Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2021-07-06 PC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet
CITY OF PALM DESERT REGULAR PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA .•.;44.-44r TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2021 — 6:00 P.M. i973 ,. ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. SUMMARY OF CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS In consideration of the current Coronavirus/COVID-19 Pandemic and pursuant to California Governor Newsom's Executive Orders, Planning Commissioners may participate via teleconference. Any person wishing to discuss any item not appearing on the agenda may address the Planning Commission via the Zoom session at this point by giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes unless the Planning Commission authorizes additional time. Because the Brown Act does not allow the Planning Commission to take action on items not on the Agenda, members will not enter into discussion with speakers but may briefly respond or instead refer the matter to staff for a report and recommendation at a future Planning Commission meeting. THREE OPTIONS FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE MEETING Option 1 —To Participate by email: 1. Send your comments by email to: planning@cityofpalmdesert.org. Emails received by 3:00 p.m. prior to the meeting will be made part of the record and distributed to the Planning Commission. This method is encouraged because it will give the Commissioners the opportunity to reflect upon your input. Emails will not be read aloud. Option 2 — To Participate and Provide Verbal Comments by Using Your Internet 1. Click the link: https://palmdesert.zoom.us 2. Webinar ID: 835 7627 6417 Passcode: 029629 AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 6, 2021 Option 3 — To Listen and Provide Verbal Comments Using Your Telephone 1. Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): 2. Telephone US: +1 669 219 2599 US (San Jose) or +1 213 338 8477 US (Los Angeles) or +1 602 753 0140 US (Phoenix) or +1 971 247 1195 US (Portland) or +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) 3. Enter the Webinar ID: 835 7627 6417 Passcode: 029629 followed by #. 4. Indicate that you are a participant by pressing # to continue. 5. You will hear audio of the meeting in progress. Remain on the line if the meeting has not yet started. 6. During the meeting, Pres *9 to add yourself to the queue and wait for City staff to announce your name. Staff will unmute your line when it is your turn to speak. LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE (3) MINUTES Staff reports and documents for agenda items are available for public inspection at the Land Development (Planning/Engineering) Division and on the City's website: www.cityofpalmdesert.or_q. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR ALL MATTERS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE ROLL CALL VOTE. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR AUDIENCE REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND ACTION UNDER SECTION VII, CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER, OF THE AGENDA. A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 15, 2021. Rec: Approve as presented. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER VIII. NEW BUSINESS None IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS None 2 AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 6, 2021 X. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he or she raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless the Planning Commission authorizes additional time. A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION for approval of Tentative Parcel Map 38120 to subdivide a former retention basin into two single-family lots within the Montecito subdivision, and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case No. TPM 38120 (Edward Yoder, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2794, approving Case No. TPM 38120, subject to the conditions of approval; and adopting a Notice of Exemption. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council for the construction of a 269-unit affordable apartment project with a clubhouse, recreational amenities, and roadway improvements located on a 12-acre vacant parcel at the southwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Rembrandt Parkway; and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with CEQA. Case No. PP/CUP 21-0004 (Pacific West Communities, Inc., Eagle, Idaho, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2793, recommending approval to the City Council for Case No. PP/CUP 21-0004, subject to the conditions of approval; and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Xl. MISCELLANEOUS None XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES B. PARKS & RECREATION XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS XIV. ADJOURNMENT I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda for the Planning Commission was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 1st day of July 2021. M o-vu r a Monica O'Reilly, Management Specialist II 3 CITY OF PALM DESERT rh 1� PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION : td It,taprek._ vik, PRELIMINARY MINUTES ApN � y. 0.: •. LW•• TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 2021 — 6:00 P.M. ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Nancy DeLuna called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Vice-Chair Nancy DeLuna Chair John Greenwood Commissioner Ron Gregory Commissioner Lindsay Holt Commissioner Joseph Pradetto Also Present: Robert W. Hargreaves, City Attorney Craig Hayes, Assistant City Attorney Eric Ceja, Interim Director of Development Services Jessica Gonzales, Senior Management Analyst Nick Melloni, Associate Planner Melinda Gonzalez, Management Specialist I III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice-Chair DeLuna led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS Interim Director of Development Services Eric Ceja summarized pertinent City Council actions from the meeting of June 10, 2021. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 15, 2021 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 1, 2021. Rec: Approve as presented. Upon a motion by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner Holt, and a 3- 0-1 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented (AYES: DeLuna, Gregory, and Holt; NOES: None; ABSENT: Greenwood; ABSTAINED: Pradetto). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. NEW BUSINESS None IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS None X. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to amend Condition of Approval No. 7 of Amendment No. 1 to Precise Plan 14-170 and Tentative Tract 36351 to allow additional two-story homes and approval of architecture for a new single-family residential plan type. Case No. PP 21-0006 Amendment No. 2 (Ponderosa Homes II, Pleasanton, California, Applicant). Associate Planner Nick Melloni presented the staff report (staff report(s) is available at https://www.cityofpalmdesert.orq/our-city/committees-and-commissions/planning commission-information-center). After staff answered questions from the Planning Commission, Vice-Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. Rick Rosenbaum, the applicant, Franklin Drive, Pleasanton, addressed the Planning Commission. The following individuals provided comments on the location and liability of the emergency gate entrance, congestion in the area is creating issues, current covenants in place, and dust and sand from the Sage property blowing into The Gallery. Neal Victor, The Gallery homeowners' association president, Palm Desert Mitchell Wichter, Mondrian Place, Palm Desert David Hughes, Rafael Drive, Palm Desert Ronald DeGeonva, Vermeer Way, Palm Desert 2 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 15, 2021 Jeremiah Johnson, Rafael Drive, Palm Desert Michael Kline, Picasso Drive, Palm Desert Sheila Schultz, Vermeer Way, Palm Desert Joseph Nelson, Rafael Drive, Palm Desert Ida Nieuwenhuizen, Da Vinci Court, Palm Desert Hamlet Davidian, Picasso Drive, Palm Desert Tom Lorphanpaibul, Vermeer Way, Palm Desert The applicant provided additional information on the emergency gate. With no further testimony offered, Vice-Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Gregory moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2792, approving Case No. PP 21-0006 Amendment No. 2, subject to the conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pradetto and carried by a 4-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Greenwood). B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council for the construction of a 269-unit affordable apartment project with a clubhouse, recreational amenities, and roadway improvements located on a 12-acre vacant parcel at the southwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Rembrandt Parkway; and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case No. PP/CUP 21-0004 (Pacific West Communities, Inc., Eagle, Idaho, Applicant). Commissioner Ron Gregory recused himself due to a conflict of interest with his place of employment and left the Zoom meeting. Mr. Melloni presented the staff report. City Attorney Robert W. Hargreaves briefly spoke on affordable housing statutes. Darren Berberian, the applicant, and Alan Darpini, the architect, presented a PowerPoint presentation. Beverly Anaya, the representative with the property management firm, spoke about their experience managing properties, including affordable housing properties. After staff answered questions from the Planning Commission, Vice-Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. The following individuals were in opposition to the proposed project due to the following concerns: an increase in traffic and congestion, an increase of crime and violence, an increase of noise, decrease in home values, the high-density project, lack of communication or notice from the City and the developer, too much affordable housing in their community, the location of the bus stop(s), the project is too close to the Sheriff's Department, provide senior affordable housing and not low-income housing, and Rembrandt Parkway association with the project. 3 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 15, 2021 Bridget Livingston, Palm Desert Neal Victor, Kandinsky Way, Palm Desert Robert and Dana Baker, Vermeer Way, Palm Desert Margaret Rheinberger, Chagall Lane, Palm Desert Heather Behman, Cezanne Drive, Palm Desert Vanessa Capriles, Vermeer Way, Palm Desert Mitchell Wichter, Mondrian Place, Palm Desert Jeremiah Johnson, Raphael Drive, Palm Desert Susan Lowell, Scholar Lane West, Palm Desert Lori Lira, Scholar Lane West, Palm Desert Ken Lira, Scholar Lane West, Palm Desert Dudley Moses, Van Gogh Drive, Palm Desert Robert Baker, Vermeer Way, Palm Desert Brian Bell, Monet Drive, Palm Desert Joseph Nelson, Raphael Drive, Palm Desert Robert Morgan, Scholar Lane West, Palm Desert Vicky McClellion, Scholar Lane West, Palm Desert Carolyn Peterson, Scholar Lane West, Palm Desert Tom Fisher, Kandinsky Way, Palm Desert Don and Carla Lindsay, Matisse Drive, Palm Desert Fred and Sheila Schultz, Vermeer Way, Palm Desert David Hughes, Raphael Drive, Palm Desert Sarit Saig, Chagall Lane, Palm Desert Ron de Genova, Vermeer Way, Palm Desert Hamlet Davidian, Picasso Drive, Palm Desert Jada Rigg, Renoir Place, Palm Desert Brandon Rigg, Renoir Place, Palm Desert Richard Yett, Vermeer Way, Palm Desert Visha Jakkaraju, Okeefe Way, Palm Desert Jim Field, Matisse Drive, Palm Desert Caroline Davidian, Picasso Drive, Palm Desert Len Saichair, Cezzanne Drive, Palm Desert Michael Seto, Van Gogh Drive, Palm Desert Neal Victor, Kandinsky Way, Palm Desert The following individuals were in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons: promotes economic well-being for families, it is important to have safe and stable affordable housing in Palm Desert, and affordable housing needed in the community. Joyce Silver, Palm Desert Diane Morales, Warner Trail, Palm Desert Augustine, Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert Taylor Libolt Varner, Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert Rubyd Olvera, Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert Greg Rodriguez, Palm Springs Heather Vaikona, Michigan Court, Indian Wells Tony Mize, Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga 4 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 15, 2021 At this point, City staff and the developer answered questions asked by the Planning Commission. With no further testimony offered, Vice-Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed. Vice-Chair DeLuna reopened the public hearing to ask the developer if they could commit to meeting with the community face-to-face. The developer committed to the meeting, and Vice-Chair DeLuna closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pradetto moved to, by Minute Motion, continue Case No. PP/CUP 21- 0004 to July 6, 2021, to hear an update on the Sheriff's input, the feasibility of a turn pocket, and the results on the meeting between The Gallery residents and other nearby residential developments and the developer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Holt and carried by a 3-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Greenwood and Gregory). XI. MISCELLANEOUS A. INFORMATIONAL ITEM ON CHAIR/VICE-CHAIR TERMS by Eric Ceja. Mr. Ceja provided an update on terms for committees and commissions. XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner Holt reported that the Commission selected three finalists for the San Pablo roundabout art piece. The recommendation would go before the City Council for review and approval in July. If the Planning Commission has a favorite art piece, she would be happy to share it with City staff. When selecting an art piece for the north end of San Pablo Avenue at Magnesia Falls Drive, Vice-Chair DeLuna recommended a substantial art piece to slow down traffic. B. PARKS & RECREATION None XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS None 5 PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 15, 2021 XIV. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Vice-Chair DeLuna adjourned the meeting at 9:38 p.m. NANCY DE LUNA, VICE-CHAIR ATTEST: ERIC CEJA, SECRETARY MONICA O'REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: July 6, 2021 PREPARED BY: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner REQUEST: Consideration for approval of Tentative Parcel Map 38120 to subdivide a former retention basin into two single-family lots within the Montecito subdivision; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2794, approving Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 38120 to subdivide a former retention basin into two residential lots (16,279 and 12,980 square feet), subject to the conditions of approval; and adopt a Notice of Exemption. Executive Summary Approval of staff's recommendation will approve the TPM to create two new residential lots within Montecito. The existing 29,259-square-foot lot is a vacant lot that was originally dedicated as a retention basin. Several years ago, the retention basin was vacated since the homeowners' association (HOA) constructed storm drain pipes to bypass the retention basin. The two new residential lots (16,279 and 12,980 square feet), and homes (when submitted)will comply with the existing development standards, including building setbacks and height. Background Analysis A. Property Description: Montecito is located west of Cook Street, south of Frank Sinatra Drive, and north of Country Club Drive. On July 5, 1989, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 1364 approving TPM 24530 to subdivide 90 acres into 277 single-family homes. The project was altered in the 90s, and only 94 lots were developed. The remaining land is now part of the Desert Willow Golf Course. Access to the new lots is provided through the main entrance along Cook Street. B. General Plan and Zoning: Zone: Conventional Suburban Neighborhood General Plan: Planned Residential (PR) -10 July 6, 2021 — Planning Commission Staff Report Case No. TPM 38120 Page 2 of 3 C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: PR-5/Desert Willow Golf Course South: PR-10/Desert Willow Golf Course East: PR-3.5/Desert Falls Country Club West: PR-5/Desert Willow Golf Course Project Description The Montecito HOA is proposing to convert the formally vacant retention basin into two residential lots. The lots would be sold, and the new owners will be required to annex into the HOA. The proposed tentative parcel map will subdivide the 29,259-square-foot parcel into two (2) residential lots. The breakdown is as follows: • Parcel 1 — 12,980-square-foot lot • Parcel 2 — 16,279-square-foot lot Analysis The proposed subdivision complies with the Zoning Ordinance, General Plan, and the Subdivision Map Act. Infrastructure improvements, including roads and utilities, have been installed and are available. The Subdivision Map Act requires the applicant to record a parcel map in order to further subdivide the property. A. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed project is zoned Planned Residential and designated Conventional Suburban Neighborhood in the General Plan. The maximum density for Montecito is eight dwelling units per acre. Each parcel conforms to the maximum density set by the zoning district and General Plan. Each custom single-family home will have to comply with the development standards as identified in the original Planning Commission Resolution No. 1364, which are the same for the surrounding properties: • Front setback- 20 feet • Rear setback- 20 feet • Side yard setback - 15 feet combined with a minimum of 7 feet • Maximum building height - 18 feet (one story) • Lot coverage - 35% The new homes must be approved by Montecito HOA as well as the City. Also, the landscape plans, when submitted, must be approved by the City and Coachella Valley Water District before issuance of any permits. The proposed land subdivision complies with the above development standards. In addition, the proposed subdivision will not create any new significant environmental impacts to the surrounding areas as the area has already been graded and developed. Furthermore, the \\srv-fil2k19\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\Staff Reports\2021\7-6-21\Kevin\PC Staff Report TPM 38120.docx July 6, 2021 — Planning Commission Staff Report Case No. TPM 38120 Page 3 of 3 project does not physically divide an existing community and does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation outlined in the General Plan. B. Findings of Approval: Findings can be made in support of the project, and in accordance with the City's Municipal Code. Findings in support of this project are contained in the Planning Commission Resolution attached to this staff report. Environmental Review For the purposes of CEQA, the Interim Director of Development Services has determined that this project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA review in accordance with Section 15315: Class 15 — Minor Land Divisions of the CEQA Guidelines as the division is in conformance with the City's General Plan and zoning requirements, all utilities and services are available to the parcel, the parcel was not involved in a larger subdivision in the previous two years, and the parcel does not have a slope greater than 20 percent. Staff has prepared a Notice of Exemption, and no further review is necessary. LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER N/A Elie e N/A N/A Robert W. Hargreaves Eric Ceja, Interim Dir. of Janet Moore Andy Firestine City Attorney Development Services Director of Finance Assistant City Manager 1 City Manager, L. Todd Hileman: N/A APPLICANT: Edward Yoder 2 Covington Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2794 2. Legal Notice 3. Notice of Exemption 4. Exhibits Provided by the Applicant \\srv-fil2k19\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\Staff Reports\2021\7-6-21\Kevin\PC Staff Report TPM 38120.docx PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2794 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 38120 TO SUBDIVIDE A FORMER RETENTION BASIN INTO TWO SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS WITHIN THE MONTECITO SUBDIVISION; AND ADOPTION OF A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) CASE NO: TTP 38120 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 6th day of July, 2021, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Edward Yoder, for approval of the above-noted project request; and WHEREAS, according to the CEQA, the City must determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, further environmental review is necessary. The application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 2019-41, in that the Interim Director of Development Services has determined that this project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA review in accordance with Section 15315: Class 15 — Minor Land Divisions of the CEQA Guidelines as the division is in conformance with the City's General Plan and zoning requirements, all utilities and services are available to the parcel, the parcel was not involved in a larger subdivision in the previous two years, and the parcel does not have a slope greater than 20 percent. Staff has prepared a Notice of Exemption, and no further review is necessary; and WHEREAS, at the said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons exist to justify the approval of said request: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1. That the density of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The property is designated Conventional Suburban Neighborhood in the General Plan. The proposed density of subdividing a former retention basin lot into two residential lots is consistent with the maximum of eight dwelling units per acre. The project complies with the General Plan and the density is consistent with the City of Palm Desert Comprehensive General Plan. There is no specific plan for the subject property. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2794 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision have been reviewed by the Land Development (Planning/Engineering) Division, Fire Department, and Public Works Department for consistency with the General Plan and emergency services. The street and utility improvements, circulation patterns, and drainage improvements meet all requirements of the General Plan. All existing perimeter streets are in conformance with the General Plan. All internal project streets that serve the project conform to City standards and are consistent with adjoining residential developments. There are no specific plans for the property. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. The vacant site is suitable for the development proposed. On July 5, 1989, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 1364 approving TPM 24530 to subdivide 90 acres into 277 single-family homes. The project was altered in the 90s, and only 94 lots were developed. Environmental and traffic studies were prepared for the project area. No environmental or traffic concerns were identified that would indicate that development in this area would be unsuitable. In addition, existing golf courses and residential developments have successfully constructed similar types of development in the immediate vicinity. No obstacles to the development of surrounding subdivisions were experienced and, due to the proximity and similarity of the proposed development, it is reasonable to conclude that the site is physically suitable for it. The property is suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. As proposed, the site layout and density are consistent with the surrounding development. The zoning allows up to eight units per acre, which is consistent with the developed 94 single-family homes. The infrastructure, soils, and terrain serving this proposed subdivision adequately supports the density. 5. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat. For purposes of CEQA, the original Parcel Map 24350 was approved with a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact in accordance with CEQA. The design of the project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat since the surrounding area has been developed with similar land uses and a golf course. In addition, the project will pay into the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation fund for the development of raw land. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2794 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design and layout of the proposed two residential lots are in compliance with all grading requirements and the properties will be developed in accordance with the Uniform California Building Code. Grade changes in the community are accommodated by the street layout and open space provided throughout the subdivision. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed project is located within a private residential community and will not impact any public easements as part of the subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby grant approval of TPM 38120, subject to the conditions of approval. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 691 day of July 2021, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN GREENWOOD, CHAIR ATTEST: ERIC CEJA, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2794 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO: TPM 38210 LAND DEVELOPMENT (PLANNING/ENGINEERING) DIVISION: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Land Development Division, as modified by the following conditions. 2. The applicant shall record Parcel Map 38210 within two (2) years of project approval. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein, which are in addition to the approved project and all Palm Desert Municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use or structure contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Public Works Department Fire Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Building & Safety Division at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City against any third party legal challenge to these approvals, with counsel chosen by the City at applicant's expense. 6. Lighting plans shall be submitted in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) Section 24.16 for any landscape, architectural, street, or other lighting types within the project area. 7. The parcel map shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services for review and approval. 8. Record a Declaration of Annexation incorporating the new lots/owners into the existing homeowners' association and Covenants, Conditions, & Restrictions (CC&Rs) concurrently with the parcel map, unless the existing CC&R's have provisions for such annexation, then proof of which shall be submitted prior to parcel map approval. 9. The applicant shall submit grading plans for review and approval prior to receiving a grading permit. 4 ...... . ... CITY OF POEM DESERT rye NE 73 5— IO BRED WARING DRIVE � �' PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 _�ll� P `- .� TEL: 760 346-061I •; nL info@ciiyofpalmdeserLorg CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TPM20-0006 /TPM 38120 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY EDWARD YODER FOR APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A FORMER RETENTION BASIN INTO TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITHIN THE MONTECITO SUBDIVISION; AND ADOPTION OF A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), finds that this project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA review in accordance with Section 15315: Class 15 — Minor Land Divisions of the CEQA Guidelines as the division is in conformance with the City's General Plan and zoning requirements, all utilities and services are available to the parcel, the parcel was not involved in a larger subdivision in the previous two years, and the parcel does not have a slope greater than 20 percent. Project Location/ Description: Project Location: Montecito development (APN 620-353-005) Project Description: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a former 29,259-square-foot retention basin into two residential lots (16,279 and 12,980 square feet). Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the project request, subject to conditions of approval. Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on July 6, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. via Zoom. