT IS: UNDEVELOPED WITH POOR COVER
1018

TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 38.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 663.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 656.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 7.00
TC = 0.533*[( 38:00**3)/( 7.00)]**,2 = 3.201
COMPUTED TIME OF CONCENTRATION INCREASED TO 5 MIN.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.672
UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7919
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.12
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.02 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

0.12 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 501.00 TO NODE 502.00 IS CODE = 51 » »>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW« « TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) « COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 642.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 556.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 321.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.2679 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 4.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.040 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 5.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.557
UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7760
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 7.49
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.47 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.50 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.72 TC(MIN.) = 7.11
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.25 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.36
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.67
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.57 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.23
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 503.00 =
614.00 FEET.

END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.0 TC(MIN.) = 7.11
1019

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.67

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1020

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY DATA SHEET
Proj:

Date:

Description:

Drawing Path:

Job#.

Ritz Carlton
Proposed Condition (CEQA Drainage Study)
562-01
U/S
NODE
D/S
NODE
AES
CODE
U/S
ELEV
D/S
ELEV
LENGTH
(feet)
Imperv.

Area (sf)
%Impery
AREA
(acres)
NOTES
100.0
101.0
2 660.0
657.5
30 1866

76.5%

0.06 101.0
102.0
6 657.5
643.0
510
40340

73.6%

1.26 103.0
102.0
8 25455

55.6%

1.05 102.0
105.0
6 643.0
636.0
102
4954

61.3%

0.19 105.0
106.0
6 636.0
619.0
234
11409

45.8%

0.57 107.0
106.0
8 38501

65.2%

1.36 TOTAL

4.48 200.0
201.0
2 660.0
659.6
33 570

27.1%

0.05 201.0
202.0
6 659.6
639.5
305
24871

89.4%

0.64 203.0
202.0
8 25889

77.8%

0.76 202.0
204.0
6 639.5
621.0
259
9694

22.5%

0.99 206.0
204.0
8 33742

73.3%

1.06 205.0
204.0
8 47200

79.8%

1.36 204.0
206.0
5 590.0
584.0
102
0 206.0
206.0
1 Confluence stream 1 of 2
220.0
221.0
2 650.0
649.5
41 2270
100.0%

0.05 221.0
222.0
5 636.0
634.0
544
46689

63.8%

1.68 222.0
206.0
5 634.0
584.0
474
6963

18.7%

0.85 206.0
206.0
1 Confluence stream 2 of 2
206.0
207.0
5 584.0
534.0
253
2840

9.8%

0.67 TOTAL

8.11 300.0
301.0
2 2300

94.5%

0.06 Assume minimum 5 min Tc
301.0
302.0
6 657.0
645.0
355
31014

78.7%

0.91 302.0
303.0
4 641.5
641.0
35 303.0
304.0
5 641.0
640.0
48 0

0.0%

0.11 TOTAL

1.07 1021
File: AESData_withC-coeff-calc_562-01.xls Page 1 of 1

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2007 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) (Rational Tabling Version 7.OD)
Release Date: 06/01/2007 License ID 1532
Analysis prepared by:
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************ * 562-01
* PROPOSED CONDITION 100-YR (DISCHARGE POINT 1)
*
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: RCPR1.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:10 07/24/2019
*
*
*
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:

1. Relati e Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Vero ity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 »» >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS« «<

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM

DEVELOPMENT IS APARTMENT
1022

TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 62.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 660.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 657.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.50
TC = 0.323*[( 62.00**3)/( 2.50)]**.2 = 3.196
COMPUTED TIME OF CONCENTRATION INCREASED TO 5 MIN.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.672
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8901
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.41
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

0.41 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 61 »» >COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« « (STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) «« ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« « < 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.302
SINGLE-FAMILY(1/4 ACRE LOT) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 8704
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.05 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.76
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 7.77

2.4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

13.22 1023

FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 62 > » >COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« « (STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) «« » >COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« « » (STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) ««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 636.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 619.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 234.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 8.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 30.00

DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET)
INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018

20.00 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Ma..ing's FRICTION FACTOR for Streotflow Section(curb-to-curb) _ Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 15.75 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:

STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.43
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 14.88
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7,25
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 3.11
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.54 Tc(MIN.) = 8.60
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.024

0.0150
1024

SINGLE-FAMILY(1/4 ACRE LOT) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8691
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.57 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.98
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 17.24
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.44 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 15.43 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.43 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 3.26 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 106.00 = 908.00 FEET. *
***************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 107.00 TO NODE 106.00 IS CODE = 81 > » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« «<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.024
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8784
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.36 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.20
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.5 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 24.44
TC(MIN.) = 8.60
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.5 TC(MIN.) = 8.60
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 24.44

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1025

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2007 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) (Rational Tabling Version 7.OD)
Release Date: 06/01/2007 License ID 1532
Analysis prepared by:
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************ * 562-01
* PROPOSED CONDITION 100-YR (DISCHARGE POINT 2)
*
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: RCPR2.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:24 07/22/2019
*
*
*
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:

1. Relati e Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb)

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM

DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL
1026

TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 33.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 660.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 659.60
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.40
TC = 0.303*[( 33.00**3)/( 0.40)]**.2 = 2.967
COMPUTED TIME OF CONCENTRATION INCREASED TO 5 MIN.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.672
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8951
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.34
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

0.34 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 61 »» >COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« « (STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) «« ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« « < 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.086
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8894
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.76 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.79
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.5 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.19
TC(MIN.) = 5.97
1027

FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE = 61 >>> COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« (STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) « « » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« « »»ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« «< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.709
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8888
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.36 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.11
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.9 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 29.30
TC(MIN.) = 6.75
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 206,00 IS CODE = 51 1028

››› COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) « « RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS« « »TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 636.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 634.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 544.00 CHANNEL SLOPE 0.0037 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.884
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8779
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.74
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.23 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.46 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.06 T.(MIN,) = 9.06
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.68 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.68
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.02
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.58 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.64
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 220.00 TO NODE 222.00 =
646.00 FEET.
1029

FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 222.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE = 51 > » >COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) « « » DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« » >AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES« « < TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.81
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.68
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.58
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 13.11
** CONFLUENCE DATA **

STREAM RUNOFF

NUMBER (CFS)
1 29.30
2 13.11
T.
(MIN.)

7.00 9.81

INTENSITY
(INCH/HOUR)

6.602

5.678
AREA
(ACRE)

4.86 2.58
*********************************WARNING**********************************

IN THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM, THE CONFLUENCE VALUE USED IS BASED ON THE RCFC&WCD FORMULA OF PLATE D-1 AS DEFAULT VALUE. THIS FORMULA

WILL NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF PEAK FLOW, **************************************************************************

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **

STREAM RUNOFF

NUMBER (CFS)
1 38.65
2 38.31
T.
(MIN.)

7.00 9.81

INTENSITY
(INCH/HOUR)
6,602

5.678
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 38.65 T.(MIN.) = 7.00
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.4
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 220.00 TO NODE 206.00 = 1120.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** 1030

FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 206.00 TO NODE 207.00 IS CODE = 51 >» COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 584.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 534.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 253.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1976 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 1.00 "Z" FACTOR = 4.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.050 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 5.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.405
UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7735
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 40.31
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.58 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.97 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.49 TC(MIN.) = 7.49
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.67 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.32
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 41.97
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.98 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.68
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 220.00 TO NODE 207.00 = 1373.00 FEET.

END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) =

8.1 TC(MIN.) = 7.49

41.97 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1031

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2007 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) (Rational Tabling Version 7.OD)
Release Date: 06/01/2007 License ID 1532
Analysis prepared by:
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************ * 562-01
* PROPOSED CONDITION 100-YR (DISCHARGE POINT 3)
*
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: RCPR3.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 09:49 07/24/2019
*
*
*
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:

1. Relati e Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Vero ity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 22 »» >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS« «<

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM

DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL
1032

USER SPECIFIED Tc(MIN.) = 5.000
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.672
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8951
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.41
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

0.41 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 301.00 TO NODE 302.00 IS CODE = 61 >>> COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« »» (STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) « « >> COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« « USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) « COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<« « 1033

> » >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) « «<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 641.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 640.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 48.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0,0208 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 2.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10,000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 5.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.502
UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7751
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 6.08
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.71 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.38 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.30 T.(MIN,) = 7.24
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.11 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0,55
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1 .1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.35
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.39 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2,72
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 304.00 =
494.00 FEET.

END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) =

1.1 TC(MIN.) = 7.24

6.35 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1034

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY DATA SHEET
Proj:

Date:

Description:

Drawing Path:

Job#.

Ritz Carlton - Sky Mesa
Proposed Condition (CEQA Drainage Study)
562-01
U/S
NODE
D/S
NODE
AES
CODE
U/S
ELEV
D/S
ELEV
LENGTH
(feet)
Imperv.

Area (sf)
%Impery
AREA
(acres)
NOTES
400.0
401.0
2 670.0
654.0
81 0

0.0%

0.10 401.0
402.0
5 654.0
648.0
60 0

0.0%

0.08 402.0
403.0
5 644.0
640.0
58 4919

37.4%

0.30 TOTAL

0.49 500.0
501.0
2 670.0
669.0
45 0

0.0%

0.04 501.0
502.0
4 654.5
649.5
128
502.0
502.0
8 6272

40.5%

0.36 502.0
503.0
4 649.5
643.0
136
503.0
503.0
8 3327

17.2%

0.44 503.0
504.0
4 643.0
632.0
41 504.0
504.0
8 437

5.9%

0.17 504.0
505.0
4 632.0
631.0
15 505.0
506.0
5 631.0
556.0
274
7340

14.8%

1.14 TOTAL

2.15 1035
File: AESData_withC-coeff-calc_562-01.xls Page 1 of 1

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2007 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) (Rational Tabling Version 7.OD)
Release Dote: 06/01/2007 License ID 1532
Analysis prepared
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 562-01
* PROPOSED CONDITION 100-YR (DISCHARGE POINT 4 - SKY MESA) *
FILE NAME: RCPR4.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 09:24 09/03/2019
*
*
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:

1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6,0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 401.00 IS CODE = 21 » »>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««<

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM
DEVELOPMENT IS: UNDEVELOPED WITH GOOD COVER
1036

TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**,2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 81.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 670.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 654.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 16.00
TC = 0.937*[( 81:00**3)/( 16.00)]**,2 = 7.520
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.394
UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7733
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.49
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

0.49 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 401.00 TO NODE 402.00 IS CODE = 51 ››› COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) «« COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW« « TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 644.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 640.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 58.00 CHANNEL SLOPE 0.0690 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 5.00 "Z" FACTOR = 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.138
SINGLE-FAMILY(1/2 ACRE LOT) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8213
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1 64
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.12 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.06 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.31 TC(MIN.) = 8.24
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.51
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.39
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.07 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.76
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 403.00 =
199.00 FEET.

END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) =

0.5 TC(MIN.) = 8.24

2.39 1037

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1038

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2007 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) (Rational Tabling Version 7.OD)
Release Dote: 06/01/2007 License ID 1532
Analysis prepared
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 562-01
* PROPOSED CONDITION 100-YR (DISCHARGE POINT 5 - SKY MESA) *
FILE NAME: RCPR5.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:40 09/03/2019
*
*
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:

1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb)

ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM
DEVELOPMENT IS: UNDEVELOPED WITH GOOD COVER
1039

TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 45.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 670.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 669.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.00
TC = 0.937*[( 45:00**3)/( 1.00)]**,2 = 9 201
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.843
UNDEVELOPED WATERSHED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7632
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.18
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

0.18 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 501.00 TO NODE 502.00 IS CODE = 41 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« »>USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) «« ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) «« ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« « 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.630
SINGLE-FAMILY(1-ACRE LOT) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7870
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.44 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.95
1040

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 10,00

0.8 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.80
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 503.00 TO NODE 504,00 IS CODE = 41 » >»COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« » »USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) «« »>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« « COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« « »»USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) « « COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW« « TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) «< < ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 631.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 556.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 274.00 CHANNEL SLOPE 0.2737 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 4.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.040 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 5.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.467
SINGLE-FAMILY(1-ACRE LOT) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7842
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B"
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 6 97
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.40 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.49 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.62 TC(MIN.) = 10.68
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.14 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.89
1041

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =

2.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) =
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.54 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.94
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 506.00 =

9.42 639.00 FEET.

END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) =

2.2 TC(MIN.) = 10.68

9.42 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1042

APPENDIX 4
Onsite Detention Analysis
1043

RUNOFF INDEX NUMBERS OF HYDROLOGIC SOIL -COVER COMPLEXES FOR PERVIOUS AREAS -AMC II Cover Type ( )
Quality of,
Cover (2)
Soil Group
A
E
C
D

NATURAL COVERS
76 86
91 93
Barren
(Rockland, eroded and graded land)
Chaparral, Broadleaf
Poor
53 70
80 85
( zonita, ceanothus and scrub oak)
Fair
40 63
1 75
81 Good
31 57
71 78
Chaparral, Narrowleaf
Poor
71 82
88 91
(Chamise and redshank)
Fair
55 72
81 86
Grass, Annual or Perennial
Poor
67 78
86 89
Fair
50 69 •
79 84
Good
38 61
74 80
Meadows or Cienegas
Poor
63 77
85 88
(Areas with seasonally high water table,
Fair
51 70
80 84
principal vegetation is sod forming grass)
Good
30 58
72 78
Open Brush
Poor

6.2 76
84 68
(Soft wood shrubs - buckwheat, sage, etc.)
Fair
46 66
77 83
:3oc4
41 63
75 81
Woodland
Poor
45 66
77 83
(Coniferous or broadleaf trees predominate.

Fair
36 60
73 79
Canopy density is at least 50 percent)
Good
28 55
70 77
Woodland, Grass
Poor
57 73
82 86
(Coniferous or broadleaf trees with canopy
Fair
44 65
77 82
density from 20 to 50 percent)
Good
33 58
72 79

URBAN COVERS -
Good
32 56
69 75
Residential or Commercial Landscaping
(Lawn, shrubs, etc.)
Turf
Poor
H58
74 83
87 (Irrigated and mowed grass)
Fair
44 65
77 82
Good
33 58
72 79
AGRICULTURAL Cc7TERS -
76 85
90 92
Fallow
(Land plowed but not tilled or seeded)
RCFC a WCD

RUNOFF INDEX NUMBERS

HYDROLOGY MANUAL
FAR
PERVIOUS AREA.
1044
PLATE D-5.5 (I of 2)

O
01 r
m
r
na
C
0 �I
n
z
S838V+IfIN
NOTES:

I. RI , Number-tntii?rotio n relationships are derived tram reinfali r unoff relationships in Bibliography item No.36..
0 I
imaff-._ MOIMMUNE MEM
■■■■aM■■■MM■■■■■M■i■■■M MMM■a■ ■M■■■■■■■■!■■!
i■gam■
-'*■■■MMa■iM■M■MM■MMIr m.MMM■■■M
s aMligNMEMM■ ■■■ ■■■■ ■■■M ■mi'
M■rM
■ ■■sissmaa■iifiM■ ■■■ MMM ■■■■Mmrr n■■ ■i■■■■r■■■ ■■■■■i■■■ ■■■f■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ MM:n■MifO■i■■MM ■■■MEMMiC
■■■■■■■■ MMi■fig■■■■■ ■M
7MM■■■■■■■■■■■■■r■■■■■i ■■■M ■■■M■■■■t110
■IMM■■■■■M■■■■■■■MZNI
■�
Mai;a';MMEMMMMMM'M■i-

NIIMMMIMME
WE
■■■■■■MMM■i■ #■ire+ ■■
I
■�i Z5M.MMM■M M■MMM i■■M■■■MO
mmum■t■■ zsi onom ■■pfa� ■ni�r■■
ziM■M■■ ■■■■■.oliy ■■■ii+ii■■ ■M' mmom■■■■■■■i■iii ■i ■■ ■■■miff ■■■ ■■ ■■■■ a■ ■■i>■■■■■■i■■ -
■MAMMMMM.
••••••••••••••MM■■•
.4" ■
■.ul
■ M■M■■■■■■■■■MMia .

M i■M■i■
■■■i ■■ ■ifgS
OM
■1■■■■'UMME
Mi
.
■■
MOMM ■A■

gmmgegammus
M
lirm ••••••
■■■■
MOM■■
NOM
I MM
■■■■■■■■i'
MUMM Emm aill
MM uuu
■■■■■■■ ■
I MMM EM■■■■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■i ■■■■■■ref■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■
M■■■M■MmORM■■■■■ifYi
"
a OMMMOAIM■■A■■■■■■■■■■A■■■■■M#■>!■ ■■MMM ■■■M i■■
mommiimmommummonummommsonmemmom mo mmum ma
■■ii mmusi
MIME=
M ■MMM■■■■M■■■MM■■■■MM
M■■■MM■■■iii■■MOM■■■■■■■■■M■■MME■ ■M■■■XIIM
■■■M■■■■■■■■■■
■■■M■■■■■■■■■■M■■■■■■■O■a■MIIM■E■M ■■■M■MM '
ROMM■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MMM■■MM■MMMl■■■i1�MM■
■
€xam ple-m■■itm
-_
■■
--
_
■
For
f.
■■■ ■ilfi
RI =6B
AMC
F
Cooditkm
■■■■■■■■ MOMM■■ ■fM ORMM■M
i■■■■iitiiri■i ■■■■■■■■■
■■■e
=
R
MMII■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■i■ii■'

SMEMIIM MII MM EMEMMAMMEMM
■■■■■ ■e■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■
1■ ■■■i■■Mu.M■ ■MMi■ i
, ,3B
it
if
and
and
.58
inJhr.

I
respectively.
m om
Now
1 ■
■
■
M
si■ii:o:a■ iii■iiM EM OMOMMEMmi
P
ummobnoi ■i:•
_som■iii■mmo,
.■■■■■■■■■ ■■M M■■■MM i■�i ■m■■MMMs
-
M
i
■ Ar'."fff]■MMMM
ii
i
litr AIMMME
li■MMIIMM:E�i:■i:_
■■ is
OMM
AnaliRM
■a■M
■■
fill
lire
■ ■M ■■■
■■i■Mil■ iii■■■■■ ■M�i■■M■M■
■MMffi ■■■■■■■M■■M■■■
■
■ ■■iOOOIIr
JMi ■M■
■■■■■■■■■M■■ ■._
■
■MO
MMi OWSM
5 Mi ii■O■i■ fbn Om ■M■■■■■p
■■■■■
■i .s
■■
MOM
■aM■ME .MIR
MM a■EMMEMMiMiMMMMMM. .
■
■.■■
■■■■■■ Im!e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■ ■CIIII■■■■■■■■■■■■.■■V
OMME
■M ■M■MMOMMOM■■■■M
MOMIlmilliMM OIMM IIWII§IOMM�mIIMM EMMOOMMOilim
MEM
4■M■■■M m■i■■ ■■■ ■■■■■■■■ ■■■mom■■■■■■■i■■ ■iii■■ M■ ice■MEN■M■ ■■■Miiiir\m mommiiiiiii mmm mommo::::•■•••ileromm
Uim3

IIIMMIIIIMMEMMOMMOMIM MO
falmm
Mmm
V•m
••mam mon
.■■:a: ■
■■■■■■■■ ■■■ ■■ ■■i■■■ ■■■ M■ ■.■i r'q■■■
■■MMi■■■■ ■■ ■■O■■■■■■■■M■■■■■■i"�■
■
■■
■
■ ■■■ b
■■■O■■�:

MM■■■
■■■■MMMM■■M■�.'�Mi■■■■■ ■■■■mil•
■■■■ ■■ ■■■■■■M■■■■M■ M■■■■ ■mss
'
■ Ma`
■■■■■■M■ ►�f■■■a ■■
M■
. ■i`■■a■■■■ ■M■■■■
3 iMmliMMOM MUMMEMOMMEIMMUmmil
■■M■i�
ii■■■■MSMIOO
■■
■■■ZONE
M■■■IMii'�■■■ i■M■M■■'
■MM■ ■COME■■■ ■■MEMO
■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■M■■MMiIMO MlMM
■■■■if~�
y_
■■M
1'
■■■ i■■■.■■ ■■ iM■■■■■■■ ■
ii■■■■■■■■■
■
■■i ■■ ■■M ■■■►
■i■ ■■■
■ ■ r7■ ■■■.

NN E
MMEIMrMrMMMMMMimMMSEMMEMMEMMUNIIMM
f■■Mm■■i ■MM MM■■■■i■■■■■■
■i■■■ ■■ii ■
C�iimM
MiMMiiSii
i:s:UMMMMsmom Mii
tf■itMMO■■m■ ■i■ m■■■■■■■■ M■■■M■■M■■■■
MMa
MM■■i
rf `9rri
■■■■
■mMMN N■■■ ■r■ii.' ■■
■■=iaM:mMii
"OSIMiiiMIIMialIiiii3
i L
M:SIIIIi��f
:
:_

MMMOMMOZWOMIMM OM
III UMS 6OU SEMCN
M
MM■■IIMM
MMM
■ MMM ■■■■■■ M ■■■■
■■■■
■w■ ■■Mi m
�!
i
i Mnimmoim' MM
iMM'imMM■ MMmmimM
iMiiiiMMMM■Mom mMMMi
____Am ■M ■■■
'
mmirmii
■iii
■i lim
M_MOM■M■ i■ ■■■. ■
■■■■iuM■ ■M
M■m uii
mg
•
MiiIMEESSM
=MINMMMEMM
M
i .■
i.uMMiimpmmiiMiM#M
■■■
■■■E■.

EE.
a
i mpo mbri
mm
I■■REI■■EUm■M■.:!.—
MEE ■1t
RMMs•MMflM
"i: w1U
■
■■. ■■E■a.■■■■■■■M. .I■
■ IM■. PI■MMIMEM.■■■■■MEE■I■
E
■

O
0)
r
m
r
na
C
0 �I
n
z
S838V+IfIN
NOTES:

I. RI , Number-tntii?rotio n relationships are derived tram reinfali r unoff relationships in Bibliography item No.36..
0 IF
imaff-._ MOIMMUNE MEM
■■■■aM■■■MM■■■■■M■i■■■M MMM■a■ ■M■■■■■■■■!■■!
i■gam■
-'*■■■MMa■iM■M■MM■MMIr m.MMM■■■M
s aMligNMEMM■ ■■■ ■■■■ ■■■M ■mi'
M■rM
■ ■■sissmaa■iifiM■ ■■■ MMM ■■■■Mmrr n■■ ■i■■■■r■■■ ■■■■■i■■■ ■■■f■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ MM:n■MifO■i■■MM ■■■MEMMiC
■■■■■■■■ MMi■fig■■■■■ ■M
7MM■■■■■■■■■■■■■r■■■■■i ■■■M ■■■M■■■■t110
■IMM■■■■■M■■■■■■■MZNI
■�
Mai;a';MMEMMMMMM'M■i-

M i■M■i■
■■■i ■■ ■ifgS
OM
■1■■■■'UMME
Mi
.
■■
MOMM ■A■

SMEMIIM MII MM EMEMMAMMEMM
■■■■■ ■e■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■
1■ ■■■i■■Mu.M■ ■MMi■ i
, ,3B
it
if
and
and
.58
in ./hr.

EE.
a
i mpo mbri
mm
I■■REI■■EUm■M■.:!.—
MEE ■1t
RMMs•MMflM
"i: w1U
■
■■. ■■E■a.■■■■■■■M. .I■
■ IM■. PI■MMIMEM.■■■■■MEE■I■
E
■

7/2/2019 Precipitation Frequency Data Server
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2
Location name: Rancho Mirage, California, USA*
Latitude: 33.766°, Longitude: -116.4573°
Elevation: 661.75 ft**
* source: ESRI Maps
** source: USGS

POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Michael Yekta, Tan Zhao, Geoffrey Bonnin, Daniel Brewer, Li-Chuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF tabular I •PF graphical I Maps & aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)1 Duration
5 -min
10 -min
15 -min
30 -min
60 -min
2 -hr
3 -hr
6 -hr
12 -hr
24 -hr
2 -day
3 -day
4 -day
7 -day
10 -day
20 -day
30 -day
45 -day
60 -day
Average recurrence interval (years)
1 0.075
(0.063-0.091)

0.107
(0.090-0.130)

0.130
(0.108-0.157)

0.210
(0.175-0.255)

0.290
(0.242-0.351)

0.387
(0.323-0.469)

0.458
(0.382-0.555)

0.613
(0,511-0.742)

0.763
(0.636-0.924)

0.905
(0.801-1.04)

1.05 (0.925-1.21)

1.11 (0.985-1.28)

1.15 (1.01-1.32)

1.26 (1.11-1.45)

1.34 (1.18-1.54)

1.49 (1.32-1.72)

1.69 (1.49-1.94)

1.87 (1.66-2.16)

2.03 (1.79-2.34)
2 0.123
(0.102-0.149)

0.176
(0.146-0.213)

0.213
(0.177-0.258)

0.344
(0.287-0.417)

0.474
(0.395-0.575)

0.636
(0.530-0,771)

0.750
(0.625-0.910)

0.991
(0.826-1.20)

1.22 (1.01-1.47)

1.42 (1.25-1.64)

1.62 (1.43-1.87)

1.71 (1.51-1.97)

1.75 (1.55-2.02)

1.91 (1.69-2.21)

2.03 (1.80-2.35)

2.28 (2.01-2.63)

2.59 (2.29-2.99)

2.90 (2.57-3.35)

3.16 (2.80-3.65)
5 0.199
(0.165-0.242)

0.286
(0.237-0.347)

0.345
(0.287-0.420)

0.559
(0.464-0.680)

0.771
(0.640-0.937)

1.01 (0.841-1.23)

1.18 (0.981-1.44)

1.53 (1.27-1.86)

1.85 (1.54-2.25)

2.14 (1.89-2.48)

2.42 (2.14-2.80)

2.55 (2.25-2.95)

2.62 (2.31-3.03)

2.85 (2.52-3.30)

3.03 (2.67-3.51)

3.41 (3.01-3.95)

3.90 (3.44-4.52)

4.40 (3.88-5.09)

4.82 (4.25-5.57)
10 0.274
(0.226-0.336)

0.393
(0.323-0.482)

0.475
(0.391-0.583)

0.769
(0.633-0.943)

1.06 (0.873-1.30)

1.36 (1.12-1.67)

1.57 (1.29-1.93)

2.01 (1.66-2.47)

2.40 (1.98-2.95)

2.77 (2.42-3.23)

3.13 (2.73-3.65)

3.30 (2.88-3,85)

3.38 (2.95-3.94)

3.68 (3.22-4.30)

3.92 (3.42-4.57)

4.41 (3.86-5.15)

5.07 (4.43-5.91)

5.73 (5.01-6.69)

6.30 (5.51-7.35)
25 0.398
(0.317-0.505)

0.571
(0.454-0.724)

0.690
(0.549-0.876)

1.12 (0.890-1.42)

1.54 (1.23-1.95)

1.90 (1.52-2.42)

2.16 (1.72-2.74)

2.72 (2.16-3.45)

3.22 (2.56-4.08)

3.68 (3.12-4.44)

4.16 (3.52-5.01)

4.39 (3.72-5.29)

4.51 (3.82-5.43)

4.92 (4.16-5.92)

5.23 (4.43-6.29)

5.91 (5.01-7.12)

6.81 (5.77-8.20)

7.74 (6.55-9.32)

8.53 (7.23-10.3)
50 0.515
(0.401-0.667)

0.738
(0.575-0.956)

0.892
(0.695-1.16)

1.44 (1.13-1.87)

1.99 (1.55-2.58)

2.38 (1.86-3.09)

2.67 (2.08-3.46)

3.31 (2.58-4.29)

3.89 (3.03-5.04)

4.43 (3.68-5.45)

5.01 (4.16-6.16)

5.31 (4.41-6.53)

5.46 (4.53-6.71)

5.95 (4.94-7.31)

6.33 (5.25-7.78)

7.17 (5.96-8.82)

8.29 (6.88-10.2)

9.45 (7.84-11.6)

10.4 (8.67-12.8)
100

0.655
(0.498-0.870)

0.938
(0.713-1.25)

1.14 (0.862-1.51)

1.84 (1.40-2.44)

2.53 (1.93-3.37)

2.93 (2.23-3.90)

3.24 (2.46.4.31)

3.96 (3.01-5.26)

4.61 (3.50-6.13)

5.25 (4.25-6.60)

5.93 (4.81-7.47)

6.31 (5.12-7.95)

6.50 (5.27-8.17)

7.08 (5.74-8.91)

7.53 (6.11-9.48)

8.56 (6.94-10.8)

9.92 (8.05-12.5)

11.3 (9.20-14.3)

12.6 (10.2-15.8)
200

0.850
(0.628-1.16)

1.22 (0.899-1.67)

1.47 (1.09-2.02)

2.39 (1.76-3.26)

3.29 (2.43-4.50)

3.57 (2.63-4.88)

3.89 (2.87-5.32)

4.68 (3.46-6.40)

5.41 (3.99-7.40)

6.13 (4.84-7.93)

6.95 (5.48-8.98)

7.42 (5.86-9.59)

7.65 (6.04-9.89)

8.34 (6.58-10.8)

8.87 (7.00-11.5)

10.1 (7.98-13.1)

11.7 (9.27-15.2)

13.5 (10.6-17.4)

15.0 (11.8-19.4)
500

1.36 (0.962-1.94)

1.95 (1.38-2.78)

2.36 (1.67-3.36)

3.82 (2.70-5.45)

5.26 (3.72-7.51)

5.31 (3.76-7.58)

5.37 (3.80-7.66)

5.74 (4.06-8.20)

6.57 (4.65-9.38)

7.42 (5.63-9.98)

8.43 (6.39-11.3)

9.05 (6.86-12.2)

9.35 (7.09-12.6)

10.2 (7.73-13.7)

10.9 (8.23-14.6)

12.4 (9.41-16.7)

14.5 (11.0-19.5)

16.7 (12.6-22.4)

18.6 (14.1-25.0)
1000

1.94 (1.33-2.87)

2.78 (1.90-4.12)

3.37 (2.30-4.98)

5.45 (3.72-8.06)

7.51 (5.13-11.1)

7.59 (5.18-11.2)

7.66 (5.23-11.3)

7.74 (5.29-11.4)

7.82 (5.34-11.6)

8.49 (6.23-11.8)

9.67 (7.09-13.5)

10.4 (7.65-14.5)

10.8 (7.91-15.0)

11.8 (8.64-16.4)

12.5 (9.19-17.4)

14.4 (10.5-20.0)

16.8 (12.3-23.4)

19.4 (14.2-27.0)

21.7 (16.0-30.3)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).

Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.

Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.

Back to Top
PF graphical
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?Iat=33.7660&Idn YI6.45�3&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 1/4

7/2/2019 Precipitation Frequency Data Server
PD5-based depth -duration -frequency (DDF) curves
Latitude: 33.7660°, Longitude: -116.4573°
Precipitation depth �9n}
0 c c c
kni
Precipitation depth (a
25 50 100 200
NOAA Atlas 14. Volume 6, Version 2
C e L. i_
rJ t-
6 0
s
N
Duration
Average recurrence interval (years)
ra r0
Z7 O -O - 'C7
P+ 0 0 0 Lt1..4
500 1000
Orated (GMT}: TUe Jul 2 21:50:40 2019
Back to Top
Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
Average recurrence
mteNal
(years)
1 2
5 10
25 50
100
200
500
1000
Durgin
5-nOn — 2 -day
— 1 0 -min — 3 -day
t 6 min — 4 -day
— ad --min — 7 -day
— 50-m,rl — 10 -day
— 2fir — 20 -day
— 3 r — 30 -day
— 45 -day
— 6�r
— 1 Ir 6S}{lay
24-r
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?Iat=33.7660&Idn YI6.457'9'&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 2/4

7/2/2019 Precipitation Frequency Data Server
Cathedral City'
I
3km ' - Mirage
2mi
+7,
Lancaster
s
Palmdale
it
as Angeles • Pi,elsirl� t r!f 'firt
#
I El -each Anaheim• Cathedral r_irp' r
SantiAna Palm [-e e I. 'Indio
Mur ri eta
Ls
Large scale terrain
Virtrrr'dille
100km
60mi
•
Lakel
_
n Diego
Mexicali.