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with the City's emergency protocols for social distancing. Options for remote participation will be listed on the Posted Agenda for the meeting at: https://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/committees-and- commissions/planning-commission-information-center. Comment Period: The public comment period for this project is from June 26, 2021, to July 6, 2021. Public Review: The project application is available for public review Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. by contacting the project planner, Mr. Kevin Swartz. Please submit written comments to the Planning Department. If any group challenges the action in court, the issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to the Planning Commission hearing. All comments and any questions should be directed to: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 346-0611 kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org PUBLISH: DESERT SUN ERIC CEJA, June 26, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY NOTICE OF EXEMPTION TO: Office of Planning and Research FROM: City of Palm Desert P. O. Box 3044, Room 212 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors or County Clerk County of: 1. Project Title: TPM 38120 2. Project Applicant: Edward Yoder 3. Project Location — Identify street address Montecito is located west of Cook Street, and cross streets or attach a map south of Frank Sinatra Drive, and north of showing project site (preferably a USGS Country Club Drive. 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name): 4. (a) Project Location — City: APN: 620-353-005 (b) Project Location — County: Riverside County 5. Description of nature, purpose, and Approval of staff's recommendation will beneficiaries of Project: approve the TPM to create two new residential lots within Montecito. The existing 29,259- square-foot lot is a vacant lot that was originally dedicated as a retention basin. The two new residential lots (16,279 and 12,980 square feet), and homes (when submitted) will comply with the existing development standards, including building setbacks and height. 6. Name of Public Agency approving City of Palm Desert project: 7. Name of Person or Agency undertaking City of Palm Desert the project, including any person undertaking an activity that receives financial assistance from the Public Agency as part of the activity or the person receiving a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement of use from the Public Agency as part of the activity: 8. Exempt status: (check one) (a) ❑ Ministerial project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(1); State CEQA Notice of Exemption FORM"B" Guidelines § 15268) (b) ❑ Not a project. (c) ❑ Emergency Project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(4); State CEQA Guidelines § 15269(b),(c)) (d) ® Categorical Exemption. The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as State type and class the Lead Agency for this project under the number: CEQA, has determined that the proposed project request is categorically exempt under Section 15315: Class 15 — Minor Land Divisions of the CEQA Guidelines as the division is in conformance with the City's General Plan and zoning requirements, all utilities and services are available to the parcel, the parcel was not involved in a larger subdivision in the previous two years, and the parcel does not have a slope greater than 20 percent, and no further review is necessary. (e) ❑ Declared Emergency. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(3); State CEQA Guidelines § 15269(a)) (f) ❑ Statutory Exemption. State Code section number: (g) ❑ Other. Explanation: 9. Reason why project was exempt: The proposed project is under 5-acres, and minor land subdivision 10. Lead Agency Contact Person: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Telephone: (760) 346-0611 11. If filed by applicant: Attach Preliminary Exemption Assessment (Form "A") before filing. 12. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project?1 Yes 1 No 13. Was a public hearing held by the lead agency to consider the exemption?TYes r No If yes, the date of the public hearing was: July 6, 2021 Signature: Date: Title: r Signed by Lead Agency T Signed by Applicant Date Received for Filing: (Clerk Stamp Here) Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21100, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code. Notice of Exemption FORM"B" IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 38120 MONTECITO AT PALM DESERT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BENCHMARK PD-8-8 MONUMENT IN HANDWELL AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF COOK STREET AND FRANK SINATRA DRIVE. 1-1/4" IP. ELEV= 244.753' DATA TABLE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 620-353-005 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 5 OF TRACT NO. 24530-1 IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, 38, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 224, PAGES 100 TO 105 EXISTING SEWER INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF RIVERSIDE 19' i 19' COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXISTING WATER \ 3 co EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: GOLF COURSE AND RESORT NEIGHBORHOOD \ _ EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATION: PLANNED RESIDENTIAL yAREAS:GROSS: 29,259 SF (0.672 AC) Q co Lu NET: 29,259 SF (0.672 AC) Lu NUMBER OF PARCELS: 2 Olr O w I 3 LOT SIZE: Z AVERAGE: 14,629 SF (0.336 AC) �O �0S 49 105 I- I M8224116�6 5 MINIMUM: 12,980 SF (0.298 AC) M822AI�6_5 PE w 9_ \ EXISTING CURB PE SCHOOL DISTRICT: DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT J m AND GUTTER I— EXISTING MASONRY WALL W UTILITY PROVIDERS: Ill CABLE: SPECTRUM �-5 /8804731W EXISTING 16" PVC I- ELECTRIC: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON EXISTING WATER — _ _� g c, STORM DRAIN GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY I 118.06' \\` Y TELEPHONE: FRONTIER / SD �� 1 SD 0 SEWER: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CVWD) w " �" w \ O i WATER: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CVWD) EXISTING MASONRY WALL e , I_ TRASH: BURRTEC TAYLOR AVENUE o/ s' sETBACK— — -- U �_ TO BE DEMOLISHED �`�p • S 0.50%� Cr) �� _(PRIVATESTREET)_ s °g��Oo;Oro � �a� s S 0 LEGEND Fa JP el V7' — — -- EXISTING BOUNDARY 1 W 6 D 2" y 20' SETBACK EXISTING SEWER- -— r 4 ,4 `y PER MB 224/00-105EASEMENT 35' 55 EXISTING CURB >04 1714' �• '3( .A-.) t� p , - • EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT 12 —— ,lam °�656 SD05 0 1 AO5 �' EXISTING STORM DRAIN MANHOLE SDMHO EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE SMH 0 __ '\ Sil M82241 i EXISTING WATER VALVE WV® EXISTING CATCH BASIN \ T SETBACK IEXISTING WATER METER WM= EXISTING 16" PVC STORM DRAIN PARCEL 2 0 \ EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY -20' SETBACK 16,279 SF (0.374 AC) m EXISTING PALM TREE PE = 60.6 Lu z_ 8'SETBACK mac' 5 a> EXISTING STORM DRAIN SD 9 \: ?r5 S\NEXISTING WATER w 01 ' 7'SETBACKEXISTING MASONRY WALL PROPOSED LOT LINE \NE.-'- AOS PARCEL 1 `� , ABBREVIATIONS 8jp.312,980SF (0.298AC) 20 SETBACKI PE o PE = 60.3 EXISTING MASONRY WALL cVi_+ AC ACRE • BOT BOTTOM r DOC HDPE HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENEDOCUMENT I IP IRON PIPE L LENGTH �/ \ _ 3 cc MB MAP BOOK 20' SETBACK 20'SETBACK NO NUMBER PE PAD ELEVATION — 150.00' _ _ \ 47.00' PUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT N89°41'37"E 197.00' / PVC POLY VINYL CHLORIDE R RADIUS EXISTING MASONRY WALL SF SQUARE FEET SOS URgE C'Mg3O0�OW oeOcc OWNER MONTECITO AT PALM DESERT HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION 42-635 MELANIE PLACE, SUITE 103 PALM DESERT, CA 92211 (760) 346-1161 O N. APPLICANT a FRANK SINATRA DR 2 COVVINGTON DRIVE ) ED YODER PALM DESERT, CA 92211 OQROFESS/per^ (760) 578-0640 4o.51313 � A % PREPARER \ BRENTWOOD WAY i z MTH2 ENGINEERING, INC DESERT WILLOW PROJECT LOCATION Exp.6-30-22 639 LAKEWOOD DRIVE RIVERSIDE, CA 92506 s clv\t (951) 850-2190 YLORAVE DESERT FALLS AVONDALE TgTEOFCAUFc��\P CONTACT: MARTEN L. ANDERSON I—Y 0 0 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 38120 SCALE: 1" = 30' COUNTRY LUB DR DATE BY REVISIONS 30 0 30 60 - - ITH2639 Lakewood Drive . Riverside, CA 92506 VICINITY MAP (951) 850-2190 www.mth2engineering.com NOT TO SCALE engineering, inc civil • water resources • storm water - - urbandesignandplanning SHEET 1 OF 1 - - D:\MTH2\Engineering\2021_12 Montecito PM\Survey\2021_12tpm01.dgn JOB 2021_12 PLOTTED:07-APR-2021 STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: July 6, 2021 PREPARED BY: Nick Melloni, Associate Planner REQUEST: Consideration of a recommendation to the City Council for the construction of a 269-unit affordable apartment development with a clubhouse, recreational amenities, and roadway improvements located on a 12-acre vacant parcel at the southwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Vitalia Way; and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2793 recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring and Reporting Plan and approve a Precise Plan (PP) and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct the 269-unit affordable apartment community, recreational amenities, and roadway improvements on a 12-acre vacant parcel located at the southwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Vitalia Way. Architectural Review Commission The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the development at three meetings held on March 23, 2021, April 27, 2021, and May 11, 2021. At the May 11 meeting, the Commissioners voted to approve the design in a 3-2 vote (AYES: McAuliffe, Van Vliet, and Levin; NOES; McIntosh, Lambell; ABSENT; Vuksic). At the May 11 meeting, the Commissioners had a lengthy and varied discussion voicing both concerns over the development architecture and praising the applicant's responsiveness to comments from previous meetings. Concerns included the following: • The buildings appear repetitive and out of scale for a residential development. • The architecture relied heavily on color to differentiate between buildings. • The four proposed color palettes were too varied. • The buildings lacked a sense of hierarchy to draw attention to the building entrance, center, or roof and that each story appeared too similar. • The location of site utilities, such as fire risers, was not clearly conveyed. • The dog park design and operation should not adversely impact the residents in adjacent apartment units. July 6, 2021 — Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 21-0004 Vitalia Apartments Page 2 of 10 The Commission approved the design, including several conditions in their motion to address their design concerns, which are summarized in the attached Notice of Action dated May 20, 2021 (Attachment No. 4). These conditions included: • Adjusting the design of building entries so they are differentiated from the second and third-story balconies. • Revising the color palette to approve colors, which are more commonly associated with the desert environment. • Design roof drainage so that all downspouts are integrated into the building design and not located on the exterior. • The location of all fire risers and utility connections be coordinated to ensure they are screened from view. • The operation of the dog park shall be restricted to prevent adverse impacts on residents. The applicant revised their architecture plans and renderings, which are included as Attachment No. 7 to incorporate the ARC's comments. The applicant has prepared a letter, which identifies how each element of the ARC's conditions was addressed in the updated set (Attachment No. 6). Planning Commission At the Planning Commission meeting on June 15, 2021, the Planning Commission continued the applicant's request to July 6, 2021, and directed staff to: • Work with the developer to host meetings with neighboring property owners. • Confer with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for input. • Evaluate if a right-hand turn pocket on eastbound Gerald Ford Drive is required. In response to feedback from residents, the applicant made the following changes to the community design: • The new street extension has been renamed from "Rembrandt Parkway" to "Vitalia Way.,, • The pool has been enlarged from 1,470 square feet. • Three shaded picnic areas with barbeques and tables have been added. • A walkway was added between Buildings 13 and 14 to the recreation area for additional access to amenities. • A play area has been added to the childcare yard for the future daycare area. • Shade trees have been added to the pedestrian paseos found throughout the site. • Community monument signs have been added at the project entry along Vitalia Way and at the intersection of Vitalia Way and Gerald Ford Drive. • Modifications to the Vitalia Way streetscape, including: o Widening the sidewalk from six and a half (6.5) feet to eight (8) feet. o Widening the landscaped parkway from three (3) to eight (8) feet. o Revised the street tree layout. July 6, 2021 — Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 21-0004 Vitalia Apartments Page 3 of 10 • Increased landscape screening with a higher density of evergreen trees along the project street frontage and the Sheriff's station. A total of 35 trees are located along Vitalia Way, an increase of nine (9) trees over the previous draft. • Changed the tubular steel perimeter fence to a six-foot-tall concrete masonry unit (CMU) block wall. Additionally, City staff has confirmed the following: • Staff presented the development to representatives of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. They expressed concern over the potential line of site from the residences into the rear parking areas of the station. To address these concerns, a new condition has been added to the resolution requiring the applicant to implement measures to prevent a line of sight from units directly facing the Sheriff's station in Buildings 4, 5, 11, and 12. These measures will include, but will not be limited to, adding screening landscaping along the western property line and applying glazing to apartment windows facing the sheriff station. The Sheriff representatives are in agreement that this condition satisfies their concerns. • Staff has confirmed with the Public Works Department that the project installing a right- hand turn pocket on eastbound Gerald Ford Drive to southbound Vitalia Way is not warranted based on the traffic impacts of the development. In addition, it was determined that future development south of this project will also not require dedicated right-turn pocket. Executive Summary Approval of staff's recommendation will result in the development, referred to as "Vitalia," proceeding to a public hearing before the City Council. The development will include a Purchase and Sale Agreement between the Palm Desert Successor to the Redevelopment Agency (SARDA) and applicant, Pacific West Communities, LLC., to sell the 12-acre parcel to the applicant. The applicant is proposing a 269-unit apartment development comprised of 14 buildings, including a clubhouse containing the leasing office, fitness room, two manager units, and space for a potential future childcare facility. The apartment buildings will be two stories (five total) and three stories (eight total), with the three-story building located within the central and southern portions of the site. All 269 apartment units will be restricted for moderate, low, and very-low-income residents. The development requires the approval of a density bonus to allow a density of 22.4 units per acre, which exceeds the zoning designation allowance of 20 units per acre. This density bonus is allowed by the Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC), state law, and allowable by the Palm Desert General Plan, which allows up to 40 units per acre on this property. The development is also requesting a parking reduction from the required two spaces per unit to 1.56 spaces per unit, which is allowable through the PDMC. The development conforms to the City's development standards for the setback, lot coverage, height, and landscaping. July 6, 2021 — Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 21-0004 Vitalia Apartments Page 4 of 10 The development was subject to the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the CEQA review. This review has determined that there will be no significant environmental impacts with the development's mitigation measures. Background A. Property Description The development site is a vacant 12-acre property located at the southwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Vitalia Way, directly east of the Riverside County Sheriff Station. The property is currently vacant and undeveloped. The area largely consists of sparse desert vegetation including, shrubs and grasses, blow sand, and scattered debris. The topography of the site generally slopes down from the southwest to the northeast from a high of 295 feet above sea level (ASL) to 273 feet ASL at the northeast corner, near Gerald Ford Drive. The parcel is part of a larger 128-acre land area owned by the City of Palm Desert. This 128-acre area is being subdivided into individual pieces and sold to developers for residential projects. A 23.4-acre parcel to the east was recently approved by the Planning Commission for a 63-unit, single-family residential subdivision known as Montage. The remaining area to the south will be developed at a future date. B. Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designation: Zone: Planned Residential — 20 dwelling units per acre (PR-20) within the Housing Overlay District (HOD) General Plan: Town Center Neighborhood C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: PR-5 —The Gallery residential community South: PR-5 —Vacant City-owned land East: PR-5 /20 de per acre (PR-5 & PR-20)— Future City retention basin and Shepherd Lane single family residences West: Public Facility (P) — Riverside County Sheriff Substation Project Description The applicant, Pacific West Communities, Inc., is proposing a PP and CUP application to construct 269 apartment units on 12 acres of vacant. There will be a total of 14 apartment buildings, up to three stories, on the apartment site. Site amenities will include a one-story clubhouse building and fitness center, a community pool, play areas, and a dog park. A. Site Plan: The apartment community is designed with two vehicular access driveways along Vitalia Way, both of which are gated. There are a total of 14 buildings located throughout the site; one July 6, 2021 — Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 21-0004 Vitalia Apartments Page 5 of 10 single-story clubhouse building, five two-story apartment buildings, and eight three-story apartment buildings. The two-story buildings are located along the street frontages. The three-story buildings are located at the central and southern portions of the site. This design layout was done to limit the appearance and massing scale of the three stories from adjacent streets, and residential neighborhoods to the east. There are a total of seven landscaped retention basins located throughout the site, three of which will be located adjacent to Vitalia Way. Pedestrian paths are also located throughout the site to provide for continuous pedestrian connections through the parking areas. The pool area and a playground are located adjacent to the clubhouse space. There is a small dog park area located north of apartment building No. 10. The perimeter of the site is enclosed with a tubular steel fence along street frontages and proposed and existing masonry walls along the westerly and southerly property boundaries. A total of 420 parking spaces will be provided. This translates into a parking ratio of 1.56 spaces per dwelling unit. Parking and drive aisles are located throughout the site. These areas have been located to screen their visibility from adjacent public streets. Carports are located in close proximity to apartment buildings for resident convenience. B. Architecture The applicant is proposing architecture that features a contemporary design characterized by geometric building forms and feature aluminum awnings, stucco pop-outs and furring, metal screen balcony railings, recessed windows, and distinctive accent colors. Architectural projections, recessing, and breaks in the parapet line are used to break up the massing of the building. The three-story buildings are shown at a height of 36 feet and the two-story buildings are shown at 26 feet. The total square footage of all buildings is 198,749. Below is a summary of the unit count and building area: Unit Summary Unit Type Unit Square Footage Unit Totals Net Square Footage jUnit Type 1 Bed 577 131 75,587 49% 2 Bed 755 70 52,850 26% 3 Bed 1,034 68 70,312 25% Total 269 198,749 100% These buildings will feature rooftop mounted units, which are screened by a continuous five- foot parapet. Per direction from the ARC, the applicant noted that all roof drainage and downspouts will be integrated into the building architecture. Exterior building-mounted downspouts are prohibited. All meters and utilities will be located within an enclosed room. Exterior utilities and meters are prohibited. Primary access to the apartment buildings are taken from the broad primary elevations. All units face an interior hallway that provides access throughout the building. July 6, 2021 — Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 21-0004 Vitalia Apartments Page 6 of 10 C. Landscape The landscape is provided throughout the apartment community site, including along perimeter roadways and common areas. The typical landscape palette mixes in desert native species for trees and shrubs and provides turf in active areas for residents. Shade trees are provided throughout paseos found throughout the site. Additionally, the applicant is proposing Italian Cypress trees along the western property boundary to provide screening for the Riverside County Sheriff's station. Perimeter Roadways: Perimeter public roadways include Gerald Ford Drive and Vitalia Way. The perimeter street frontage treatment includes a six-foot CMU wall and plantings of drought-tolerant shrubs and trees including, Mulgas, Mexican and Date Palms, Tipuana, and Southern Live Oak. In addition, a mix of shrubs including, Yuccas, Agave, and Birds of Paradise are provided. Common Areas and Retention: Common areas and retention basins are planted similarly to perimeter roadways in that a combination of inert material, shrubs, and trees are used to fill these planting areas. Turf is provided near the playground, community pool, and dog park as active space amenities to the residents. Below is a breakdown of the total landscape and open space area provided: Landscape and Open Space Summary Location - are footage Lease Office/Clubhouse 2,744 Fitness Area 1,348 Pool 9,175 Playground 1,475 , Landscape and Retention 188,292 Total Common 203,034 Total Private 19,102 1 Total Open Space 222,136 Total Open Space per Unit 823 D. Roadway and Right-of-Way Improvements As a part of the development, the applicant will construct an extension to Rembrandt Parkway south of Gerald Ford along the site's easterly frontage. This extension will be renamed Vitalia Way. This total length is approximately 942 feet of frontage. Vitalia Way is designated as a collector street with 60 feet total width. The applicant will construct half-street improvements for the street extension, which total 30 feet in width, plus an additional 12 feet for a northbound travel lane. This half-width improvement is comprised of a 20-foot wide street, six-foot-wide sidewalk, and four-foot parkway. The applicant will construct an eight-foot sidewalk along the Gerald Ford Drive frontage. July 6, 2021 — Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 21-0004 Vitalia Apartments Page 7 of 10 A new traffic signal will be constructed at the intersection of Gerald Ford Drive and Vitalia Way. This will involve necessary improvements for turn movements which are depicted in the focused traffic analysis included as Appendix E of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). As a mitigation measure, the applicant will pay a fair share towards this signal installation, which is identified as 32.5% in the MND. Analysis The subject property is zoned Planned Residential (PR), which is the City's most flexible zoning standard for residential development. Essentially, the PR zone allows the developer to propose their own development standards based on their desired products and in consultation with City Planning staff and the Commissions. The PR zone allows for three- story buildings up to a maximum height of 40 feet. As proposed, the developer is showing adequate setbacks from surrounding roadways and the project perimeter. Building heights of 26 and 36 feet are permitted by the zoning ordinance. Lastly, the Zoning Ordinance requires that 50% of the parking provided be shaded. The current plans show the shading will be achieved through a combination of carports and shade trees. Specific details for these carports are not shown. As such, the Planning staff will work with the applicant on providing those details and plans during the permitting phase of the project. A. Land Use Compatibility: The property zoning designation limits densities to a maximum of 20 units per acre, which would allow a maximum density of 240 units. At the proposed 269 units, the density of 22.4 units per acre, which would exceed the maximum allowed by the zoning designation. In 2016, the City of Palm Desert adopted a General Plan update to guide development in the City for the 2040 horizon year. The land use designation of the property is "Town Center Neighborhood," which allows moderate to high-intensity residential developments between seven and 40 dwelling units per acre. This designation is intended to allow for a variety of housing choices and styles, walkable streets, and potentially mixed uses. At maximum density, the property would allow up to 480 dwelling units, which would exceed any densities found within existing developments in Palm Desert. The proposed density is allowed by the General Plan. The proposed density is comparable to other existing apartment projects in Palm Desert, such as the following: • The Regent located on Country Club Drive — 512 Units at 20.7 units per acre • One Quail Place located on Fred Waring Drive — 384 Units at 21.5 units per acre • Atria — 77 Units at 25.7 units per acre The subject property is within the Housing Overlay District (HOD) established by PDMC Chapter 25.28.030. The district intends to incentivize the development of affordable housing units in the City of Palm Desert. This code section specifies that local jurisdictions cannot allow zone allows for flexibility for development standards, including density bonus provisions. The density bonus provisions allow the density of a project providing a minimum of 10% July 6, 2021 — Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 21-0004 Vitalia Apartments Page 8 of 10 affordable units to exceed the allowance by 20% percent. The project is providing 100% affordable units and is requesting only a 12% density bonus. State Density Bonus laws allow affordable community developments to reduce the total number of parking units required as an incentive for the development. This law is summarized under California Government Code Sections 65915-65918. This section indicates that local jurisdiction cannot require a parking ratio for affordable developments that exceed the following: • Zero to one bedroom: one onsite parking space. • Two to three bedrooms: one and one-half onsite parking spaces. • Four and more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces. The proposed project would require 538 spaces based on the City's zoning ordinance, which establishes a minimum ratio of two spaces per unit. Based on the reduced parking standards allowed by the state, the project would require 338 spaces. The project proposes 420, a reduction of 22% from the City's requirement. The parking ratio of 1.56 is allowable and can be approved in accordance with State Density bonus law and PDMC 25.34.040(D)(3). The current Housing Element (Chapter 11 of the General Plan), which applies to the 2014- 2021 planning period, identifies the potential to develop 200 affordable units at the site in Table III-38, Inventory of Vacant Lands on page 49. The Housing Element also encourages affordable housing to be provided under Policy 1 (page 52). The project will exceed the minimum number of affordable units required. B. Architecture and Site Layout: The project architecture is attractively designed and features a contemporary design similar to other projects approved in Palm Desert, including Revel Palm Desert, which is currently under construction on Country Club Drive located east of Portola Avenue. The height of the three-story building at a maximum height of 36 feet is allowable by the PR zone, which limits the maximum height to 40 feet. To minimize view impacts on surrounding single-family residential properties, the three- story buildings are placed to the south and central portions of the site, where they are far separated from neighboring residential communities. The buildings located nearest to the street are limited to one and two stories to limit the apparent massing from the street. Large separations are also provided between these buildings to further limit impacts. The nearest communities to the north and east are separated by public streets and large areas of land. These view impacts were considered in the MND, which determined there would be no impact. Public Input Public noticing was conducted for the June 15, 2021, Planning Commission meeting in accordance with California Government Code Section 65090 to 65096 and PDMC July 6, 2021 — Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 21-0004 Vitalia Apartments Page 9 of 10 Section 25.60.060. A