Large scale map
an caster
Palmdale
Santa ciarita
,V"Ictcrviile
Los Angeles
I'{IVer icIe
Anaheim 6_atllrtfral'
fie-acf ; r„7..Im!!ns:rio r�p�
San to Ana [Aim DJe`.ert
k1urriet.a
Oc:eane.ide
100km
60mi
Large scale aerial
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=33.7660&Idh =- 6. 3/4

7/2/2019 Precipitation Frequency Data Server
Back to Top
US Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Weather Service
National Water Center
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Questions?: [email protected]
Disclaimer
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=33.7660&Idh YI 7�&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 4/4

Unit Time for 24 -hour storms = 15 minutes (per Plate E-1.2) Storm Event
Precipitation
(inches)

RCFC&WCD
Hydrology Manual
Reference
100-yr, 24 -hour

5.25 NOAA Atlas 14
1051

Discharge Point 1 (Existing Condition)
Storm
Volume (ac -ft)
Volume (cf)
Peak Flow (cfs)
100-yr, 24 -hour

0.80 34801

2.03 1052

Loss Parameters (Existing Condition - Discharge Point 1) Drainage Area 150,401 sf

3.45 ac
A, 27,143 sf
18% imp
Runoff Index 86 Note: Plate E-6.1: Barren (Rockland, eroded and graded); Soil Type B Fp 0.18 in/hr Note: Plate E-6.2: AMC II
F=F(1—0.9Ai)
F= 0.151 in/hr
For 24 -hr storms, FT is variable loss rate
FT = C[24 — (T/60)]1.55 + FM
C = (F — FM)/54
T = Unit Time/2
FM = 0.5F
FT = 0.266
C= 0.0014
T = 7.5
Fm = 0.075
1053

R C F C& W C D

HYDROLOGY
MANUAL
"SHORTCUT METHOD"

SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Unit Hydrograph and Effective Rain
Calculation Form
Project: 562-01
(Existing Condition - Discharge Point 1)
Sheet
1 By Date
Checked Date
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT ---
[3] DRAINAGE AREA -ACRES 3.45
[5] UNIT TIME -MINUTES 15
[7] UNIT TIME -PERCENT OF LAG (100'[5]/[6]) ---
[9] STORM FREQUENCY & DURATION 100-YR, 24 -HR
[11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG)-INCHES/HOUR 0.151
[13] CONSTANT LOSS RATE-INCHES/HOUR ---
[2] AREA DESIGNATION ---
[4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE-CFS-HRS/IN (645`[3]) N/A
[6] LAG TIME -MINUTES ---
[8] S -CURVE N/A
[10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN -INCHES 5.25
[12] MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS)-IN/HR 0.075
[14] LOW LOSS RATE -PERCENT 85
><

UNIT HYDROGRAPH

EFFECTIVE RAIN
FLOOD

HYDROGRAPH
[15]
UNIT
TIME
PERIOD
m
[16]
TIME

PERCENT
OF LAG
[7]'[15]
[17]

CUMULATIVE

AVERAGE

PERCENT OF

ULTIMATE

DISCHARGE
(S -GRAPH)
[16]

DISTRIB
GRAPH

PERCENT
[17]m -[17]m-1
[17]
UNIT

HYDROGRAPH

CFS-HRS/IN
j41*[181
[20]

PATTERN

PERCENT
(PL E-5.9)
[21]
STORM
RAIN
IN/HR
60[101[201
[22]
LOSS
RATE
IN/HR
[23]

EFFECTIVE
RAIN
IN/HR
[21]-[22]
[24]
FLOW
CFS
100.000
100 [5]
MAX
LOW
1 0.2

0.042

0.266

0.036

0.006

0.02 2

0.3 0.063

0.263

0.054

0.009

0.03 3

0.3 0.063

0.260

0.054

0.009

0.03 4

0.4 0.084

0.257

0.071

0.013

0.04 5

0.3 0.063

0.254

0.054

0.009

0.03 6

0.3 0.063

0.251

0.054

0.009

0.03 7

0.3 0.063

0.248

0.054

0.009

0.03 8

0.4 0.084

0.245

0.071

0.013

0.04 9

0.4 0.084

0.242

0.071

0.013

0.04 10

0.4 0.084

0.239

0.071

0.013

0.04 11

0.5 0.105

0.236

0.089

0.016

0.05 12

0.5 0.105

0.233

0.089

0.016

0.05 13

0.5 0.105

0.230

0.089

0.016

0.05 14

0.5 0.105

0.228

0.089

0.016

0.05 15

0.5 0.105

0.225

0.089

0.016

0.05 16

0.6 0.126

0.222

0.107

0.019

0.07 17

0.6 0.126

0.219

0.107

0.019

0.07 18

0.7 0.147

0.216

0.125

0.022

0.08 19

0.7 0.147

0.213

0.125

0.022

0.08 20

0.8 0.168

0.211

0.143

0.025

0.09 21

0.6 0.126

0.208

0.107

0.019

0.07 22

0.7 0.147

0.205

0.125

0.022

0.08 23

0.8 0.168

0.203

0.143

0.025

0.09 24

0.8 0.168

0.200

0.143

0.025

0.09 25

0.9 0.189

0.197

0.161

0.028

0.10 26

0.9 0.189

0.195

0.161

0.028

0.10 27

1.0 0.210

0.192

0.179

0.018

0.06 28

1.0 0.210

0.189

0.179

0.021

0.07 29

1.0 0.210

0.187

0.179

0.023

0.08 30

1.1 0.231

0.184

0.196

0.047

0.16 31

1.2 0.252

0.182

0.214

0.070

0.24 32

1.3 0.273

0.179

0.232

0.094

0.33 33

1.5 0.315

0.177

0.268

0.138

0.48 34

1.5 0.315

0.174

0.268

0.141

0.49 35

1.6 0.336

0.172

0.286

0.164

0.57 36

1.7 0.357

0.169

0.303

0.188

0.65 37

1.9 0.399

0.167

0.339

0.232

0.81 38

2.0 0.420

0.165

0.357

0.255

0.89 39

2.1 0.441

0.162

0.375

0.279

0.97 40

2.2 0.462

0.160

0.393

0.302

1.05 41

1.5 0.315

0.158

0.268

0.157

0.55 42

1.5 0.315

0.155

0.268

0.160

0.56 43

2.0 0.420

0.153

0.357

0.267

0.93 44

2.0 0.420

0.151

0.357

0.269

0.94 45

1.9 0.399

0.149

0.339

0.250

0.87 46

1.9 0.399

0.146

0.339

0.253

0.88 47

1.7 0.357

0.144

0.303

0.213

0.74 48

1.8 0.378

0.142

0.321

0.236

0.82 49

2.5 0.525

0.140

0.446

0.385

1.34 50

2.6 0.546

0.138

0.464

0.408

1.42 51

2.8 0.588

0.136

0.500

0.452

1.57 52

2.9 0.609

0.134

0.518

0.475

1.65 53

3.4 0.714

0.132

0.607

0.582

2.03 54

3.4 0.714

0.130

0.607

0.584

2.03 55

2.3 0.483

0.128

0.411

0.355

1.24 56

2.3 0.483

0.126

0.411

0.357

1.24 57

2.7 0.567

0.124

0.482

0.443

1.54 58

2.6 0.546

0.122

0.464

0.424

1.48 59

2.6 0.546

0.120

0.464

0.426

1.48 60

2.5 0.525

0.118

0.446

0.407

1.42 61

2.4 0.504

0.117

0.428

0.387

1.35 62

2.3 0.483

0.115

0.411

0.368

1.28 63

1.9 0.399

0.113

0.339

0.286

1.00 64

1.9 0.399

0.111

0.339

0.288

1.00 5

R C F C& W C D

HYDROLOGY
MANUAL
"SHORTCUT METHOD"

SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Unit Hydrograph and Effective Rain
Calculation Form
Project: 562-01
(Existing Condition- Discharge Point 1)
Sheet
1 1
By Date
Checked Date
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT ---
[3] DRAINAGE AREA -ACRES 3.45
[5] UNIT TIME -MINUTES 15
[7] UNIT TIME -PERCENT OF LAG (100*[5]/[6]) ---
[9] STORM FREQUENCY & DURATION 100-YR, 24 -HR
[11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG)-INCHES/HOUR 0.151
[13] CONSTANT LOSS RATE-INCHES/HOUR ---
[2] AREA DESIGNATION ---
[4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE-CFS-HRS/IN (645*[3]) N/A
[6] LAG TIME -MINUTES ---
[8] S -CURVE N/A
[10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN -INCHES 5.25
[12] MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS)-IN/HR 0.075
[14] LOW LOSS RATE -PERCENT 85
\ ST
x
�/ \\

UNIT HYDROGRAPH

EFFECTIVE RAIN
FLOOD

HYDROGRAPH
[15]
UNIT
TIME
PERIOD
m
[16]
TIME

PERCENT
OF LAG
[7]*[15]
[17]

CUMULATIVE

AVERAGE

PERCENT OF

ULTIMATE

DISCHARGE
(S -GRAPH)
[16]

DISTRIB
GRAPH

PERCENT
[17]m -[17]m-1
[17]
UNIT

HYDROGRAPH

CFS-HRS/IN
]41*[181
[20]

PATTERN

PERCENT
(PL E-5.9)
[21]
STORM
RAIN
IN/HR
60[101[201
[22]
LOSS
RATE
IN/HR
[23]

EFFECTIVE
RAIN
IN/HR
[21]-[22]
[24]
FLOW
CFS
100.000
100[5]
MAX
LOW
65 0.4

0.084

0.110

0.071

0.013

0.04 66

0.4 0.084

0.108

0.071

0.013

0.04 67

0.3 0.063

0.106

0.054

0.009

0.03 68

0.3 0.063

0.105

0.054

0.009

0.03 69

0.5 0.105

0.103

0.089

0.002

0.01 70

0.5 0.105

0.102

0.089

0.003

0.01 71

0.5 0.105

0.100

0.089

0.005

0.02 72

0.4 0.084

0.099

0.071

0.013

0.04 73

0.4 0.084

0.097

0.071

0.013

0.04 74

0.4 0.084

0.096

0.071

0.013

0.04 75

0.3 0.063

0.094

0.054

0.009

0.03 76

0.2 0.042

0.093

0.036

0.006

0.02 77

0.3 0.063

0.092

0.054

0.009

0.03 78

0.4 0.084

0.090

0.071

0.013

0.04 79

0.3 0.063

0.089

0.054

0.009

0.03 80

0.2 0.042

0.088

0.036

0.006

0.02 81

0.3 0.063

0.087

0.054

0.009

0.03 82

0.3 0.063

0.086

0.054

0.009

0.03 83

0.3 0.063

0.085

0.054

0.009

0.03 84

0.2 0.042

0.084

0.036

0.006

0.02 85

0.3 0.063

0.083

0.054

0.009

0.03 86

0.2 0.042

0.082

0.036

0.006

0.02 87

0.3 0.063

0.081

0.054

0.009

0.03 88

0.2 0.042

0.080

0.036

0.006

0.02 89

0.3 0.063

0.079

0.054

0.009

0.03 90

0.2 0.042

0.078

0.036

0.006

0.02 91

0.2 0.042

0.078

0.036

0.006

0.02 92

0.2 0.042

0.077

0.036

0.006

0.02 93

0.2 0.042

0.077

0.036

0.006

0.02 94

0.2 0.042

0.076

0.036

0.006

0.02 95

0.2 0.042

0.076

0.036

0.006

0.02 96

0.2 0.042

0.075

0.036

0.006

0.02 TOTALS
100.0

11.11 38.67
EFFECTIVE RAIN = 2.78 INCHES
TOTAL RUNOFF VOLUME = 0.80 AC -FT
1055

Discharge Point 2 (Existing Condition)
Storm
Volume (ac -ft)
Volume (cf)
Peak Flow (cfs)
100-yr, 24 -hour

1.81 78852

4.74 1056

Loss Parameters (Existing Condition - Discharge Point 2) Drainage Area 361,322 sf

8.29 ac
A; 18,916 sf
5% imp
Runoff Index 86 Note: Plate E-6.1: Barren (Rockland, eroded and graded); Soil Type B Fp 0.18 in/hr Note: Plate E-6.2: AMC II
F=F(1—0.9Ai)
F= 0.172 in/hr
For 24 -hr storms, FT is variable loss rate
FT = C[24 — (T/60)]1.55 + FM
C = (F — FM)/54
T = Unit Time/2
FM = 0.5F
FT = 0.303
C= 0.0016
T = 7.5
Fm = 0.086
1057

R C F C& W C D

HYDROLOGY
MANUAL
"SHORTCUT METHOD"

SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Unit Hydrograph and Effective Rain
Calculation Form
Project: 562-01
(Existing Condition - Discharge Point 2)
Sheet
1 By Date
Checked Date
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT ---
[3] DRAINAGE AREA -ACRES 8.29
[5] UNIT TIME -MINUTES 15
[7] UNIT TIME -PERCENT OF LAG (100'[5]/[6]) ---
[9] STORM FREQUENCY & DURATION 100-YR, 24 -HR
[11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG)-INCHES/HOUR 0.172
[13] CONSTANT LOSS RATE-INCHES/HOUR ---
[2] AREA DESIGNATION ---
[4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE-CFS-HRS/IN (645`[3]) N/A
[6] LAG TIME -MINUTES ---
[8] S -CURVE N/A
[10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN -INCHES 5.25
[12] MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS)-IN/HR 0.086
[14] LOW LOSS RATE -PERCENT 85
><

UNIT HYDROGRAPH

EFFECTIVE RAIN
FLOOD

HYDROGRAPH
[15]
UNIT
TIME
PERIOD
m
[16]
TIME

PERCENT
OF LAG
[7]'[15]
[17]

CUMULATIVE

AVERAGE

PERCENT OF

ULTIMATE

DISCHARGE
(S -GRAPH)
[16]

DISTRIB
GRAPH

PERCENT
[17]m -[17]m-1
[17]
UNIT

HYDROGRAPH

CFS-HRS/IN
j41*[181
[20]

PATTERN

PERCENT
(PL E-5.9)
[21]
STORM
RAIN
IN/HR
60[101[201
[22]
LOSS
RATE
IN/HR
[23]

EFFECTIVE
RAIN
IN/HR
[21]-[22]
[24]
FLOW
CFS
100.000
100 [5]
MAX
LOW
1 0.2

0.042

0.303

0.036

0.006

0.05 2

0.3 0.063

0.299

0.054

0.009

0.08 3

0.3 0.063

0.296

0.054

0.009

0.08 4

0.4 0.084

0.292

0.071

0.013

0.11 5

0.3 0.063

0.289

0.054

0.009

0.08 6

0.3 0.063

0.286

0.054

0.009

0.08 7

0.3 0.063

0.282

0.054

0.009

0.08 8

0.4 0.084

0.279

0.071

0.013

0.11 9

0.4 0.084

0.275

0.071

0.013

0.11 10

0.4 0.084

0.272

0.071

0.013

0.11 11

0.5 0.105

0.269

0.089

0.016

0.13 12

0.5 0.105

0.265

0.089

0.016

0.13 13

0.5 0.105

0.262

0.089

0.016

0.13 14

0.5 0.105

0.259

0.089

0.016

0.13 15

0.5 0.105

0.256

0.089

0.016

0.13 16

0.6 0.126

0.252

0.107

0.019

0.16 17

0.6 0.126

0.249

0.107

0.019

0.16 18

0.7 0.147

0.246

0.125

0.022

0.18 19

0.7 0.147

0.243

0.125

0.022

0.18 20

0.8 0.168

0.240

0.143

0.025

0.21 21

0.6 0.126

0.237

0.107

0.019

0.16 22

0.7 0.147

0.234

0.125

0.022

0.18 23

0.8 0.168

0.230

0.143

0.025

0.21 24

0.8 0.168

0.227

0.143

0.025

0.21 25

0.9 0.189

0.224

0.161

0.028

0.24 26

0.9 0.189

0.221

0.161

0.028

0.24 27

1.0 0.210

0.218

0.179

0.032

0.26 28

1.0 0.210

0.215

0.179

0.032

0.26 29

1.0 0.210

0.213

0.179

0.032

0.26 30

1.1 0.231

0.210

0.196

0.021

0.18 31

1.2 0.252

0.207

0.214

0.045

0.38 32

1.3 0.273

0.204

0.232

0.069

0.58 33

1.5 0.315

0.201

0.268

0.114

0.95 34

1.5 0.315

0.198

0.268

0.117

0.98 35

1.6 0.336

0.196

0.286

0.140

1.17 36

1.7 0.357

0.193

0.303

0.164

1.37 37

1.9 0.399

0.190

0.339

0.209

1.75 38

2.0 0.420

0.187

0.357

0.233

1.95 39

2.1 0.441

0.185

0.375

0.256

2.14 40

2.2 0.462

0.182

0.393

0.280

2.34 41

1.5 0.315

0.179

0.268

0.136

1.13 42

1.5 0.315

0.177

0.268

0.138

1.16 43

2.0 0.420

0.174

0.357

0.246

2.06 44

2.0 0.420

0.172

0.357

0.248

2.08 45

1.9 0.399

0.169

0.339

0.230

1.92 46

1.9 0.399

0.167

0.339

0.232

1.94 47

1.7 0.357

0.164

0.303

0.193

1.61 48

1.8 0.378

0.162

0.321

0.216

1.81 49

2.5 0.525

0.159

0.446

0.366

3.06 50

2.6 0.546

0.157

0.464

0.389

3.25 51

2.8 0.588

0.155

0.500

0.433

3.63 52

2.9 0.609

0.152

0.518

0.457

3.82 53

3.4 0.714

0.150

0.607

0.564

4.72 54

3.4 0.714

0.148

0.607

0.566

4.74 55

2.3 0.483

0.145

0.411

0.338

2.82 56

2.3 0.483

0.143

0.411

0.340

2.84 57

2.7 0.567

0.141

0.482

0.426

3.56 58

2.6 0.546

0.139

0.464

0.407

3.41 59

2.6 0.546

0.137

0.464

0.409

3.42 60

2.5 0.525

0.135

0.446

0.390

3.26 61

2.4 0.504

0.133

0.428

0.371

3.11 62

2.3 0.483

0.131

0.411

0.352

2.95 63

1.9 0.399

0.129

0.339

0.270

2.26 64

1.9 0.399

0.127

0.339

0.272

2.28 5

R C F C& W C D

HYDROLOGY
MANUAL
"SHORTCUT METHOD"

SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Unit Hydrograph and Effective Rain
Calculation Form
Project: 562-01
(Existing Condition- Discharge Point 2)
Sheet
1 1
By Date
Checked Date
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT ---
[3] DRAINAGE AREA -ACRES 8.29
[5] UNIT TIME -MINUTES 15
[7] UNIT TIME -PERCENT OF LAG (100*[5]/[6]) ---
[9] STORM FREQUENCY & DURATION 100-YR, 24 -HR
[11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG)-INCHES/HOUR 0.172
[13] CONSTANT LOSS RATE-INCHES/HOUR ---
[1\
[2] AREA DESIGNATION ---
[4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE-CFS-HRS/IN (645*[3]) N/A
[6] LAG TIME -MINUTES ---
[8] S -CURVE N/A
[10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN -INCHES 5.25
[12] MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS)-IN/HR 0.086
[14] LOW LOSS RATE -PERCENT 85
x
�/ \\

UNIT HYDROGRAPH

EFFECTIVE RAIN
FLOOD

HYDROGRAPH
[15]
UNIT
TIME
PERIOD
m
[16]
TIME

PERCENT
OF LAG
[7]*[15]
[17]

CUMULATIVE

AVERAGE

PERCENT OF

ULTIMATE

DISCHARGE
(S -GRAPH)
[16]

DISTRIB
GRAPH

PERCENT
[17]m -[17]m-1
[17]
UNIT

HYDROGRAPH

CFS-HRS/IN
]41*[181
[20]

PATTERN

PERCENT
(PL E-5.9)
[21]
STORM
RAIN
IN/HR
60[101[201
[22]
LOSS
RATE
IN/HR
[23]

EFFECTIVE
RAIN
IN/HR
[21]-[22]
[24]
FLOW
CFS
100.000
100[5]
MAX
LOW
65 0.4

0.084

0.125

0.071

0.013

0.11 66

0.4 0.084

0.123

0.071

0.013

0.11 67

0.3 0.063

0.121

0.054

0.009

0.08 68

0.3 0.063

0.119

0.054

0.009

0.08 69

0.5 0.105

0.117

0.089

0.016

0.13 70

0.5 0.105

0.116

0.089

0.016

0.13 71

0.5 0.105

0.114

0.089

0.016

0.13 72

0.4 0.084

0.112

0.071

0.013

0.11 73

0.4 0.084

0.110

0.071

0.013

0.11 74

0.4 0.084

0.109

0.071

0.013

0.11 75

0.3 0.063

0.107

0.054

0.009

0.08 76

0.2 0.042

0.106

0.036

0.006

0.05 77

0.3 0.063

0.104

0.054

0.009

0.08 78

0.4 0.084

0.103

0.071

0.013

0.11 79

0.3 0.063

0.101

0.054

0.009

0.08 80

0.2 0.042

0.100

0.036

0.006

0.05 81

0.3 0.063

0.099

0.054

0.009

0.08 82

0.3 0.063

0.097

0.054

0.009

0.08 83

0.3 0.063

0.096

0.054

0.009

0.08 84

0.2 0.042

0.095

0.036

0.006

0.05 85

0.3 0.063

0.094

0.054

0.009

0.08 86

0.2 0.042

0.093

0.036

0.006

0.05 87

0.3 0.063

0.092

0.054

0.009

0.08 88

0.2 0.042

0.091

0.036

0.006

0.05 89

0.3 0.063

0.090

0.054

0.009

0.08 90

0.2 0.042

0.089

0.036

0.006

0.05 91

0.2 0.042

0.088

0.036

0.006

0.05 92

0.2 0.042

0.088

0.036

0.006

0.05 93

0.2 0.042

0.087

0.036

0.006

0.05 94

0.2 0.042

0.087

0.036

0.006

0.05 95

0.2 0.042

0.086

0.036

0.006

0.05 96

0.2 0.042

0.086

0.036

0.006

0.05 TOTALS
100.0

10.48 87.61
EFFECTIVE RAIN = 2.62 INCHES
TOTAL RUNOFF VOLUME = 1.81 AC -FT
1059

Discharge Point 1 (Proposed Condition)
Storm
Volume (ac -ft)
Volume (cf)
Peak Flow (cfs)
100-yr, 24 -hour

1.42 61935

2.97 1060

Loss Parameters (Proposed Condition - Discharge Point 1) Drainage Area 195,054 sf

4.48 ac
A; 122,525 sf
63% imp
Runoff Index 88 Note: Plate E-6.1: Assume desert landscaping => Open Brush - Poor; Soil Type D Fp 0.15 in/hr Note: Plate E-6.2: AMC II
F=F(1—0.9Ai)
F= 0.065 in/hr
For 24 -hr storms, FT is variable loss rate
FT = C[24 — (T/60)]1.55 + FM
C = (F — FM)/54
T = Unit Time/2
FM = 0.5F
FT = 0.115
C= 0.0006
T = 7.5
Fm = 0.033

R C F C& W C D

HYDROLOGY
MANUAL
"SHORTCUT METHOD"

SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Unit Hydrograph and Effective Rain
Calculation Form
Project: 562-01
(Prop Condition - Discharge Point 1) 1
Sheet
1 By Date
Checked Date
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT ---
[3] DRAINAGE AREA -ACRES 4.48
[5] UNIT TIME -MINUTES 15
[7] UNIT TIME -PERCENT OF LAG (100'[5]/[6]) ---
[9] STORM FREQUENCY & DURATION 100-YR, 24 -HR
[11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG)-INCHES/HOUR 0.065
[13] CONSTANT LOSS RATE-INCHES/HOUR ---
[2] AREA DESIGNATION ---
[4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE-CFS-HRS/IN (645`[3]) N/A
[6] LAG TIME -MINUTES ---
[8] S -CURVE N/A
[10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN -INCHES 5.25
[12] MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS)-IN/HR 0.033
[14] LOW LOSS RATE -PERCENT 85
><

UNIT HYDROGRAPH

EFFECTIVE RAIN
FLOOD

HYDROGRAPH
[15]
UNIT
TIME
PERIOD
m
[16]
TIME

PERCENT
OF LAG
[7]'[15]
[17]

CUMULATIVE

AVERAGE

PERCENT OF

ULTIMATE

DISCHARGE
(S -GRAPH)
[16]

DISTRIB
GRAPH

PERCENT
[17]m -[17]m-1
[17]
UNIT

HYDROGRAPH

CFS-HRS/IN
j41*[181
[20]

PATTERN

PERCENT
(PL E-5.9)
[21]
STORM
RAIN
IN/HR
60[101[201
[22]
LOSS
RATE
IN/HR
[23]

EFFECTIVE
RAIN
IN/HR
[21]-[22]
[24]
FLOW
CFS
100.000
100 [5]
MAX
LOW
1 0.2

0.042

0.115

0.036

0.006

0.03 2

0.3 0.063

0.114

0.054

0.009

0.04 3

0.3 0.063

0.112

0.054

0.009

0.04 4

0.4 0.084

0.111

0.071

0.013

0.06 5

0.3 0.063

0.110

0.054

0.009

0.04 6

0.3 0.063

0.109

0.054

0.009

0.04 7

0.3 0.063

0.107

0.054

0.009

0.04 8

0.4 0.084

0.106

0.071

0.013

0.06 9

0.4 0.084

0.105

0.071

0.013

0.06 10

0.4 0.084

0.103

0.071

0.013

0.06 11

0.5 0.105

0.102

0.089

0.003

0.01 12

0.5 0.105

0.101

0.089

0.004

0.02 13

0.5 0.105

0.100

0.089

0.005

0.02 14

0.5 0.105

0.098

0.089

0.007

0.03 15

0.5 0.105

0.097

0.089

0.008

0.04 16

0.6 0.126

0.096

0.107

0.030

0.14 17

0.6 0.126

0.095

0.107

0.031

0.14 18

0.7 0.147

0.094

0.125

0.053

0.24 19

0.7 0.147

0.092

0.125

0.055

0.25 20

0.8 0.168

0.091

0.143

0.077

0.35 21

0.6 0.126

0.090

0.107

0.036

0.16 22

0.7 0.147

0.089

0.125

0.058

0.26 23

0.8 0.168

0.088

0.143

0.080

0.36 24

0.8 0.168

0.086

0.143

0.082

0.37 25

0.9 0.189

0.085

0.161

0.104

0.47 26

0.9 0.189

0.084

0.161

0.105

0.47 27

1.0 0.210

0.083

0.179

0.127

0.57 28

1.0 0.210

0.082

0.179

0.128

0.58 29

1.0 0.210

0.081

0.179

0.129

0.58 30

1.1 0.231

0.080

0.196

0.151

0.68 31

1.2 0.252

0.079

0.214

0.173

0.78 32

1.3 0.273

0.078

0.232

0.195

0.88 33

1.5 0.315

0.076

0.268

0.239

1.08 34

1.5 0.315

0.075

0.268

0.240

1.08 35

1.6 0.336

0.074

0.286

0.262

1.18 36

1.7 0.357

0.073

0.303

0.284

1.28 37

1.9 0.399

0.072

0.339

0.327

1.48 38

2.0 0.420

0.071

0.357

0.349

1.57 39

2.1 0.441

0.070

0.375

0.371

1.67 40

2.2 0.462

0.069

0.393

1.77 41

1.5 0.315

0.068

0.268

0.247

1.11 42

1.5 0.315

0.067

0.268

0.248

1.12 43

2.0 0.420

0.066

0.357

0.354

1.60 44

2.0 0.420

0.065

0.357

0.355

1.60 45

1.9 0.399

0.064

0.339

0.335

1.51 46

1.9 0.399

0.063

0.339

0.336

1.52 47

1.7 0.357

0.062

0.303

0.295

1.33 48

1.8 0.378

0.061

0.321

0.317

1.43 49

2.5 0.525

0.061

0.446

0.464

2.10 50

2.6 0.546

0.060

0.464

0.486

2.20 51

2.8 0.588

0.059

0.500

0.529

2.39 52

2.9 0.609

0.058

0.518

0.551

2.49 53

3.4 0.714

0.057

0.607

0.657

2.97 54

3.4 0.714

0.056

0.607

0.658

2.97 55

2.3 0.483

0.055

0.411

0.428

1.93 56

2.3 0.483

0.054

0.411

0.429

1.94 57

2.7 0.567

0.054

0.482

0.513

2.32 58

2.6 0.546

0.053

0.464

0.493

2.23 59

2.6 0.546

0.052

0.464

0.494

2.23 60

2.5 0.525

0.051

0.446

0.474

2.14 61

2.4 0.504

0.050

0.428

0.454

2.05 62

2.3 0.483

0.050

0.411

0.433

1.96 63

1.9 0.399

0.049

0.339

0.350

1.58 64

1.9 0.399

0.048

0.339

0.351

1.58 R C F C& W C D

HYDROLOGY
MANUAL
"SHORTCUT METHOD"

SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Unit Hydrograph and Effective Rain
Calculation Form
Project: 562-01
(Prop Condition - Discharge Point 1)
Sheet
1 1
By Date
Checked Date
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT ---
[3] DRAINAGE AREA -ACRES 4.48
[5] UNIT TIME -MINUTES 15
[7] UNIT TIME -PERCENT OF LAG (100*[5]1[6]) ---
[9] STORM FREQUENCY & DURATION 100-YR, 24 -HR
[11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG)-INCHES/HOUR 0.065
[13] CONSTANT LOSS RATE-INCHES/HOUR ---
[1\
[2] AREA DESIGNATION ---
[4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE-CFS-HRS/IN (645*[3]) N/A
[6] LAG TIME -MINUTES ---
[8] S -CURVE N/A
[10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN -INCHES 5.25
[12] MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS)-IN/HR 0.033
[14] LOW LOSS RATE -PERCENT 85
x
�/ \\

UNIT HYDROGRAPH

EFFECTIVE RAIN
FLOOD

HYDROGRAPH
[15]
UNIT
TIME
PERIOD
m
[16]
TIME

PERCENT
OF LAG
[7]*[15]
[17]

CUMULATIVE

AVERAGE

PERCENT OF

ULTIMATE

DISCHARGE
(S -GRAPH)
[16]

DISTRIB
GRAPH

PERCENT
[17]m -[17]m-1
[17]
UNIT

HYDROGRAPH

CFS-HRS/IN
]41*[181
[20]

PATTERN

PERCENT
(PL E-5.9)
[21]
STORM
RAIN
IN/HR
60[101[201
[22]
LOSS
RATE
IN/HR
[23]

EFFECTIVE
RAIN
IN/HR
[21]-[22]
[24]
FLOW
CFS
100.000
100[5]
MAX
LOW
65 0.4

0.084

0.047

0.071

0.037

0.17 66

0.4 0.084

0.047

0.071

0.037

0.17 67

0.3 0.063

0.046

0.054

0.017

0.08 68

0.3 0.063

0.045

0.054

0.018

0.08 69

0.5 0.105

0.045

0.089

0.060

0.27 70

0.5 0.105

0.044

0.089

0.061

0.28 71

0.5 0.105

0.043

0.089

0.062

0.28 72

0.4 0.084

0.043

0.071

0.041

0.19 73

0.4 0.084

0.042

0.071

0.042

0.19 74

0.4 0.084

0.041

0.071

0.043

0.19 75

0.3 0.063

0.041

0.054

0.022

0.10 76

0.2 0.042

0.040

0.036

0.002

0.01 77

0.3 0.063

0.040

0.054

0.023

0.11 78

0.4 0.084

0.039

0.071

0.045

0.20 79

0.3 0.063

0.039

0.054

0.024

0.11 80

0.2 0.042

0.038

0.036

0.004

0.02 81

0.3 0.063

0.038

0.054

0.025

0.12 82

0.3 0.063

0.037

0.054

0.026

0.12 83

0.3 0.063

0.037

0.054

0.026

0.12 84

0.2 0.042

0.036

0.006

0.03 85

0.3 0.063

0.036

0.054

0.027

0.12 86

0.2 0.042

0.035

0.036

0.007

0.03 87

0.3 0.063

0.035

0.054

0.028

0.13 88

0.2 0.042

0.035

0.036

0.007

0.03 89

0.3 0.063

0.034

0.054

0.029

0.13 90

0.2 0.042

0.034

0.036

0.008

0.04 91

0.2 0.042

0.034

0.036

0.008

0.04 92

0.2 0.042

0.033

0.036

0.009

0.04 93

0.2 0.042

0.033

0.036

0.009

0.04 94

0.2 0.042

0.033

0.036

0.009

0.04 95

0.2 0.042

0.033

0.036

0.009

0.04 96

0.2 0.042

0.033

0.036

0.009

0.04 TOTALS
100.0

15.24 68.82
EFFECTIVE RAIN = 3.81 INCHES
TOTAL RUNOFF VOLUME = 1.42 AC -FT
1063

Runoff Hydrograph to Detention Vault -1 (Proposed Condition) Storm
Volume (ac -ft)
Volume (cf)
Peak Flow (cfs)
100-yr, 24 -hour

0.77 33364

1.58 1064

Loss Parameters (Proposed Condition - Runoff Hydgraph to Detention Vault -1) Drainage Area 102,994 sf

2.36 ac
A; 67,661 sf
66% imp
Runoff Index 88 Note: Plate E-6.1: Assume desert landscaping => Open Brush - Poor; Soil Type D Fp 0.15 in/hr Note: Plate E-6.2: AMC II
F=F(1—0.9Ai)
F= 0.061 in/hr
For 24 -hr storms, FT is variable loss rate
FT = C[24 — (T/60)]1.55 + FM
C = (F — FM)/54
T = Unit Time/2
FM = 0.5F
FT = 0.108
C= 0.0006
T = 7.5
F M = 0.031
1065

R C F C& W C D

HYDROLOGY
MANUAL
"SHORTCUT METHOD"

SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Unit Hydrograph and Effective Rain
Calculation Form
Project: 562-01
(Prop Condition - Runoff HG to Detention Vault -1)
Sheet
1 1
By Date
Checked Date
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT ---
[3] DRAINAGE AREA -ACRES 2.36
[5] UNIT TIME -MINUTES 15
[7] UNIT TIME -PERCENT OF LAG (100'[5]/[6]) --
[9] STORM FREQUENCY & DURATION 100-YR, 24 -HR
[11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG)-INCHES/HOUR 0.061
[13] CONSTANT LOSS RATE-INCHES/HOUR ---
[2] AREA DESIGNATION --
[4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE-CFS-HRS/IN (645`[3]) N/A
[6] LAG TIME -MINUTES ---
[8] S -CURVE N/A
[10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN -INCHES 5.25
[12] MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS)-IN/HR 0.031
[14] LOW LOSS RATE -PERCENT 85
><

UNIT HYDROGRAPH

EFFECTIVE RAIN
FLOOD

HYDROGRAPH
[15]
UNIT
TIME
PERIOD
m
[16]
TIME

PERCENT
OF LAG
[7]'[15]
[17]

CUMULATIVE

AVERAGE

PERCENT OF

ULTIMATE

DISCHARGE
(S -GRAPH)
[16]

DISTRIB
GRAPH

PERCENT
[17]m -[17]m-1
[17]
UNIT

HYDROGRAPH

CFS-HRS/IN
[41'[181
[20]

PATTERN

PERCENT
(PL E-5.9)
[21]
STORM
RAIN
IN/HR
60[101[201
[22]
LOSS
RATE
IN/HR
[23]