public hearing notice was published on Friday, June 4, 2021, in The Desert Sun. Additionally, notices were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site for a total of 33 hearing notices. At the June 15 meeting, several residents of neighboring properties voiced concern over the project impacts, and the item was continued to the meeting of July 6, 2021. Because the item was continued to a specific meeting date, no new public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. Staff posted the hearing notice and agenda on the City website and emailed information to all residents that filed a comment via email. Staff attended three meetings held between the applicants and neighboring residents to inform them of the Planning Commission meeting date and that no new hearing notice would be mailed. Additionally, staff has emailed the meeting information to the president of The Gallery homeowners' association (HOA) to assist in ensuring the information is sent to interested residents. During the June 15 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed the applicant to meet with neighboring property owners that spoke at the meeting. The applicant has met with resident groups via remote meetings held using video conferencing technology, with staff in attendance at three of these meetings. These meetings were held as follows: • June 23, 2021: Meeting with approximately 20 attendees including, the applicant, City Staff, and residents of The Gallery. This was the first meeting between the applicant and the residents to receive their direct input on the development. • June 24, 2021: Meeting with approximately 10-12 attendees including, the applicant, City Staff, and residents of Scholar Lane. • June 30, 2021: Meeting with approximately 10-12 attendees including, the applicant, City Staff, and residents of The Gallery. This meeting served as a follow- up to the first meeting and the changes made based on input. The applicant has incorporated many of the residents' comments into the project design, as well as management programing. All of the written correspondence received since the June 15 meeting has been provided to the Planning Commission as an attachment to this staff report. Conclusion Staff supports the proposed apartment project at this site. The Zoning Ordinance allows for building heights up to three stories and up to 40 feet in height. The developer is proposing apartment units that are restricted as affordable housing units, which will assist the City in meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers set by the State. The designs of the buildings are attractively designed and will not impact surrounding properties. July 6, 2021 — Staff Report Case No. PP/CUP 21-0004 Vitalia Apartments Page 10 of 10 Environmental Review For the purposes of the CEQA, the Interim Director of Development Services has determined that the proposal to develop this site with 269 apartment units and ancillary uses will not result in any potentially significant negative impacts to surrounding properties and the environment. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the purposes of CEQA. Findings of Approval Findings can be made in support of the project and in accordance with the City's Municipal Code. Findings in support of this project are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2793, attached to this staff report. LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER N/A N/A N/A Elie eelet Robert W. Hargreaves Eric Ceja, Interim Director of Janet Moore Andy Firestine City Attorney Development Services Director of Finance Assistant City Manager City Manager: L. Todd Hileman: N/A APPLICANT: Pacific West Communities, Inc. 430 East State Street, Suite 100 Eagle, ID 83616 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2793 2. Public Hearing Notice for the meeting of June 15, 2021 3. ARC Minutes for May 11, 2021 4. ARC Notice of Action for May 11, 2021 5. Mitigated Negative Declaration 6. Applicant Letter to Commission 6.1 —Applicant Letter to Commission — June 30, 2021 6.2 — Design Change Narrative — June 30, 2021 6.3—Architecture Response Letter 7. Applicant's Project Exhibits 7.1 —Architecture Package + Technical Site Plan 7.2 — Landscape Exhibit 7.3— Preliminary Grading Plan + Hydrology Report 8. Public Comments PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2793 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 269-UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT WITH CLUBHOUSE, RECREATIONAL AMENITIES, AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS CASE NO: PP/CUP 21-0004 WHEREAS, Pacific Communities, LLC, propose to develop 269 dwelling units on an undeveloped 12-acre site, located on the south side of Gerald Ford Drive at the intersection of Vitalia Way directly east of the Riverside County Sheriff Station with site improvements consisting of new two- and three-story apartments, clubhouse building, and on-site recreational amenities ("Project"); and WHEREAS, street improvements include the construction of the future alignment of Vitalia Way south of Gerald Ford Drive and the construction of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Gerald Ford Drive and Vitalia Way; and WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to provide 100 percent of the units within the development for very-low, low, or moderate income-qualified persons, and as such is eligible for a density bonus provided by AB 2222 (Government Code section 65915 et seq.) and Palm Desert Municipal Code Section (PDMC) 25.34.040; and WHEREAS, the Project complies with the goals and policies contained in the City's General Plan that promote affordable housing, promote a variety of neighborhoods, and promote a mix of housing choice for current and future residents; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, Section 15367 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), and the City of Palm Desert's ("City's") Local CEQA Guidelines, the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, City staff reviewed the Project and prepared an Initial Study pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15063 to determine if the Project could have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, which concluded that the Project would have potentially significant impacts, but that those impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the City determined that a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") should be prepared for the Project, and an MND was prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21064.5 and 21080, subdivision (c), and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15070 et seq.; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2793 WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Intent to Adopt an MND pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15072 on May 11, 2021; and WHEREAS, on June 15, 2021, at its regularly scheduled meeting, the public was afforded an opportunity to comment on the Project and the MND and the Initial Study, and the Planning Commission discussed and continued the Project, the MND, and the Initial Study until July 6, 2021; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 6th day of July 2021, hold a duly noticed public meetings where members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment on the Project; and WHEREAS, at the said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify the approval of said request: WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Resolution. SECTION 2. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the MND, Initial Study, and administrative record on file with the City and available for review at 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the MND and Initial Study have been completed in compliance with the CEQA (Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.: "CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 3. Findings on Environmental Impacts. In the City's role as the lead agency under CEQA, the Planning Commission finds that the MND and Initial Study contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project. The Planning Commission further finds that the documents have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City of Palm Desert local CEQA guidelines. The Planning Commission further finds that all environmental impacts of the Project are either insignificant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level pursuant to the mitigation measures outlined in the MND, Initial Study, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Planning Commission further finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts and that any comments received to date regarding the Project have been examined and determined not to modify the conclusions of the MND or the Planning Commission. Furthermore, the Planning Commission finds that the MND has not been substantially revised after public notice of its availability and recirculation is not required. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15073.5.) The Planning Commission finds that the MND contains 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2793 a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. SECTION 4. Findings on Conditional Use Permit. In recommending approval of this project, the Planning Commission makes the following findings in accordance with PDMC Section 25.72.050: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of this title and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. The purpose of the Planned Residential (PR) zoning district is to provide areas flexibility in residential development by encouraging creative and imaginative design for the development of residential projects, with densities between 4.0 to 40 dwelling units per acre and allows multi-family developments to be considered through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The proposal to develop multi-family housing with fully affordable units at this location complies with the City's goals and the objectives of the zoning designation, and the project's density complies with the density limits established under the PR zoning district. Development of the project site complies with zoning requirements and exceeds the minimum requirements established by providing affordable housing units in compliance with the State's density bonus provisions. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed location and development of this project at this site will be monitored and cared for by an on-site manager. Maintenance issues or resident complaints can be addressed on-site. As designed, and as conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, as the project is designed below the maximum height permitted by the zone. Similar multi-family apartments have been constructed in the City and none have been detrimental to public health and safety. Adequate off-street parking is provided at the site and the proximity of the project to employment centers, schools, and City parks encourages walking and non-motorized transportation. Roadway improvements along Gerald Ford Drive and Vitalia Way ensure efficient traffic movements near the project site. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments. The proposed development complies with the development standards of the PR zoning district, including maximum building height, minimum unit sizes, and setbacks. The City's parking requirements, listed under PDMC Section 25.46.040 requires a parking ratio of two (2) parking space per unit for 538 total parking spaces. The project proposes a parking ratio of 1.56 spaces per unit, resulting in 420 total parking spaces. The applicant has requested a modification to the parking standards in accordance with the State and City density bonus provisions. Other 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2793 apartment complexes have parking standards that are below the required two spaces per unit, including the Canterra Apartments. To date, staff is not aware of any ongoing parking issues at existing apartment sites and the 1.56 ratio is adequate to meet the parking needs of the proposed community. 4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan. The proposed development complies with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, in that it provides affordable housing units in accordance with the City's Land Use & Community Character and Housing Elements. The project complies with the General Plan intent and purpose of the Town Center Neighborhood designation by developing multi-family housing within walking distance of commercial activities and meets several long-range goals of multi- family housing by including the following: affordability, recreational amenities, a pedestrian focus, and affordable housing in proximity to transit and future educational facilities. SECTION 5. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt the subsequent MND prepared for the Project. SECTION 6. Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project, attached hereto as Exhibit "A". SECTION 7. Approval. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve and adopt the Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit applications for the Project. SECTION 8. Approval. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve and adopt the Project, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit "B." SECTION 9. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City's office at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. Eric Ceja, the Secretary to the Palm Desert Planning Commission, is the custodian of the record of proceedings. SECTION 10. Notice of Determination. The Planning Commission recommends that, if the City Council approves the Project, that the City Council direct Staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County of Riverside and the State Clearinghouse within five (5) working days of any Project approval. SECTION 11. Execution of Resolution. The Chairperson of the Planning Commission sign this Resolution and the Secretary to the Commission shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2793 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings for approval of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of PP/CUP 21-0004. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 6th day of July 2021, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN GREENWOOD, CHAIR ATTEST: ERIC CEJA, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2793 EXHIBIT "A" VITALIA APARTMENTS MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measures: BIO.1 Burrowing Owl Surveys To mitigate potential impacts to burrowing owl, two pre-construction surveys shall be conducted in accordance with CDFW protocol_The first survey shall occur between 14 and 30 days prior to ground disturbance_ and the second shall occur within 24 hours of the initiation of ground disturbance activities. • If no owls are detected during those surveys, ground disturbance may proceed without further consideration of this species_ assuming there is no lapse between the surveys and construction; because the protocol states -`time lapses between Project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surreys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance_' • If burrowing owls are detected during the surveys, avoidance and minimization measures shall be required_Avoidance and minimization nation measures may include establishing a buffer zone_installing a visual barrier_implementing burrow exclusion andVor closure techniques, in conformance with CDFW protocol. BIO.2 Migratory Bird Treat'Act If ground disturbance or tree or plant removal is proposed between February 1st and August 31st, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within 7 to 10 days of initiation of grading onsite_ focusing on NIBTA covered species_ If active nests are reported_ then species-specific measures shall be prepared. At a mininu m, grading in the vicinity of a nest shall be postponed until the young birds have fledged_ For construction that occurs between September 1st and January 31st_no pre-removal nesting bird survey is required_ • In the event active nests are found exclusionary fencing shall be placed 200 feet around the nest until such time as nestlings have fledged Nests of raptors s1 i ll be provided a 500- foot buffer. Monitoring: BIO.A The Project biologist shall supply the City with reports of findings regarding burrowing owls. and migratory birds.The reports will be attached to the grading permit for the Project. Responsible Parties:City Fngineer,Planning Department Sources: Biological Resources Assessment Report Palm Desert Apartments Project Assessor's Parcel Number 69-310-006_prepared by Wood Environment&Infrastructure Solutions_Inc,March 2021:City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report_2016; Project materials; Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.77845. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2793 Mitigation Measures: CUL.1. Earth-moving activities including grading_grubbing,trernhinE.,or excavations at the site shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor_ Lf any cultural materials more than 50 years of age are discovered,they shall be recorded and evaluated in the field. The monitors shall be prepared to recover artifacts quickly to avoid construction delays but must have the power to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to allow for controlled archaeological recovery if a substantial cultural deposit is encountered. The monitors shall determine when excavations have reached sufficient depth to preclude the occurrence of cultural resources,and when monitoring should conclude_ If artifacts are discovered, these shall be processed, catalogued, analyzed_ and prepared for permanent curation in a repository with permanent retaevable storage that would allow for additional research in the future. Monitoring: CUI..A. Prior to the issuance of a grading pernut for the site,the applicant shall provide a fully executed monitoring agreement to the City_ Responsible parties:Project applicant,Planning Division,City Engineer. CUL.B. Within 30 days of the completion of ground disturbing activities on the Project site,a report of findings shall be filed with the City_The report will summarize the methods and results of the monitoring program, including an itemized inventory and a detailed analysis of recovered artifacts, upon completion of the field and laboratory work_ The report should include an interpretation of the cultural activities represented by the artifacts and a discussion of the significance of all archaeological finds. Responsible parties: Project applicant, Project archaeologist Tribal monitor, Planning Division,City Engineer. Sources: Update to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Palm Desert Apartments Project, prepared by CRM TECH on December 16,2020;City of Palm Desert General Plan Update&University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report,201d;Project materials. Mitigation Measures: &EO.1 The Project design and construction should incorporate all recommendations set forth in the Project geotechnical report(Appendix I): including, bur not limited to: the final grading plan and all earthwork and grading,as listed below: a_ Earthwork Specifications. All earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable requirements of City of Palm Desert,in compliance with all applicable provisions of the 2019 California Building Code (CDC) and in accordance with the recommendations m the Project geotechmical report_ b. Site Clearing_ Clearing operations should include the removal of all vegetation and any structural features when found_ Large shrubs: when removed, should be dubbed out to include their stumps and major root systems. c_ Ground Preparation.All unsuitable surficial materials should be removed down to competent native dune sand deposits. The exposed bottom surface should be scarified to a depth of at least b inches:watered as necessary to achieve slightly above optimum moisture conditions, and then recomputed in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. d. Shrinkage and Subsidence.The following estimates of shrinkage and subsidence are intended as an aid for project planners in determining the earthwork quantities and should be used with some caution since they are not absolute values_An average shrinkage on the order of about 20 to 22 percent may occur when excavated onsite soils are replaced(removed and 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2793 recompacted)as properly compacted fill.A subsidence estimated between 0.2 and 0.22 feet may also be expected when exposed bottom surfaces in removal areas are scarified and re- compacted as recommended herein_ Additional recon:mie,dations on post-grading considerations,foundations,footings and slabs on- grade design and construction,retaining walls,masonry block walls,exterior concrete flatworrk, swimming pool and spa,and preliminary pavement sections should also be followed in the Project design and construction. Monitoring: GEO.A The applicant shall provide the final grading plan to the Project geotechnical consultant for review and ensure the recommendations are incorporated into the design criteria and Project specifications as deemed appropriate by the consultant Responsible parties: Project engineer,Project geotechnieal consultant Project applicant. Sources:Ge otechnical Investigation Proposed Palm Desert Apartments,25.48.Acres,Gerald Ford Drive, prepared by Petra Geosciences,March 4, 202L City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; City of Palm Desert Zoning Map; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update&University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report.,2016;Project materials;Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7786_ Mitigation Measures: TRANS-1:The Project shall contribute its fair share of 32.5%towards the installation of a traffic signal and lane improvements at Rembrandt Parkway&Gerald Ford Drive as recommended in the Project traffic analysis conducted by Urban Crossroads, Inc_ in February 2021_ The signal timing should be coordinated along Gerald Ford Drive. TRANS-2:The Project applicant shall participate in the CVAG's TUMF program by paying the requisite TUMF fee. Monitoring: TRANS-A: The City shall confirm future improvements and payment of the Project's fair share contribution for the Project area roadways and intersections during the plan review process_ The City Public Works Department shall conduct inspection upon completion of the Project to ensure all required traffic improvements are built in compliance with City standards_ Responsible parties: City Planning Department, Public Works Department, Project Applicant and Project Traffic Engineer_ Sources:City ofPalmDesert General Plan,2016;City of Palm Desert General Plan Update&University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report,August 2016;PaLm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis City of Palm Desert prepared by Urban Crossroads,February 17,2021;Pacific West Apartments VMT Screening Analysis:prepared by Urban Crossroads,February 11,2021. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2793 The City conducted Tribal Consultation in conformance with AB 52.requirements and contacted four tribes in writing in March 2021_ No requests for consultation were received, and the consultation period has closed. To protect potential tribal cultural resources,Mitigation Measure CUL.1 is included in Section V_ consistent with the findings of the cultural resource study, to require monitoring of ground disturbing activities, which would reduce the impacts to Tribal Resources to less than significant levels_ Mitigation Measures: See Section V. Monitoring: See Section V. Sources: Update to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Palm Desert Apartments Project, prepared by CRM TECH on December 16, 2020; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update&University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016; Project materials_ 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2793 EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP/CUP 21-0004 LAND DEVELOPMENT (PLANNING/ENGINEERING) DIVISION: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Development Services Department, as modified by the following conditions. 2. The applicant agrees that in the event of any administrative, legal, or equitable action instituted by a third party challenging the validity of any of the procedures leading to the adoption of these Project Approvals for the Project, or the Project Approvals themselves, Developer and City each shall have the right, in their sole discretion, to elect whether or not to defend such action. Developer, at its sole expense, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City (including its agents, officers, and employees) from any such action, claim, or proceeding with counsel chosen by the City, subject to the Developer's approval of counsel, which shall not be unreasonably denied, and at the Developer's sole expense. If the City is aware of such an action or proceeding, it shall promptly notify the Developer and cooperate in the defense. Developer upon such notification shall deposit with City sufficient funds in the judgment of City Finance Director to cover the expense of defending such action without any offset or claim against said deposit to assure that the City expends no City funds. If both Parties elect to defend, the Parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in defending said action and to execute a joint defense and confidentiality agreement in order to share and protect the information, under the joint defense privilege recognized under applicable law. As part of the cooperation in defending an action, City and Developer shall coordinate their defense in order to make the most efficient use of legal counsel and to share and protect information. Developer and City shall each have sole discretion to terminate its defense at any time. The City shall not settle any third party litigation of Project Approvals without the Developer's consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed unless Developer materially breaches this indemnification requirement. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to the approved development standards listed in the PDMC, and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. All construction documentation shall be coordinated for consistency, including, but not limited to, architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, landscape and irrigation, grading, and street improvement plans. All such plans shall be consistent with the approved entitlement plans on file with the Development Services Department. 5. Construction of said project shall commence within two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise, said approval shall become null, void, and of no effect whatsoever. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2793 6. Any proposed modifications to this approval shall require an amendment to the application, which will result in a new public hearing. 7. The applicant shall enter into a Housing Agreement (HA)with the City's Housing Division to finalize affordable housing requirements as part of this project. No less than100% of all units within the project shall be available at affordable rents as specified in the HA. The HA shall be signed and completed by both the City and the applicant prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 8. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use or structure contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Public Works Department Fire Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Building & Safety Division at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 9. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by the applicable waste company and Department of Development Services and shall include a recycling program. 10. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 11. This project is subject to payment of the City's Public Art fee. The fee will be applied at the time of a building permit issuance and shall remain in the City's public art fund. 12. If Native American cultural resources are discovered during project development and construction, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the overall project may continue during this assessment period. If significant Native American cultural resources are discovered that require a Treatment Plan, the developer or his archeologist shall contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. If requested by the Tribes, the developer or archeologist shall, in good faith, consult on the discovery and its disposition. 13. Lighting plans shall be submitted in accordance with PDMC Section 24.16 for any landscape, architectural, street, or other lighting types within the project area. 14. All mitigation measures identified in the CEQA Environmental Assessment and Initial Study shall be incorporated into the planning, design, development, and operation of the project. 15. Final landscape and irrigation documents shall be prepared by a Landscape Architect registered with the State of California and shall be submitted to the City's Land Development Division and the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2793 All sheets shall be wet signed by the Landscape Architect and shall include the license number and the expiration date. The landscape plan shall conform to the preliminary landscape plans prepared as part of this application, and shall include dense plantings of landscape material. All plants shall be a minimum of five gallons in size and all trees shall be a minimum 24-inch box in size. 16. All project irrigation systems shall function properly and landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition. The maintenance of landscaping and the irrigation system shall be permanently provided for all areas of the project site, as well as walkways and the portion of public right-of-way abutting the project site (parkways and medians). Furthermore, the plans shall identify responsibility for the continued maintenance (such as homeowners' association, landscape maintenance district, property owner, etc.). 17. All exterior rooftop mechanical, heating and air conditioning equipment, and all appurtenances thereto, shall be completely screened from public view by parapet walls or roof screens that are architecturally treated to be consistent with the building. The final construction plans shall include appropriate drawings demonstrating how such equipment is to be screened from view. 18. All ground-mounted utility structures including, but not limited to, transformers, HVAC equipment, and backflow prevention valves shall be located out of view from any public street or adequately screened through the use of landscaping and/or masonry walls. 19. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations made by the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and as specified in the ARC Notice of Action dated May 20, 2021. 20. The applicant or any successor in interest shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations. 21. A copy of the herein-listed conditions of approval shall be included in the construction documentation package for the project, which shall be continuously maintained on-site during Project construction. 22. The final design of all site walls shall be subject to review and approval by the Palm Desert Development Services Department. 23. All monument signage shall be subject to review and approval by the Palm Desert Architecture Review Commission and shall comply with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.56. 24. The Applicant shall implement measures to prevent direct line-of-sight between west- facing apartment units in Buildings Nos. 4, 5, 11, and 12 and the Riverside County Sheriff's station to the west of the project site. The measures shall include but may not be limited to the installation of landscape screening and window treatments to prevent line of sight. These measures shall be subject to approval by the Palm Desert Development Services Department, in consultation with the Riverside County Sherriff's Department. The approved measures shall be adequately maintained at all times in perpetuity. 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2793 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall: 25. Submit a grading plan to the Land Development Division for review and approval. Any changes to the approved civil plans must be reviewed for approval prior to work commencing. 26. Dedicate a 20-foot drainage easement to the City along the Gerald Ford Drive frontage to convey drainage from the Riverside County Sheriff Station to the City-owned retention basin located in the adjacent parcel. 27. A parcel map waiver shall be recorded creating a parcel line along the south end of the property as shown on the approved technical site plan. 28. The applicant shall receive permission and obtain an encroachment permit from the owner of the adjacent parcel to the south prior to off-site grading 29. The drainage swale to the adjacent parcel to the south shall be maintained by the owner until the parcel is fully developed by a future developer. The swale shall be designed to prevent erosion. 30. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. 31. Drainage fees in accordance with PDMC Section 26.49 and Ordinance number 653 shall be paid prior to the recordation of the tract map. 32. Submit a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for approval. The WQMP shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Operation and Maintenance Section of the approved final WQMP shall be recorded with County's Recorder Office and a conformed copy shall be provided to the Public Works Department. 33. Submit a PM10 application to the Public Works Department for approval. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of PDMC Code Section 24.12 regarding Fugitive Dust Control. 34. The applicant shall abide by all provisions of City of Palm Desert Ordinance 843, Section 24.20 Stormwater Management and Discharge Ordinance. 35. Provide the City Engineer with evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the State Water Resources Control Board or the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2793 36. The applicant shall construct or enter into an agreement and post security, in a form and amount acceptable to the City Engineer, guaranteeing the construction of off-site improvements. Improvements include but are not limited to: A. The construction of Vitalia Way to a complete half-width plus an additional 12-foot lane. B. The installation of the City Engineer approved storm drain to convey drainage from the Riverside County Sheriff Station to the City-owned drainage basin. C. The construction of an eight-foot ADA-compliant sidewalk along Gerald Ford Drive designed per the approved plan. D. The construction of five ADA compliant curb ramps at the entrances of the Project on Vitalia Way and the side of Gerald Ford Drive west of Vitalia Way. E. The installation and maintenance of the fair share of a traffic signal located at Gerald Ford Drive and Rembrandt Way. F. The installation of a six-foot sidewalk on Vitalia Way designed per the approved plan. Construction of the above-mentioned improvements shall be subsequent to the applicant obtaining an encroachment permit from the City of Palm Desert. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION: 37. This project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes: A. 2019 California Building Code and its appendices and standards. B. 2019 California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards. C. 2019 California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards. D. 2019 California Electrical Code. E. 2019 California Energy Code. F. 2019 California Green Building Standards Code G. 2019 California Administrative Code. H. 2019 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards. 38. Submit an exit plan that labels and clearly shows compliance with all required egress features such as, but not limited to, common path of travel, the required number of exits and separation, occupant load, required width, continuity, travel distance, elevators, etc. CBC 1001.1 39. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed as required per the City of Palm Desert Code Adoption Ordinance 1351. 40. A disabled access overlay of the precise grading plan is required to be submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan review of the site accessibility requirements as per 2016 CBC Chapters 11A & B (as applicable) and Chapter 10. 41. Provide building height and area analysis to determine compliance with CBC Section 503. Justify any area increases to height and area as permitted per CBC Sections 504 and 506. 14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2793 42. Provide a complete set of scaled or fully dimension elevations to determine the number of stories for the proposed project. CBC Section 503 (Definition of "Grade Plan" "Story" and "Story above grade plane") 43. Provide an area analysis on the first sheet of the plans to justify the allowable floor areas for a mixed occupancy building. The sum of the ratios of the actual area for each occupancy divided by the allowable area for each occupancy must not exceed 1.00. For buildings with firewalls, use the floor area of each separate "building" to justify the area. CBC Section 508.4.2 and 706.1 44. All exits must provide an accessible path of travel to the public way. (CBC 1027.5 & 11 B- 206) 45. Detectable warnings shall be provided where required per CBC 11 B-705.1.2.5 and 11 B705.1.2.2. The designer is also required to meet all ADA requirements. Where an ADA requirement is more restrictive than the State of California, the ADA requirement shall supersede the State requirement. Provide an accessible path of travel to the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure is required to be accessible. Please obtain a detail from the Building and Safety Division. 46. Public pools and spas must be first approved by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and then submitted to Building and Safety Division. Pools and Spas for public use are required to be accessible. 47. Submit a detailed analysis that labels and clearly shows compliance with CBC Section 1102A.3 for housing accessibility for multistory apartment buildings without elevators. 48. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per Palm Desert Municipal Code, Title 5. 49. All contractors and/or owner-builders must submit a valid Certificate of Workers' Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. 50. Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1351 (Palm Desert Municipal Code 15.28. Compliance with Ordinance 1351 regarding street address location, dimension, a stroke of line, distance from the street, height from grade, height from the street, etc. shall be shown on all architectural building elevations in detail. Any possible obstructions, shadows, lighting, landscaping, backgrounds or other reasons that may render the building address unreadable shall be addressed during the plan review process. You may request a copy of Ordinance 1351 or Municipal Code Section 15.28 from the Building and Safety Division counter staff. 51. Please contact Tameca Williams, Management Specialists II, at the Building and Safety Division (760-776-6420) regarding the addressing of all buildings and/or suites. 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2793 FIRE DEPARTMENT: 52. The applicant shall comply with all the conditions of Riverside County Fire Department's Planning Case Conditions Letter dated March 16, 2021. END OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 16 CAL FIRE — RIVERSIDE UNIT SINCE IS.FIRE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT S,DE cooyf BILL WEISER-FIRE CI-LIEF 77-933 Las Montanas Rd., Ste. #201, Palm Desert, CA 92211-4131 • Phone (760)863-8886 • Fax(760)863-7072 www.rvcfire.org PROUDLY SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: BANNING Planning Case Conditions BEAUMONT CANYON LAKE Date: 3/16/21 COACHELLA City Case Number: PP21-0004 DESERT HOT SPRINGS Project Name: Apartments — Corner of Gerald Ford and Rembrandt Planner: Eric Ceja, Planner EASTVALE Reviewed By: Chris Cox, Assistant Fire Marshal INDIAN WELLS Fire Department Permit Number: FPPPC2100003 INDIO East Office of the Fire Marshal Responsibility JURUPA VALLEY With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced project, the Fire LAKE ELSINORE Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in LA QUINTA accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire MENIFEE protection standards: MORENO VALLEY 1. Fire Hydrants and Fire Flow: Prior to the issuance of building permits, NORCO plans for the water system shall be submitted to the fire department for PALM DESERT review and approval. The water system shall be capable of delivering the PERRIS required fire flow. Fire hydrant(s) location and spacing shall comply with the fire code. An approved water supply for fire protection during RANCHO MIRAGE construction shall be made available prior to the arrival of combustible RUeIDOUx CSD materials on site. Reference 2016 California Fire Code (CFC) 507.5.1, SAN JACINTO 3312, Appendices B and C. TEMECULA 2. Fire Department Access: Prior to building permit issuance, a fire access WILDOMAR site plan shall be approved. Access roads shall be provided to within 150 feet to all portions of the exterior building walls and shall have an BOARD OF unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet. The construction of the access SUPERVISORS: roads shall be all weather and capable of sustaining 40,000 lbs. over two KEVIN JEFFRIES DISTRICT 1 axles for areas of residential development. Approved vehicle access, either permanent or temporary, shall be provided during construction Ref. KAREN SPIEGEL DISTRICT 2 CFC 503.1.1, 3310.1 and 503.2.1 CHARLES WASHINGTON DISTRICT 3 An approved fire access walkway shall be provided to building 9 from V.MANUEL PEREZ Rembrandt Parkway with an approved access door through the proposed DISTRICT 4 fence. JEFF HEWITT DISTRICT 5 3. Requests for installation of traffic calming designs/devices on fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted and approved by the Office of the Fire Marshal. Ref. CFC 503.4.1 4. Phased Construction Access: If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access for fire protection prior to any construction. Ref. CFC 503.1 5. Prior to grading permit issuance, grading plans shall be provided to the Office of the Fire Marshal for review and approval. 6. Construction Permits Fire Department Review: Submittal of construction plans to the Office of the Fire Marshal for development, construction, installation and operational use permitting will be required. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Office of the Fire Marshal reviews these plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code, and related codes, which are in effect at the time of building plan submittal. 7. Fire Sprinkler System: All new commercial structures 3,000 square feet or larger shall be protected with a fire sprinkler system. Ref CFC 903.2 as amended by the City of Palm Desert. 