EFFECTIVE
RAIN
IN/HR
[21]-[22]
[24]
FLOW
CFS
100.000
100 [5]
MAX
LOW
1 0.2

0.042

0.108

0.036

0.006

0.02 2

0.3 0.063

0.107

0.054

0.009

0.02 3

0.3 0.063

0.106

0.054

0.009

0.02 4

0.4 0.084

0.105

0.071

0.013

0.03 5

0.3 0.063

0.103

0.054

0.009

0.02 6

0.3 0.063

0.102

0.054

0.009

0.02 7

0.3 0.063

0.101

0.054

0.009

0.02 8

0.4 0.084

0.100

0.071

0.013

0.03 9

0.4 0.084

0.098

0.071

0.013

0.03 10

0.4 0.084

0.097

0.071

0.013

0.03 11

0.5 0.105

0.096

0.089

0.009

0.02 12

0.5 0.105

0.095

0.089

0.010

0.02 13

0.5 0.105

0.094

0.089

0.011

0.03 14

0.5 0.105

0.093

0.089

0.012

0.03 15

0.5 0.105

0.091

0.089

0.014

0.03 16

0.6 0.126

0.090

0.107

0.036

0.09 17

0.6 0.126

0.089

0.107

0.037

0.09 18

0.7 0.147

0.088

0.125

0.059

0.14 19

0.7 0.147

0.087

0.125

0.060

0.14 20

0.8 0.168

0.086

0.143

0.082

0.20 21

0.6 0.126

0.085

0.107

0.041

0.10 22

0.7 0.147

0.083

0.125

0.064

0.15 23

0.8 0.168

0.082

0.143

0.086

0.20 24

0.8 0.168

0.081

0.143

0.087

0.21 25

0.9 0.189

0.080

0.161

0.109

0.26 26

0.9 0.189

0.079

0.161

0.110

0.26 27

1.0 0.210

0.078

0.179

0.132

0.31 28

1.0 0.210

0.077

0.179

0.133

0.32 29

1.0 0.210

0.076

0.179

0.134

0.32 30

1.1 0.231

0.075

0.196

0.156

0.37 31

1.2 0.252

0.074

0.214

0.178

0.42 32

1.3 0.273

0.073

0.232

0.200

0.48 33

1.5 0.315

0.072

0.268

0.243

0.58 34

1.5 0.315

0.071

0.268

0.244

0.58 35

1.6 0.336

0.070

0.286

0.266

0.63 36

1.7 0.357

0.069

0.303

0.288

0.69 37

1.9 0.399

0.068

0.339

0.331

0.79 38

2.0 0.420

0.067

0.357

0.353

0.84 39

2.1 0.441

0.066

0.375

0.89 40

2.2 0.462

0.065

0.393

0.397

0.95 41

1.5 0.315

0.064

0.268

0.251

0.60 42

1.5 0.315

0.063

0.268

0.252

0.60 43

2.0 0.420

0.062

0.357

0.358

0.85 44

2.0 0.420

0.061

0.357

0.359

0.86 45

1.9 0.399

0.060

0.339

0.81 46

1.9 0.399

0.060

0.339

0.81 47

1.7 0.357

0.059

0.303

0.298

0.71 48

1.8 0.378

0.058

0.321

0.320

0.76 49

2.5 0.525

0.057

0.446

0.468

1.12 50

2.6 0.546

0.056

0.464

0.490

1.17 51

2.8 0.588

0.055

0.500

0.533

1.27 52

2.9 0.609

0.054

0.518

0.555

1.32 53

3.4 0.714

0.054

0.607

0.660

1.57 54

3.4 0.714

0.053

0.607

0.661

1.58 55

2.3 0.483

0.052

0.411

0.431

1.03 56

2.3 0.483

0.051

0.411

0.432

1.03 57

2.7 0.567

0.050

0.482

0.517

1.23 58

2.6 0.546

0.050

0.464

0.496

1.18 59

2.6 0.546

0.049

0.464

0.497

1.19 60

2.5 0.525

0.048

0.446

0.477

1.14 61

2.4 0.504

0.047

0.428

0.457

1.09 62

2.3 0.483

0.047

0.411

0.436

1.04 63

1.9 0.399

0.046

0.339

0.353

0.84 64

1.9 0.399

0.045

0.339

0.354

0.84 R C F C& W C D

HYDROLOGY
MANUAL
"SHORTCUT METHOD"

SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Unit Hydrograph and Effective Rain
Calculation Form
Project: 562-01
(Prop Condition - Runoff HG to Detention Vault -1)
Sheet
1 1
By Date
Checked Date
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT ---
[3] DRAINAGE AREA -ACRES 2.36
[5] UNIT TIME -MINUTES 15
[7] UNIT TIME -PERCENT OF LAG (100*[5]/[6]) ---
[9] STORM FREQUENCY & DURATION 100-YR, 24 -HR
[11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG)-INCHES/HOUR 0.061
[13] CONSTANT LOSS RATE-INCHES/HOUR ---
[2] AREA DESIGNATION ---
[4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE-CFS-HRS/IN (645*[3]) N/A
[6] LAG TIME -MINUTES ---
[8] S -CURVE N/A
[10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN -INCHES 5.25
[12] MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS)-IN/HR 0.031
[14] LOW LOSS RATE -PERCENT 85
\ ST
x
�/ \\

UNIT HYDROGRAPH

EFFECTIVE RAIN
FLOOD

HYDROGRAPH
[15]
UNIT
TIME
PERIOD
m
[16]
TIME

PERCENT
OF LAG
[7]*[15]
[17]

CUMULATIVE

AVERAGE

PERCENT OF

ULTIMATE

DISCHARGE
(S -GRAPH)
[16]

DISTRIB
GRAPH

PERCENT
[17]m -[17]m-1
[17]
UNIT

HYDROGRAPH

CFS-HRS/IN
]41*[181
[20]

PATTERN

PERCENT
(PL E-5.9)
[21]
STORM
RAIN
IN/HR
60[101[201
[22]
LOSS
RATE
IN/HR
[23]

EFFECTIVE
RAIN
IN/HR
[21]-[22]
[24]
FLOW
CFS
100.000
100[5]
MAX
LOW
65 0.4

0.084

0.045

0.071

0.039

0.09 66

0.4 0.084

0.044

0.071

0.040

0.10 67

0.3 0.063

0.043

0.054

0.020

0.05 68

0.3 0.063

0.043

0.054

0.020

0.05 69

0.5 0.105

0.042

0.089

0.063

0.15 70

0.5 0.105

0.041

0.089

0.064

0.15 71

0.5 0.105

0.041

0.089

0.064

0.15 72

0.4 0.084

0.040

0.071

0.044

0.10 73

0.4 0.084

0.039

0.071

0.045

0.11 74

0.4 0.084

0.039

0.071

0.045

0.11 75

0.3 0.063

0.038

0.054

0.025

0.06 76

0.2 0.042

0.038

0.036

0.004

0.01 77

0.3 0.063

0.037

0.054

0.026

0.06 78

0.4 0.084

0.037

0.071

0.047

0.11 79

0.3 0.063

0.036

0.054

0.027

0.06 80

0.2 0.042

0.036

0.006

0.01 81

0.3 0.063

0.035

0.054

0.028

0.07 82

0.3 0.063

0.035

0.054

0.028

0.07 83

0.3 0.063

0.034

0.054

0.029

0.07 84

0.2 0.042

0.034

0.036

0.008

0.02 85

0.3 0.063

0.034

0.054

0.029

0.07 86

0.2 0.042

0.033

0.036

0.009

0.02 87

0.3 0.063

0.033

0.054

0.030

0.07 88

0.2 0.042

0.032

0.036

0.010

0.02 89

0.3 0.063

0.032

0.054

0.031

0.07 90

0.2 0.042

0.032

0.036

0.010

0.02 91

0.2 0.042

0.032

0.036

0.010

0.02 92

0.2 0.042

0.031

0.036

0.011

0.03 93

0.2 0.042

0.031

0.036

0.011

0.03 94

0.2 0.042

0.031

0.036

0.011

0.03 95

0.2 0.042

0.031

0.036

0.011

0.03 96

0.2 0.042

0.031

0.036

0.011

0.03 TOTALS
100.0

15.55 37.07
EFFECTIVE RAIN = 3.89 INCHES
TOTAL RUNOFF VOLUME = 0.77 AC -FT
1067

Runoff Hydrograph Bypass to Discharge Point 1 (Proposed Condition) Storm
Volume (ac -ft)
Volume (cf)
Peak Flow (cfs)
100-yr, 24 -hour

0.66 28690

1.39 1068

Loss Parameters (Proposed Condition - Runoff Hydgraph Bypass to Discharge Point 1) Drainage Area 92,060 sf

2.11 ac
A; 54,864 sf
60% imp
Runoff Index 88 Note: Plate E-6.1: Assume desert landscaping => Open Brush - Poor; Soil Type D Fp 0.15 in/hr Note: Plate E-6.2: AMC II
F=F(1—0.9Ai)
F= 0.070 in/hr
For 24 -hr storms, FT is variable loss rate
FT = C[24 — (T/60)]1.55 + FM
C = (F — FM)/54
T = Unit Time/2
FM = 0.5F
FT = 0.123
C= 0.0006
T = 7.5
Fm = 0.035
1069

R C F C& W C D

HYDROLOGY
MANUAL
"SHORTCUT METHOD"

SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Unit Hydrograph and Effective Rain
Calculation Form
Project: 562-01
(Prop Condition- Bypass to Discharge Point 1) 1
Sheet
1 By Date
Checked Date
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT ---
[3] DRAINAGE AREA -ACRES 2.11
[5] UNIT TIME -MINUTES 15
[7] UNIT TIME -PERCENT OF LAG (100*[5]/[6]) --
[9] STORM FREQUENCY & DURATION 100-YR, 24 -HR
[11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG)-INCHES/HOUR 0.070
[13] CONSTANT LOSS RATE-INCHES/HOUR ---
[2] AREA DESIGNATION --
[4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE-CFS-HRS/IN (645*[3]) N/A
[6] LAG TIME -MINUTES ---
[8] S -CURVE N/A
[10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN -INCHES 5.25
[12] MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS)-IN/HR 0.035
[14] LOW LOSS RATE -PERCENT 85
><

UNIT HYDROGRAPH

EFFECTIVE RAIN
FLOOD

HYDROGRAPH
[15]
UNIT
TIME
PERIOD
m
[16]
TIME

PERCENT
OF LAG
[7]*[15]
[17]

CUMULATIVE

AVERAGE

PERCENT OF

ULTIMATE

DISCHARGE
(S -GRAPH)
[16]

DISTRIB
GRAPH

PERCENT
[17]m -[17]m-1
[17]
UNIT

HYDROGRAPH

CFS-HRS/IN
j41*[181
[20]

PATTERN

PERCENT
(PL E-5.9)
[21]
STORM
RAIN
IN/HR
60[101[201
[22]
LOSS
RATE
IN/HR
[23]

EFFECTIVE
RAIN
IN/HR
[21]-[22]
[24]
FLOW
CFS
100.000
100 [5]
MAX
LOW
1 0.2

0.042

0.123

0.036

0.006

0.01 2

0.3 0.063

0.121

0.054

0.009

0.02 3

0.3 0.063

0.120

0.054

0.009

0.02 4

0.4 0.084

0.119

0.071

0.013

0.03 5

0.3 0.063

0.117

0.054

0.009

0.02 6

0.3 0.063

0.116

0.054

0.009

0.02 7

0.3 0.063

0.114

0.054

0.009

0.02 8

0.4 0.084

0.113

0.071

0.013

0.03 9

0.4 0.084

0.112

0.071

0.013

0.03 10

0.4 0.084

0.110

0.071

0.013

0.03 11

0.5 0.105

0.109

0.089

0.016

0.03 12

0.5 0.105

0.108

0.089

0.016

0.03 13

0.5 0.105

0.106

0.089

0.016

0.03 14

0.5 0.105

0.105

0.089

0.000

0.00 15

0.5 0.105

0.104

0.089

0.001

0.00 16

0.6 0.126

0.102

0.107

0.024

0.05 17

0.6 0.126

0.101

0.107

0.025

0.05 18

0.7 0.147

0.100

0.125

0.047

0.10 19

0.7 0.147

0.098

0.125

0.049

0.10 20

0.8 0.168

0.097

0.143

0.071

0.15 21

0.6 0.126

0.096

0.107

0.030

0.06 22

0.7 0.147

0.095

0.125

0.052

0.11 23

0.8 0.168

0.093

0.143

0.075

0.16 24

0.8 0.168

0.092

0.143

0.076

0.16 25

0.9 0.189

0.091

0.161

0.098

0.21 26

0.9 0.189

0.090

0.161

0.099

0.21 27

1.0 0.210

0.089

0.179

0.121

0.26 28

1.0 0.210

0.087

0.179

0.123

0.26 29

1.0 0.210

0.086

0.179

0.124

0.26 30

1.1 0.231

0.085

0.196

0.146

0.31 31

1.2 0.252

0.084

0.214

0.168

0.36 32

1.3 0.273

0.083

0.232

0.190

0.41 33

1.5 0.315

0.082

0.268

0.233

0.50 34

1.5 0.315

0.080

0.268

0.235

0.50 35

1.6 0.336

0.079

0.286

0.257

0.55 36

1.7 0.357

0.078

0.303

0.279

0.59 37

1.9 0.399

0.077

0.339

0.322

0.69 38

2.0 0.420

0.076

0.357

0.344

0.73 39

2.1 0.441

0.075

0.375

0.366

0.78 40

2.2 0.462

0.074

0.393

0.388

0.83 41

1.5 0.315

0.073

0.268

0.242

0.52 42

1.5 0.315

0.072

0.268

0.243

0.52 43

2.0 0.420

0.071

0.357

0.349

0.74 44

2.0 0.420

0.070

0.357

0.350

0.75 45

1.9 0.399

0.069

0.339

0.330

0.70 46

1.9 0.399

0.068

0.339

0.331

0.71 47

1.7 0.357

0.067

0.303

0.290

0.62 48

1.8 0.378

0.066

0.321

0.312

0.67 49

2.5 0.525

0.065

0.446

0.460

0.98 50

2.6 0.546

0.064

0.464

0.482

1.03 51

2.8 0.588

0.063

0.500

0.525

1.12 52

2.9 0.609

0.062

0.518

0.547

1.17 53

3.4 0.714

0.061

0.607

0.653

1.39 54

3.4 0.714

0.060

0.607

0.654

1.39 55

2.3 0.483

0.059

0.411

0.424

0.90 56

2.3 0.483

0.058

0.411

0.425

0.91 57

2.7 0.567

0.057

0.482

0.510

1.09 58

2.6 0.546

0.056

0.464

0.490

1.04 59

2.6 0.546

0.055

0.464

0.491

1.05 60

2.5 0.525

0.055

0.446

0.470

1.00 61

2.4 0.504

0.054

0.428

0.450

0.96 62

2.3 0.483

0.053

0.411

0.430

0.92 63

1.9 0.399

0.052

0.339

0.347

0.74 64

1.9 0.399

0.051

0.339

0.348

0.74 7

R C F C& W C D

HYDROLOGY
MANUAL
"SHORTCUT METHOD"

SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Unit Hydrograph and Effective Rain
Calculation Form
Project: 562-01
(Prop Condition- Bypass to Discharge Point 1)
Sheet
1 1
By Date
Checked Date
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT ---
[3] DRAINAGE AREA -ACRES 2.11
[5] UNIT TIME -MINUTES 15
[7] UNIT TIME -PERCENT OF LAG (100*[5]/[6]) ---
[9] STORM FREQUENCY & DURATION 100-YR, 24 -HR
[11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG)-INCHES/HOUR 0.070
[13] CONSTANT LOSS RATE-INCHES/HOUR ---
[1\
[2] AREA DESIGNATION ---
[4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE-CFS-HRS/IN (645*[3]) N/A
[6] LAG TIME -MINUTES ---
[8] S -CURVE N/A
[10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN -INCHES 5.25
[12] MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS)-IN/HR 0.035
[14] LOW LOSS RATE -PERCENT 85
x
�/ \\

UNIT HYDROGRAPH

EFFECTIVE RAIN
FLOOD

HYDROGRAPH
[15]
UNIT
TIME
PERIOD
m
[16]
TIME

PERCENT
OF LAG
[7]*[15]
[17]

CUMULATIVE

AVERAGE

PERCENT OF

ULTIMATE

DISCHARGE
(S -GRAPH)
[16]

DISTRIB
GRAPH

PERCENT
[17]m -[17]m-1
[17]
UNIT

HYDROGRAPH

CFS-HRS/IN
]41*[181
[20]

PATTERN

PERCENT
(PL E-5.9)
[21]
STORM
RAIN
IN/HR
60[101[201
[22]
LOSS
RATE
IN/HR
[23]

EFFECTIVE
RAIN
IN/HR
[21]-[22]
[24]
FLOW
CFS
100.000
100[5]
MAX
LOW
65 0.4

0.084

0.051

0.071

0.033

0.07 66

0.4 0.084

0.050

0.071

0.034

0.07 67

0.3 0.063

0.049

0.054

0.014

0.03 68

0.3 0.063

0.048

0.054

0.015

0.03 69

0.5 0.105

0.048

0.089

0.057

0.12 70

0.5 0.105

0.047

0.089

0.058

0.12 71

0.5 0.105

0.046

0.089

0.059

0.13 72

0.4 0.084

0.045

0.071

0.039

0.08 73

0.4 0.084

0.045

0.071

0.039

0.08 74

0.4 0.084

0.044

0.071

0.040

0.08 75

0.3 0.063

0.044

0.054

0.019

0.04 76

0.2 0.042

0.043

0.036

0.006

0.01 77

0.3 0.063

0.042

0.054

0.021

0.04 78

0.4 0.084

0.042

0.071

0.042

0.09 79

0.3 0.063

0.041

0.054

0.022

0.05 80

0.2 0.042

0.041

0.036

0.001

0.00 81

0.3 0.063

0.040

0.054

0.023

0.05 82

0.3 0.063

0.040

0.054

0.023

0.05 83

0.3 0.063

0.039

0.054

0.024

0.05 84

0.2 0.042

0.039

0.036

0.003

0.01 85

0.3 0.063

0.038

0.054

0.025

0.05 86

0.2 0.042

0.038

0.036

0.004

0.01 87

0.3 0.063

0.037

0.054

0.026

0.05 88

0.2 0.042

0.037

0.036

0.005

0.01 89

0.3 0.063

0.036

0.054

0.027

0.06 90

0.2 0.042

0.036

0.006

0.01 91

0.2 0.042

0.036

0.006

0.01 92

0.2 0.042

0.036

0.006

0.01 93

0.2 0.042

0.035

0.036

0.007

0.01 94

0.2 0.042

0.035

0.036

0.007

0.01 95

0.2 0.042

0.035

0.036

0.007

0.02 96

0.2 0.042

0.035

0.036

0.007

0.02 TOTALS
100.0

14.96 31.88
EFFECTIVE RAIN = 3.74 INCHES
TOTAL RUNOFF VOLUME = 0.66 AC -FT
1071

Discharge Point 2 (Proposed Condition)
Storm
Volume (ac -ft)
Volume (cf)
Peak Flow (cfs)
100-yr, 24 -hour

2.49 108396

5.32 1072

Loss Parameters (Proposed Condition - Discharge Point 2) Drainage Area 353,209 sf

8.11 ac
A, 200,729 sf
57% imp
Runoff Index 88 Note: Plate E-6.1: Assume desert landscaping => Open Brush - Poor; Soil Type D Fp 0.15 in/hr Note: Plate E-6.2: AMC II
F=F(1—0.9Ai)
F= 0.073 in/hr
For 24 -hr storms, FT is variable loss rate
FT = C[24 — (T/60)]1.55 + FM
C = (F — FM)/54
T = Unit Time/2
FM = 0.5F
FT = 0.129
C= 0.0007
T = 7.5
Fm = 0.037
1073

R C F C& W C D

HYDROLOGY
MANUAL
"SHORTCUT METHOD"

SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Unit Hydrograph and Effective Rain
Calculation Form
Project: 562-01
(Prop Condition - Discharge Point 2) 1
Sheet
1 By Date
Checked Date
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT ---
[3] DRAINAGE AREA -ACRES 8.11
[5] UNIT TIME -MINUTES 15
[7] UNIT TIME -PERCENT OF LAG (100'[5]/[6]) --
[9] STORM FREQUENCY & DURATION 100-YR, 24 -HR
[11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG)-INCHES/HOUR 0.073
[13] CONSTANT LOSS RATE-INCHES/HOUR ---
[2] AREA DESIGNATION ---
[4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE-CFS-HRS/IN (645`[3]) N/A
[6] LAG TIME -MINUTES ---
[8] S -CURVE N/A
[10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN -INCHES 5.25
[12] MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS)-IN/HR 0.037
[14] LOW LOSS RATE -PERCENT 85
><

UNIT HYDROGRAPH

EFFECTIVE RAIN
FLOOD

HYDROGRAPH
[15]
UNIT
TIME
PERIOD
m
[16]
TIME

PERCENT
OF LAG
[7]'[15]
[17]

CUMULATIVE

AVERAGE

PERCENT OF

ULTIMATE

DISCHARGE
(S -GRAPH)
[16]

DISTRIB
GRAPH

PERCENT
[17]m -[17]m-1
[17]
UNIT

HYDROGRAPH

CFS-HRS/IN
j41*[181
[20]

PATTERN

PERCENT
(PL E-5.9)
[21]
STORM
RAIN
IN/HR
60[101[201
[22]
LOSS
RATE
IN/HR
[23]

EFFECTIVE
RAIN
IN/HR
[21]-[22]
[24]
FLOW
CFS
100.000
100 [5]
MAX
LOW
1 0.2

0.042

0.129

0.036

0.006

0.05 2

0.3 0.063

0.128

0.054

0.009

0.08 3

0.3 0.063

0.126

0.054

0.009

0.08 4

0.4 0.084

0.125

0.071

0.013

0.10 5

0.3 0.063

0.123

0.054

0.009

0.08 6

0.3 0.063

0.122

0.054

0.009

0.08 7

0.3 0.063

0.121

0.054

0.009

0.08 8

0.4 0.084

0.119

0.071

0.013

0.10 9

0.4 0.084

0.118

0.071

0.013

0.10 10

0.4 0.084

0.116

0.071

0.013

0.10 11

0.5 0.105

0.115

0.089

0.016

0.13 12

0.5 0.105

0.113

0.089

0.016

0.13 13

0.5 0.105

0.112

0.089

0.016

0.13 14

0.5 0.105

0.111

0.089

0.016

0.13 15

0.5 0.105

0.109

0.089

0.016

0.13 16

0.6 0.126

0.108

0.107

0.018

0.15 17

0.6 0.126

0.106

0.107

0.020

0.16 18

0.7 0.147

0.105

0.125

0.042

0.34 19

0.7 0.147

0.104

0.125

0.043

0.35 20

0.8 0.168

0.102

0.143

0.066

0.54 21

0.6 0.126

0.101

0.107

0.025

0.20 22

0.7 0.147

0.100

0.125

0.047

0.39 23

0.8 0.168

0.098

0.143

0.070

0.57 24

0.8 0.168

0.097

0.143

0.071

0.58 25

0.9 0.189

0.096

0.161

0.093

0.76 26

0.9 0.189

0.095

0.161

0.094

0.77 27

1.0 0.210

0.093

0.179

0.117

0.95 28

1.0 0.210

0.092

0.179

0.118

0.96 29

1.0 0.210

0.091

0.179

0.119

0.97 30

1.1 0.231

0.090

0.196

0.141

1.16 31

1.2 0.252

0.088

0.214

0.164

1.34 32

1.3 0.273

0.087

0.232

0.186

1.52 33

1.5 0.315

0.086

0.268

0.229

1.87 34

1.5 0.315

0.085

0.268

0.230

1.88 35

1.6 0.336

0.084

0.286

0.252

2.06 36

1.7 0.357

0.082

0.303

0.275

2.25 37

1.9 0.399

0.081

0.339

0.318

2.60 38

2.0 0.420

0.080

0.357

0.340

2.78 39

2.1 0.441

0.079

0.375

0.362

2.96 40

2.2 0.462

0.078

0.393

0.384

3.14 41

1.5 0.315

0.077

0.268

0.238

1.95 42

1.5 0.315

0.076

0.268

0.239

1.96 43

2.0 0.420

0.074

0.357

0.346

2.83 44

2.0 0.420

0.073

0.357

0.347

2.83 45

1.9 0.399

0.072

0.339

0.327

2.67 46

1.9 0.399

0.071

0.339

0.328

2.68 47

1.7 0.357

0.070

0.303

0.287

2.35 48

1.8 0.378

0.069

0.321

0.309

2.53 49

2.5 0.525

0.068

0.446

0.457

3.74 50

2.6 0.546

0.067

0.464

0.479

3.92 51

2.8 0.588

0.066

0.500

0.522

4.27 52

2.9 0.609

0.065

0.518

0.544

4.45 53

3.4 0.714

0.064

0.607

0.650

5.31 54

3.4 0.714

0.063

0.607

0.651

5.32 55

2.3 0.483

0.062

0.411

0.421

3.44 56

2.3 0.483

0.061

0.411

0.422

3.45 57

2.7 0.567

0.060

0.482

0.507

4.14 58

2.6 0.546

0.059

0.464

0.487

3.98 59

2.6 0.546

0.058

0.464

0.488

3.99 60

2.5 0.525

0.058

0.446

0.467

3.82 61

2.4 0.504

0.057

0.428

0.447

3.66 62

2.3 0.483

0.056

0.411

0.427

3.49 63

1.9 0.399

0.055

0.339

0.344

2.81 64

1.9 0.399

0.054

0.339

0.345

2.82 7

R C F C& W C D

HYDROLOGY
MANUAL
"SHORTCUT METHOD"

SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Unit Hydrograph and Effective Rain
Calculation Form
Project: 562-01
(Prop Condition- Discharge Point 2)
Sheet
1 1
By Date
Checked Date
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT ---
[3] DRAINAGE AREA -ACRES 8.11
[5] UNIT TIME -MINUTES 15
[7] UNIT TIME -PERCENT OF LAG (100*[5]1[6]) ---
[9] STORM FREQUENCY & DURATION 100-YR, 24 -HR
[11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG)-INCHES/HOUR 0.073
[13] CONSTANT LOSS RATE-INCHES/HOUR ---
[1\
[2] AREA DESIGNATION ---
[4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE-CFS-HRS/IN (645*[3]) N/A
[6] LAG TIME -MINUTES ---
[8] S -CURVE N/A
[10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN -INCHES 5.25
[12] MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS)-IN/HR 0.037
[14] LOW LOSS RATE -PERCENT 85
x
�/ \\

UNIT HYDROGRAPH

EFFECTIVE RAIN
FLOOD

HYDROGRAPH
[15]
UNIT
TIME
PERIOD
m
[16]
TIME

PERCENT
OF LAG
[7]*[15]
[17]

CUMULATIVE

AVERAGE

PERCENT OF

ULTIMATE

DISCHARGE
(S -GRAPH)
[16]

DISTRIB
GRAPH

PERCENT
[17]m -[17]m-1
[17]
UNIT

HYDROGRAPH

CFS-HRS/IN
]41*[181
[20]

PATTERN

PERCENT
(PL E-5.9)
[21]
STORM
RAIN
IN/HR
60[101[201
[22]
LOSS
RATE
IN/HR
[23]

EFFECTIVE
RAIN
IN/HR
[21]-[22]
[24]
FLOW
CFS
100.000
100[5]
MAX
LOW
65 0.4

0.084

0.053

0.071

0.031

0.25 66

0.4 0.084

0.052

0.071

0.032

0.26 67

0.3 0.063

0.052

0.054

0.011

0.09 68

0.3 0.063

0.051

0.054

0.012

0.10 69

0.5 0.105

0.050

0.089

0.055

0.45 70

0.5 0.105

0.049

0.089

0.056

0.45 71

0.5 0.105

0.049

0.089

0.056

0.46 72

0.4 0.084

0.048

0.071

0.036

0.30 73

0.4 0.084

0.047

0.071

0.037

0.30 74

0.4 0.084

0.047

0.071

0.037

0.31 75

0.3 0.063

0.046

0.054

0.017

0.14 76

0.2 0.042

0.045

0.036

0.006

0.05 77

0.3 0.063

0.045

0.054

0.018

0.15 78

0.4 0.084

0.044

0.071

0.040

0.33 79

0.3 0.063

0.043

0.054

0.020

0.16 80

0.2 0.042

0.043

0.036

0.006

0.05 81

0.3 0.063

0.042

0.054

0.021

0.17 82

0.3 0.063

0.042

0.054

0.021

0.17 83

0.3 0.063

0.041

0.054

0.022

0.18 84

0.2 0.042

0.041

0.036

0.001

0.01 85

0.3 0.063

0.040

0.054

0.023

0.19 86

0.2 0.042

0.040

0.036

0.002

0.02 87

0.3 0.063

0.039

0.054

0.024

0.19 88

0.2 0.042

0.039

0.036

0.003

0.03 89

0.3 0.063

0.038

0.054

0.025

0.20 90

0.2 0.042

0.038

0.036

0.004

0.03 91

0.2 0.042

0.038

0.036

0.004

0.03 92

0.2 0.042

0.037

0.036

0.005

0.04 93

0.2 0.042

0.037

0.036

0.005

0.04 94

0.2 0.042

0.037

0.036

0.005

0.04 95

0.2 0.042

0.037

0.036

0.005

0.04 96

0.2 0.042

0.037

0.036

0.005

0.04 TOTALS
100.0

14.73 120.44
EFFECTIVE RAIN = 3.68 INCHES
TOTAL RUNOFF VOLUME = 2.49 AC -FT
1075

Runoff Hydrograph to Detention Vault -2 (Proposed Condition) Storm
Volume (ac -ft)
Volume (cf)
Peak Flow (cfs)
100-yr, 24 -hour

1.59 69189

3.25 1076

Loss Parameters (Proposed Condition - Runoff Hydgraph to Detention Vault -2) Drainage Area 211,502 sf

4.86 ac
A; 141,966 sf
67% imp
Runoff Index 88 Note: Plate E-6.1: Assume desert landscaping => Open Brush - Poor; Soil Type D Fp 0.15 in/hr Note: Plate E-6.2: AMC II
F=F(1—0.9Ai)
F= 0.059 in/hr
For 24 -hr storms, FT is variable loss rate
FT = C[24 — (T/60)]1.55 + FM
C = (F — FM)/54
T = Unit Time/2
FM = 0.5F
FT = 0.105
C= 0.0005
T = 7.5
Fm = 0.030
1077

R C F C& W C D

HYDROLOGY
MANUAL
"SHORTCUT METHOD"

SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Unit Hydrograph and Effective Rain
Calculation Form
Project: 562-01
(Prop Condition- Runoff HG to Detention Vault -2)
Sheet
1 1
By Date
Checked Date
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT ---
[3] DRAINAGE AREA -ACRES 4.86
[5] UNIT TIME -MINUTES 15
[7] UNIT TIME -PERCENT OF LAG (100'[5]/[6]) ---
[9] STORM FREQUENCY & DURATION 100-YR, 24 -HR
[11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG)-INCHES/HOUR 0.059
[13] CONSTANT LOSS RATE-INCHES/HOUR ---
[2] AREA DESIGNATION ---
[4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE-CFS-HRS/IN (645`[3]) N/A
[6] LAG TIME -MINUTES ---
[8] S -CURVE N/A
[10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN -INCHES 5.25
[12] MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS)-IN/HR 0.030
[14] LOW LOSS RATE -PERCENT 85
><

UNIT HYDROGRAPH

EFFECTIVE RAIN
FLOOD

HYDROGRAPH
[15]
UNIT
TIME
PERIOD
m
[16]
TIME

PERCENT
OF LAG
[7]'[15]
[17]

CUMULATIVE

AVERAGE

PERCENT OF

ULTIMATE

DISCHARGE
(S -GRAPH)
[16]

DISTRIB
GRAPH

PERCENT
[17]m -[17]m-1
[17]
UNIT

HYDROGRAPH

CFS-HRS/IN
[41'[181
[20]

PATTERN

PERCENT
(PL E-5.9)
[21]
STORM
RAIN
IN/HR
60[101[201
[22]
LOSS
RATE
IN/HR
[23]

EFFECTIVE
RAIN
IN/HR
[21]-[22]
[24]
FLOW
CFS
100.000
100 [5]
MAX
LOW
1 0.2

0.042

0.105

0.036

0.006

0.03 2

0.3 0.063

0.104

0.054

0.009

0.05 3

0.3 0.063

0.102

0.054

0.009

0.05 4

0.4 0.084

0.101

0.071

0.013

0.06 5

0.3 0.063

0.100

0.054

0.009

0.05 6

0.3 0.063

0.099

0.054

0.009

0.05 7

0.3 0.063

0.098

0.054

0.009

0.05 8

0.4 0.084

0.096

0.071

0.013

0.06 9

0.4 0.084

0.095

0.071

0.013

0.06 10

0.4 0.084

0.094

0.071

0.013

0.06 11

0.5 0.105

0.093

0.089

0.012

0.06 12

0.5 0.105

0.092

0.089

0.013

0.06 13

0.5 0.105

0.091

0.089

0.014

0.07 14

0.5 0.105

0.090

0.089

0.015

0.08 15

0.5 0.105

0.088

0.089

0.017

0.08 16

0.6 0.126

0.087

0.107

0.039

0.19 17

0.6 0.126

0.086

0.107

0.040

0.19 18

0.7 0.147

0.085

0.125

0.062

0.30 19

0.7 0.147

0.084

0.125

0.063

0.31 20

0.8 0.168

0.083

0.143

0.085

0.42 21

0.6 0.126

0.082

0.107

0.044

0.22 22

0.7 0.147

0.081

0.125

0.066

0.32 23

0.8 0.168

0.080

0.143

0.088

0.43 24

0.8 0.168

0.079

0.143

0.089

0.44 25

0.9 0.189

0.078

0.161

0.111

0.54 26

0.9 0.189

0.077

0.161

0.112

0.55 27

1.0 0.210

0.076

0.179

0.134

0.66 28

1.0 0.210

0.075

0.179

0.135

0.66 29

1.0 0.210

0.074

0.179

0.136

0.67 30

1.1 0.231

0.073

0.196

0.158

0.78 31

1.2 0.252

0.072

0.214

0.180

0.88 32

1.3 0.273

0.071

0.232

0.202

0.99 33

1.5 0.315

0.070

0.268

0.245

1.20 34

1.5 0.315

0.069

0.268

0.246

1.21 35

1.6 0.336

0.068

0.286

0.268

1.31 36

1.7 0.357

0.067

0.303

0.290

1.42 37

1.9 0.399

0.066

0.339

0.333

1.63 38

2.0 0.420

0.065

0.357

0.355

1.74 39

2.1 0.441

0.064

0.375

0.377

1.85 40

2.2 0.462

0.063

0.393

0.399

1.95 41

1.5 0.315

0.062

0.268

0.253

1.24 42

1.5 0.315

0.061

0.268

0.254

1.24 43

2.0 0.420

0.060

0.357

0.360

1.76 44

2.0 0.420

0.059

0.357

0.361

1.77 45

1.9 0.399

0.059

0.339

0.340

1.67 46

1.9 0.399

0.058

0.339

0.341

1.67 47

1.7 0.357

0.057

0.303

0.300

1.47 48

1.8 0.378

0.056

0.321

0.322

1.58 49

2.5 0.525

0.055

0.446

0.470

2.30 50

2.6 0.546

0.054

0.464

0.492

2.41 51

2.8 0.588

0.054

0.500

0.534

2.62 52

2.9 0.609

0.053

0.518

0.556

2.72 53

3.4 0.714

0.052

0.607

0.662

3.24 54

3.4 0.714

0.051

0.607

0.663

3.25 55

2.3 0.483

0.050

0.411

0.433

2.12 56

2.3 0.483

0.050

0.411

0.433

2.12 57

2.7 0.567

0.049

0.482

0.518

2.54 58

2.6 0.546

0.048

0.464

0.498

2.44 59

2.6 0.546

0.047

0.464

0.499

2.44 60

2.5 0.525

0.047

0.446

0.478

2.34 61

2.4 0.504

0.046

0.428

0.458

2.24 62

2.3 0.483

0.045

0.411

0.438

2.14 63

1.9 0.399

0.045

0.339

0.354

1.74 64

1.9 0.399

0.044

0.339

0.355

1.74 7

R C F C& W C D

HYDROLOGY
MANUAL
"SHORTCUT METHOD"

SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Unit Hydrograph and Effective Rain
Calculation Form
Project: 562-01
(Prop Condition - Runoff HG to Detention Vault -2)
Sheet
1 1
By Date
Checked Date
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT ---
[3] DRAINAGE AREA -ACRES 4.86
[5] UNIT TIME -MINUTES 15
[7] UNIT TIME -PERCENT OF LAG (100*[5]/[6]) ---
[9] STORM FREQUENCY & DURATION 100-YR, 24 -HR
[11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG)-INCHES/HOUR 0.059
[13] CONSTANT LOSS RATE-INCHES/HOUR ---
[1\
[2] AREA DESIGNATION ---
[4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE-CFS-HRS/IN (645*[3]) N/A
[6] LAG TIME -MINUTES ---
[8] S -CURVE N/A
[10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN -INCHES 5.25
[12] MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS)-IN/HR 0.030
[14] LOW LOSS RATE -PERCENT 85
x
�/ \\

UNIT HYDROGRAPH

EFFECTIVE RAIN
FLOOD

HYDROGRAPH
[15]
UNIT
TIME
PERIOD
m
[16]
TIME

PERCENT
OF LAG
[7]*[15]
[17]

CUMULATIVE

AVERAGE

PERCENT OF

ULTIMATE

DISCHARGE
(S -GRAPH)
[16]

DISTRIB
GRAPH

PERCENT
[17]m -[17]m-1
[17]
UNIT

HYDROGRAPH

CFS-HRS/IN
]41*[181
[20]

PATTERN

PERCENT
(PL E-5.9)
[21]
STORM
RAIN
IN/HR
60[101[201
[22]
LOSS
RATE
IN/HR
[23]

EFFECTIVE
RAIN
IN/HR
[21]-[22]
[24]
FLOW
CFS
100.000
100[5]
MAX
LOW
65 0.4

0.084

0.043

0.071

0.041

0.20 66

0.4 0.084

0.043

0.071

0.041

0.20 67

0.3 0.063

0.042

0.054

0.021

0.10 68

0.3 0.063

0.041

0.054

0.022

0.11 69

0.5 0.105

0.041

0.089

0.064

0.32 70

0.5 0.105

0.040

0.089

0.065

0.32 71

0.5 0.105

0.039

0.089

0.066

0.32 72

0.4 0.084

0.039

0.071

0.045

0.22 73

0.4 0.084

0.038

0.071

0.046

0.22 74

0.4 0.084

0.038

0.071

0.046

0.23 75

0.3 0.063

0.037

0.054

0.026

0.13 76

0.2 0.042

0.037

0.036

0.005

0.03 77

0.3 0.063

0.036

0.054

0.027

0.13 78

0.4 0.084

0.036

0.071

0.048

0.24 79

0.3 0.063

0.035

0.054

0.028

0.14 80

0.2 0.042

0.035

0.036

0.007

0.04 81

0.3 0.063

0.034

0.054

0.029

0.14 82

0.3 0.063

0.034

0.054

0.029

0.14 83

0.3 0.063

0.033

0.054

0.030

0.15 84

0.2 0.042

0.033

0.036

0.009

0.04 85

0.3 0.063

0.033

0.054

0.030

0.15 86

0.2 0.042

0.032

0.036

0.010

0.05 87

0.3 0.063

0.032

0.054

0.031

0.15 88

0.2 0.042

0.031

0.036

0.011

0.05 89

0.3 0.063

0.031

0.054

0.032

0.16 90

0.2 0.042

0.031

0.036

0.011

0.05 91

0.2 0.042

0.031

0.036

0.011

0.06 92

0.2 0.042

0.030

0.036

0.012

0.06 93

0.2 0.042

0.030

0.036

0.012

0.06 94

0.2 0.042

0.030

0.036

0.012

0.06 95

0.2 0.042

0.030

0.036

0.012

0.06 96

0.2 0.042

0.030

0.036

0.012

0.06 TOTALS
100.0

15.70 76.88
EFFECTIVE RAIN = 3.93 INCHES
TOTAL RUNOFF VOLUME = 1.59 AC -FT
1079

Runoff Hydrograph Bypass to Discharge Point 2 (Proposed Condition) Storm
Volume (ac -ft)
Volume (cf)
Peak Flow (cfs)
100-yr, 24 -hour

0.92 39878

2.08 1080

Loss Parameters (Proposed Condition - Runoff Hydgraph Bypass to Discharge Point 2) Drainage Area 141,706 sf

3.25 ac
A; 58,762 sf
41% imp
Runoff Index 88 Note: Plate E-6.1: Assume desert landscaping => Open Brush - Poor; Soil Type D Fp 0.15 in/hr Note: Plate E-6.2: AMC II
F=F(1—0.9Ai)
F= 0.094 in/hr
For 24 -hr storms, FT is variable loss rate
FT = C[24 — (T/60)]1.55 + FM
C = (F — FM)/54
T = Unit Time/2
FM = 0.5F
FT = 0.166
C= 0.0009
T = 7.5
Fm = 0.047
1081

R C F C& W C D

HYDROLOGY
MANUAL
"SHORTCUT METHOD"

SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Unit Hydrograph and Effective Rain
Calculation Form
Project: 562-01
(Prop Condition- Bypass to Discharge Point 2)
Sheet
1 1
By Date
Checked Date
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT ---
[3] DRAINAGE AREA -ACRES 3.25
[5] UNIT TIME -MINUTES 15
[7] UNIT TIME -PERCENT OF LAG (100*[5]/[6]) ---
[9] STORM FREQUENCY & DURATION 100-YR, 24 -HR
[11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG)-INCHES/HOUR 0.094
[13] CONSTANT LOSS RATE-INCHES/HOUR ---
[2] AREA DESIGNATION ---
[4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE-CFS-HRS/IN (645*[3]) N/A
[6] LAG TIME -MINUTES ---
[8] S -CURVE N/A
[10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN -INCHES 5.25
[12] MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS)-IN/HR 0.047
[14] LOW LOSS RATE -PERCENT 85
><

UNIT HYDROGRAPH

EFFECTIVE RAIN
FLOOD

HYDROGRAPH
[15]
UNIT
TIME
PERIOD
m
[16]
TIME

PERCENT
OF LAG
[7]*[15]
[17]

CUMULATIVE

AVERAGE

PERCENT OF

ULTIMATE

DISCHARGE
(S -GRAPH)
[16]

DISTRIB
GRAPH

PERCENT
[17]m -[17]m-1
[17]
UNIT

HYDROGRAPH

CFS-HRS/IN
j41*[181
[20]

PATTERN

PERCENT
(PL E-5.9)
[21]
STORM
RAIN
IN/HR
60[101[201
[22]
LOSS
RATE
IN/HR
[23]

EFFECTIVE
RAIN
IN/HR
[21]-[22]
[24]
FLOW
CFS
100.000
100 [5]
MAX
LOW
1 0.2

0.042

0.166

0.036

0.006

0.02 2

0.3 0.063

0.164

0.054

0.009

0.03 3

0.3 0.063

0.162

0.054

0.009

0.03 4

0.4 0.084

0.160

0.071

0.013

0.04 5

0.3 0.063

0.158

0.054

0.009

0.03 6

0.3 0.063

0.157

0.054

0.009

0.03 7

0.3 0.063

0.155

0.054

0.009

0.03 8

0.4 0.084

0.153

0.071

0.013

0.04 9

0.4 0.084

0.151

0.071

0.013

0.04 10

0.4 0.084

0.149

0.071

0.013

0.04 11

0.5 0.105

0.147

0.089

0.016

0.05 12

0.5 0.105

0.145

0.089

0.016

0.05 13

0.5 0.105

0.144

0.089

0.016

0.05 14

0.5 0.105

0.142

0.089

0.016

0.05 15

0.5 0.105

0.140

0.089

0.016

0.05 16

0.6 0.126

0.138

0.107

0.019

0.06 17

0.6 0.126

0.137

0.107

0.019

0.06 18

0.7 0.147

0.135

0.125

0.012

0.04 19

0.7 0.147

0.133

0.125

0.014

0.05 20

0.8 0.168

0.131

0.143

0.037

0.12 21

0.6 0.126

0.130

0.107

0.019

0.06 22

0.7 0.147

0.128

0.125

0.019

0.06 23

0.8 0.168

0.126

0.143

0.042

0.14 24

0.8 0.168

0.125

0.143

0.043

0.14 25

0.9 0.189

0.123

0.161

0.066

0.22 26

0.9 0.189

0.121

0.161

0.068

0.22 27

1.0 0.210

0.120

0.179

0.090

0.30 28

1.0 0.210

0.118

0.179

0.092

0.30 29

1.0 0.210

0.117

0.179

0.093

0.31 30

1.1 0.231

0.115

0.196

0.116

0.38 31

1.2 0.252

0.113

0.214

0.139

0.45 32

1.3 0.273

0.112

0.232

0.161

0.53 33

1.5 0.315

0.110

0.268

0.205

0.67 34

1.5 0.315

0.109

0.268

0.206

0.68 35

1.6 0.336

0.107

0.286

0.229

0.75 36

1.7 0.357

0.106

0.303

0.251

0.82 37

1.9 0.399

0.104

0.339

0.295

0.97 38

2.0 0.420

0.103

0.357

0.317

1.04 39

2.1 0.441

0.101

0.375

0.340

1.11 40

2.2 0.462

0.100

0.393

0.362

1.19 41

1.5 0.315

0.098

0.268

0.217

0.71 42

1.5 0.315

0.097

0.268

0.218

0.72 43

2.0 0.420

0.095

0.357

0.325

1.06 44

2.0 0.420

0.094

0.357

0.326

1.07 45

1.9 0.399

0.093

0.339

0.306

1.00 46

1.9 0.399

0.091

0.339

0.308

1.01 47

1.7 0.357

0.090

0.303

0.267

0.88 48

1.8 0.378

0.089

0.321

0.289

0.95 49

2.5 0.525

0.087

0.446

0.438

1.44 50

2.6 0.546

0.086

0.464

0.460

1.51 51

2.8 0.588

0.085

0.500

0.503

1.65 52

2.9 0.609

0.083

0.518

0.526

1.72 53

3.4 0.714

0.082

0.607

0.632

2.07 54

3.4 0.714

0.081

0.607

0.633

2.08 55

2.3 0.483

0.080

0.411

0.403

1.32 56

2.3 0.483

0.078

0.411

0.405

1.33 57

2.7 0.567

0.077

0.482

0.490

1.61 58

2.6 0.546

0.076

0.464

0.470

1.54 59

2.6 0.546

0.075

0.464

0.471

1.55 60

2.5 0.525

0.074

0.446

0.451

1.48 61

2.4 0.504

0.073

0.428

0.431

1.41 62

2.3 0.483

0.072

0.411

1.35 63

1.9 0.399

0.070

0.339

0.329

1.08 64

1.9 0.399

0.069

0.339

0.330

1.08 R C F C& W C D

HYDROLOGY
MANUAL
"SHORTCUT METHOD"

SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Unit Hydrograph and Effective Rain
Calculation Form
Project: 562-01
(Prop Condition- Bypass to Discharge Point 2)
Sheet
1 1
By Date
Checked Date
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT ---
[3] DRAINAGE AREA -ACRES 3.25
[5] UNIT TIME -MINUTES 15
[7] UNIT TIME -PERCENT OF LAG (100*[5]/[6]) ---
[9] STORM FREQUENCY & DURATION 100-YR, 24 -HR
[11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG)-INCHES/HOUR 0.094
[13] CONSTANT LOSS RATE-INCHES/HOUR ---
[1\
[2] AREA DESIGNATION ---
[4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE-CFS-HRS/IN (645*[3]) N/A
[6] LAG TIME -MINUTES ---
[8] S -CURVE N/A
[10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN -INCHES 5.25
[12] MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS)-IN/HR 0.047
[14] LOW LOSS RATE -PERCENT 85
x
�/ \\

UNIT HYDROGRAPH

EFFECTIVE RAIN
FLOOD

HYDROGRAPH
[15]
UNIT
TIME
PERIOD
m
[16]
TIME

PERCENT
OF LAG
[7]*[15]
[17]

CUMULATIVE

AVERAGE

PERCENT OF

ULTIMATE

DISCHARGE
(S -GRAPH)
[16]

DISTRIB
GRAPH

PERCENT
[17]m -[17]m-1
[17]
UNIT

HYDROGRAPH

CFS-HRS/IN
]41*[181
[20]

PATTERN

PERCENT
(PL E-5.9)
[21]
STORM
RAIN
IN/HR
60[101[201
[22]
LOSS
RATE
IN/HR
[23]

EFFECTIVE
RAIN
IN/HR
[21]-[22]
[24]
FLOW
CFS
100.000
100[5]
MAX
LOW
65 0.4

0.084

0.068

0.071

0.016

0.05 66

0.4 0.084

0.067

0.071

0.017

0.05 67

0.3 0.063

0.066

0.054

0.009

0.03 68

0.3 0.063

0.065

0.054

0.009

0.03 69

0.5 0.105

0.064

0.089

0.041

0.13 70

0.5 0.105

0.063

0.089

0.042

0.14 71

0.5 0.105

0.062

0.089

0.043

0.14 72

0.4 0.084

0.061

0.071

0.023

0.07 73

0.4 0.084

0.061

0.071

0.023

0.08 74

0.4 0.084

0.060

0.071

0.024

0.08 75

0.3 0.063

0.059

0.054

0.004

0.01 76

0.2 0.042

0.058

0.036

0.006

0.02 77

0.3 0.063

0.057

0.054

0.006

0.02 78

0.4 0.084

0.056

0.071

0.028

0.09 79

0.3 0.063

0.056

0.054

0.007

0.02 80

0.2 0.042

0.055

0.036

0.006

0.02 81

0.3 0.063

0.054

0.009

0.03 82

0.3 0.063

0.053

0.054

0.010

0.03 83

0.3 0.063

0.053

0.054

0.010

0.03 84

0.2 0.042

0.052

0.036

0.006

0.02 85

0.3 0.063

0.051

0.054

0.012

0.04 86

0.2 0.042

0.051

0.036

0.006

0.02 87

0.3 0.063

0.050

0.054

0.013

0.04 88

0.2 0.042

0.050

0.036

0.006

0.02 89

0.3 0.063

0.049

0.054

0.014

0.04 90

0.2 0.042

0.049

0.036

0.006

0.02 91

0.2 0.042

0.048

0.036

0.006

0.02 92

0.2 0.042

0.048

0.036

0.006

0.02 93

0.2 0.042

0.048

0.036

0.006

0.02 94

0.2 0.042

0.047

0.036

0.006

0.02 95

0.2 0.042

0.047

0.036

0.006

0.02 96

0.2 0.042

0.047

0.036

0.006

0.02 TOTALS
100.0

13.51 44.31
EFFECTIVE RAIN = 3.38 INCHES
TOTAL RUNOFF VOLUME = 0.92 AC -FT
1083

Stage -Storage for Vault -1
Depth (ft)
Footprint Area (ft2)
Porosity
Effective Area (ft2)
Effective Area (ac)
Total Volume (ft3)
0 2600

0.95 2470

0.056703
14820
6 2600

0.95 2470

0.056703
1084

Stage -Storage for Vault -2
Depth (ft)
Footprint Area (ft2)
Porosity
Effective Area (ft2)
Effective Area (ac)
Total Volume (ft3)
0 1000

0.95 950

0.021809
5700
6 1000

0.95 950

0.021809
1085

Stage -Discharge for Vault -1
Lowest Orifice
Diameter: 3.375 inches
Quantity: 1
Invert Elevation: 0.000 ft
Upper Orifice
Diameter: 0.000 inches
Quantity: 0
Invert Elevation: 0.000 ft
Absolute Invert Elevation of Lowest Discharge Opening
Invert Elevation: 0.00 ft
Lower Slot
Quantity: 0
Invert Elevation: 0.00 ft
Width: 0.00 ft

0.00 in
Height:

0.000 ft
Hw: 0.00 ft
Upper Slot
Quantity: 0
Invert Elevation: 0.00 ft
Width: 0.00 ft

0.00 in
Height:

0.000 ft
Hw: 0.00 ft
Lower Weir
Quantity: 0
Invert Elevation: 0.00 ft
Length: 0.00 ft
Hw: 0.00 ft
Emergency Weir
Invert Elevation: 6.00 ft
Length: 6.00 ft
Hw: 6.00 ft
(Hw = height of slot/weir invert above basin bottom)
*Head taken as total depth above the invert of the
lowest discharge opening.
h *
ft
( )
h/D
h/D
Q LOWEST ORIFICE (cfs)
Q UPPER ORIFICE (cfs)

Q LOWER SLOT
(cfs)

Q UPPER SLOT
(cfs)

Q LOWER WEIR
(cfs)

Q EMERGENCY
(cfs)

Q TOTAL
(cfs)
Lowest Orifice
Upper
Orifice
Discharge
Coefficient
Orifice Flow
Weir Flow
Q control
Discharge
Coefficient
Orifice Flow
Weir Flow
Q control

0.000

0.000
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.100

0.356
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.017

0.017
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.017

0.200

0.711
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.061

0.061
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.061

0.300

1.067
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.121

0.121
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.121

0.400

1.422
N/A

0.598

0.152

0.183

0.152
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.152

0.500

1.778
N/A

0.598

0.179

0.237

0.179
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.179

0.600

2.133
N/A

0.598

0.202

0.274

0.202
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.202

0.700

2.489
N/A

0.598

0.223

0.291

0.223
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.223

0.800

2.844
N/A

0.599

0.242

0.295

0.242
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.242

0.900

3.200
N/A

0.599

0.260

0.301

0.260
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.260

1.000

3.556
N/A

0.599

0.277

0.338

0.277
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.277

1.100

3.911
N/A

0.600

0.293

0.449

0.293
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.293

1.200

4.267
N/A

0.599

0.307

0.695

0.307
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.307

1.300

4.622
N/A

0.599

0.322

1.157

0.322
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.322

1.400

4.978
N/A

0.599

0.335

1.935

0.335
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.335

1.500

5.333
N/A

0.599

0.348

3.157

0.348
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.348

1.600

5.689
N/A

0.600

0.361

3.611

0.361
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.361

1.700

6.044
N/A

0.600

0.373

3.733

0.373
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.373

1.800

6.400
N/A

0.600

0.385

3.851

0.385
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.385

1.900

6.756
N/A

0.599

0.396

3.963

0.396
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.396

2.000

7.111
N/A

0.599

0.407

4.072

0.407
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.407

2.100

7.467
N/A

0.599

0.418

4.180

0.418
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.418

2.200

7.822
N/A

0.599

0.429

4.286

0.429
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.429

2.300

8.178
N/A

0.599

0.439

4.388

0.439
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.439

2.400

8.533
N/A

0.599

0.449

4.489

0.449
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.449

2.500

8.889
N/A

0.599

0.459

4.587

0.459
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.459

2.600

9.244
N/A

0.599

0.468

4.683

0.468
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.468
1086

0.00 in
Height:

0.000 ft
Hw: 0.00 ft
Upper Slot
Quantity: 0
Invert Elevation: 0.00 ft
Width: 0.00 ft

0.00 in
Height:

Q LOWER SLOT
(cfs)

Q UPPER SLOT
(cfs)

Q LOWER WEIR
(cfs)

Q EMERGENCY
(cfs)

Q TOTAL
(cfs)
Lowest Orifice
Upper
Orifice
Discharge
Coefficient
Orifice Flow
Weir Flow
Q cono-al
Discharge
Coefficient
Orifice Flow
Weir Flow
Q control

2.700

9.600
N/A

0.599

0.478

4.778

0.478
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.478

2.800

9.956
N/A

0.599

0.487

4.870

0.487
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.487

2.900

10.311
N/A

0.599

0.496

4.961

0.496
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.496

3.000

10.667
N/A

0.599

0.505

5.050

0.505
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.505

3.100

11.022
N/A

0.599

0.514

5.137

0.514
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.514

3.200

11.378
N/A

0.599

0.522

5.223

0.522
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.522

3.300

11.733
N/A

0.599

0.531

5.308

0.531
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.531

3.400

12.089
N/A

0.599

0.539

5.392

0.539
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.539

3.500

12.444
N/A

0.599

0.547

5.474

0.547
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.547

3.600

12.800
N/A

0.599

0.555

5.554

0.555
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.555

3.700

13.156
N/A

0.599

0.563

5.634

0.563
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.563

3.800

13.511
N/A

0.599

0.571

5.712

0.571
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.571

3.900

13.867
N/A

0.599

0.579

5.789

0.579
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.579

4.000

14.222
N/A

0.599

0.586

5.864

0.586
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.586

4.100

14.578
N/A

0.599

0.594

5.939

0.594
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.594

4.200

14.933
N/A

0.599

0.601

6.013

0.601
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.601

4.300

15.289
N/A

0.599

0.609

6.086

0.609
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.609

4.400

15.644
N/A

0.598

0.616

6.158

0.616
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.616

4.500

16.000
N/A

0.598

0.623

6.229

0.623
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.623

4.600

16.356
N/A

0.598

0.630

6.300

0.630
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.630

4.700

16.711
N/A

0.598

0.637

6.369

0.637
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.637

4.800

17.067
N/A

0.598

0.644

6.438

0.644
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.644

4.900

17.422
N/A

0.598

0.651

6.506

0.651
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.651

5.000

17.778
N/A

0.598

0.657

6.573

0.657
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.657

5.100

18.133
N/A

0.598

0.664

6.640

0.664
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.664

5.200

18.489
N/A

0.598

0.671

6.706

0.671
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.671

5.300

18.844
N/A

0.598

0.677

6.772

0.677
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.677
1087

0.00 in
Height:

0.000 ft
Hw: 0.00 ft
Upper Slot
Quantity: 0
Invert Elevation: 0.00 ft
Width: 0.00 ft

0.00 in
Height:

Q LOWER SLOT
(cfs)

Q UPPER SLOT
(cfs)

Q LOWER WEIR
(cfs)

Q EMERGENCY
(cfs)

Q TOTAL
(cfs)
Lowest Orifice
Upper
Orifice
Discharge
Coefficient
Orifice Flow
Weir Flow
Qcontrol
Discharge
Coefficient
Orifice Flow
Weir Flow
Q control

5.400

19.200
N/A

0.598

0.684

6.837

0.684
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.684

5.500

19.556
N/A

0.598

0.690

6.902

0.690
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.690

5.600

19.911
N/A

0.598

0.697

6.966

0.697
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.697

5.700

20.267
N/A

0.598

0.703

7.030

0.703
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.703

5.800

20.622
N/A

0.598

0.709

7.093

0.709
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.709

5.900

20.978
N/A

0.598

0.715

7.155

0.715
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.715

6.000

21.333
N/A

0.598

0.722

7.217

0.722
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.722
1088

Stage -Discharge for Vault -2
Lowest Orifice
Diameter: 6.500 inches
Quantity: 1
Invert Elevation: 0.000 ft
Upper Orifice
Diameter: 0.000 inches
Quantity: 0
Invert Elevation: 0.000 ft
Absolute Invert Elevation of Lowest Discharge Opening
Invert Elevation: 0.00 ft
Lower Slot
Quantity: 0
Invert Elevation: 0.00 ft
Width: 0.00 ft

0.00 in
Height:

0.000 ft
Hw: 0.00 ft
Upper Slot
Quantity: 0
Invert Elevation: 0.00 ft
Width: 0.00 ft

0.00 in
Height:

0.000 ft
Hw: 0.00 ft
Lower Weir
Quantity: 0
Invert Elevation: 0.00 ft
Length: 0.00 ft
Hw: 0.00 ft
Emergency Weir
Invert Elevation: 6.00 ft
Length: 9.00 ft
Hw: 6.00 ft
(Hw = height of slot/weir invert above basin bottom)
*Head taken as total depth above the invert of the
lowest discharge opening.
h *
ft
( )
h/D
h/D
Q LOWEST ORIFICE (cfs)
Q UPPER ORIFICE (cfs)

Q LOWER SLOT
(cfs)

Q UPPER SLOT
(cfs)

Q LOWER WEIR
(cfs)

Q EMERGENCY
(cfs)

Q TOTAL
(cfs)
Lowest Orifice
Upper
Orifice
Discharge
Coefficient
Orifice Flow
Weir Flow
Q control
Discharge
Coefficient
Orifice Flow
Weir Flow
Q control

0.000

0.000
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.100

0.185
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.025

0.025
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.025

0.200

0.369
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.094

0.094
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.094

0.300

0.554
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.200

0.200
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.738
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.336

0.336
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.336

0.500

0.923
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.492

0.492
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.492

0.600

1.108
N/A

0.593

0.629

0.659

0.629
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.629

0.700

1.292
N/A

0.593

0.719

0.828

0.719
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.719

0.800

1.477
N/A

0.593

0.798

0.990

0.798
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.798

0.900

1.662
N/A

0.594

0.871

1.138

0.871
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.871

1.000

1.846
N/A

0.595

0.939

1.264

0.939
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

0.939

1.100

2.031
N/A

0.595

1.002

1.365

1.002
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.002

1.200

2.215
N/A

0.596

1.062

1.439

1.062
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.062

1.300

2.400
N/A

0.596

1.118

1.486

1.118
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.118

1.400

2.585
N/A

0.596

1.172

1.510

1.172
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.172

1.500

2.769
N/A

0.597

1.223

1.518

1.223
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.223

1.600

2.954
N/A

0.597

1.272

1.522

1.272
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.272

1.700

3.138
N/A

0.597

1.320

1.539

1.320
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.320

1.800

3.323
N/A

0.597

1.366

1.588

1.366
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.366

1.900

3.508
N/A

0.598

1.411

1.698

1.411
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.411

2.000

3.692
N/A

0.598

1.453

1.900

1.453
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.453

2.100

3.877
N/A

0.598

1.495

2.233

1.495
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.495

2.200

4.062
N/A

0.598

1.535

2.742

1.535
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.535

2.300

4.246
N/A

0.598

1.574

3.481

1.574
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.574

2.400

4.431
N/A

0.598

1.613

4.509

1.613
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.613

2.500

4.615
N/A

0.598

1.651

5.895

1.651
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.651

2.600

4.800
N/A

0.598

1.688

7.716

1.688
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.688
1089

0.00 in
Height:

0.000 ft
Hw: 0.00 ft
Upper Slot
Quantity: 0
Invert Elevation: 0.00 ft
Width: 0.00 ft

0.00 in
Height:

Q LOWER SLOT
(cfs)

Q UPPER SLOT
(cfs)

Q LOWER WEIR
(cfs)

Q EMERGENCY
(cfs)

Q TOTAL
(cfs)
Lowest Orifice
Upper
Orifice
Discharge
Coefficient
Orifice Flow
Weir Flow
Q conr al
Discharge
Coefficient
Orifice Flow
Weir Flow
Q control

2.700

4.985
N/A

0.598

1.724

10.058

1.724
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.724

2.800

5.169
N/A

0.598

1.760

13.016

1.760
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.760

2.900

5.354
N/A

0.598

1.794

16.697

1.794
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.794

3.000

5.538
N/A

0.598

1.828

18.278

1.828
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.828

3.100

5.723
N/A

0.598

1.861

18.610

1.861
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.861

3.200

5.908
N/A

0.598

1.894

18.936

1.894
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.894

3.300

6.092
N/A

0.598

1.926

19.256

1.926
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.926

3.400

6.277
N/A

0.598

1.957

19.572

1.957
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.957

3.500

6.462
N/A

0.598

1.988

19.882

1.988
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

1.988

3.600

6.646
N/A

0.598

2.019

20.187

2.019
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.019

3.700

6.831
N/A

0.598

2.049

20.488

2.049
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.049

3.800

7.015
N/A

0.598

2.078

20.785

2.078
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.078

3.900

7.200
N/A

0.598

2.107

21.070

2.107
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.107

4.000

7.385
N/A

0.598

2.135

21.351

2.135
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.135

4.100

7.569
N/A

0.598

2.163

21.628

2.163
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.163

4.200

7.754
N/A

0.597

2.190

21.902

2.190
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.190

4.300

7.938
N/A

0.597

2.217

22.171

2.217
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.217

4.400

8.123
N/A

0.597

2.244

22.445

2.244
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.244

4.500

8.308
N/A

0.597

2.271

22.715

2.271
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.271

4.600

8.492
N/A

0.597

2.298

22.982

2.298
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.298

4.700

8.677
N/A

0.597

2.325

23.246

2.325
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.325

4.800

8.862
N/A

0.597

2.351

23.507

2.351
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.351

4.900

9.046
N/A

0.597

2.376

23.765

2.376
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.376

5.000

9.231
N/A

0.597

2.402

24.020

2.402
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.402

5.100

9.415
N/A

0.597

2.427

24.273

2.427
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.427

5.200

9.600
N/A

0.597

2.452

24.523

2.452
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.452

5.300

9.785
N/A

0.597

2.477

24.770

2.477
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.477
1090

0.00 in
Height:

0.000 ft
Hw: 0.00 ft
Upper Slot
Quantity: 0
Invert Elevation: 0.00 ft
Width: 0.00 ft

0.00 in
Height:

Q LOWER SLOT
(cfs)

Q UPPER SLOT
(cfs)

Q LOWER WEIR
(cfs)

Q EMERGENCY
(cfs)

Q TOTAL
(cfs)
Lowest Orifice
Upper
Orifice
Discharge
Coefficient
Orifice Flow
Weir Flow
Qcontrol
Discharge
Coefficient
Orifice Flow
Weir Flow
Q control

5.400

9.969
N/A

0.597

2.502

25.015

2.502
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.502

5.500

10.154
N/A

0.597

2.526

25.258

2.526
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.526

5.600

10.338
N/A

0.597

2.550

25.498

2.550
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.550

5.700

10.523
N/A

0.597

2.574

25.737

2.574
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.574

5.800

10.708
N/A

0.597

2.597

25.972

2.597
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.597

5.900

10.892
N/A

0.597

2.621

26.206

2.621
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.621

6.000

11.077
N/A

0.597

2.644

26.438

2.644
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.000

2.644
1091

HEC-HMS Detention Routing
Discharge Point 1 (100 -year, 24 -hour)
Basin Model [Basin 1] i F U
1 S OINT 1
-Bypass Area
ET -VAULT -1
rt
-Node 102
1092

HEC-HMS Detention Routing
Discharge Point 1 (100 -year, 24 -hour)
Summary Resuts for Source "Node 102" r5I
frLis
Project: DP -1_562-01 Simulation Run: 100-yr 24 -hr
Source:Node 102
Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 00.00
End of Run: 02Jan2000, 00:00
Compute Time:29Ju12019, 09:59:55
Basin Model: Basin 1
Meteorologic Model: 100-yr
Control Specifications:24-hr
Volume Units: 0 IN C ) AC -FT
Computed Results
Peak Discharge:1.58 (CFS)
Volume: 0.77 (AC -FT)
Date/Time of Peak Discharge:01Jan2000, 13:30
n Summary Results for Reservoir "DET-VAULT-1"
=ICI
Project: DP -1_562-01 Simulation Run:100-yr 24 -hr
Reser-voir: DET-VAULT-1
Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 00:00
End of Rum 02Jan2000, 00:00
Compute Time:29JuI2019, 09:59:55
Basin Model: Basin 1
Meteorologic Model: 100-yr
Control Specifications:24-hr
Volume Units: 0 IN 4AC-FT
Computed Results
Peak Inflow: 1.58 (CFS)
Peak Discharge: 0.72 (CFS)
Inflow Volume: 0.77 (AC -Fr)
Discharge Volume D.71 (AC -FT)
DatefTime of Peak Inflow: 01Jan2000, 13:25
Date/Time of Peak Discharge:01Jan2000, 16:00
Peak Storage: 0.34 (AC -FT)
Peak Elevation: 5.95 (FT)
M Summary Results for Source "Bypass Area"
i
Project: DP -1_562-01 Simulation. Run: 100-yr 24 -hr
Source: Bypass Area
Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 00:00 Basin Model: Basin 1
End of Run: 02Jan2000, 00:00 Meteorologic Model: 100-yr Compute Time:29Ju12019, 09:.59:55 Control Specifications:24-hr Volume Units: 0 IN 0 AC -FT
Computed Results
Peak Discharge:1.39 (CFS)
Volume: 0.66 (AC -FT)
Date/Time of Peak Discharge:01Jan2000, 13,15
1093

HEC-HMS Detention Routing
Discharge Point 1 (100 -year, 24 -hour)
In Summary Results far Junction "DISCH POINT 1"
g
Project: DP -1_562-01 Simulation Run:100-yr 24 -hr
Junction: DISCH POINT 1
Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 00:00
End of Run: 02Jan2000, 00:00
Compute Time:29JuI2019., 10:00:07
Basin Model: Basin 1
Meteorologic Model: 100-yr
Control Specifications:24-hr
Volume Units: 0 IN 0 AC -FT
Computed Results
Peak' Discharge:2,01 (CFS)
Volume: 1.37 (AC -FT)
Date,Time of Peak Discharge:01Jan2000, 13:30
0 Graph far Reservoir "DET VAULT -1"
Reservoir "DET-VAULT-1" Results for Run "100-yr 24 -hr"

0.35 0_30-

0.25-
o

0.20-
a)
c 0.15 -
co 0.10-

0.05-

0.00-

1.4 1.2

1.0 E 0.8
0 0.6
04 0.2

0.0 00 00
•
•
il
I
t
r
S
$ --
f
t 1 \�`1
A
#'
-f
�"'w
t
+
1 �1
/
.f
r—

- ✓� .
rte -
\/ %a— \-1‘.#"....\----
03 00

06.00 09 00
12 00
O1Jan2000
Legend (Compute Time: 291u12019, 18:08:07)
Run: t06 -err 24 --ter Element:DET-VAULT-1 Resuf :Storage Run: DO-yr 24 -hr Elenient: DET-VAULT-1 Result:PooV Elevation Run:100-yr 24 -hr E[ement:DET-VAULT-1 Result:Outflow
— — - Run:100-yr 24 -hr Element:DET-VAULT-1 Result:Combined Inflow 15 00
18:00
21 00
TOO

6.00 5.00

4.00 3.00

2.00 1.00
00 00
1094

HEC-HMS Detention Routing
Discharge Point 1 (100 -year, 24 -hour)
Graph for Junction "D-ISCH POINT 1'
NIQF

2.0 1.5

0.5 0.0
Junction "DISCH POINT 1" Results for Run #'100-yr 24 -hr" O.
r
r��r
i
A
r
y#
jar
��
�.' JO
r
•
-.�.. ..4.

00.00 0300
00-00
00 00
12 00
01Jan2000
Legend (Compute Time: 293u12019, 10:08:07)
Run:100-yr 24 -hr Efemmernt:DISCH POINT 1 Result:Outflow Run_10Q-yr 24 -hr E[errtent_Bypass Area Result -Outflow 15-00
18:00
21 00

00.0 --- Run:100-yr 24 -hr Elernent_DET-VAULT-1 Result:Outfllow 1095

HEC-HMS Detention Routing
Discharge Point 2 (100 -year, 24 -hour)
Basin Mad& f assn 2T I e
SET -VAULT -2
', -'Bypass Area
=DISOH POINT 2
1096

HEC-HMS Detention Routing
Discharge Point 2 (100 -year, 24 -hour)
M Surnrnory Results for Source "Node 2O4"
Project:DP-2_562-01 Simulation Run: 100-yr 24 -hr
Source: Node 204
Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 00:00
End of Ruin: 02Jan2000, 010:00
Compute Time:2gJu12019, 1027:11
Basin Model: Basin 2
Meteorologic Model: 100-yr
Control Specifications:24-hr
Volume Units: IN `4 AC -FT
Competed Results
Peak Discharge:3.25 (CFS)
Volume: 1.59 (AC -FT)
Date/Time of Peak Discharge:01Jan2000, 13:30
M Summary Resupts for Reservoir "DET-VAULT- ' +0
Des
Project: DP -2 562-01 Simulation Run: 100-yr 24 -hr
Reservoir: DET-VAULT-2
Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 04:00
End of Run: 02Jan2000, 00:00
Compute Tinie:29Jui2019, 10:27:11
Computed Results
Peak Inflow:.

Peak Discharge:

Basin Model: Basin 2
Meteorologic Model: 100-yr
Control Specifiications:24-hr
Volume nits:.0 II AC -FT

3.25 (CFS)

2.60 (CFS
Inflow Volume: 1.59 (AC -FT)
Discharge Volume:1.59 (AC -FT)
Date/Time of Peak Inflow: 01Jan2000, 13:25
Date/Time of Peak Discharge:01Jan2000, 13:40
Peak Storage: 0.13 (AC -FT)
Peak Elevation: 5.80 (FT)
7 -Summary Resufts for Source "Hypass Area"
Project:. D'P-2_552-01 Simulation Run: 100-yr 24 -hr
Source: Bypass Area
Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 00:00
End of Run: 02Jan2000, 00:00
Compute Time:29Ju12019, 10:2711
Basin Model.: Basin 2
Meteorologic Model: 100-yr
Control Specifications:24-hr
Volume Units: (I) IN (4;i AC -FT
Computed Results
Peak Discharge:2.08 (CFS)
Volume: 0.91 (AC -FT)
DaterTime of Peak Discharge:01Jan2000, 1320
1097

HEC-HMS Detention Routing
Discharge Point 2 (100 -year, 24 -hour)
71 Summary Results for Junction "DISCI --I POINT 2"
Project: DP -2_562-01 Simulation Run: 100-yr 24 -hr
Junction: DISCH POINT 2
Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 00:00
End of Run: 02Jan2000, 00:00
Compute Time:29JuI2019, 10:27:11
Basin Model: Basin 2
Meteorologic Model: 100-yr
Control Specifications:24-hr
Volume Units: 0 IN AC -FT
Computed Results
Peak Discharge:4.63 (CFS)
Volume: 2.50 (AC -FT)
Date/Time of Peak Discharge:01Jan2000, 13:30
Graph for Reservoir "DET-VAUJLT--2" IMMINIMIIIMFU
Reservoir "CET- .{ALILT-2" Results for Run "100-yr 24 -hr -

0.12-
LL
;

5.14 O10
O

4.2g

0.08-
as
x

3.43 >
a)
w

80.06 O
co
j

2.57 0.04
`
a

1.71 0V 0.02yy
o_
.. _. _. ._ _
... _ - •._ • -
_• ,,,.•.,'
-
\
•Wi•�y,�y-.
•
`-

0.86 -fl C1fl
r1
/ +
t
20 r
t

1.5-
%
1J
i
LL 1.0
rr
i
I

0.5-
i
ti

0.0 00.00
03 00 O6 00 09 00 12 00 15 00 18:00 21:00 00
01Jan2000
00 Legend (Compute Time. 29JuI2O19,, 10:27:11)
Run_100-yr 24 -hr Eferrtertt_DETVAULT-2 Result_Storage
Run:100-yr 24 -hr Bement:DET-VAULT-2 Result:Poo} Devotion — Run_100-yr 24 -hr Efernent:DET VAULT -2 Result:Dufow
- - - Run:100-yr 24 -hr Eternenf:DETVAULT-2 Result:Combined inflow 1098

HEC-HMS Detention Routing
Discharge Point 2 (100 -year, 24 -hour)
Graph for Junction ' DlSCH POINT 2µ =
IK
oyit s
Junction " DISCH POINT 2" Results for Run "1 00-yr 24 -hr" F0

4.5-

4.0-
3_5-
3_0-
7,-
s,0
t, 2. -
O
E
fr �.
/

2.0-
�,#`
/

1.5 .
/'
r
r
. •

1.0-
/
,ref
,
;
rat'
{
lY
,

0.0 00
00 0300 06-00 0900 12-00 15-00 18:00 21-00 00-0
01Jan2000
Legend (Compute Time: 29]u12019, 10:22:11)
— Run:100-yr 24 Efernent:DTSCH POINT 2 Result:Outflow --- Run:100-yr 24 Element:DET-VAULT-2 Result:Outflow -hr -hr
Run_1013-yr 24 -hr E[ernent:Bypass Area Resu4t:Outflow
1099

Appendix E-1
Noise Study
1100

��►uRBaiu
{CRQSSRO,A'DS
Ritz -Carlton Residences

NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
PREPARED BY:

Bill Lawson, PE, INCE
[email protected]
(949) 336-5979
Sama Shami
[email protected]
(949) 336-5994
FEBRUARY 18, 2020
12610-03 Noise Study

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
12610-03 Noise Study
11'02

L URBAN

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS III

APPENDICES IV

LIST OF EXHIBITS V

LIST OF TABLES V

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS VI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Off -Site Traffic Noise Analysis 1
Operational Noise Analysis 1
Construction Noise Analysis 2
Construction Vibration Analysis 2
Construction Vibration Mitigation 3
Summary of CEQA Significance Findings 3
1 INTRODUCTION 5

1.1 Site Location 5

1.2 Project Description 5
2 FUNDAMENTALS 9

2.1 Range of Noise 9

2.2 Noise Descriptors 10

2.3 Sound Propagation 10

2.4 Noise Control 11

2.5 Noise Barrier Attenuation 11

2.6 Land Use Compatibility With Noise 11

2.7 Community Response to Noise 12

2.8 Exposure to High Noise Levels 13

2.9 Vibration 13
3 REGULATORY SETTING 15

3.1 State of California Noise Requirements 15

3.2 State of California Building Code 15

3.3 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Noise Element 15

3.4 Operational Noise Standards 16

3.5 Construction Noise Standards 18

3.6 Vibration Standards 18
4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 19

4.1 CEQA Guidelines Not Further Analyzed 19

4.2 Noise -Sensitive Receivers 19

4.3 Non -Noise -Sensitive Receivers 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 METHODS AND PROCEDURES 27
12610-03 Noise Study
11'03
URBAN
CRClSSR413.41E1

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis

6.1 FHWATraffic Noise Prediction Model 27

6.2 Vibration Assessment 30
7 OFF -SITE TRANSPORTATION NOISE ANALYSIS 31

7.1 Traffic Noise Contours 31

7.2 Existing 2019 Project Traffic Noise Level Increases 35

7.3 EA 2023 Project Traffic Noise Level Increases 36

7.4 EAC 2023 Project Traffic Noise Level Increases 36

7.5 Horizon Year 2040 Project Traffic Noise Level Increases 36 8 SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS 39
9 OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS 41

9.1 Operational Noise Sources 41

9.2 Reference Noise Levels 41

9.3 CadnaA Noise Prediction Model 44

9.4 Project Operational Noise Levels 44

9.5 Project Operational Noise Level Contributions 45
10 CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS 51

10.1 Construction Noise Levels 51

10.2 Construction Reference Noise Levels 51

10.3 Construction Noise Level Compliance 53

10.4 Construction Vibration Analysis 54
11 REFERENCES 57
12 CERTIFICATION 59

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 CONTOURS
APPENDIX 9.1: CADNAA OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS APPENDIX 10.1: CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS 12610-03 Noise Study
11 4
1 URBAN

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT ES -A: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 4
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP 6
EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN 7
EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS 9
EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION 12
EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND -BORNE VIBRATION 14 EXHIBIT 3-A: NOISE LEVEL AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 17
EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS 26
EXHIBIT 8-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS 40
EXHIBIT 9-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS 42
EXHIBIT 10-A: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS 52

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES -1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS 3
TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS 16
TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY 22
TABLE 5-1: 24 -HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS 25 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: DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW BY VEHICLE TYPE (VEHICLE MIX) 30 TABLE 6-5: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 30 TABLE 7-1: EXISTING 2019 WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS 32 TABLE 7-2: EXISTING 2019 WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS 32 TABLE 7-3: EA 2023 WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS 33
TABLE 7-4: EA 2023 WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS 33
TABLE 7-5: EAC 2023 WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS 34
TABLE 7-6: EAC 2023 WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS 34
TABLE 7-7: HORIZON YEAR 2040 WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS 35 TABLE 7-8: HORIZON YEAR 2040 WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS 35 TABLE 7-9: EXISTING 2019 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES 37 TABLE 7-10: EA 2023 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES 37 TABLE 7-11: EAC 2023 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES 38 TABLE 7-12: HORIZON YEAR 2040 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES 38 TABLE 9-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS 43
TABLE 9-2: PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS 45
TABLE 9-3: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL CONTRIBUTIONS 47 TABLE 9-4: EVENING OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL CONTRIBUTIONS 48 TABLE 9-5: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL CONTRIBUTIONS 49 TABLE 10-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS 53
TABLE 10-2: UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY 54 TABLE 10-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE 54
TABLE 10-4: UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS 55 12610-03 Noise Study
1105
BARI

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
TABLE 10-5: MITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS 56

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1)
ADT
ANSI
Calveno
CEQA
CNEL
dBA
FHWA
FTA
INCE
Leg
Lmax
Lmin
mph
PPV
Project
REMEL
RMS
VdB
Reference
Average Daily Traffic
American National Standards Institute
California Vehicle Noise
California Environmental Quality Act
Community Noise Equivalent Level
A -weighted decibels
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Equivalent continuous (average) sound level
Maximum level measured over the time interval
Minimum level measured over the time interval
Miles per hour
Peak Particle Velocity
Ritz -Carlton Residences
Reference Energy Mean Emission Level
Root -mean -square
Vibration Decibels
12610-03 Noise Study
1106
BARI

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has prepared this noise study to determine the noise exposure and any necessary noise mitigation measures for the proposed Ritz -Carlton Residences development ("Project"). The Project site is located north of Mirada Circle and east of Frank Sinatra Drive in the City of Rancho Mirage. The Project proposes to expand the existing Ritz -Carlton hotel by 106 residential dwelling units, a 6,966 square foot restaurant, and a 23,843 square foot venue. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the Project will be constructed within a single phase of development with a projected Opening Year of 2023. This study has been prepared consistent with applicable City of Rancho Mirage noise standards, and significance criteria based on guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (1)

OFF -SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
Traffic generated by the operation of the Project will influence the traffic noise levels in surrounding off -site areas. To quantify the off -site traffic noise increases on the surrounding off - site areas, the changes in traffic noise levels on four roadway segments were calculated based on the change in the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. The traffic noise levels provided in this analysis are based on the traffic forecasts found in Ritz -Carlton Residences Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (2) To assess the off -site noise level impacts associated with the proposed Project, noise level contours were developed for Existing 2019, Existing plus Ambient (EA), Existing plus Ambient plus Cumulative (EAC), and Horizon Year 2040 traffic conditions. The off -site traffic noise analysis shows that the Project -related traffic noise level increases at receiving land uses under all traffic scenarios will be less than significant.

OPERATIONAL NOISE ANALYSIS
Using reference noise levels to represent the potential noise sources within Ritz -Carlton Residences site, this analysis estimates the Project -related operational (stationary -source) noise levels at the nearby receiver locations. The Project -related operational noise sources are expected to include air conditioning units, pool activity and outdoor courtyard activity. The analysis shows that the operational noise levels associated with Ritz -Carlton Residences Project will satisfy the City of Rancho Mirage 55 dBA Leq daytime, 50 dBA Leq evening and 45 dBA Leq 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
12610-03 Noise Study
e'► URBAN
11'07
CRpS'S RIM AOS

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis

CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
Construction -related noise impacts are expected to create short-term and intermittent high-level noise conditions at receivers surrounding the Project site. Using sample reference noise levels to represent the planned construction activities of the Ritz -Carlton Residences site, this analysis estimates the Project -related construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receiver locations.

Since the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan and Municipal Codes do not identify specific construction noise level thresholds, a construction noise level threshold is identified based on the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) limits. The Project -related short-term construction noise levels are expected to range from 42.1 to 70.6 dBA Leq and will satisfy the 85 dBA Leq NIOSH construction noise level threshold at all receiver locations.

Therefore, based on the results of this analysis, all nearby sensitive receiver locations will experience less than significant impacts due to Project construction noise levels.

CONSTRUCTION NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES
Though construction noise is intermittent and of short duration, and will not present any long- term impacts, the following practices, while not required, would reduce noise level increases produced by the construction equipment to the nearby noise -sensitive residential land uses:
• During all Project site construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site.
• The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise sources and noise -sensitive receivers nearest the Project site during all Project construction (i.e., to the center). • The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment (between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Saturdays, with no activity allowed on Sundays or holidays). The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses or residential dwellings to delivery truck -related noise.

CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground -borne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. At distances ranging from 21 to 591 feet from Project construction activity, construction vibration velocity levels are expected to range from 45.8 to 89.3 VdB and will exceed the FTA 80 VdB threshold for human annoyance at receiver locations R3 and R4. The construction vibration analysis shows that the unmitigated Project -related vibration impacts will be potentially significant during the construction activities at the Project site and mitigation is required. 12610-03 Noise Study
1108
URBAN
CRY'S% t0AO5

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
Therefore, a 50 -foot vibration buffer zone mitigation measure is required restricting the use of large loaded trucks and dozers (greater than 80,000 pounds) within 50 -feet of occupied sensitive receiver locations R3 and R4. With the mitigation measures identified in this report, the mitigated vibration levels with the 50 -foot buffer zone will be reduced to 78.0 VdB and will satisfy the FTA 80 VdB threshold for human annoyance. Therefore, impacts with the construction vibration mitigation measure identified in this study will be less than significant.

CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION MITIGATION
To reduce the construction vibration impacts to less than significant levels, the following vibration mitigation measure is required for Project -related construction activities:
• Large loaded trucks and dozers (greater than 80,000 pounds) shall not be used within 50 feet of occupied noise -sensitive residential homes, as shown on Exhibit ES -A, represented by receiver locations R3 and R4, during Project construction activities. Instead, small rubber -tired or alternative equipment shall be used within this area during Project construction to reduce vibration effects. If all mobile equipment used during Project construction are less than 80,000 pounds, then the 50 -foot buffer vibration mitigation is not required.

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

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
Potentially Significant
Less Than Significant
12610-03 Noise Study
1109
URBAN
cwps onos

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
EXHIBIT ES -A: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
--40 - —-
.'.',""rte -
t60,
U
_iitnimairttrzamt
• 'sa
dr
is t *, . �.

Large leaded trucks and dozers
(BO, Q pounds or ,mare} shall
not be used within 50 feet of
any receiver location at the
time of project construction.
0 LEGEND
QConstruction Activity
--■ Distance from receiver to Project site boundary (In Feet] 50-finat buffer far large loaded trucks and mobile equipment (>80,D00 1bs,i 12610-03 Noise Study
11°10
eURB,
CRC. fS RU A -D5

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
1 INTRODUCTION
This noise analysis has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed Ritz -Carlton Residences ("Project"). This noise study briefly describes the proposed Project, provides information regarding noise fundamentals, describes the local regulatory setting, provides the study methods and procedures for transportation noise analysis, and evaluates the future exterior noise environment. In addition, this study includes an analysis of the potential short-term construction noise and vibration impacts.

1.1 SITE LOCATION
The Project site is located north of Mirada Circle and east of Frank Sinatra Drive, in the City of Rancho Mirage as shown on Exhibit 1-A. The Project site is located adjacent to the existing Ritz - Carlton Rancho Mirage, north of the Mirada Estates and east of the Villas of Mirada. The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
It is our understanding that the Project is to expand the existing Ritz -Carlton hotel by 106 residential dwelling units, a 6,966 square foot restaurant, and a 23,843 square foot venue. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the Project will be constructed within a single phase of development with a projected Opening Year of 2023.

The Ritz -Carlton Residences at Rancho Mirage is an expansion and enhancement to the existing Ritz -Carlton Resort. The project consists of renovation of the existing motor court which will provide a connection to the new proposed building across from the existing hotel. This new building will provide a new 23,843 square feet of indoor event space and expansive exterior entertaining and garden spaces. The building will also house 48 Residential Suites over underground parking for the both the suites and the event space along with additional parking for the existing hotel. In addition, 58 new residential villas with their own private garages will be built around naturally landscaped areas. A community clubroom with access to a central pool terrace as well as smaller amenity areas will enhance the new community. The new Sky Mesa Recreation Area will enhance the land southeast of the existing hotel by providing additional event space and amenities such as a pool terrace and view opportunities onto the valley. A new restaurant will be tucked away into the site to provide a new dining experience as well as services to the pool deck.

Per the Ritz -Carlton Residences Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., the Project is expected to generate a net total of 1,068 trip -ends per day, 51 AM peak hour trips and 86 PM peak hour trips. (3)
12610-03 Noise Study
'► URBAN
c FicasSR®/i0S

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP
12610-03 Noise Study
11612
URBAN
t'R 745 RIDAD(

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN
.— •
SR.I a1₹r say�y
*Nee et fri7 rlT
�fi'i P/'i�t; rfFtlrr
Resirk i`te
12610-03 Noise Study
11'13
12F'D URBAN

CRGS ROADS

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
12610-03 Noise Study
11814
URBAN
cR 255 R[7 AD5

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

EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS

COMMON OUTDOOR

ACTIVITIES

COMMON INDOOR

ACTIVITIES
A . WEI[HTED
SOLSMI LEVEL dBA

SUBJECTIVE

LOUDNESS

EFFECTS OF
NOISE

THRESHOLD OF PAIN
14D
prAENABLE OR13D LFENJNG
MiEAR7NG LASS

NEAR JET ENGINE
130
JET FLY -OVER AT 30A]m (11900 Ft)

ROCK BAND
71' D

LOUD AUTO HORN
100

VERY MOIST
GA5 LAWN MOWER AT 1 rn (3 ft)
90 DIESEL TRUCK AT 15m (50 ft),
AI BD km/ hrI5Amph)
FOOD BLENDER AT 1m (3 4t)
E'0
SPEECH

INTERFERENCE
NOISY URBAN AREk DAYTIME
VACUUM CLEANER AT 3rn (10 ft)
70 LOUD
HEAVY TRAFFIC AT Span (3101 ft)
NORMAL SPEECH AT 1m (3 it)
ND

QUIET URBAN DAYTIME

LARGE BUSINESS OFFICE
S0

MODERATE
SLEEP
DISTURBANa

QUIET URBAN NIGHTTIME

THEATER, LARGE CONFERENCE

ROOM (BACKGROUND)
an

QUIET NIGHTTIME

LIBRARY
30 FAINT

HO EFFECT

QUIET RURAL NIGHTTIME
AT NIGHT, corKLAT
HALL

HALL (BACKGROUND)

BROADCAST/RECORDING
STUDIO
10 VERY FAINT

LOWEST THRESHOLD OF HUMAN

HEARING

LOWEST THRESHOLD OF HUMAN

HEARING
0 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. (3) 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 at approximately 100 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. (4) Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time. 12610-03 Noise Study
1115

D URBAN
Cfl D5SR.C1 s

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis

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

Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment. Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite 24 -hour noise level is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time of day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when sound appears louder. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any 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. (3)

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 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 12610-03 Noise Study
11'16
URBAN
Cwngscx®aaos

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
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. (5)

2.3.3 ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS
Receivers located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects. (3)

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 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 up to 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 be high enough and long enough to block the path of the noise source. (5)

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 12610-03 Noise Study
11'17
URBAN

CR MS'SRO AOS

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
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
Community responses to noise may range from registering a complaint by telephone or letter, to initiating court action, depending upon everyone's susceptibility to noise and personal attitudes about noise. Several factors are related to the level of community annoyance including:
• Fear associated with noise producing activities;
• Socio-economic status and educational level;
• Perception that those affected are being unfairly treated; • Attitudes regarding the usefulness of the noise -producing activity; • Belief that the noise source can be controlled.

Approximately ten percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to any noise not of their making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints will occur. Another twenty-five percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments. Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment. (7) Surveys have shown that about ten percent of the people exposed to traffic noise of 60 dBA will report being highly annoyed with the noise, and each increase of one dBA is associated with approximately two percent more people being highly annoyed. When traffic noise exceeds 60 dBA or aircraft noise exceeds 55 dBA, people may begin to complain. (7) 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 are considered barely perceptible, and changes of 5 dBA are considered readily perceptible. (5)
EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION
Twice as Loud
Readily Perceptible
Barely Perceptible
Just Perceptible
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Noise Level Increase (dBA)
12610-03 Noise Study
11'18
'► URBAN

CR MS'SRO AOS

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis

2.8 EXPOSURE TO HIGH NOISE LEVELS
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets legal limits on noise exposure in the workplace. The permissible exposure limit (PEL) for a worker over an eight -hour day is 90 dBA. The OSHA standard uses a 5-dBA exchange rate. This means that when the noise level is increased by 5 dBA, the amount of time a person can be exposed to a certain noise level to receive the same dose is cut in half. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has recommended that all worker exposures to noise should be controlled below a level equivalent to 85 dBA for eight hours to minimize occupational noise induced hearing loss. NIOSH also recommends a 3 dBA exchange rate so that every increase by 3 dBA doubles the amount of the noise and halves the recommended amount of exposure time. (8) OSHA has implemented requirements to protect all workers in general industry (e.g. the manufacturing and the service sectors) for employers to implement a Hearing Conservation Program where workers are exposed to a time weighted average noise level of 85 dBA or higher over an eight -hour work shift. Hearing Conservation Programs require employers to measure noise levels, provide free annual hearing exams and free hearing protection, provide training, and conduct evaluations of the adequacy of the hearing protectors in use unless changes to tools, equipment and schedules are made so that they are less noisy and worker exposure to noise is less than the 85 dBA. This noise study does not evaluate the noise exposure of workers within a project or construction site based on CEQA requirements, and instead, evaluates Project -related construction noise levels at the nearby sensitive receiver locations in the Project study area.

2.9 VIBRATION
Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment (9), 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 12610-03 Noise Study
11'19
► URBAN
CRpS'S RAM AOS

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
(especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and sick), 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.

EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND -BORNE VIBRATION
Human/Structural Response
Tttresilot,d. minor rrosrfetrc damage
tragitle buildings
Difficulty with tasks such as
reading a VDT screen
Velocity
Level'
Typical Sources.
(50 ft from source)
Residential annoyance, infrequent —�
events (e.g, commuter rest)
Residential annoyance, frequent —}
events (e.g. rapid transit)
Limit for vibration sensitive
equipment. Approx. threshold for
human perception of vibration
Blasting from construction pro ects
Bulldozers and other heavy tracked
construction equipment
Commuter rail, upper range
Rapid transit, upper range
Commuter rail, typical
Bus or truck over burnp
Rapid transit, typical
Brun or truck. typical
Typical background vibration
HMS Vbratiorm Velocity Lever era Val relative fo 10.6 inchesisecond Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment. 12610-03 Noise Study
1 1'20
e'D URBAN
CRIPSSRIM ,ao5

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
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. (10) The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts.

3.2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
The State of California's noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, and the California Building Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for the purpose of controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise -sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are developed near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans for noise -sensitive land uses must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels.

For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL.

3.3 CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT
The City of Rancho Mirage has adopted a Noise Element of the General Plan (12) to control and abate environmental noise, and to protect the citizens of 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.
12610-03 Noise Study
11'21
► URBAN
C FICJS'S RIO A[] 5

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
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. east sensitive to noise are heavy commercial uses, transportation, communication, and utility land uses.

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. Hospitals land uses are considered normally acceptable with exterior noise levels below 70 dBA CNEL. For conditionally acceptable land use, new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed

3.4 OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from a designated fixed location or private property such as the Ritz -Carlton Residences Project, stationary -source (operational) noise such as the expected air conditioning units, pool activity and outdoor courtyard 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, 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.). (11) Table 3-1 provides a summary of the City of Rancho Mirage operational exterior noise level standards.

TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS
Land
Usel
Time
Period
Exterior Noise
Level Standards
(dBA Leq)Z
Residential
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 ' Source: City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code, Section 8.45.030 Exterior noise level limits (Appendix 3.1). 2 Leq represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period.
12610-03 Noise Study
11122
.` URBAN
CRp5S. RIM A.17.

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
EXHIBIT 3-A: NOISE LEVEL AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
L.nu0 Usr CsrklrJRrri
Residenrital, density karngie-family d4rel'.Ilnt s,
duplex, i rrsobile homes,
Residsn'ial multi -family
TronsP©nr lodging {more Is and hovels)
Scoots, librar es, churfhes-,, hrasDilals. nursing homes AuciilonAns, conccrr halls, umph'rlheaters
Sports (Irene, outdoor spectator spa -I
Playgrounds, -reighbarho+ad parks.

Gold courses, riding stakes, worer reclwaft' n, cameruries Office bui3dings, business, commerc=af, proIessionol
ndusrtici, marwfocturirg, uriairies, mgn€ulture
Nor *Dell y
Accepteb4e
Candirlonatly
AccEPte.61c
Specified land LAC salisfactc:ry based Upon the
assumption risr any buildings art]
conventionally eonsrructed wirh r o special
noisy inarrallatign requingFt^arrN
New GOrmtructiorl or develOp•mern
underrake n only after derai led a rrai yass of the
noise reducsi regvirements is made and
nccessacry noise insultefrionfeaiured are
ncIvied In design. ConvariionaI
cratstructcn bu- with closed windows end
fresh air supply system or air candirionliag
wlt"9 rvanmalty suf ii, -_e. Ourdurrr environment]
Mil Isom noisy.

C,urauwiar NOME ErsaosugE Ism f Lerw ni4 CNEL, DBAI
60 65 70 75 yr,7
Normally
Unoccepratate
Clv9rly
Unocceprnble
New t onshruc for or development generally
discouraged, bul if it doer proceed, a
dcloilcsd anal ysi±oFnois* raduclien
rrea,uirernenis most bn mode wirh needed
nGiSe insuloian Features Included In design
and ouidocrvreos muse be shielded.

New constrIIetion or development generally
roi undertaker Construction cast to make
indoor environment acceptable would be
prohibitive end outdoor environment would
rape be usable.
12610-03 Noise Study
Lbw URBAN
CRtnscR£] lrD,,
1 112 3

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis

3.5 CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from the construction of Ritz -Carlton Residences, noise from construction activities are typically evaluated against standards established under a City's Municipal Code. The Municipal Code noise standards for construction are described below for the City of Rancho Mirage to determine the potential noise impacts at nearby receiver locations.

To control noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Project, the City has established limits to the hours of operation. The City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code, Section

15.04.030 indicates that construction, shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekdays. Construction activity is not permitted on Sundays or major holidays. (12) However, the City's General Plan and Municipal Code do not establish numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers, which would allow for a quantified determination of what CEQA constitutes as the generation of noise levels in excess of standards or as a substantial temporary or periodic noise increase, therefore, the following construction noise level thresholds are used in this noise study.

To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant temporary construction noise levels at off -site sensitive receiver locations, a construction -related noise level threshold is adopted from the Criteria for Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure prepared by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (13) A division of the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH identifies a noise level threshold based on the duration of exposure to the source. The construction related noise level threshold starts at 85 dBA for more than eight hours per day, and for every 3-dBA increase, the exposure time is cut in half. This results in noise level thresholds of 88 dBA for more than four hours per day, 92 dBA for more than one hour per day, 96 dBA for more than 30 minutes per day, and up to 100 dBA for more than 15 minutes per day. (13) For the purposes of this analysis, the lowest, more conservative construction noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq is used as an acceptable threshold for construction noise at the nearby sensitive receiver locations. Since this construction -related noise level threshold represents the energy average of the noise source over a given time, they are expressed as Leq noise levels. Therefore, the noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq over a period of eight hours or more is used to evaluate the potential Project -related construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations.

3.6 VIBRATION STANDARDS
The City of Rancho Mirage has not identified or adopted specific, quantified vibration level standards. However, the United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides guidelines for maximum -acceptable vibration criteria for different types of land uses. These guidelines allow 80 VdB for residential uses and buildings where people normally sleep, and 83 VdB for institutional land uses typically occupied during the daytime hours. (9) Construction activities can result in varying degrees of ground -borne vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type.

The FTA guidelines provide a substantiated basis for determining the relative significance of potential Project vibration impacts due to on -site construction activities. 12610-03 Noise Study
11124
. '' URBAN
C F1CD55RCIaos

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following significance criteria are based on currently adopted guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (1) For the purposes of this report, impacts would be potentially significant if the Project results in or causes:

A. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
B. Generation of excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels? C. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? While the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Guidelines provide direction on noise compatibility and establish noise standards by land use type that are sufficient to assess the significance of noise impacts, they do not define the levels at which increases are considered substantial for use under Guideline A. CEQA Appendix G Guideline C applies to nearby public and private airports, if any, and the Project's land use compatibility.

4.1 CEQA GUIDELINES NOT FURTHER ANALYZED
The Palm Springs Airport (PSP) is located roughly 4 miles north west of the Project site Since the Project is located more than two miles away from the nearest airport, the potential impacts are considered less than significant, and no further noise analysis is provided under Guideline C.

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

In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will typically be judged. The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) (16) developed guidance to be used for the assessment of project -generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level. The FICON recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by aircraft 12610-03 Noise Study
11'25
Celp URBAN
Cfl DSS 1D nos

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these recommendations are often used in environmental noise impact assessments involving the use of cumulative noise exposure metrics, such as the average -daily noise level (CNEL) and equivalent continuous noise level (Leq).

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

4.3 NON -NOISE -SENSITIVE RECEIVERS
The City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Noise Element (Figure 8-2), Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure was used to establish the satisfactory noise levels of significance for non -noise -sensitive land uses in the Project study area. As previously shown on Exhibit 3-A, the normally acceptable exterior noise levels for non -noise -sensitive land uses is 70 dBA CNEL. Noise levels greater than 70 dBA CNEL are considered conditionally acceptable per the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure.

To determine if Project -related traffic noise level increases are significant at off -site non -noise - sensitive land uses, a readily perceptible 5 dBA and barely perceptible 3 dBA criteria were used.

When the without Project noise levels at the non -noise -sensitive land uses are below the normally acceptable 70 dBA CNEL compatibility criteria, a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater noise level increase is considered a significant impact. When the without Project noise levels are greater than the normally acceptable 70 dBA CNEL land use compatibility criteria, a barely perceptible 3 dBA or greater noise level increase is considered a significant impact since the noise level criteria is already exceeded. The noise level increases used to determine significant impacts for non -noise -sensitive land uses is generally consistent with the FICON noise level increase thresholds for noise -sensitive land uses but instead rely on the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Noise Element (Figure 8-2) Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure normally acceptable 70 dBA CNEL exterior noise level criteria.
12610-03 Noise Study
1 126
'rr URBAN
CR¢5 S RO AO S

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis

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.

OFF -SITE TRAFFIC NOISE
• When the noise levels at existing and future noise -sensitive land uses (e.g. residential, etc.):
o are less than 60 dBA CNEL and the Project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA CNEL or greater Project -related noise level increase; or
o range from 60 to 65 dBA CNEL and the Project creates a barely perceptible 3 dBA CNEL or greater Project -related noise level increase; or
o already exceed 65 dBA CNEL, and the Project creates a community noise level increase of greater than 1.5 dBA CNEL (FICON, 1992).
• When the noise levels at existing and future non -noise -sensitive land uses (e.g., office, commercial, industrial):
o are less than the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Noise Element (Figure 8-2), normally acceptable 70 dBA CNEL and the Project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA CNEL or greater Project related noise level increase and the resulting noise level would exceed acceptable exterior noise standards; or
o are greater than the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Noise Element (Figure 8-2), normally acceptable 70 dBA CNEL and the Project creates a barely perceptible 3 dBA CNEL or greater Project noise level increase.

OPERATIONAL NOISE
• If Project -related operational (stationary -source) noise levels exceed 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.) for noise -sensitive residential and institutional uses in the Project study area. (11) • When the noise levels at existing and future noise -sensitive land uses (e.g., residential, etc.):
o are less than 60 dBA Leq and the Project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA Leq or greater Project -related noise level increase; or
o range from 60 to 65 dBA Leq and the Project creates a barely perceptible 3 dBA Leq or greater Project -related noise level increase; or
o already exceed 65 dBA Leq, and the Project creates a community noise level impact of greater than 1.5 dBA Leq (FICON, 1992).

CONSTRUCTION NOISE & VIBRATION
• If Project -related construction activities create noise levels which exceed the 85 dBA Leq acceptable noise level threshold at the nearby sensitive receiver locations (NIOSH, Criteria for Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure).
• If short-term Project generated construction vibration levels exceed the FTA vibration standards of 80 VdB at residential uses (Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment).
12610-03 Noise Study
1127
URBAN

CRQS'SRO AOS

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Analysis
Receiving
Land Use
Condition(s)
Significance Criteria
Daytime
Nighttime
Off -Site
Traffics
Noise
Sensitives,2
If ambient is 65 dBA CNEL
≥ 1.5 dBA CNEL Project increase
Non -Noise-
Sensitives-z
If ambient is 70 dBA CNEL
≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase
Operational
Residential3
Exterior Noise Level Standards
See Table 3-1
If ambient is 65 dBA Legs
≥ 1.5 dBA Leg Project increase
Construction
Noise - activity
Sensitive
Permitted between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Saturdays; with no allowed on Sundays or holidays.'
Noise Level Thresholds
85 dBA Leg
n/a
Vibration Level Threshold6
80 VdB
n/a
'Source: FICON, 1992.
2 Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Noise Element. 3 Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Municipal Code, Section 8.45.030 4Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Municipal Code, Section15.04.030 'Acceptable threshold for construction noise based on the Criteria for Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure prepared by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 6 Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 12610-03 Noise Study
1 128
URBAN
CfC35S RIM AD

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
To assess the existing noise level environment, 24 -hour noise level measurements were taken at five locations in the Project study area. The receiver locations were selected to describe and document the existing noise environment within the Project study area. Exhibit 5-A provides the boundaries of the Project study area and the noise level measurement locations. To fully describe the existing noise conditions, noise level measurements were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on Thursday, December 5th, 2019. Appendix 5.1 includes study area photos.

5.1 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA
To describe the existing noise environment, the hourly noise levels were measured during typical weekday conditions over a 24 -hour period. By collecting individual hourly noise level measurements, it is possible to describe the daytime and nighttime hourly noise levels and calculate the 24 -hour CNEL. The long-term noise readings were recorded using Piccolo Type 2 integrating sound level meter and dataloggers. The Piccolo sound level meters were calibrated using a Larson -Davis calibrator, Model CAL 150. All noise meters were programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (17)

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. (3) 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. (9)
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. (9) 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 12610-03 Noise Study
e► URBAN
1 1229

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
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 average or equivalent sound levels (Leq).

The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Table 5-1 identifies the hourly daytime (7:00 a.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. Appendix 5.2 provides a summary of the existing hourly ambient noise levels described below:
• Location L1 represents the noise levels north of the Project site near existing Villas of Mirada single-family homes and dirt parking lot. The noise levels at this location consist primarily of parking lot vehicle movements from dirt lot to the south. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 49.7 dBA Leq with an average evening noise level of 46.7 dBA Leq and an average nighttime noise level of 44.1 dBA Leq. • Location L2 represents the noise levels near the eastern boundary of the Project site near the existing Ritz -Carlton hotel and vacant land. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 53.4 dBA Leq with an average evening noise level of 48.0 dBA Leq and an average nighttime noise level of 48.1 dBA Leq. The noise levels at this location consist primarily of walkway activity around the Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage • Location L3 represents the noise levels by the western boundary of the Project site near to the gated entrance of the Mirada Estates. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 50.4 dBA Leq with an average evening noise level of 46.6 dBA Leq and an average nighttime noise level of 41.7 dBA Leq. Traffic on Frank Sinatra Drive represents the primary source of noise at this location.

Table 5-1 provides the (energy average) noise levels used to describe the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions. These daytime and nighttime energy average noise levels represent the average of all hourly noise levels observed during these time periods expressed as a single number. Appendix 5.2 provides summary worksheets of the noise levels for each hour as well as the minimum, maximum, L1, L2, Ls, Ls, L25, L50, L9o, L95, and L99 percentile noise levels observed during the daytime and nighttime periods.

The background ambient noise levels in the Project study area are dominated by surface street and parking lot activity. This includes the auto and heavy truck activities on study area roadway segments near the noise level measurement locations. The 24 -hour existing noise level measurement results are shown on Table 5-1.
12610-03 Noise Study
1 130
URBAN

CRQS'SRO AOS

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
TABLE 5-1: 24 -HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Location'
Description
Energy Average Noise Level
(dBA Leq)2
Daytime
Evening
Nighttime
L1
Located north of the Project site near the
existing Villas of Mirada single-family homes and
an open dirt parking lot.

49.7 46.7

44.1 L2
Located near the eastern boundary of the
Project site near the existing Ritz -Carlton hotel
and vacant land.

53.4 48.0

48.1 L3
Located by the western boundary of the Project
site near to the gated entrance of the Mirada
Estates.

50.4 46.6

41.7 'See Exhibit 5-A for the noise level measurement locations. z Energy (logarithmic) average levels. The long-term 24 -hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix 5.2. "Day" = 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; "Evening" = 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Night" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 12610-03 Noise Study
1 131
URBAN
CRCDSS RIM ADFs

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
LEGEND:

A, Measiiromerit Locations
12610-03 Noise Study
1 1232

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
6 METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The following section outlines the methods and procedures used to model and analyze the future traffic noise environment.

6.1 FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
The expected roadway noise level increases from vehicular traffic were calculated using a computer program that replicates the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108. (18) The FHWA Model arrives at a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL). In California the national REMELs are substituted with the California Vehicle Noise (Calveno) Emission Levels. (19) 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. (5)

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 four study area roadway segments, the distance from the centerline to adjacent land use based on the functional roadway classifications per the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Element, and the posted vehicle speeds. Consistent with Ritz -Carlton Residences Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (3) the off -site traffic noise analysis maintains a peak hour to average daily traffic (peak -to -daily) relationship of approximately 16.06% and includes the following traffic scenarios. • Existing (2019) Without Project
• Existing (2019) With Project
• Existing Plus Ambient Growth (EAP) (2023) Without Project • Existing Plus Ambient Growth (EAP) (2023) With Project • Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects (EAC) (2023) Without Project • Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects (EAC) (2023) With Project • Horizon Year (2040) Without Project
• Horizon Year (2040) With Project
12610-03 Noise Study
1 133
URBAN

CRQS'SRO AOS

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
The average daily traffic (ADT) volumes used for this study are presented on Table 6-2. 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 6-1: OFF -SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS
ID
Roadway
Segment
Receiving
Land Usel
Classification'
Distance from
Centerline to
Receiving Land
Use (Feet)2
Vehicle
Speed
(mph)
1 State Route 111
n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR
Major Arterial
60'
50 2
State Route 111
s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR/O
Major Arterial
60'
50 3
Frank Sinatra Dr.
w/o State Route 111
R-M/R-L/Rs-H
Local
30'
30 4
Frank Sinatra Dr.
e/o State Route 111

C-G/O/MHP
Minor Arterial
55'
35 Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, Chapter 2, Exhibit 1, Land Use Map 'Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, Chapter 3, Exhibit 8, Circulation Roadway Plan. 3 Distance to receiving land use is based upon the right-of-way distances for each roadway classification provided in the Circulation Element. "C -G" = General Commercial; "MR" = Mountain Reserve Open Space; "O" = Office; "R -M" = Medium Density Residential; "R -L" = Low Density Residential; "Rs -H" = Resort Hotel; "MHP" = Mobile Home Park. 12610-03 Noise Study
1 134
URBAN
twpSSR1D nDs

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
TABLE 6-2: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ID
Roadway
Segment
Average Daily Traffic Volumes'
Existing
Existing + Ambient
EA
� )
Existing + Ambient
+ Cumulative (EAC)
Horizon Year
2040
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
1 State Route 111
n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.
41,685
41,953
45,122
45,390
46,714
46,982
51,385
51,653
2 State Route 111
s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.
37,066
37,494
40,121
40,549
40,917
41,345
45,009
45,437
3 Frank Sinatra Dr.
w/o State Route 111
2,553
3,623
2,763
3,833
2,945
4,015
3,240
4,310
4 Frank Sinatra Dr.
e/o State Route 111
14,494
14,868
15,689
16,063
16,025
16,399
17,627
18,001
1 Source: Ritz -Carlton Residences Traffic Impact Analysis. 12610-03 Noise Study
1 1235
(`1 URBAN
CRCFS 5 RC]eAI

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
TABLE 6-3: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS
Vehicle Type
Time of Day Splits'
Total of Time of
Day Splits
Daytime
Evening
Nighttime
Autos

75.55%

13.96%

10.49%
100.00%
Medium Trucks

48.91%

2.17%

48.91%
100.00%
Heavy Trucks

47.30%

5.41%

47.30%
100.00%
' Source: 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: DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW BY VEHICLE TYPE (VEHICLE MIX) Classification
Total % Traffic Flow
Total
Autos
Medium Trucks
Heavy Trucks
All Roadwaysl

97.42%

1.84%

0.74%
100.00%
'Source: Typical Southern California vehicle mix.

6.2 VIBRATION ASSESSMENT
Construction has the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction activities and equipment used. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized on Table 6-5. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the human response (annoyance) using the following vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA. To describe the human response (annoyance) associated with vibration impacts the FTA provides the following equation: LvdB(D) = LvdB(25 ft) — 30log(D/25) TABLE 6-5: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment
Vibration Decibels (VdB)
at 25 feed
Small bulldozer
58 Jackhammer
79 Loaded Trucks
86 Large bulldozer
87 Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 12610-03 Noise Study
1 1336
'` URBAN
CRp5'SRO ADS

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
7 OFF -SITE TRANSPORTATION 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 Ritz -Carlton Residences Traffic Impact Analysis. (3) Noise contour boundaries represent the equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway. Noise contours were developed for the following traffic scenarios:
• Existing Without I With Project: This scenario refers to the existing present-day 2019 noise conditions, without and with the development of the full Project. The existing with Project scenario will not actually occur since the Project would not be fully constructed and operational until 2023 conditions.
• Existing alus Ambient (EA) 2023 Without / With Project: This scenario refers to the existing noise conditions plus the estimated 4 years of background growth in ambient traffic conditions without and with the development of the full Project.
• Existing alus Ambient plus Cumulative (EAC) 2023 Without / With Project: This scenario refers to the existing plus ambient plus cumulative noise conditions at 2023 without and with the proposed Project.
• Horizon Year 2040 Without / With Project: This scenario refers to the future Horizon Year conditions at Year 2040 without and with the proposed Project. This scenario represents buildout of the General Plan land use and includes all cumulative projects identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis.

7.1 TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS
Noise contours were used to assess the Project's incremental traffic -related noise impacts at land uses adjacent to roadways conveying Project traffic. The noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of a constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA 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 and 7-8 present a summary of the exterior traffic noise levels for each traffic condition.

Appendix 7.1 includes the traffic noise level contours worksheets for each traffic condition. 12610-03 Noise Study
1 1337
► URBAN
CRpS'S RIM AOS

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
TABLE 7-1: EXISTING 2019 WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ID
Road
Segment
Receiving
Land Usel
CNEL at
Nearest
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)2
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 State Route 111
n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR

76.9 172
370
798
2 State Route 111
s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR/O

76.3 159
342
738
3 Frank Sinatra Dr.
w/o State Route 111
R-M/R-L/Rs-H

62.0 RW
RW
41 4
Frank Sinatra Dr.
e/o State Route 111

C-G/O/MHP

68.0 RW
88 189
'Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, Chapter 2, Exhibit 1, Land Use Map 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. "C -G" = General Commercial; "MR" = Mountain Reserve Open Space; "O" = Office; "R -M" = Medium Density Residential; "R -L" = Low Density Residential; "Rs -H" = Resort Hotel; "MHP" = Mobile Home Park.

TABLE 7-2: EXISTING 2019 WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS
ID
Road
Segment
Receiving
Land Use'
CNEL at
Nearest
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)2
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 State Route 111
n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR

76.9 173
372
801
2 State Route 111
s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR/O

76.4 160
345
743
3 Frank Sinatra Dr.
w/o State Route 111
R-M/R-L/Rs-H

63.6 RW
RW
52 4
Frank Sinatra Dr.
e/o State Route 111

C-G/O/MHP

68.2 RW
89 192
'Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, Chapter 2, Exhibit 1, Land Use Map 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. "C -G" = General Commercial; "MR" = Mountain Reserve Open Space; "O" = Office; "R -M" = Medium Density Residential; "R -L" = Low Density Residential; "Rs -H" = Resort Hotel; "MHP" = Mobile Home Park. 12610-03 Noise Study
1 1338
elD URBAN
CfC35S ROAMS

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
TABLE 7-3: EA 2023 WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS
ID
Road
Segment
Receiving
Land Usel
CNEL at
Nearest
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)2
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 State Route 111
n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR

77.2 181
390
841
2 State Route 111
s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR/0

76.7 168
361
778
3 Frank Sinatra Dr.
w/o State Route 111
R-M/R-L/Rs-H

62.4 RW
RW
43 4
Frank Sinatra Dr.
e/o State Route 111
C-G/0/MHP

68.4 RW
93 199
'Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, Chapter 2, Exhibit 1, Land Use Map 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. "C -G" = General Commercial; "MR" = Mountain Reserve Open Space; "O" = Office; "R -M" = Medium Density Residential; "R -L" = Low Density Residential; "Rs -H" = Resort Hotel; "MHP" = Mobile Home Park.

TABLE 7-4: EA 2023 WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS
ID
Road
Segment
Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at
Nearest
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)2
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 State Route 111
n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR

77.2 182
392
844
2 State Route 111
s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR/0

76.7 169
364
783
3 Frank Sinatra Dr.
w/o State Route 111
R-M/R-L/Rs-H

63.8 RW
RW
54 4
Frank Sinatra Dr.
e/o State Route 111
C-G/0/MHP

68.5 RW
94 202
'Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, Chapter 2, Exhibit 1, Land Use Map 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. "C -G" = General Commercial; "MR" = Mountain Reserve Open Space; "O" = Office; "R -M" = Medium Density Residential; "R -L" = Low Density Residential; "Rs -H" = Resort Hotel; "MHP" = Mobile Home Park. 12610-03 Noise Study
1 1339
elD URBAN
CfC35S ROAMS

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
TABLE 7-5: EAC 2023 WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS
ID
Road
Segment
Receiving
Land Usel
CNEL at
Nearest
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)2
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 State Route 111
n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR

77.4 185
400
861
2 State Route 111
s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR/O

76.8 170
366
788
3 Frank Sinatra Dr.
w/o State Route 111
R-M/R-L/Rs-H

62.7 RW
RW
45 4
Frank Sinatra Dr.
e/o State Route 111

C-G/O/MHP

TABLE 7-6: EAC 2023 WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS
ID
Road
Segment
Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at
Nearest
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)2
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 State Route 111
n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR

77.4 186
401
864
2 State Route 111
s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR/O

76.8 171
368
793
3 Frank Sinatra Dr.
w/o State Route 111
R-M/R-L/Rs-H

64.0 RW
RW
55 4
Frank Sinatra Dr.
e/o State Route 111

C-G/O/MHP

68.6 RW
95 205
'Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, Chapter 2, Exhibit 1, Land Use Map 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. "C -G" = General Commercial; "MR" = Mountain Reserve Open Space; "O" = Office; "R -M" = Medium Density Residential; "R -L" = Low Density Residential; "Rs -H" = Resort Hotel; "MHP" = Mobile Home Park. 12610-03 Noise Study
1 1340
elD URBAN
CfC35S ROAMS

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
TABLE 7-7: HORIZON YEAR 2040 WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ID
Road
Segment
Receiving
Land Use'
CNEL at
Nearest
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)2
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 State Route 111
n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR

77.8 198
426
917
2 State Route 111
s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR/O

77.2 181
390
840
3 Frank Sinatra Dr.
w/o State Route 111
R-M/R-L/Rs-H

63.1 RW
RW
48 4
Frank Sinatra Dr.
e/o State Route 111

C-G/O/MHP

68.9 RW
100
215
'Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, Chapter 2, Exhibit 1, Land Use Map 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. "C -G" = General Commercial; "MR" = Mountain Reserve Open Space; "O" = Office; "R -M" = Medium Density Residential; "R -L" = Low Density Residential; "Rs -H" = Resort Hotel; "MHP" = Mobile Home Park.

TABLE 7-8: HORIZON YEAR 2040 WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ID
Road
Segment
Receiving
Land Use'
CNEL at
Nearest
Receiving
Land Use
(dBA)2
Distance to Contour from
Centerline (Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
1 State Route 111
n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR

77.8 198
427
920
2 State Route 111
s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR/O

77.2 182
392
845
3 Frank Sinatra Dr.
w/o State Route 111
R-M/R-L/Rs-H

64.3 RW
RW
58 4
Frank Sinatra Dr.
e/o State Route 111

C-G/O/MHP

69.0 RW
101
218
'Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, Chapter 2, Exhibit 1, Land Use Map 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. "C -G" = General Commercial; "MR" = Mountain Reserve Open Space; "O" = Office; "R -M" = Medium Density Residential; "R -L" = Low Density Residential; "Rs -H" = Resort Hotel; "MHP" = Mobile Home Park.

7.2 EXISTING 2019 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 for informational purposes and to fully analyze all the existing traffic scenarios identified in the Ritz -Carlton Residences Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. However, the analysis of existing off -site traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the proposed Project scenario will not actually occur since the Project would not be fully constructed and operational until future year 2023 plus cumulative conditions.

Therefore, no mitigation measures are considered to reduce the Existing Plus Project traffic noise level increases. The EAC 2023 and Horizon Year 2040 traffic noise conditions that include all 12610-03 Noise Study
URBAN
CR¢5 S R1D AD S

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
cumulative projects are used to determine the significance of the Project off -site traffic noise level increases on the study area roadway segments.

Table 7-1 shows the Existing 2019 without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Existing 2019 without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 62.0 to 76.9 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-2 shows the Existing 2019 with Project conditions range from 63.6 to 76.9 dBA CNEL. Table 7-9 shows that the Project off -site traffic noise level increases range from 0.0 to 1.6 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments.

7.3 EA 2023 PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Table 7-3 presents the EA 2023 without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The EA 2023 without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 62.4 to 77.2 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-4 shows the EA 2023 with Project conditions range from 63.8 to 77.2 dBA CNEL. Table 7-10 shows that the Project off -site traffic noise level increases range from 0.0 to 1.4 dBA CNEL.

7.4 EAC 2023 PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Table 7-5 presents the EAC 2023 without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The EAC 2023 without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 62.7 to 77.4 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-6 shows the EAC 2023 with Project conditions range from 64.0 to 77.4 dBA CNEL. Table 7-11 shows that the Project off -site traffic noise level increases range from 0.0 to 1.3 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.

7.5 HORIZON YEAR 2040 PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Table 7-7 presents the Horizon Year 2040 without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Horizon Year 2040 without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 63.1 to 77.8 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 7-8 shows the Horizon Year 2040 with Project conditions range from 64.3 to

77.8 dBA CNEL. Table 7-12 shows that the Project off -site traffic noise level increases range from

0.0 to 1.2 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. 12610-03 Noise Study
11342
URBAN
C F1CD55RCIaos

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
TABLE 7-9: EXISTING 2019 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ID
Road
Segment
Receiving
Land Use 1
Noise- CNEL
Sensitive
Land
Use?
at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Noise Level Increase
Significance Criteria'
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
1 State Route 111
n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR
No

76.9 76.9

0.0 3.0
No
2 State Route 111
s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR/O
No

76.3 76.4

0.1 3.0
No
3 Frank Sinatra Dr.
w/o State Route 111
R-M/R-L/Rs-H
Yes

62.0 63.6

1.6 3.0
No
4 Frank Sinatra Dr.
e/o State Route 111

C-G/O/MHP
Yes

68.0 68.2

0.2 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 off -site transportation related noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? "C -G" = General Commercial; "MR" = Mountain Reserve Open Space; "O" = Office; "R -M" = Medium Density Residential; "R -L" = Low Density Residential; "Rs -H" = Resort Hotel; "MHP" = Mobile Home Park.

TABLE 7-10: EA 2023 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ID
Road
Segment
Receiving
Land Use'
Noise-
Sensitive
Land
Use?
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Noise Level Increase
Significance Criteria'
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
1 State Route 111
n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR
No

77.2 77.2

0.0 3.0
No
2 State Route 111
s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR/O
No

76.7 76.7

0.0 3.0
No
3 Frank Sinatra Dr.
w/o State Route 111
R-M/R-L/Rs-H
Yes

62.4 63.8

1.4 3.0
No
4 Frank Sinatra Dr.
e/o State Route 111

C-G/O/MHP
Yes

68.4 68.5

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 off -site transportation related noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? "C -G" = General Commercial; "MR" = Mountain Reserve Open Space; "O" = Office; "R -M" = Medium Density Residential; "R -L" = Low Density Residential; "Rs -H" = Resort Hotel; "MHP" = Mobile Home Park.
12610-03 Noise Study
11343
elr URBAN
CRCFS 5 RC]eAI

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
TABLE 7-11: EAC 2023 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ID
Road
Segment
Receiving
Land Use"
Noise- CNEL
Sensitive
Land
7 Use.
at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Noise Level Increase
Significance Criteria'
Significant
Impact?
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
1 State Route 111
n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR
No

77.4 77.4

0.0 3.0
No
No
2 State Route 111
s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR/O
No

76.8 76.8

0.0 3.0
No
No
3 Frank Sinatra Dr.
w/o State Route 111
R-M/R-L/Rs-H
Yes

62.7 64.0

1.3 3.0
No
No
4 Frank Sinatra Dr.
e/o State Route 111

C-G/O/MHP
Yes

68.5 68.6

0.1 1.5
No
No
'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 off -site transportation related noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? "C -G" = General Commercial; "MR" = Mountain Reserve Open Space; "O" = Office; "R -M" = Medium Density Residential; "R -L" = Low Density Residential; "Rs -H" = Resort Hotel; "MHP" = Mobile Home Park.

TABLE 7-12: HORIZON YEAR 2040 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ID
Road
Segment
Receiving
Land Use"
Noise-
Sensitive
Land
Use?
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)1
Noise Level Increase
Significance Criteria'
Significant
Impact?
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
1 State Route 111
n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR
No

77.8 77.8

0.0 3.0
No
No
2 State Route 111
s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

C-G/MR/O
No

77.2 77.2

0.0 3.0
No
No
3 Frank Sinatra Dr.
w/o State Route 111
R-M/R-L/Rs-H
Yes

63.1 64.3

1.2 3.0
No
No
4 Frank Sinatra Dr.
e/o State Route 111

C-G/O/MHP
Yes

68.9 69.0

0.1 1.5
No
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. 'Does the Project create an off -site transportation related noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? "C -G" = General Commercial; "MR" = Mountain Reserve Open Space; "O" = Office; "R -M" = Medium Density Residential; "R -L" = Low Density Residential; "Rs -H" = Resort Hotel; "MHP" = Mobile Home Park. 12610-03 Noise Study
'I► URBAN
11 I4

CROPS S ROPAO S

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
8 SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS
To assess the potential for long-term short-term construction noise impacts, the following sensitive 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.

Receiver locations are located in outdoor living areas (e.g., backyards) at 10 feet from any existing or proposed barriers or at the building facade, whichever is closer to the Project site, based on FHWA guidance, and consistent with additional guidance provided by Caltrans and the FTA, as previously described in Section 5.2. Sensitive receiver locations in the Project study area include the nearby residential uses, as described below. 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.

R1: Located approximately 591 feet north of the Project site, R1 represents existing residential homes (1 Santa Rosa Mountain Lane) west of Frank Sinatra Drive. A 24 -hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R2: Location R2 represents the Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage located northeast of the Project site at roughly 66 feet. A 24 -hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R3: Location R3 represents the existing residential homes (29 Grande View Court) on the south side of Mirada Circle at approximately 21 feet from the Project site.

R4: Location R4 represents the existing residential home located at 30 Grande View Court approximately 33 feet from the Project site boundary.

R5: Location R5 represents the existing residential home located at 31 Mirada Circle approximately 69 feet from the Project site boundary.

R6: Location R6 represents the existing residential home located at 46 Mirada Circle approximately 108 feet from the Project site boundary.

R7: Location R7 represents the existing residential home located 45 Mirada Circle approximately 125 feet from the Project site boundary.

R8: Location R8 represents the existing residential home located at 1 Mirada Circle approximately 160 feet from the Project site boundary.
12610-03 Noise Study
11; 5
URBAN
taps RIM AD

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
EXHIBIT 8-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS
LEGEND:
i ereived Locations
• ©ustanee from receiver to Project site boundary IFn Feet} 12610-03 Noise Study
1 111.6
IN�B
r.ipssillitiB

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
9 OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS
This section analyzes the potential stationary -source operational noise impacts at the nearby receiver locations, identified in Section 8, resulting from the operation of the proposed Ritz - Carlton Residences Project. Exhibit 9-A identifies the noise source locations used to assess the operational noise levels.

9.1 OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCES
It is expected the on -site Project -related noise sources will include: air conditioning units, pool activity and outdoor courtyard activity. This noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with the typical operational activities at the Project site.

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 air conditioning units, pool activity and outdoor courtyard activity all operating at the same time. These noise level impacts will likely vary throughout the day.

9.2.1 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES
The reference noise level measurements presented in this section were collected using Larson Davis Lxt Type 1 and Piccolo Type 2 integrating sound level meters and dataloggers. All sound level meters were 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. (17) 12610-03 Noise Study
11E47
URBAN
Cfl DSS 1D nos

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
EXHIBIT 9-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS
LEGEND:

Alr Conditioning Unit
Pool Attivity
outdoor Aethoity Area
12610-03 Noise Study
1 '11.8
e' URBAN
crsp5.srao,Ao5

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
TABLE 9-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Noise Source
Duration
(hh:mm:ss)
Ref.

Distance
(Feet)
Noise
Source Power
Height
(Feet) Dist.

Min./Hour a
Reference Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Sound
Level
(dBA) s
Day
Eve.

Night
@ Ref.
@ 50
Feet
Air Conditioning Units'
96:00:00
5'
5'
39 39
28 77.2

57.2 88.9
Pool Activity2
00:10:00
5'
4'
60 60
0 68.7

48.7 80.4
Courtyard Activity'
00:08:00
10'
5'
60 60
0 73.8

59.8 91.5
'As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. at the Santee Walmart located at 170 Town Center Parkway. z As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. at the Covenant Hill Clubhouse poo in Ladera Ranch. 'As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on the Patio at Louie's by the Bay in the City of Newport Beach. ' Anticipated duration (minutes within the hour) of noise activity during typical hourly conditions expected at the Project site. "Day" = 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; "Evening" = 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Night" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. '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. Numbers may vary due to size differences between point and area noise sources.

9.2.2 AIR CONDITIONING UNITS
To assess the impacts created by the roof -top air conditioning units at the Project buildings, reference noise levels measurements were taken over a four -day total duration at the Santee Walmart. Located at 170 Town Center Parkway in the City of Santee, the noise level measurements describe mechanical roof -top air conditioning units on the roof of an existing Walmart store, with additional roof -top units operating in the background. The reference noise level represents Lennox SCA120 series 10 -ton model packaged air conditioning units. At 5 feet from the closest roof -top air conditioning unit, the highest exterior noise level from all four days of the measurement period was measured at 77.2 dBA Leq. Using the uniform reference distance of 50 feet, the noise level is 57.2 dBA Leq. The operating conditions of the reference noise level measurement reflect peak summer cooling requirements. The air conditioning units were observed to operate 39 minutes during the daytime and evening hours and 28 minutes per hour during the nighttime hours.

9.2.3 PooL ACTIVITY
To represent the noise levels associated with pool activities, Urban Crossroads collected a reference noise level measurement at the Covenant Hill Clubhouse Pool in the unincorporated community of Ladera Ranch in the County of Orange. The measured reference noise level at the uniform 50 -foot reference distance is 48.7 dBA Leq for pool activity. The pool activity noise levels include kids playing, running, screaming, splashing, playing with a ball, and parents talking. Noise associated with pool activities is expected to occur for the entire hour (60 minutes).

9.2.4 COURTYARD ACTIVITY
To describe the outdoor common area courtyards activity areas, a reference noise level measurement was taken at the Louie's by the Bay in Newport Beach. 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 patrons laughing and talking. Courtyard activities are limited to the daytime and evening hours. 12610-03 Noise Study
1 '11.9

D URBAN
CRpS'SRO ADS

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis

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 the noise level of multiple types of noise sources and calculates the noise levels at any location using the spatially accurate Project site plan and includes the effects of topography, buildings, and multiple barriers in its calculations using the latest standards to predict outdoor noise impacts. Appendix 9.1 includes the detailed noise model inputs used to estimate the Project operational noise levels presented in this section.

Using the spatially accurate Project site plan and flown aerial imagery from Nearmap, a CadnaA noise prediction model of the Project study area was developed. The noise model provides a three-dimensional representation of the Project study area using the following key data inputs:
• Ground absorption;
• Multiple reflections at buildings and barriers;
• Reference noise level sources by type (area, point, etc.) and noise source height; • Multiple noise receiver locations and heights;
• Topography and earthen berms;
• Barrier and building heights.

Using the ISO 9613 protocol, the CadnaA noise prediction model will calculate the distance from each noise source to the noise receiver locations, using the ground absorption, distance, and barrier/building attenuation inputs to provide a summary of noise level calculations at each receiver location and the partial noise level contributions by noise source. The reference sound power level (PWL) for the highest noise source expected at the Project site was input into the CadnaA noise prediction model. While sound pressure levels (e.g. Leq) quantify in decibels the intensity of given sound sources at a reference distance, sound power levels (PWL) are connected to the sound source and are independent of distance. Sound pressure levels vary substantially with distance from the source and diminish as a result 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 at 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 10:00 p.m., evening hours of 7:00 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 26.7 to 47.2 dBA Leq. 12610-03 Noise Study
1 ''50
'► URBAN
CRpS'S RAM AOS

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
TABLE 9-2: PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Receiver
Location'
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Threshold Exceeded?'
Day
Eve.

Night
Day
Eve.

Night
R1

29.6 30.3

26.7 55
50 45
No
No
No
R2

41.9 42.9

37.3 55
50 45
No
No
No
R3

46.8 47.2

44.6 55
50 45
No
No
No
R4

43.7 43.7

42.2 55
50 45
No
No
No
R5

43.5 43.6

42.0 55
50 45
No
No
No
R6

43.1 43.5

40.8 55
50 45
No
No
No
R7

42.3 42.3

40.7 55
50 45
No
No
No
R8

35.3 35.4

33.7 55
50 45
No
No
No
1 See Exhibit 8-A for the noise source and receiver locations. 2 Proposed Project operational noise level calculations included in Appendix 9.1. 3 City of Rancho Mirage exterior noise level standards for residential land use, as shown on Table 3-1. ° Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Day" = 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; "Evening" = 7:00 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 Ritz -Carlton Residences Project will satisfy the City of Rancho Mirage 55 dBA Leq daytime, 50 dBA Leq evening and 45 dBA Leq 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.

9.5 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL CONTRIBUTIONS
To describe the Project operational noise level contributions, 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 -operational and existing ambient noise levels cannot be combined using standard arithmetic equations. (3) Instead, they must be logarithmically added using the following base equation:

SPLTotai = 1Olc gio[1OSPL1/10 105PL2/10 + 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 describe the Project noise level contributions 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 4.7 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations.
12610-03 Noise Study
1145 1
'► URBAN
twpSSR1D nDs

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
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 Project related operational noise level increases at all sensitive receiver locations will be less than significant.
12610-03 Noise Study
1 1452
URBAN
Cf CD5sRCIaos

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
TABLE 9-3: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL CONTRIBUTIONS Receiver
Locations
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels4
Combined
Project and
Ambients
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria'
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?'
R1

29.6 L1

49.7 49.7

0.0 5.0
No
R2

41.9 L2

53.4 53.7

0.3 5.0
No
R3

46.8 L3

50.4 52.0

1.6 5.0
No
R4

43.7 L3

50.4 51.2

0.8 5.0
No
R5

43.5 L3

50.4 51.2

0.8 5.0
No
R6

43.1 L3

50.4 51.1

0.7 5.0
No
R7

42.3 L3

50.4 51.0

0.6 5.0
No
R8

35.3 L3

50.4 50.5

0.1 5.0
No
'See Exhibit 8-A for the sensitive receiver locations.
z 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.

Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. e The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities.

Significance Criteria as defined in Section 4.
12610-03 Noise Study
1 1'5 3
(`1 URBAN
CRCFS 5 RmeA[3 s

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
TABLE 9-4: EVENING OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL CONTRIBUTIONS Receiver
Location 1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level'
Measurement
Location'
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels.'
Combined
Project and
Ambient'
Project
Increase'
Increase
Criteria,
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?'
R1

30.3 L1

46.7 46.8

0.1 5.0
No
R2

42.9 L2

48.0 49.2

1.2 5.0
No
R3

47.2 L3

46.6 49.9

3.3 5.0
No
R4

43.7 L3

46.6 48.4

1.8 5.0
No
R5

43.6 L3

46.6 48.4

1.8 5.0
No
R6

43.5 L3

46.6 48.3

1.7 5.0
No
R7

42.3 L3

46.6 48.0

1.4 5.0
No
R8

35.4 L3

46.6 46.9

0.3 5.0
No
'See Exhibit 8-A for the sensitive receiver locations.
z Total Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 9-2.

Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. ° Observed evening ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1. s Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. e The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities.

Significance Criteria as defined in Section 4.
12610-03 Noise Study
11'54

12...)r URBAN
CRCFS 5 RC]eAI

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
TABLE 9-5: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL CONTRIBUTIONS Receiver
Location 1
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level'
Measurement
Location'
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels'
Combined
Project and
Ambient'
Project
Increase'
Increase
Criteria,
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?'
R1

26.7 L1

44.1 44.2

0.1 5.0
No
R2

37.3 L2

48.1 48.4

0.3 5.0
No
R3

44.6 L3

41.7 46.4

4.7 5.0
No
R4

42.2 L3

41.7 45.0

3.3 5.0
No
R5

42.0 L3

41.7 44.9

3.2 5.0
No
R6

40.8 L3

41.7 44.3

2.6 5.0
No
R7

40.7 L3

41.7 44.2

2.5 5.0
No
R8

33.7 L3

41.7 42.3

0.6 5.0
No
'See Exhibit 8-A for the sensitive receiver locations.
z Total Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 9-2.

Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. ° Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1. s Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities.

Significance Criteria as defined in Section 4.
12610-03 Noise Study
11'5
(`1 URBAN
CRCFS 5 RmeA[3 s

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
12610-03 Noise Study
1 1556
C URB u

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
10 CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS
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 activity boundaries in relation to the nearby sensitive receiver locations.

10.1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
Noise generated by the Project construction equipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. The number and mix of construction equipment are expected to occur in the following stages:
• Demolition
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating
This construction noise analysis was prepared using reference noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. to describe the typical construction activity noise levels for each stage of Project construction. The construction reference noise level measurements represent a list of typical construction activity noise levels. Noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 68 dBA to in excess of 80 dBA when measured at 50 feet. Hard site conditions are used in the construction noise analysis which result in noise levels that attenuate (or decrease) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from a point source (i.e. construction equipment). For example, a noise level of 80 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receiver would be reduced to 74 dBA at 100 feet from the source to the receiver and would be further reduced to 68 dBA at 200 feet from the source to the receiver.

10.2 CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
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. To assess the worst -case construction noise levels, the Project construction noise analysis relies on the highest noise level impacts when the equipment with the highest reference noise level is operating at the closest point from the edge of construction activity area for each stage of construction to the nearest receiver location. Appendix 10.1 includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs. 12610-03 Noise Study
11557
►URBAN

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
EXHIBIT 10-A: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS
LLarge loaded trucks and doLers
(84,{100 pounds or more} shall
not be used within 50 feet of
any receiver location at . the
time of Project construction.

I LEGEND:
•� Distance from receiver to Protect site boundary tin Feet) N Construction Activity
,1 50 -teat butler rot large ipad4d trucks and mobile equipment (>O.i4DIl1bs,l 12610-03 Noise Study
1 1558
? URBAN

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
TABLE 10-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
Construction
Stage
Reference Construction Activity'
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Highest Reference
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Demolition
Demolition Activity

67.9 71.9
Backhoe

64.2 Water Truck Pass -By & Backup Alarm

71.9 Site
Preparation
Scraper, Water Truck, & Dozer Activity

75.3 75.3
Backhoe

64.2 Water Truck Pass -By & Backup Alarm

71.9 Grading
Rough Grading Activities

73.5 73.5
Water Truck Pass -By & Backup Alarm

71.9 Construction Vehicle Maintenance Activities

67.5 Building
Construction
Foundation Trenching

68.2 71.6
Framing

62.3 Concrete Mixer Backup Alarms & Air Brakes

71.6 Paving
Concrete Mixer Truck Movements

71.2 71.2
Concrete Paver Activities

65.6 Concrete Mixer Pour & Paving Activities

65.9 Architectural
Coating
Air Compressors

65.2 65.2
Generator

64.9 Crane

62.3 ' Reference construction noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc.

10.3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
The construction noise analysis shows that the highest construction noise levels will occur when construction activities take place at the closest point from the edge of the construction activity areas to each of the nearby receiver locations. As shown on Table 10-2, the unmitigated construction noise levels are expected to range from 42.1 to 70.6 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations. Project construction noise levels are considered exempt if activities occur within the hours specified in the City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code Section 15.04.030 of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays.

To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearby receiver locations a construction -related the NIOSH noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq is used as acceptable thresholds for construction noise at the nearby sensitive receiver locations.

The construction noise analysis shows that the noise sensitive residential receiver locations will satisfy the 85 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities as shown on Table 10-3. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise is considered less than significant at all noise sensitive receiver locations 12610-03 Noise Study
1 1559
lerk URB

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
TABLE 10-2: UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY Receiver
Locations
Construction Noise Leve
s (dBA Leq)
Demolition
Site
Preparation
Grading
Building
Construction
Paving
Architectural
Coating
Highest
Levels'
R1

48.8 52.2

50.4 48.5

48.1 42.1

52.2 R2

66.2 69.6

67.8 65.9

65.5 59.5

69.6 R3

66.9 70.3

68.5 66.6

66.2 60.2

70.3 R4

67.2 70.6

68.8 66.9

66.5 60.5

70.6 R5

66.8 70.2

68.4 66.5

66.1 60.1

70.2 R6

61.8 65.2

63.4 61.5

61.1 55.1

65.2 R7

63.1 66.5

64.7 62.8

62.4 56.4

66.5 R8

52.7 56.1

54.3 52.4

52.0 46.0

56.1 1 Construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-A. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to nearby receiver locations.

CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 10.1.

TABLE 10-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Locations
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels'
Threshold3
Threshold
Exceeded?'
R1

52.2 85
No
R2

69.6 85
No
R3

70.3 85
No
R4

70.6 85
No
R5

70.2 85
No
R6

65.2 85
No
R7

66.5 85
No
R8

56.1 85
No
'Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-A.
2 Highest construction noise evel calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to nearby receiver locations as shown on Table 10-2.
3 Construction noise level thresholds as shown on Table 4-1. ° Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold?

10.4 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground -borne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. The proposed Project's construction activities most likely to cause vibration impacts are:
12610-03 Noise Study
1 1560
( ►URBAN

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
• Heavy Construction Equipment: Although all heavy mobile construction equipment has the potential of causing at least some perceptible vibration, the vibration is usually short-term and is not of sufficient magnitude to cause building damage.
• Trucks: Trucks hauling building materials to construction sites can be sources of vibration intrusion if the haul routes pass through residential neighborhoods on streets with bumps or potholes. Repairing the bumps and potholes generally eliminates the problem.

Ground -borne vibration levels resulting from construction activities occurring within the Project site were estimated by data published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Construction activities that would have the potential to generate low levels of ground -borne vibration within the Project site during various stages of construction. Using the vibration source level of construction equipment provided on Table 6-5 and the construction vibration assessment methodology published by the FTA, it is possible to estimate the Project vibration impacts. Table 10-4 presents the expected Project related vibration levels at the nearby receiver locations.

TABLE 10-4: UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS Receiver'
Distance
to Const.

Activity
(Feet)2
Receiver Vibration Levels (VdB)3
Threshold
Vd6 °
( )
Threshold
Exceeded?5
Small
Bulldozer
Jack-
hammer
Loaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Levels
R1
591'

16.8 37.8

44.8 45.8

45.8 80
No
R2
66'

45.4 66.4

73.4 74.4

74.4 80
No
R3
21'

60.3 81.3

88.3 89.3

89.3 80
Yes
R4
33'

54.4 75.4

82.4 83.4

83.4 80
Yes
R5
69'

44.8 65.8

72.8 73.8

73.8 80
No
R6
108'

38.9 59.9

66.9 67.9

67.9 80
No
R7
125'

37.0 58.0

65.0 66.0

66.0 80
No
R8
160'

33.8 54.8

61.8 62.8

62.8 80
No
1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-A.
z Distance from receiver locations to the source of the nearest construction activity.

Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 6-5. ° Does the peak vibration exceed the vibration thresholds? Does the vibration level exceed the FTA acceptable vibration level? At distances ranging from 21 to 591 feet from Project construction activity, construction vibration velocity levels are expected to range from 45.8 to 89.3 VdB and will exceed the FTA 80 VdB threshold for human annoyance at receiver locations R3 and R4. The construction vibration analysis shows that the unmitigated Project -related vibration impacts will be potentially significant during the construction activities at the Project site and mitigation is required.

Therefore, a 50 -foot vibration buffer zone mitigation measure is required restricting the use of large loaded trucks and dozers (greater than 80,000 pounds) within 50 -feet of occupied sensitive receiver locations R3 and R4. With the mitigation measures identified in this report, and shown on Exhibit 10-A, the mitigated vibration levels with the 50 -foot buffer zone will be reduced to

78.0 VdB and will satisfy the FTA 80 VdB threshold for human annoyance as shown on Table 10- 12610-03 Noise Study
1 156 1
ICIPrF URBAN
cfrs5.sROAJ a

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis

5. Therefore, impacts with the construction vibration mitigation measure identified in this study will be less than significant.

Further, vibration levels at the site of the closest sensitive receiver are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating simultaneously adjacent to the Project site perimeter.

Moreover, construction at the Project site will be restricted to the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday to Saturday consistent with City of Rancho Mirage requirements thereby eliminating potential vibration impacts during the sensitive evening and nighttime hours.

TABLE 10-5: MITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS Receiver'
Distance
to Const.

Activity
(Feet)Z
Receiver Vibration Levels (VdB)3
Threshold
(Vd6)°
Threshold
Exceeded?5
Small
Bulldozer
Jack
hammer
Loaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Levels
R3
50'

49.0 70.0

77.0 78.0

78.0 80
No
R4
50'

49.0 70.0

77.0 78.0

78.0 80
No
1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-A.

Z Distance from receiver locations to the source of the nearest construction activity. 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 6-5. 4 Does the peak vibration exceed the vibration thresholds? Does the vibration level exceed the FTA acceptable vibration level? 12610-03 Noise Study
1 1562
( 'F URBAN
CRC RC7RD

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
11 REFERENCES

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

2. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Ritz -Carlton Residences Traffic Impact Analysis. January 2020.

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

4. 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.

5. 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.

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

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

10. Office of Planning and Research. State of California General Plan Guidelines. 2018.

11. City of Rancho Mirage. Municipal Code, Chapter 8.45 Noise.

12. —. Municipal Code, Sections 15.04.030.

13. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Criteria for Recommended Standard:

Occupational Noise Exposure. June 1998.

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

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

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

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

18. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program, Office of Environmental Engineering. Use of California Vehicle Noise Reference Energy Mean Emission Levels (Calveno REMELs) in FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction. September 1995. TAN 95-03. 12610-03 Noise Study
1 1563
►URB

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
12610-03 Noise Study
1 1564
C URB u

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
12 CERTIFICATION
The contents of this noise study report represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the proposed Ritz -Carlton Residences 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) 336-5979.

Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE
Principal
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
260 E. Baker Street, Suite 200
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(949) 336-5979
[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 Orange • February, 2011 FHWA-NHI-142051 Highway Traffic Noise Certificate of Training • February, 2013 12610-03 Noise Study
11565
C URB

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
12610-03 Noise Study
1 f66
C URB u

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 3.1:

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE MUNICIPAL CODE
12610-03 Noise Study
1 1667
It IN

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
12610-03 Noise Study
1 1668
It IN

Rancho Mirage Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Collapse Search Print
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 S 1.4-1983 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)
7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
55 Residential, Low Density (R -E, H -R, R -L-2, R -L-3) 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 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 60 Space (OS, R -M, R -H, MHP) 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
55 1 166 9

10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
50 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
65 Commercial Office, Resort Commercial, Mixed Use,
Institutional (O, P, Rs -H, M -U)
6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
60 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
55 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
70 Commercial Neighborhood, General Commercial,
Commercial Recreation, Light Industrial (C -N, C -G, I -L) 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; 11670

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.
1 167 1

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
12610-03 Noise Study
11672
It IN

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 5.1:

STUDY AREA PHOTOS
12610-03 Noise Study
1 1673
URBAN
C RO45RC Aos

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
12610-03 Noise Study
11674
It IN

JN: 12610 Study Area Photos
L1_5
33, 46' 4.720000", 116, 27' 30.310000"
L1_E
33, 46' 4.790000", 116, 27' 30.260000"
L1_N
33, 46' 4.830000", 116, 27' 27.870000"
L1_W
33, 46' 4.790000", 116, 27' 30.260000"
L2_E
33, 45' 59.190000", 116, 27' 19.110000"
L2_N
33, 45' 59.040000", 116, 27' 19.080000"
11675

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 5.2:

NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS
12610-03 Noise Study
11777
It IN

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
12610-03 Noise Study
1 1778
URBAN
(7R04gexn,+aos

24 -Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Date: Thursday, December 5, 2019
Project: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Location: L1 - Located north of the Project site near the existing Villas of Mirada single-family homes and an open dirt parking lot.

Meter: Piccolo I
JN: 12610
Analyst: P. Mara
Hourly L ey dBA Readings (unadjusted)

85.0 80.0
• 75.0
IT; 70.0
Q 65.0

60.0 > 55.0

50.0 o 45.0
= 40.0

35.0 e i
o
ro
.�
m.
m
o
m .
o
CO
.-I
a�
00 Lo
o
n
v
m
•
m
uI
N
N
ao
mi
.�.
.�
g
'
W
O
N
ei
N
r\
O
to
to
O
r`
n
n
of
a
et
— in
— a
in
in
— in
— a
in
a—
a—
in —
a
a
v
a
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hour Beginning
Timeframe Hour L ey
L mm
L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Ley Adj. Adj. Ley

46.0 43.0

43.0 49.0

46.0 48.0

52.0 Night
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 42.2

42.0 42.2

43.1 42.8

42.9 46.0

52.0 46.5

45.1 54.5

52.3 54.7

62.3 40.6

40.7 40.7

40.7 42.9

44.0 42.0

43.0 44.0

45.0 46.0

49.0 43.0

42.0 43.0

43.0 44.0

45.0 48.0

42.0 42.0

43.0 43.0

43.0 44.0

47.0 42.0

42.0 42.0

43.0 43.0

43.0 45.0

42.0 42.0

42.0 43.0

42.0 42.0

45.0 40.0

41.0 42.0

41.0 41.0

41.0 43.0

40.0 41.0

41.0 41.0

41.0 40.0

43.0 40.0

40.0 41.0

40.0 40.0

40.0 43.0

42.2 42.0

42.2 43.1

42.8 42.9

46.0 10.0

10.0 10.0

52.2 52.0

52.2 53.1

52.8 52.9

56.0 Day
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18

48.3 50.0

48.8 52.1

51.9 51.8

47.6 50.0

46.7 46.4

50.3 47.3

62.1 68.2

66.0 71.5

70.7 74.2

67.9 70.0

60.3 62.8

70.3 66.4

43.4 44.0

43.6 42.8

42.8 42.0

42.0 42.5

42.6 42.9

41.9 41.9

56.0 61.0

59.0 65.0

63.0 65.0

58.0 60.0

56.0 56.0

63.0 57.0

54.0 56.0

56.0 62.0

60.0 60.0

55.0 58.0

53.0 54.0

58.0 54.0

51.0 52.0

53.0 56.0

56.0 55.0

51.0 54.0

50.0 50.0

53.0 50.0

50.0 50.0

51.0 54.0

54.0 51.0

48.0 52.0

49.0 48.0

50.0 47.0

48.0 48.0

47.0 47.0

50.0 46.0

46.0 48.0

46.0 45.0

44.0 44.0

47.0 47.0

45.0 45.0

47.0 44.0

44.0 45.0

44.0 44.0

43.0 43.0

45.0 45.0

44.0 43.0

43.0 43.0

43.0 42.0

44.0 45.0

44.0 43.0

43.0 43.0

42.0 42.0

44.0 44.0

44.0 43.0

43.0 42.0

42.0 43.0

43.0 43.0

42.0 42.0

48.3 50.0

48.8 52.1

51.9 51.8

47.6 50.0

46.7 46.4

50.3 47.3

0.0 0.0

48.3 50.0

48.8 52.1

51.9 51.8

47.6 50.0

46.7 46.4

50.3 47.3
Evening
19 20
21 47.5

47.1 45.1

67.0 41.8 59.0

68.8 41.8 56.0

62.9 41.8 54.0

54.0 53.0

51.0 49.0

46.0 45.0

44.0 43.0 43.0 42.0 42.0

43.0 43.0 42.0 42.0

42.0 42.0

42.0 42.0 I 46.8

41.0 45.8

47.5 47.1

45.1 5.0

5.0 5.0

52.5 52.1

50.1 Night
22 46.8 68.7
23 45.8 65.8

41.9 40.7

54.0 54.0

51.0 48.0

46.0 44.0

45.0 43.0

44.0 43.0

43.0 43.0

42.0 42.0

10.0 10.0

56.8 55.8
Timeframe
Hour
L .y

46.4 L m,

41.9 L1%
L2%
L5%
L8%
L25%
L50%
L90%
L95%
L99%
Day
Min
Max

52.1 60.3

74.2 44.0

56.0 65.0

53.0 62.0

50.0 56.0

47.0 54.0

44.0 50.0

43.0 47.0

42.0 45.0

42.0 44.0
Energy Average

49.7 Average:

59.9 56.7

52.6 50.3

46.6 44.8

43.4 43.3

42.9 Evening
Min
Max
Energy Average

45.1 47.5

46.7 62.9 41.8

68.8 41.8
Average:

54.0 59.0

56.3 51.0

54.0 52.7

45.0 49.0

46.7 44.0

46.0 45.0

43.0 43.0

42.0 42.0

42.0 Night
Min
Max

42.0 46.8

45.1 68.7

40.6 42.9

43.0 54.0

42.0 51.0

42.0 48.0

42.0 47.0

42.0 45.0

40.0 43.0

40.0 43.0
Energy Average

44.1 Average:

48.3 45.8

44.2 43.7

42.9 42.7

41.4 41.2

40.8 L eQ (dBA)
24 -Hour Daytime Nighttime

47.9 49.2

44.1 24 -Hour CNEL (dBA)

52.1 U:\UcJobsL12600-13000L12600\126101Field Work\Measurements112610 L1_T 1'779
(61,11"► Mff i3 #►111

24 -Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Date: Thursday, December 5, 2019
Project: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Location: L2 - Located near the eastern boundary of the Project site near the existing Ritz -Carlton hotel and vacant land.

Meter: Piccolo I
JN: 12610
Analyst: P. Mara
Hourly L e, dBA Readings (unadjusted)

85.0 80.0
m 75.0
IT; 70.0
Q 65.0

60.0 > 55.0

50.0 o 45.0
= 40.0

35.0 m
a-lq
Le)
m
ut
ut
rn
m
N
m
n
m
ui
cn
V
N
la
ri
ei
CO
ID
n
CO
m
N
m
m--
m
m
co
N
to
ej
ua
DO
of
en
v in
et
in
v
-3 -in-
v
v
v
v
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hour Beginning
Timeframe Hour L eQ
L mm
L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Ley Adj. Adj. Ley Night
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 43.5

43.3 42.5

42.5 53.1

42.9 52.5

49.2 47.7

46.1 47.2

82.7 49.8

80.3 42.6

42.5 41.4

41.4 41.4

42.5 41.7

46.0 44.0

42.0 43.0

50.0 45.0

60.0 44.0

44.0 42.0

42.0 46.0

44.0 54.0

43.0 44.0

42.0 42.0

43.0 43.0

48.0 43.0

43.0 42.0

42.0 43.0

43.0 45.0

43.0 43.0

42.0 42.0

43.0 43.0

43.0 42.0

42.0 42.0

42.0 41.0

41.0 42.0

42.0 42.0

41.0 41.0

41.0 42.0

42.0 43.5

43.3 42.5

42.5 53.1

42.9 52.5

10.0 10.0

10.0 53.5

53.3 52.5

52.5 63.1

52.9 62.5
Day
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18

52.1 57.9

53.7 54.3

56.4 55.6

48.4 52.7

46.6 44.1

52.1 46.8

75.4 77.3

79.0 78.0

81.2 77.9

70.6 73.0

74.1 55.8

73.5 68.1

42.5 42.7

42.6 42.3

42.6 41.4

41.5 41.5

41.4 42.5

42.6 42.5

65.0 70.0

64.0 67.0

66.0 70.0

59.0 66.0

53.0 50.0

66.0 56.0

58.0 67.0

61.0 64.0

64.0 66.0

56.0 61.0

50.0 49.0

54.0 51.0

50.0 63.0

54.0 59.0

61.0 57.0

49.0 55.0

46.0 46.0

47.0 46.0

48.0 62.0

50.0 54.0

60.0 52.0

47.0 51.0

45.0 45.0

45.0 44.0

44.0 51.0

45.0 46.0

52.0 45.0

44.0 44.0

43.0 44.0

43.0 43.0

43.0 47.0

43.0 43.0

46.0 43.0

43.0 42.0

42.0 43.0

42.0 42.0

42.0 43.0

42.0 42.0

43.0 42.0

42.0 42.0

42.0 43.0

42.0 42.0

41.0 42.0

42.0 42.0

42.0 I 48.6

42.0 49.7

42.0 43.8

42.0 I 47.7

41.0 46.7

52.1 57.9

53.7 54.3

56.4 55.6

48.4 52.7

46.6 44.1

52.1 46.8

0.0 0.0

52.1 57.9

53.7 54.3

56.4 55.6

48.4 52.7

46.6 44.1

52.1 46.8
Evening
19 20
21 48.6

49.7 43.8

69.2 42.6 62.0

73.1 42.7 55.0

55.6 42.6 50.0

53.0 48.0

46.0 46.0

44.0 44.0

43.0 43.0 43.0 42.0 42.0

43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0

43.0 43.0 42.0 42.0

5.0 5.0

5.0 53.6

54.7 48.8
Night
22 47.7 70.0
23 46.7 68.2

42.6 41.4

57.0 53.0

51.0 44.0

44.0 44.0 43.0

43.0 42.0 42.0

42.0 42.0

42.0 41.0

10.0 10.0

57.7 56.7
Timeframe
Hour
L ey

44.1 L m,

41.4 Ll%
L2%
L5%
L8%
L25%
L50%
L90%
L95%
L99%
Day
Min
Max

57.9 55.8

81.2 42.7

50.0 70.0

49.0 67.0

46.0 63.0

44.0 62.0

43.0 52.0

42.0 47.0

42.0 43.0

41.0 42.0
Energy Average

53.4 Average:

62.7 58.4

52.8 50.3

45.3 43.3

42.2 42.1

41.9 Evening
Min
Max
Energy Average

43.8 49.7

48.0 55.6 42.6

73.1 42.7
Average:

50.0 62.0

55.7 46.0

53.0 49.0

44.0 46.0

44.7 43.0

44.0 43.7

43.0 43.0

42.0 43.0

42.3 42.0

43.0 42.3

42.0 42.0

42.0 Night
Min
Max

42.5 53.1

46.1 82.7

41.4 42.6

42.0 60.0

42.0 54.0

42.0 48.0

42.0 45.0

42.0 43.0

42.0 42.0

41.0 42.0

41.0 42.0
Energy Average

48.1 Average:

48.9 45.7

43.6 43.0

42.4 42.2

42.0 41.7

41.6 L ee (dBA)
24 -Hour Daytime Nighttime

51.5 52.7

48.1 24 -Hour CNEL (dBA)

55.8 U:\UcJobsL12600-13000L12600\126101Field Work\Measurements112610 L2_S 11780
► Mff i3 #►111

24 -Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Date: Thursday, December 5, 2019
Project: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Location: L3 - Located by the western boundary of the Project site near to the gated entrance of the Mirada Estates.

Meter: Piccolo I
JN: 12610
Analyst: P. Mara
Hourly L e, dBA Readings (unadjusted)

85.0 80.0
m 75.0
IT; 70.0
Q 65.0

60.0 > 55.0

50.0 o 45.0
= 40.0

35.0 'o
in
a
m
m
rn
o
N
v
a
m
.-I
ao
m
c
v
ni
in
v
v
00 r`
r`
Ot
00 Ol
I
Ot
N
Ot
'L1
m _—
in
e•
N
`
r`
IR
O
n
n
n
3I
(ft
M
m
Ct
- in
—
7— u1
— in
— et
in
et
— V —
in —
V
CI'
d'
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hour Beginning
Timeframe Hour L eQ
L mm
L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Lea Adj. Adj. Lea Night
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 38.6

37.5 37.4

39.5 38.9

39.9 45.0

56.1 51.3

61.0 58.3

59.9 60.1

60.5 35.8

35.2 35.1

35.4 35.5

35.8 38.2

44.0 41.0

40.0 48.0

46.0 46.0

54.0 42.0

40.0 38.0

45.0 43.0

44.0 51.0

40.0 39.0

37.0 40.0

40.0 41.0

48.0 39.0

38.0 37.0

39.0 39.0

40.0 47.0

38.0 37.0

37.0 39.0

38.0 39.0

45.0 37.0

37.0 36.0

38.0 37.0

38.0 43.0

37.0 36.0

36.0 36.0

36.0 37.0

40.0 36.0

36.0 35.0

36.0 36.0

37.0 39.0

36.0 35.0

35.0 36.0

36.0 36.0

39.0 38.6

37.5 37.4

39.5 38.9

39.9 45.0

10.0 10.0

10.0 48.6

47.5 47.4

49.5 48.9

49.9 55.0
Day
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18

49.2 52.4

49.4 53.1

51.9 52.1

47.8 50.3

47.9 47.4

50.2 47.5

71.5 76.3

67.0 76.3

74.7 73.7

65.4 71.5

68.0 66.3

70.0 67.0

41.8 42.1

40.3 40.2

40.4 39.9

40.2 40.3

40.8 41.1

41.1 41.0

58.0 64.0

59.0 65.0

63.0 65.0

59.0 62.0

58.0 57.0

63.0 58.0

55.0 61.0

58.0 62.0

61.0 62.0

57.0 59.0

56.0 56.0

59.0 55.0

53.0 56.0

56.0 58.0

55.0 57.0

53.0 55.0

53.0 53.0

54.0 52.0

51.0 54.0

54.0 56.0

53.0 54.0

51.0 53.0

51.0 50.0

51.0 49.0

48.0 48.0

47.0 47.0

48.0 46.0

45.0 47.0

45.0 45.0

44.0 44.0

46.0 46.0

44.0 44.0

45.0 43.0

43.0 43.0

42.0 41.0

41.0 41.0

42.0 42.0

43.0 43.0

41.0 41.0

42.0 41.0

41.0 41.0

41.0 42.0

42.0 42.0

42.0 43.0

41.0 41.0

41.0 40.0

41.0 41.0

41.0 42.0

49.2 52.4

49.4 53.1

51.9 52.1

47.8 50.3

47.9 47.4

50.2 47.5

0.0 0.0

49.2 52.4

49.4 53.1

51.9 52.1

47.8 50.3

47.9 47.4

50.2 47.5
Evening
19 20
21 47.4

47.4 44.3

67.7 68.5

63.1 41.0

41.3 36.7

60.0 58.0

55.0 56.0

54.0 53.0

50.0 49.0

47.0 47.0

46.0 44.0

43.0 43.0

42.0 42.0

38.0 41.0

42.0 38.0

41.0 42.0

37.0 37.0 I 45.1

37.0 43.6

47.4 47.4

44.3 5.0

5.0 5.0

52.4 52.4

49.3 Night
22 23

45.1 43.6

68.1 66.5

36.2 36.4

55.0 54.0

52.0 45.0

47.0 44.0 40.0

41.0 41.0 40.0

39.0 38.0 37.0

10.0 10.0

55.1 53.6
Timeframe
Hour
Lea

47.4 L m,

39.9 L1%
L2%
L5%
L8%
L25%
L50%
L90%
L95%
L99%
Day
Min
Max

53.1 65.4

76.3 42.1

57.0 65.0

55.0 62.0

52.0 58.0

49.0 56.0

44.0 48.0

43.0 46.0

41.0 43.0

40.0 43.0
Energy Average

50.4 Average:

60.9 58.4

54.6 52.3

46.2 43.8

41.8 41.7

41.3 Evening
Min
Max
Energy Average

44.3 47.4

46.6 63.1

68.5 36.7

41.3 Average:

51.3 55.0

60.0 57.7

53.0 56.0

54.3 47.0

50.0 48.7

44.0 47.0

45.7 42.0

43.0 42.7

42.0 42.0

42.0 38.0

42.0 40.7

38.0 42.0

40.3 37.0

42.0 40.0
Night
Min
Max

37.4 45.1

68.1 35.1

38.2 40.0

55.0 38.0

52.0 37.0

48.0 37.0

47.0 37.0

45.0 36.0

43.0 36.0

40.0 35.0

39.0 35.0

39.0 Energy Average

41.7 Average:

47.6 44.4

41.4 40.4

39.2 38.2

37.1 36.6

36.3 L ea (dBA)
24 -Hour Daytime Nighttime

48.2 49.8

41.7 24 -Hour CNEL (dBA)

51.1 U:\UcJobsL12600-13000L12600\126101FieldWork\Measurements112610 L3 L 1 178 1

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
12610-03 Noise Study
1 1782
It IN

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 7.1:

OFF -SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS
12610-03 Noise Study
11783
URBAN

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
12610-03 Noise Study
1 1784
It IN

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: Existing Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences Road Name: State Route 111 Job Number: 12610
Road Segment n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 41,685 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 6,695 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph Vehicle
Near/Far Lane Distance: 86 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night
Daily
Site Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3%

97.42%

1.84%
0,74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0
Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 60.0 feet
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 60.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos: 0.000
Medium Trucks: 2.297
Heavy Trucks: 8.006. Grade Adjustment 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet)
Autos: 42.143
Medium Trucks: 41.932.

Heavy Trucks: 41.953
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow I Distance I Finite Road I Fresnel I BarrierAtten I Berm Atten Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:
7020

81.00 85.38

5.85 -11.39
-15.35

1.01 1.04

1.04 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leg Peak Hour
Leg Day
Leg Evening
Leg Night
Ldn
CNEL

75.9 69.5

69.9 77.6

71.8 63.5

63.8 73.0 71.0

70.5 56.0

60.4 64.5

64.7 65.0

69.5 72.9

70.9 71.2

76.5 73.5

71.0 71.3

76.9 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 164
CNEL 172
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5.2020
353
370
760
798
1,637
1,719
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: Existing
Road Name: Frank Sinatra Dr.

Road Segment: w/o State Route 111
Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Job Number: 12610

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 2,553 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 410 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 30 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Site. Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet.

Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0
Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 30.0 feet
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 30.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos: 0.000
Medium Trucks: 2297
Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Autos: 29.816
Medium Trucks: 29.518
Heavy Trucks: 29.547
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow
Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Atten Berm Atten
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

61.75 73.48

79.92 -4.06
-21.30
-25.26

3.26 3.33

3.32 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leg Peak Hour
Leg Day
Leg Evening
Leg Night
Ldn
CNEL

59.8 54.3

56.8 62.3

55.7 48.4

50.7 57.5 55.3

54.4 40.9

47.3 48.4

49.6 51.9

55.0 56.8

55.8 58.1

61.8 57.4

55.8 58.2

62.0 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 8
CNEL: 9
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
8 39
41 85
88 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: Existing Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences Road Name: State Route 111 Job Number: 12610
Road Segment s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 37,066 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 5,953 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 86 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (30 Axles): 15
Vehicle MI,
VehicleType Day Evening Night
Daily
Site Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3%

97.42%

1.84%

0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0
Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 60.0 feet
Centerline Dist. to Observer. 60.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Elevation, 0.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos: 0.000
Medium Trucks, 2.297
Heavy Trucks: 8.006. Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet)
Autos: 42.143
Medium Trucks: 41.932
Heavy Trucks: 41.953
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow I Distance I Finde Road I Fresnel I BarrierAtten I Berm Atten Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

70.20 81.00

85.38 5.34
-11.90
-15.86

1.01 1.04

1.04 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leg Peak Hour
Leg Day
Leg Evening
Leg Night
Ldn
CNEL

75.4 68.9

69.4 77.1 72.4 70:5

71.3 63.0

63.3 70.0

55.5 59.9

64.0 642

64.5 69.0

72.4 70.4

70.7 76.0

73.0 70.4

70.8 76.3
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 151
CNEL 159
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5.2020
326
342
703
736
1,514
1,589
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: Existing
Road Name: Frank Sinatra Dr.

Road Segment: e/o State Route 111
Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Job Number: 12610

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 14,494 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 2,328 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Site. Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0
Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0 feet
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 55.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos: 0.000
Medium Trucks: 2297
Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Autos: 47.000
Medium Trucks: 46.811
Heavy Trucks: 46.830
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow
Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Aden Berm Atten
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

64.30 75.75

81.57 2.81
-14.43
-18.38

0.30 0.33

0.32 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leq Peak Hour
Leg Day
Lee Evening
Leg Night
Ldn
CNEL

66.2 60.4

62.3 68.4

62.1 54.5
562

63.7 61.6

60.6 47.0
528

54.8 557

57.5 60.9

63.2 61.9

63.7 67:8 68.0

63.9 62.0

63.8 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 39
CNEL: 41
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
84 88
181 390
189 407
11785

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: E+P Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Road Name: State Route 111 Job Number: 12610
Road Segment n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 41,953 vehicles
Peak How Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 6,738 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph Vehicle
Near/Far Lane Distance: 86 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night
Daily
Site Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3%

97.42%

Heavy Trucks: 41.953
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow I Distance I Finde Road I Fresnel I BarrierAtten I Berm Atten Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:
7020

81.00 85.36

5.88 -11.36
-15.32

1.01 1.04

1.04 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.69
-4:88
-5.34

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leg Peak Hour
Leg Day
Leg Evening
Leg Night
Ldn
CNEL

75.9 69.5

69.9 77.6

71.8 63.5

63.8 73.0 71.1

70.5 56.0

60.4 64.5
64:8

65.0 69.6

72.9 70.9

71.2 76.6

73.5 71.0

71.3 76.9
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 164
CNEL 173
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5.2020
354
372
763
801
1,644
1,726
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: E+P
Road Name: Frank Sinatra Dr.

Road Segment: w/o State Route 111
Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Job Number: 12610

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 3,623 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 582 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 30 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Site. Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
Barrier Height 0.0 feet.

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

61.75 73.48

79.92 -2.54
-19.78
-23.74

3.26 3.33

3.32 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leg Peak Hour
Leo Day
Leq Evening
Leq Night
Ldn
CNEL

61.3 55.8

58.3 63.8

57.2 49.9

52.2 59.0 56.8

55.9 42.4

48.8 49.9

51.1 53.5

56.5 58.3

57.3 59.7

63.3 58.9

57.3 59.8

63.6 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
Ldn:

CNEL:

Wednesday, February 5, 2020
70 dBA
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
23 24
50 52
107
112
FHWA-RD-T7-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: E+P Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Road Name: State Route 111 Job Number: 12610
Road Segment s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 37,494 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 6,022 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 86 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night
Daily
Site Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3%

97.42%

1.84%

0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0
Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 60.0 feet
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 60.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos: 0.000
Medium Trucks: 2.297
Heavy Trucks: 8.006. Grade Adjustment 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet)
Autos: 42.143
Medium Trucks: 41.932
Heavy Trucks: 41.953
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow I Distance I Finde Road I Fresnel I BarrierAtten I Berm Atten Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

70.20 81.00

85.38 5.39
-11.85
-15.81

1.01 1.04

1.04 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leq Peak Hour
Leg Day
Leq Evening
Leq Night
Ldn
CNEL

75.4 69.0

69.4 77.1 72.5 70.6

71.3 63.0

63.3 70.0

55.5 59.9

64.0 64.3

64.6 69.1

72.4 70.5

70.8 76.1

73.1 70.5

70.9 76.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 153
CNEL: 160
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5.2020
329
345
708
743
1,525
1,602
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: E+P
Road Name: Frank Sinatra Dr.

Road Segment: e/o State Route 111
Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Job Number: 12610

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 14,868 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 2,388 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Vehicle Mbe
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Site. Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet.

Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0
Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0 feet
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 55.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos: 0.000
Medium Trucks: 2297
Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Autos: 47.000
Medium Trucks: 46.811
Heavy Trucks: 46.830
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow
Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Aden Berm Atten
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

64.30 75.75

81.57 2.92
-14.32
-18.27

0.30 0.33

0.32 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leq Peak Hour
Leo Day
Leq Evening
Leq Night
Ldn
CNEL

66.3 60.6

62.4 68.6

62.3 54.6

56.3 63.8 61.7

60.9 47.1

52.9 54.9
559

57.6 61.0

63.3 62.0

63.8 67.9 68.2

64.0 62.1

63.9 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 40
CNEL: 41
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
86 89
184 397
192 414
1 188 6

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: EA Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Road Name: State Route 111 Job Number: 12610
Road Segment n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 45,122 vehicles
Peak How Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 7,247 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph Vehicle
Near/Far Lane Distance: 86 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Tracks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night
Daily
Site Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3%

97.42%

Heavy Trucks: 41.953
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow I Distance I Finite Road I Fresnel I BarrierAtten I Berm Atten Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

70.20 81.00

85.38 6.19
-11.05
-15.00

1.01 1.04

1.04 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leg Peak Hour
Leg Day
Leg Evening
Leg Night
Ldn
CNEL

76.2 69.8

70.2 77.9

72.1 63.8

64.1 73.3 71.4

70.8 56.3

60.7 64.8

65.1 65.4

69.9 73.2

71.3 71.6

76.9 73.9

71.3 71.7

77.2 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 173
CNEL 181
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5.2020
372
390
801
841
1,726
1,812
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: EA
Road Name: Frank Sinatra Dr.

Road Segment: w/o State Route 111
Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Job Number: 12610

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 2,763 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 444 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 30 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Site. Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet.

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

61.75 73.48

79.92 -3.72
-20.96
-24.91

3.26 3.33

3.32 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Lee Peak Hour
Leo Day
Leo Evening
Lee Night
Ldn
CNEL

60.1 54.7

57.1 62.6

56.0 48.7

51.0 57.8 55.7

54.7 41.2

47.6 48.7

49.9 52.3

55.3 57.1
5E1

58.5 62.1

57.8 56.2

58.6 62.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 9
CNEL: 9
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
19 20
42 43
90 93
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: EA Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Road Name: State Route 111 Job Number: 12610
Road Segment sic, Frank Sinatra Dr.

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 40,121 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 6,443 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 86 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3, Axles): 15
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night
Daily
Site Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3%

97.42%

1.84%

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

70.20 81.00

85.38 5.68
-11.56
-15.51

1.01 1.04

1.04 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leo Peak Hour
Leg Day
Les Evening
Leg Night
Ldn
CNEL

75.7 69.3

69.7 77.4

71.6 63.3

63.6 72.8 70.9

70.3 55.8

60.2 64.3

64.6 64.9

69.4 72.7

70.8 71.1

76.4 73.4

70.8 71.1

76.7 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 160
CNEL 168
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5.2020
344
361
741
778
1,596
1,675
FHWA-RD-77-198 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: EA
Road Name: Frank Sinatra Dr.

Road Segment: e/o State Route 111
Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Job Number: 12610

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 15,689 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 2,520 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Site. Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0
Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0 feet
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 55.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos: 0.000
Medium Trucks: 2297
Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Autos: 47.000
Medium Trucks: 46.811
Heavy Trucks: 46.830
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow
Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Aden Berm Atten
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

64.30 75.75

81.57 3.15
-14.08
-18.04

0.30 0.33

0.32 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Lee Peak Hour
Leg Day
Leo Evening
Leg Night
Ldn
CNEL

66.6 60.8

62.7 68.8

62.5 54.8

56.5 64.0 62.0

61.2 47.3

53.2 55.2

56.1 57.8

61.3 63.6

62.3 64.0

68.1 68.4

64.2 62.3

64.1 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 41
CNEL: 43
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
89 191 412
93 199 429
1 188 7

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: EA+P Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Road Name: State Route 111 Job Number: 12610
Road Segment n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 45,390 vehicles
Peak How Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 7,290 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph Vehicle
Near/Far Lane Distance: 86 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Tracks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night
Daily
Site Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3%

97.42%

1.84%
0,74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1-Benn): 0.0
Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 60.0 feet
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 60.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos: 0.000
Medium Trucks: 2.297
Heavy Trucks: 8.006. Grade Adjustment 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet)
Autos: 42.143
Medium Trucks: 41.932.

Heavy Trucks: 41.953
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow I Distance I Finde Road I Fresnel I BarrierAtten I Berm Atten Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

70.20 81.00

85.38 6.22
-11.02
-14.98

1.01 1.04

1.04 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leg Peak Hour
Lee Day
Lee Evening
Les Night
Ldn
CNEL

76.2 69.8

70.2 77.9

72.2 63.9

64.1 73.3 71.4

70.9 56.4

60.7 64.8

65.1 65.4

69.9 73.3

71.3 71.6

76.9 73.9

71.3 71.7

77.2 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 173
CNEL 182
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5.2020
373
392
804
844
1,732
1,819
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: EA+P
Road Name: Frank Sinatra Dr.

Road Segment: w/o State Route 111
Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Job Number: 12610

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 3,833 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 616 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 30 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Site. Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet.

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

61.75 73.48

79.92 -2.30
-19.54
-23.49

3.26 3.33

3.32 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Lee Peak Hour
Leo Day
Lee Evening
Leq Night
Ldn
CNEL

61.5 56.1

58.6 64.0

57.5 50.1
525

59.2 57.1

56.1 42.6

49.1 50.1

51.4 53.7

56.8 58.5

57.5 59.9

63.5 59.2

57.6 60.0

63.8 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 11
CNEL: 12
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
24 25
52 54
111
116
FHWA-RD-T7-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: EA+P Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Road Name: State Route 111 Job Number: 12610
Road Segment s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 40,549 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 6,512 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 86 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night
Daily
Site Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3%

97.42%

1.84%

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

70.20 81.00

85.38 5.73
-11.51
-15.47

1.01 1.04

1.04 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leo Peak Hour
Lee Day
Les Evening
Les Night
Ldn
CNEL

75.7 69.3

69.8 77.4

71.7 63.4

63.7 72.8 70.9

70.4 55.9

60.3 64.4

64.6 64.9

69.4 72.8

70.8 71.1

76.4 73.4

70.8 71.2

76.7 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 161
CNEL 169
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5.2020
346
364
746
783
1,607
1,687
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: EA+P
Road Name: Frank Sinatra Dr.

Road Segment: e/o State Route 111
Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Job Number: 12610

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 16,063 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 2,580 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Vehicle Mbr
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Site. Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 49.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0
Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0 feet
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 55.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos: 0.000
Medium Trucks: 2297
Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Autos: 47.000
Medium Trucks: 46.811
Heavy Trucks: 46.830
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow
Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Aden Berm Atten
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

64.30 75.75

81.57 3.26
-13.98
-17.94

0.30 0.33

0.32 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Lee Peak Hour
Leo Day
Lee Evening
Lee Night
Ldn
CNEL

66.7 60.9

62.8 68.9

62.6 54.9

56.7 64.1 62.1

61.3 47.4

53.3 55.3

56.2 57.9

61.4 63.7

62.4 64.1

68.2 68.5

64.3 62.4

64.2 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 42
CNEL: 44
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
90 194 418
94 202 436
1 188 8

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: EAC Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Road Name: State Route 111 Job Number: 12610
Road Segment n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 46,714 vehicles
Peak How Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 7,502 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph Vehicle
Near/Far Lane Distance: 86 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Tracks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night
Daily
Site Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3%

97.42%

Heavy Trucks: 41.953
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow I Distance I Finite Road I Fresnel I BarrierAtten I Berm Atten Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

70.20 81.00

85.36 6.34
-10.89
-14.85

1.01 1.04

1.04 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leg Peak Hour
Leg Day
Leo Evening
Leo Night
Ldn
CNEL

76.4 69.9

70.4 78.1 73.4 71.5

72.3. 64.0

64.3 71.0

56.5 60.9

65.0 65.2

65.5 70.0

73.4 71.4

71.7 77.0

74.0 71.5

71.8 77.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 177
CNEL 185
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5.2020
380
400
820
861
1,766
1,854
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: EAC
Road Name: Frank Sinatra Dr.

Road Segment: w/o State Route 111
Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Job Number: 12610

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 2,945 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 473 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 30 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Site. Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet.

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

61.75 73.48

79.92 -3.44
-2068
-24.64

3.26 3.33

3.32 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77
0:000

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Lee Peak Hour
Leo Day
Leo Evening
Leo Night
Ldn
CNEL

60.4 54.9

57.4 62.9

56.3 49.0

51.3 58.1 55.9

55.0 41.5

47.9 49.0

50.2 52.6

55.6 57.4

56.4 58.8

62.4 58.0

56.4 58.9

62.7 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 9
CNEL: 10
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
20 21
43 45
93 97
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: EAC Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Road Name: State Route 111 Job Number: 12610
Road Segment s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 40,917 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 6,571 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 86 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3, Axles): 15
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night
Daily
Site Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3%

97.42%

1.84%

0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0
Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 60.0 feet
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 60.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos: 0.000
Medium Trucks: 2.297
Heavy Trucks: 8.006. Grade Adjustment 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet)
Autos: 42.143
Medium Trucks: 41.932
Heavy Trucks: 41.953
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow I Distance I Finite Road I Fresnel I BarrierAtten I Berm Atten Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

70.20 81.00

85.38 5.77
-11.47
-15.43

1.01 1.04

1.04 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leo Peak Hour
Leg Day
Leo Evening
Leo Night
Ldn
CNEL

75.8 69.4

69.8 77.5

71.7 63.4

63.7 72.9 70:9

70.4 55.9

60.3 64.4

64.7 64.9

69.4 72.8

70.8 71.1

76.5 73.4

70.9 71.2

76.8 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 162
CNEL 170
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5.2020
348
366
750
788
1,617
1,698
FHWA-RD-77-198 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: EAC
Road Name: Frank Sinatra Dr.

Road Segment: e/o State Route 111
Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Job Number: 12610

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 16,025 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 2,574 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Vehicle Mbe
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Site. Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 49.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet.

Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0
Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0 feet
Centerline Dist, to Observer: 55.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos: 0.000
Medium Trucks: 2297
Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Autos: 47.000
Medium Trucks: 46.811
Heavy Trucks: 46.830
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow
Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Aden Berm Atten
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

64.30 75.75

81.57 3:25
-13.99
-17.95

0.30 0.33

0.32 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38

0.000

0.000
0,000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Lee Peak Hour
Leg Day
Leo Evening
Leq Night
Ldn
CNEL

66.6 60.9

62.7 68.9

62.6 54.9

56.6 64.1 62.1

61.3 47.4

53.2 55.3

56.2 57.9

61.4 63.7

62.3 64.1

68.2 68.5

64.3 62.4

64.2 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 42
CNEL: 44
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
90 194 417
94 202 436
1 188 9

FHWA-RD-T7-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: EAC+P Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Road Name: State Route 111 Job Number: 12610
Road Segment n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 46,982 vehicles
Peak How Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 7,545 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph Vehicle
Near/Far Lane Distance: 86 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night
Daily
Site Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3%

97.42%

Heavy Trucks: 41.953
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow I Distance I Finite Road I Fresnel I BarrierAtten I Berm Atten Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

70.20 81.00

85.38 6.37
-10.87
-14.83

1.01 1.04

1.04 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leg Peak Hour
Leg Day
Leo Evening
Leo Night
Ldn
CNEL

76.4 70.0

70.4 78.1 73.5 71.5

72.3. 64.0

64.3 71.0

56.5 60.9

65.0 65.3

65.5 70.0

73.4 71.4

71.7 77.1

74.0 71.5

71.8 77.4
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 177
CNEL 186
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5.2020
382
401
823
864
1,773
1,861
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: EAC+P
Road Name: Frank Sinatra Dr.

Road Segment: w/o State Route 111
Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Job Number: 12610

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 4,015 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 645 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 30 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Site. Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
Barrier Height, 0.0 feet.

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

61.75 73.48

79.92 -2.10
-19.33
-23.29

3.26 3.33

3.32 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leo Peak Hour
Leo Day
Leq Evening
Leq Night
Ldn
CNEL

61.7 56.3

58.8 64.3

57.7 50.3

52.7 59.4 57.3

56.3 42.8

49.3 50.3

51.6 53.9

57.0 58.7

57.7 60.1

63.7 59.4

57.8 60.2

64.0 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 11
CNEL: 12
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
25 26
53 55
115
119
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: EAC+P Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Road Name: State Route 111 Job Number: 12610
Road Segment s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 41,345 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 6,640 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 86 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night
Daily
Site Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3%

97.42%

1.84%

0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0
Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 60.0 feet
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 60.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos: 0.000
Medium Trucks, 2.297
Heavy Trucks: 8.006. Grade Adjustment 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet)
Autos: 42.143
Medium Trucks: 41.932
Heavy Trucks: 41.953
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow I Distance I Finde Road I Fresnel I BarrierAtten I Berm Atten Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

70.20 81.00

85.38 5.81
-11.43
-15.38

1.01 1.04

1.04 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leo Peak Hour
Leg Day
Leo Evening
Leo Night
Ldn
CNEL

75.8 69.4

69.8 77.5

71.8 63.5

63.7 72.9 71.0

70.4 56.0

60.3 64.4

64.7 65.0

69.5 72.9

70.9 71.2

76.5 73.5

70.9 71.3

76.8 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 163
CNEL 171
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5.2020
351
368
756
793
1,628
1,709
FHWA-RD-77-198 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: EAC+P
Road Name: Frank Sinatra Dr.

Road Segment: e/o State Route 111
Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Job Number: 12610

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 16,399 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 2,634 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Vehicle Mbe
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Site. Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0
Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0 feet
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 55.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos: 0.000
Medium Trucks: 2297
Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment: 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Autos: 47.000
Medium Trucks: 46.811
Heavy Trucks: 46.830
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow
Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Aden Berm Atten
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

64.30 75.75

81.57 3.35
-13.89
-17.85

0.30 0.33

0.32 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Lee Peak Hour
Leo Day
Leg Evening
Lee Night
Ldn
CNEL

66.7 61.0

62.8 69.0

62.7 55.0

56.7 64.2 62.2

61.4 47.5

53.3 55.4

56.3 58.0

61.5 63.8

62.4 64.2

68.3 68.6

64.4 62.5

64.3 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 42
CNEL: 44
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
91 197 424
95 205 442
1 189 0

FHWA-RD-T7-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: HY Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Road Name: State Route 111 Job Number: 12610
Road Segment n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 51,385 vehicles
Peak How Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 8,252 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph Vehicle
Near/Far Lane Distance: 86 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Tracks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night
Daily
Site Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3%

97.42%

Heavy Trucks: 41.953
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow I Distance I Finite Road I Fresnel I BarrierAtten I Berm Atten Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

70.20 81.00

85.38 6.76
-10.48
-14.44

1.01 1.04

1.04 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leg Peak Hour
Leg Day
Leo Evening
Leo Night
Ldn
CNEL

76.8 70.4

70.8 78.5

72.7 64.4

64.7 73.9 71.9

71.4 56.9

61.3 65.4

65.7 65.9

70.4 73.8

71.8 72.1

77.4 74.4

71.9 72.2

77.8 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 188
CNEL 198
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5.2020
405
426
873
917
1,882
1,976
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: HY
Road Name: Frank Sinatra Dr.

Road Segment: w/o State Route 111
Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Job Number: 12610

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 3,240. vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 520 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 30 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Site. Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet.

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

61.75 73.48

79.92 -3.03
-20.27
-24.22

3.26 3.33

3.32 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Lee Peak Hour
Leo Day
Leo Evening
Leq Night
Ldn
CNEL

60.8 55.3

57.8 63.3

56.7 49.4

51.7 58.5 56.3

55.4 41.9

48.3 49.4

50.6 53.0

56.0 57.8

56.8 59.2
62'.8

58.4 56.8

59.3 63.1
Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 10
CNEL: 10
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
21 22
46 48
100
104
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: HY Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Road Name: State Route 111 Job Number: 12610
Road Segment s/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 45,009 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 7,228 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 86 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3, Axles): 15
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night
Daily
Site Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3%

97.42%

1.84%

0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0
Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 60.0 feet
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 60.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos: 0.000
Medium Trucks: 2.297
Heavy Trucks: 8.006. Grade Adjustment 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet)
Autos: 42.143
Medium Trucks: 41.932
Heavy Trucks: 41.953
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow I Distance I Finite Road I Fresnel I BarrierAtten I Berm Atten Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

70.20 81.00

85.38 6.18
-11.06
-15.01

1.01 1.04

1.04 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leo Peak Hour
Leq Day
Leo Evening
Leo Night
Ldn
CNEL

76.2 69.8

70.2 77.9

72.1 63.8

64.1 73.3 71.4

70.8 56.3

60.7 64.8

65.1 65.4

69.9 73.2

71.3 71.6

76.9 73.9

71.3 71.6

77.2 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 172
CNEL 181
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5.2020
371
390
800
840
1,723
1,809
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: HY
Road Name: Frank Sinatra Dr.

Road Segment: e/o State Route 111
Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Job Number: 12610

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 17,627 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 2,831 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Vehicle Mbr
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Site. Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0
Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0 feet
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 55.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Left View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos: 0.000
Medium Trucks: 2297
HeavyTrucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Autos: 47.000
Medium Trucks: 46.811
Heavy Trucks: 46.830
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow
Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Aden Berm Atten
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

64.30 75.75

81.57 3.66
-13.58
-17.53

0.30 0.33

0.32 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Lee Peak Hour
Leo Day
Leo Evening
Leo Night
Ldn
CNEL

67.1 61.3

63.2 69.3

63.0 55.3

57.1 64.5 62.5

61.7 47.8

53.7 55.7

56.6 58.3

61.8 64.1

62.8 64.5

68.6 68.9

64.7 62.8

64.6 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 44
CNEL: 46
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
96 206 445
100 215 464
1 189 1

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: HY+P Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Road Name: State Route 111 Job Number: 12610
Road Segment n/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 51653 vehicles
Peak How Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 8,295 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph Vehicle
Near/Far Lane Distance: 86 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Tracks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night
Daily
Site Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3%

97.42%

Heavy Trucks: 41.953
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow I Distance I Finite Road I Fresnel I BarrierAtten I Berm Atten Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

70.20 81.00

85.36 6.78
-10.46
-14.41

1.01 1.04

1.04 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leg Peak Hour
Leg Day
Leo Evening
Leo Night
Ldn
CNEL

76.8 70.4

70.8 78.5

72.7 64.4

64.7 73.9 720

71.4 56.9

61.3 65.4

65.7 66.0

70.5 73.8

71.9 72.2

77.5 74.4

71.9 72.2

77.8 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 189
CNEL 198
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5.2020
407
427
876
920
1,888
1,983
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: HY+P
Road Name: Frank Sinatra Dr.

Road Segment: w/o State Route 111
Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Job Number: 12610

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 4,310 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 692 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 30 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 12 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Site. Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet.

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

61.75 73.48

79.92 -1.79
-19.03
-22.98

3.26 3.33

3.32 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.49
-4.86
-5.77

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Lee Peak Hour
Leq Day
Leo Evening
Lee Night
Ldn
CNEL

62.0 56.6

59.1 64.6

58.0 50.6

53.0 59.7 57.6

56.6 43.1

49.6 50.6

51.9 54.2

57.3 59.1

58.0 60.4

64.1 59.7

58.1 60.5

64.3 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 12
CNEL: 13
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
26 27
56 58
120
125
FHWA-RD-T7-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: HY+P Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Road Name: State Route 111 Job Number: 12610
Road Segment a/o Frank Sinatra Dr.

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 45,437 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 7,297 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 50 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 86 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Vehicle MI,
VehicleType Day Evening Night
Daily
Site Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3%

97.42%

1.84%

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

70.20 81.00

85.38 6.22
-11.02
-14.97

1.01 1.04

1.04 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.69
-4.88
-5.34

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Leo Peak Hour
Leq Day
Leo Evening
Leo Night
Ldn
CNEL

76.2 69.8

70.2 77.9

72.2 63.9

64.1 73.3 71.4

70.9 56.4

60.8 64.8

65.1 65.4

69.9 73.3

71.3 71.6

76.9 73.9

71.3 71.7

77.2 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 173
CNEL 182
Wednesday, February 5.2020
65 dBA I 60 dBA
374
392
805
845
55 dBA
1,734
1,820
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
Scenario: HY+P
Road Name: Frank Sinatra Dr.

Road Segment: e/o State Route 111
Project Name: Ritz -Carlton Residences
Job Number: 12610

SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA

NOISE MODEL INPUTS
Highway Data
Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15)
Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 18,001 vehicles
Peak Hour Percentage: 16.06%
Peak Hour Volume: 2,891 vehicles
Vehicle Speed: 35 mph
Near/Far Lane Distance: 58 feet
Autos: 15
Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15
Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles): 15
Vehicle Mix
VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily
Site. Data
Autos: 75.5% 14.0% 10.5% 97.42%
Medium Trucks: 48.9% 2.2% 48.9% 1.84%
Heavy Trucks: 47.3% 5.4% 47.3% 0.74%
Barrier Height: 0.0 feet
Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0
Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0 feet
Centerline Dist. to Observer: 55.0 feet
Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet
Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet
Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Elevation: 0.0 feet
Road Grade: 0.0%
Len View: -90.0 degrees
Right View: 90.0 degrees
Noise Source Elevations (in feet)
Autos: 0.000
Medium Trucks: 2297
HeavyTrucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0
Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet)
Autos: 47.000
Medium Trucks: 46.811
Heavy Trucks: 46.830
FHWA Noise Model Calculations
VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow
Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barrier Aden Berm Atten
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

64.30 75.75

81.57 3.75
-13.49
-17,44

0.30 0.33

0.32 -1.20
-1.20
-1.20
-4.67
-4.87
-5.38

0.000

0.000
Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType
Autos:

Medium Trucks:

Heavy Trucks:

Vehicle Noise:

Lee Peak Hour
Leo Day
Leo Evening
Lee Night
Ldn
CNEL

67.2 61.4

63.2 69.4

63.1 55.4

57.1 64.6 62.6

61.8 47.9

53.8 55.8

56.7 58.4

61.9 64.2

62.9 64.6

68.7 69.0

64.8 62.9

64.7 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet)
70 dBA
Ldn: 45
CNEL: 47
65 dBA
60 dBA
55 dBA
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
97 209 451
101 218 471
1 189 2

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 9.1:

CADNAA OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS
12610-03 Noise Study
11x93
URBAN

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
12610-03 Noise Study
1 1894
It IN

12610
CadnaA Noise Prediction Model
12610_03.cna
Date:

18.02.20 Analyst:

B. Lawson
Receiver Noise Levels
Name
M.

ID
Level Lr
Limit. Value
Land Use
Height
Coordinates
Day
Eve
Night
Day
Eve
Night
Type
Auto
Noise Type
X
Y
Z
(dBA)
(dBA)
(dBA)
(dBA)
(dBA)
(dBA)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
91 R1

29.6 30.2

26.7 55.0

50.0 45.0

5.00 r 6498278.71
2223255.93
612.92
R2
R2

41.8 42.9

37.3 55.0

50.0 45.0

5.00 r 6498990.95
2222767.65
647.26
R3
R3

46.8 47.2

44.6 55.0

50.0 45.0

5.00 r 6498881.84
2222114.07
677.54
R4
R4

43.7 43.7

42.1 55.0

50.0 45.0

5.00 r 6498710.78
2222103.28
685.09
95 R5

43.5 43.5

42.0 55.0

50.0 45.0

5.00 r 6498539.14
2222093.84
677.54
R6
R6

43.0 43.5

40.7 55.0

50.0 45.0

5.00 r 6498360.19
2222003.12
674.50
R7
R7

42.2 42.3

40.7 55.0

50.0 45.0

5.00 r 6498216.10
2222028.54
671.45
98 R8

35.2 35.3

33.6 55.0

50.0 45.0

5.00 r 6497921.76
2222287.44
640.91
Point Source(s)
Name
M.

ID
Result. PWL
Lw/ Li
Correction
Sound Reduction
Attenuation
Operating Time
KO
Freq.

Direct.

Height
Coordinates
Day
Evening
Night
Type
Value
norm.

Day
Evening
Night
R
Area
Day
Special
Night
X
Y
Z
(dBA)
(dBA)
(dBA)
dB(A)
dB(A)
dB(A)
dB(A)
(ft')
(min)
(min)
(min)
(dB)
(Hz)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)

POINTSOURCE
ACO1

88.9 88.9

88.9 Lw

88.9 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
117.00
252.00

0.0 500
(none)

5.00 g 6498231.12
2222368.84
680.50

POINTSOURCE
ACO2

88.9 88.9

88.9 Lw

88.9 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
117.00
252.00

0.0 500
(none)

5.00 g 6498321.58
2222218.93
681.50

POINTSOURCE
AC03

88.9 88.9

88.9 Lw

88.9 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
117.00
252.00

0.0 500
(none)

5.00 g 6498330.63
2222338.68
680.00

POINTSOURCE
AC04

88.9 88.9

88.9 Lw

88.9 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
117.00
252.00

0.0 500
(none)

5.00 g 6498518.87
2222243.92
693.00

POINTSOURCE
AC05

88.9 88.9

88.9 Lw

88.9 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
117.00
252.00

0.0 500
(none)

5.00 g 6498677.82
2222259.86
695.00

POINTSOURCE
AC06

88.9 88.9

88.9 Lw

88.9 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
117.00
252.00

0.0 500
(none)

5.00 g 6498776.46
2222259.42
681.70

POINTSOURCE
AC07

88.9 88.9

88.9 Lw

88.9 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
117.00
252.00

0.0 500
(none)

5.00 g 6498863.38
2222268.39
680.04

POINTSOURCE
AC08

88.9 88.9

88.9 Lw

88.9 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
117.00
252.00

0.0 500
(none)

5.00 g 6498988.39
2222355.48
665.50

POINTSOURCE
AC09

88.9 88.9

88.9 Lw

88.9 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
117.00
252.00

0.0 500
(none)

5.00 g 6498589.08
2222389.51
694.50

POINTSOURCE
AC10

88.9 88.9

88.9 Lw

88.9 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
117.00
252.00

0.0 500
(none)

5.00 g 6498466.31
2222381.33
687.00

POINTSOURCE
AC11

88.9 88.9

88.9 Lw

88.9 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
117.00
252.00

0.0 500
(none)

5.00 g 6499080.14
2222441.63
666.50

POINTSOURCE
AC12

88.9 88.9

88.9 Lw

88.9 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
117.00
252.00

0.0 500
(none)

5.00 g 6499193.86
2222389.94
663.50

POINTSOURCE
AC13

88.9 88.9

88.9 Lw

88.9 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
117.00
252.00

0.0 500
(none)

5.00 g 6498439.99
2222485.60
682.00

POINTSOURCE
AC14

88.9 88.9

88.9 Lw

88.9 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
117.00
252.00

0.0 500
(none)

5.00 g 6498456.97
2222579.92
681.50

POINTSOURCE
AC15

88.9 88.9

88.9 Lw

88.9 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
117.00
252.00

0.0 500
(none)

5.00 g 6498683.34
2222513.90
675.00

POINTSOURCE
AC16

88.9 88.9

88.9 Lw

88.9 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
117.00
252.00

0.0 500
(none)

5.00 g 6498934.23
2222515.78
675.00

POINTSOURCE
AC17

88.9 88.9

88.9 Lw

88.9 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
117.00
252.00

0.0 500
(none)

5.00 g 6499564.30
2222674.24
635.39

POINTSOURCE
COURT01

91.5 91.5

91.5 Lw

91.5 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
180.00

0.00 0.0
500
(none)
659.00
a 6498470.67
2222309.28
659.00

POINTSOURCE
COURT02

91.5 91.5

91.5 Lw

91.5 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
180.00

0.00 0.0
500
(none)
659.00
a 6498435.87
2222274.11
659.00

POINTSOURCE
COURT03

91.5 91.5

91.5 Lw

91.5 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
180.00

0.00 0.0
500
(none)
639.00
a 6498930.90
2222330.61
639.00

POINTSOURCE
COURT04

91.5 91.5

91.5 Lw

91.5 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
180.00

0.00 0.0
500
(none)
636.50
a 6498984.40
2222429.77
636.50

POINTSOURCE
COURT05

91.5 91.5

91.5 Lw

91.5 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
180.00

0.00 0.0
500
(none)
654.00
a 6498782.40
2222542.01
654.00

POINTSOURCE
POOLO1

80.4 80.4

80.4 Lw

80.4 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
180.00

0.00 0.0
500
(none)
637.00
a 6498942.12
2222196.28
637.00

POINTSOURCE
POOLO2

80.4 80.4

80.4 Lw

80.4 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
180.00

0.00 0.0
500
(none)
637.00
a 6498970.56
2222184.69
637.00

POINTSOURCE
POOLO3

80.4 80.4

80.4 Lw

80.4 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
180.00

0.00 0.0
500
(none)
649.00
a 6498387.97
2222425.65
649.00

POINTSOURCE
POOLO4

80.4 80.4

80.4 Lw

80.4 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
180.00

0.00 0.0
500
(none)
635.50
a 6498906.95
2222372.52
635.50

POINTSOURCE
POOLO5

80.4 80.4

80.4 Lw

80.4 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
180.00

0.00 0.0
500
(none)
654.00
r 6499573.22
2222751.82
1281.71

POINTSOURCE
POOLO6

80.4 80.4

80.4 Lw

80.4 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
180.00

0.00 0.0
500
(none)
654.00
r 6499651.37
2222695.18
1200.41

POINTSOURCE
POOLO7

80.4 80.4

80.4 Lw

80.4 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
180.00

0.00 0.0
500
(none)
654.00
r 6499643.47
2222755.33
1238.37

POINTSOURCE
POOLO8

80.4 80.4

80.4 Lw

80.4 0.0

0.0 0.0
468.00
180.00

0.00 0.0
500
(none)
631.50
a 6498918.80
2222629.73
631.50
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
1 189 5

Building(s)
Name
M.

ID
RB
Residents
Absorption
Height
Begin
(ft)

BUILDING
BUILDING00001
x
0 675.50 a

BUILDING
BUILDING00002
x
0 675.00 a

BUILDING
BUILDING00003
x
0 676.50 a

BUILDING
BUILDING00004
x
0 682.00 a

BUILDING
BUILDING00005
x
0 688.00 a

BUILDING
BUILDING00006
x
0 690.00 a

BUILDING
BUILDING00007
x
0 675.50 a

BUILDING
BUILDING00008
x
0 673.50 a

BUILDING
BUILDING00009
x
0 660.50 a

BUILDING
BUILDING00010
x
0 661.50 a

BUILDING
BUILDING00011
x
0 658.50 a

BUILDING
BUILDING00012
x
0 632.00 a

BUILDING
BUILDING00013
x
0 677.00 a

BUILDING
BUILDING00014
x
0 689.50 a

BUILDING
BUILDING00015
x
0 676.50 a

BUILDING
BUILDING00016
x
0 670.00 a
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
1196

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
APPENDIX 10.1:

CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS
12610-03 Noise Study
11997
URBAN

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
12610-03 Noise Study
1 1998
It IN

12610
CadnaA Noise Prediction Model
12610_03_Construction.cna
Date:

18.02.20 Analyst:

B. Lawson
Receiver Noise Levels
Name
M.

ID
Level Lr
Limit. Value
Land Use
Height
Coordinates
Day
Eve
Night
Day
Eve
Night
Type
Auto
Noise Type
X
Y
Z
(dBA)
(dBA)
(dBA)
(dBA)
(dBA)
(dBA)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
91 R1

52.2 52.2

52.2 55.0

50.0 45.0

5.00 r 6498278.71
2223255.93
612.92
R2
R2

69.5 69.5

69.5 55.0

50.0 45.0

5.00 r 6498990.95
2222767.65
647.26
R3
R3

70.2 70.2

70.2 55.0

50.0 45.0

5.00 r 6498881.84
2222114.07
677.54
R4
R4

70.5 70.5

70.5 55.0

50.0 45.0

5.00 r 6498710.78
2222103.28
685.09
95 R5

70.1 70.1

70.1 55.0

50.0 45.0

5.00 r 6498539.14
2222093.84
677.54
R6
R6

65.1 65.1

65.1 55.0

50.0 45.0

5.00 r 6498360.19
2222003.12
674.50
R7
R7

66.4 66.4

66.4 55.0

50.0 45.0

5.00 r 6498216.10
2222028.54
671.45
98 R8

56.0 56.0

56.0 55.0

50.0 45.0

5.00 r 6497921.76
2222287.44
640.91
Area Source(s)
Name
M.

ID
Result. PWL
Result. PWL"
Lw / Li
Correction
Sound Reduction
Attenuation
Operating Time
KO
Freq.

Direct.

Moving Pt. Src
Day
Evening
Night
Day
Evening
Night
Type
Value
norm.

Day
Evening
Night
R
Area
Day
Special
Night
Number
(dBA)
(dBA)
(dBA)
(dBA)
(dBA)
(dBA)
dB(A)
dB(A)
dB(A)
dB(A)
(ftz)
(min)
(min)
(min)
(dB)
(Hz)
Day
Evening
Night

SITEBOUNDARY
SITEBOUNDARY00001
122.3
122.3
122.3

75.3 75.3

75.3 Lw"

75.3 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 500
(none)

SITEBOUNDARY
SITEBOUNDARY00002
119.9
119.9
119.9

75.3 75.3

75.3 Lw"

75.3 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 500
(none)
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
1199

Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
12610-03 Noise Study
1200
It IN

Appendix E-2
Noise Memo
1201

URBAN
DATE: November 26, 2024
TO: Ms. Joanne Chan, Kam Sang Company Inc.

FROM: William Maddux
JOB NO: 12610-07 Noise Memo.docx

RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES NOISE ASSESSMENT
COSSOA
The Project site is located north of Mirada Circle and east of Frank Sinatra Drive, in the City of Rancho Mirage as shown in Exhibit A. The Project site is located adjacent to the existing Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage, north of the Mirada Estates and east of the Villas of Mirada. The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The Purpose of this memorandum is to respond to comments on the previous Ritz -Carlton Residences Noise Impact Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads in February 2020. Specifically, this memorandum updates the construction noise and vibration analysis.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
It is our understanding that the Project is to expand the existing Ritz -Carlton hotel by 106 residential dwelling units, a 6,966 square foot restaurant, and a 23,843 square foot venue. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the Project will be constructed within a single phase of development with a projected Opening Year of 2027.

URBAN CROSS
EXHIBIT A: LOCATION MAP
OA
DS

URBAN CROSSROADS
1203
12610-10 Noise Memo.docx

URBAN C
EXHIBIT B: SITE PLAN
BOSS
OA
DS
1204
12610-10 Noise Memo.docx

URBAN CROSSROADS

Ms. Joanne Chan
Kam Sang Company Inc.

November 26, 2024

Page 2 ends

Rancho Mirage City CouncilDecember 18, 2025

Rancho Mirage City Council
December 18, 2025