8. Residential Fire Sprinklers: All residential apartment buildings shall be protected with a fire sprinkler system. Ref. CFC 903.2 9. Fire sprinkler system risers shall not be obstructed in any manner. If a system riser is to be concealed by means of a wall, soffit, column, or other building construction, it shall be provided with eighteen (18) inch clearance to each side and to the front of the system riser. Access shall be provided by means of a door with the minimum dimensions two (2) feet six (6) inches in width by six (6) feet eight (8) inches in height from the exterior of the building directly to the riser as approved by the fire code official Ref. RVC Fire IB 06-07 10.Fire Alarm and Detection System: A water flow monitoring system and/or fire alarm system may be required and determined at time of building plan review. Ref. CFC 903.4, CFC 907.2 and NFPA 72 11 .Knox Box and Gate Access: Buildings shall be provided with a Knox Box. The Knox Box shall be installed in an accessible location approved by the Office of the Fire Marshal. Electric gate operators shall be provided with Knox key switches. Electric gate operators shall also be connected to a remote signal receiver compatible for use with the preemption devices on the Riverside County fire apparatus. The gate shall automatically open upon receiving a remote signal from the fire apparatus and remain in the fully open position for a minimum of 30 seconds. Ref. CFC 506.1 12.Addressing: All residential dwellings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the residence. All commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the address side and additional locations as required. Ref. CFC 505.1 and County of Riverside Office of the Fire Marshal Standard #07-01 These conditions are preliminary and further review will occur upon receipt of construction plans. Additional requirements may be required based upon the adopted codes at the time of submittal. Should you have any questions, or if some items are unclear, please phone our office at 760-863-8886 and speak with Assistant Fire Marshal Chris Cox to assist you with these conditions. CITY OF PALM DESERT CEQA Environmental Checklist & Environmental Assessment Project Title: Palm Desert Apartments Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit Application 21-0004 Lead agency name and address: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Contact persons and phone number: Eric Ceja,Deputy Director Development Services Department City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 346-0611 Project location: Located on the south side of Gerald Ford Dr. west of Rembrandt Parkway and immediately east of the Riverside County Sheriffs Station Project sponsor's name and address: Pacific West Communities, Inc. (Contact: Darren Berberian) 430 East State Street, Suite 100 Eagle,Idaho 83616 General Plan Designation: Zoning: Town Center Neighborhood Planned Residential—20 Units Per Acre(P.R. -20) Description of project: The applicant proposes the development of 270 apartment units on 12 acres of land located at the southwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Rembrandt Parkway. The apartments are proposed in 14 two-and three-story buildings distributed throughout the site. A single-story community clubhouse and fitness center is proposed as part of a two-story apartment building in the east-central portion of the site, adjacent to a community pool,play areas and a dog park. In addition, open space areas which will also provide on-site retention are proposed throughout the Project, and will provide passive outdoor space. The two-story buildings will extend to 26 feet and 2 inches in height, while the three-story buildings will be up to 36 feet and 3 inches in height. The Project requires a Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit application. The 270 apartments will provide varying sizes to accommodate a range of family sizes, and will consist of 126 one-bedroom units, 72 two-bedroom units, and 72 three-bedroom units. A total of 410 parking spaces are provided, distributed throughout the Project. The community will include a centralized recreation area, which will be connected by pedestrian ways to the buildings to the north and south,to encourage outdoor activities for residents. The recreation area will include a community pool, tot lot, multi-purpose lawn, as well as a terrace which will provide access to the clubhouse, fitness center and restrooms. Rembrandt Parkway will be improved as part of the proposed Project. A full half-street, consisting of a 20-foot travel lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk, will be constructed adjacent to the Project's eastern boundary. In addition, a 12-foot travel lane will be provided on the east half of the street to allow two- way traffic. The balance of the east side improvements will be completed in conjunction with development to the east of the site in the future, and are not part of the Project. Access to the Project -1- will be provided from two driveways on Rembrandt Parkway. The main entry will be located approximately 650 feet south of Gerald Ford Drive, and a secondary driveway will be located approximately 115 feet south of Gerald Ford Drive. Both driveways will be gated, with the main entry providing a call box to allow both visitor and resident access, and the secondary driveway providing only resident ingress and egress. Utilities and Service Providers The following agencies and companies will provide service to the Project site: 1. Sewer: Coachella Valley Water District(CVWD) 2. Water: Coachella Valley Water District(CVWD) 3. Electricity: Southern California Edison (SCE) 4. Gas: Southern California Gas Company 5. Telephone: Frontier 6. Storm Drain: City of Palm Desert Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses North: Gerald Ford Drive and single-family residential South: Vacant land East: Vacant land and single-family residential West: County Sheriff Department Other public agencies whose approval is or may be required(e.g.,permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) None. -2- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Air Quality Forestry Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Hazards&Hazardous Emissions Materials Hydrology/Water Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Quality Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance -3- DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. ./140a," � /I't�L ' 517IOpfb.1 Eric Ceja, Deputy Director of Development Services Date City of Palm Desert -4- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g.,the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in(5)below, may be cross referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impacts to less than significance. -5- III CAUFORNIA i igloo. itripti ),, ..„,-,A,, .• ilikitabk ..Nrat.i. PACIFIC OCEAN ibliiti-ilik Inallik 11111111111111 -.ate imifrig 1111111111 MEXICO r Oeser!Hot Springs Palm Springs 19 Cathedral City _ Rancho Mirage Palm Desert Indio ,,,.I•-., '-'- Indian Wells Coachella 41, esrE • .. LaOuinta ` t' w..M. wwa V..u. RIVERSIDE COUNTY I,, „, V r 1 Palm Desert Apartments Exhibit ° L A TERRA NOVA Regional Location Map 1 PLANNING&RESEARCH.INC. Palm Desert, California ...L.-- ,c, _...,, N.... :.--, . .. ...... ,. ...., -,.... ,,, ,...__ ,kx„--N.K - - - ..... . • ..-,,..4, .,,„.. - - ...,. _ _ ,. ,N.,,,_c_.k ...._., ...-- ......... , _.._ "-----.....,.. _ ,.... . , ,.'" , '- AI,; ilt` --Lihk• .j.`s..-`1- „tIg .. . ...1 -- 4AZa. ---7*1AA:t ' !,:i • i;-`',It C.--..4 10 _••r_—= 11 :,.q .14.1 \--61 -, 31-.... •,. ..,,,.. .., ••••- : -f, ..., - - - i"--='''' •- , ...,4..,-....,77--,...., 1,,,, , .., ' 0,4- ..t Cathedral,-' F...' . . .. ,_ .rq „. -.•_1-rPo' Iv, . ..7.e.- ... I '--. —if _ 1 ' city '-i-, — rifm , ... -,,, - • Ramon Rd ---- _ .-,..._ -•''‘':...,...- '.4.4.? -,.. 1 — `...„ ..-. N lr . --•-. ... le. r•••- ' _ '•`,1•-•;" - ' r-e I - 0 _F411/4.2 y 1:0, r . E - •7 -,. . ., •.'..41:, '4::' ';'-'11,-. — 1 ) — --- i' r'ib .., _ .... , _ ,1 . 4,..„'.1 ' ,114, I ''.• I Dinah Shore Dr 1 eiw---lir- i a. CM r .7----:-'7-Ir., ... .•' 1. -• 1!-..m,'-'Ar t„., PRC),LJECT = e,...Q, : ; .: .-,-----,-- ,•-• ,. _.,.„ _-.,-:•----,.. .,,,, • .,.. l' .' ' ' % ' ' •-..., SITE •-1.r4r,=,. • -_- 1 i I. 1 t ., ti.-._.'.'1:::::;.ir r.. ,. . a Gerald Ford Dr ------'----...... - Ft-di-Ift-f-1.1r;', •=.--,74 '..-Igeft, " . rgegN '•I,, 1 " .: 0 *...7N- . ,. ---_-•-• ., 1. 1.7-.•s qi IL'm q __ - ...„.., -,, „,..,_ -,. ,;1=._,, 104', , ' •J' Oiwit'D _ , _. _ .,:-.. .,_ 7,„0--,-.. , , _ . 1,j--- ,..-_.• . ..-M ' L .1.1.; ...-. "rr • \ -• Frank Sinatra Dr ; ', - • L' -. .17m11P- —1 : .4 !rte. k 6-1,,i.z1 'Fe, __.'.-.AL :, Kit •Nkt. , _ ;.'t).\al-M.i'. ihAtt'•IPI a) . 0._ 0 c•P. • --Ai - ic,,r. 41.R.V.4.-- r ogg-"- L----.4.-,'=,-r:...1,1130ii' "..•-J-""` -',e,.-.---' -*-- %Al -t.,'_' _, -.i Oi. .,-,-.r . . --...:,.04.:.---,4_:: - 'of- ri i • --..-wr RI — .. ••_. ':I}:', .'11 " ----'`- '''-''''- t-'-=.-if#-. V ' -'?••. S...ab[. ,,,,..., .....'..t-7 Couhfry Club Dr-.7-,-r. L___----- t-• _:"..--- -. -„-, r= -•riffril•I"r - ow,i. •ct> 0 --• .- --4-----i-'• '• k.:2-'•tt'S'-•.T,-'r...--il ..,../.,_ ,,''''-' -::::.r.:" --11 1 4- '-' ^17-, ..... >-. la (6 ...-.----... --'• . ''-• -4Z.-e'-3--'041Z-i__•2-AtiC-v- - s --'''-- -F "4,41 -.. .... I lil 4., 0.- ,r 41-4,'•41-: ---;-_) , a l. ---=.--•-•--0) - L4---?,_., ---=- .i.,., i"-- . `.4 . ,.., 4..."-^r-•• . r- ,,..I el` ..-=1144. .-F I.),' ' ' ' 4.:-....\ 0 .....,,.._, 1,...-..,,,i,.., r..... i r '... .. C %It I-" 'I1P 15 .--... -.'ZI1V, - .AA 41110.Wil E;fJ•-•J/ii:2A1 ra I 0 7-.--Tri,Fro rti t -1--:- 4: h ,0,-.1-:-..,f.p. - i, . di --, -.... _ c --,----,-•• . - - . cp 7.r ':.57.''' .-... '‘ II ..IC-- ' -. '' . ' ' ''. 4614. 4 N ,- - -- i ,.....,.,,..t-r, ' .• (1-f4 7)41, 0,,,-„11.2,,- ,Eioit ,- • , t ' b",_-.7...' ; '- ' ' -,,'4, - 'rt.f.i il Cr'-' lip,,le11-,,,,t to*:----.--4 - •-..-z, ';.. '• • •' Tr- '•-''!.' 03 '',,..,Z •-:,., . (-1-1 , 42.4=-' •,' ..4 ‘.4, ... .L''-". AP 'L.,. -..,• ..,..,. , , ..• „.- - - . 11..,t,-, ..'.'4 _ -...,?... ._-.--ti. --- ' .-4,-..-....;- 'r 4:',,,.ofirl,."-,-.X I- ''''' 4, ' ' ,u,r. ' ...-.•.'.. j,, •`' ,".•''•-,4 ,-,.1.340- _ _,,,_r , , hej,„ w-110-4 t.-,L. rr - ..1. -1i-: _ • P11,1 a....71 g . " r. - 2 4 'tiike , Fred Wiring -_ ri --, - ---;-,''..eFF 44/AL - •,. '_'''_'' i'14'1,•-_: ..3 vi• . ..,--,„.-,_.--_-- ',A 0•4 ,tn _ ' CI Palm Desert Apartments Exhibit r 1 . TERRA NOVA e Project Vicinity Map A PLANNINGRESEARCHINC Palm Desert, California & • sL • �A ellana Pi s ' .-} r- � k _ C �_ . - ,�1 e• • � . rTil i • ".tln� ,_ fy 1 • sr Op 11;itt 1" f c,... w 4s yI.:_, • cam. i St..„„Irri ., f 4 m ' .. -Fi nnir' I ..• i ` -��C=����:+7f• .,�..�= �.�9 ` y� �A 1��i7�+�._. .. v51,'\t l- _rani �'+�yy��.. _ .. 10,11 ... 1- y erald Ford Dr T . . . !A .,.�-a���_o .-111. � -n- - _ _ .l _aim ±ka.••+ti. S. ate- 1 :; � .. r• — N..: , . . , .$9,, -5.71..., ...1., ,-. - - , j- 9+ rre if + �+rhof ar L'nrW j Scholar-LrY E - ,4t. ,, - t ' • lb . indflower-Ct— rt t ti. . % • • kii4rYti g w. 3 t rIC ♦ i. k ` '. { ,1 • - �,. mac: i• '•• • ` !' • _- A • ' `ti \ iL1. 15r li •*y'=.M1 cc., • ¢ Julie ar u.:. Coll BAr= i i"b:. \. ' �. -- - 0)I .4... ,�; A �` .: ‘ .%. ij ;tir" . I • ;fir`• l..� 1 .. . *' . , BSc+ l' . r. % �v�r III 7�sk -s. • Source:Google Earth,2021 I0, Palm Desert Apartments r 1 Exhibit L. TERRA NOVA Project Location Map 3 PLANNING&RESEARCH,INC. Palm Desert, California I Hi i I IrI1 ii !N NE CITY OF PALM DESERT,COVNTY OF RIVERSIDE.STATE OF CALIFORNIA i j I 'l III CCYIDART PPOSIPWR-DLu1T CC.LIC sx TECHNICAL SITE PLAN -rX F1[MCl edptlAR.=1pI04 EMIrO WR c-�r..R rc ErN ctKY:HII L PERRENINFSIn AKLla1J00fa012 - i -. I 1` P MP=WuLrMQrWP1T(I.p.IFr..ao.a�wsPlc€mnwR. E%HIBtt PATE:FEBRVARY 12,10RT ' JI S-.. O�PII� r ! Pr k1(1(1® PmEtncayvux@ wHnvsrlmiJ - .1 ` ra" +m,PFGWe GI)rga CaEE�=fl£WL V2L; plIRTHLpRL 0.7L11 1 �_- E +e_ ba.m"`-ra+n".r r _ R!Y{$ION$ .ai.1 - � - - .... ` ---. -- '-_- - __ -"-- .-. ._.- "'-"--"-'- Fn R -.---SM «�..�. NO.. DATE DESCRIPTION RHIHANDr PARK Y - I b ,A,„ l�o,Er:ea.c,RPe,aHlr,aF�, REMb1AHDT PARKWAY(FtJ1 URE) ti T r'",Fm - DATA TABLE -- .. -�� Y PR6?Cll� T _ _ _ _ _ • - -MA: - - LAN c�f¢a w.r,A�TWI ONR AFIJ P PM:IHC NE2Try 191FEY.I C. - STREET-SINE KO rl ._� 7 Mat.dAMI STREET - -. . I % - • � • FmopACT "'\ / ♦ _• CONTACT, vArue e�+eEmw 1ElErH S: ftoel ae l.m2x - r _ J I I Nir� '! r--� ` -� ExHienPRePAREt MSACONSULTNG,INC. - I III 1 rn°` i rf A6DRF5& ROE Hove DOA II l` I f'T PRor. r..n rc 7R eunolR+cIX o.v 1 ,. • 1 R r itA tic!O WRAGC CAUFG7+A 92270 i I F., r. s�r - L _- COMIALT PAUL D0PALAIL.AC? TEW'HQ I veo132a9e11 F-;F TiI g ewlwHHR i c.v..az• usm.n I Mp {�_rl Fy �F, ii l 1 .f��a 4 lea. --1,510o a 1 �' RIRLOIHG 11D.II SWRCE OFTOFOGRMHY: NL41�#H1IM SU VEK.INC. I I 1.-•I�.[I` 6•,LrL. :./aura•59ia.7S.D. + C1�6r9 H I gyp' VOW]. �� 7117 Nt1MG10HAYENtlE.SY E'n' I 1 PROP- rII • 4Ai'.T' tiI 11�iIN,KN. .- RVERSOF CALPORNA 929DD I R NO.SG L .. 1•E rc- -- - I • DATE OF TOPOGRAPHY: OC1gBE1R 20 2d:,6 Tft!PHOfll (9511($74Z52 +I I liasioRn ^ - ti _�, �1 - r� . L�r"Lliiri�,�_ .__ ` `__ _- .. 7SSsors PARCEL H hrAll: 094017-WG HI b EGAL ` 1 ''I } _J� 1 it~' 1 -� wd __ ► /111E, r.1 r11, _`.. �of F[x9[ SPARMO. EL 1s.6. R7itlCNEO F OmPu!N 10m/5WP R SCURM.D JosNGE i im PARCEL 1 p= RiipGATE OF COMPLwNCe lap. 1 RECORDED NNE 1.146E P$INSTRUMENT i _Yt 1 w �. .. - LAN BE1eNRRDINO MERIDIAN. II 1 w wxcwn r p } I __. lik .. t1, .. v �,I -u 1 I J I E. LAND 69E DESCRIPHOI! AC�A6T• PEECENIA6E I I I al I 1 FASTING GROSS ACRENOE 1.1C9,710 SF 2510 1C. - O I - PROP. FROI •� '�RaE pro.J r - PROPOSED NEI ACRPAGE 620�257 SP ._.11.9R AC. 1015 _ RW[nINARA. R IIIpINp NO. f K;:�,k:l�"F�n A� I i A si• x �.. . r----� I rfirnrl TOTAL BUKUNGAREA IGROl1x4FLOOR AR6aJ 911460SP 2.60A.C. 22% O I L 1g [�ssorrl ear■En ' 1 - -PROPOSED RECENNAL R1LOR S.{1-wJ we.9529F 2se AO. - c S, -PRCPOEFp NNESS 1,267 SF pq$A . - LL,9, I1 - ( 1^ - E EpIFAsE+c C ElousE art,sF aa+Ac- 1 - -- 1,.. L7 I Icy' .-• - no - .6 2L re I. LI Ins -_--- _ • __ ,. ,ysr--_ l�r.F^� (� .+CCEbS+cO.OS.rweD6CAPe6PMP.YIG ZIL9539F 489 Ae. 61% l - •1 f - arj u[PDSCAPEO.HE,E,I[ICW AREAS 1928f15F L/b AC. D771 1- PROP i I BUILDING .. - itL PROF. }I BUILDING 0WCNMA[NI:-- I TW! FERRY_ I 1 rc it HO.k R t � _.-rJ - ! N1Q 1- + • sFSIltllvllu 811HDUlr{&AIDHG HO.9J ID.PLEI 25rOYY I .- [r Horr1 PLOP, :Lk is + 2ESICl[NIIAI eUIIMaRG(KUMMNG HO-I� 14PLE71 2STpRY i IM:rM.hPI-- L .1 1 1 JJ I NRIEIRIG NO.1P E C41r[E s� I I 1 I ! �•nu x 1 ii resIDSNNAL F1n ACc7Gr5ilitCmrriO.2.36.41 14 FLE7 2srom ` >o of 4E5 QENS AE SULCAfG 21 RE 37ORr 1 . 1 ' 1 1 Y WO,aR:HItAa rnw.Ir,.....[12nbrf rr•P0 ! P.9.fr..1 1. ---- --- I. _ 00 J - _ MU WING NO.4 S.7-B,Ii.12B121 - L.I E re r- ■ rwvwuu�nRrrrL IrI wI N•I ! ¢EsmT.NnAL eulclHG rEUrnI4GND.11 �PLTI 2P1 Rf f'i •�_ y I I F. �� rRon.s I�` " _i RTSR2umu au xuc[ammo ma.1m 24P ER ssroRr rrc :ors...a 1 I -���' rM1F.e k LEASWGf CL18UILMSE NO.9BWCNYG NO.91 4 Fl. r I r { J RI man+1�I• 1 �f^ , r a ONSITE PARKING DAT& EMT PARKING RA710 PRIMOSL DOIM-: I{ - - ibILI l Y.[:YI =_'Y_YJJ ILL B�{THG$ I I 1 •.-.. y-- p •OVE R6-MOOrx 126 LINTS 1.1 SOA11S1MLNR IA 1SP STALLS _ - a _ •1Wo BEDROOM 72 LEM I.1 STALLS PER UHII 27% aoSTALLP 4-- 11g •n4eeleaR4pFnr;!Ixrra 1igALlEPCRwErt 271LEOSf•uEII Y�• _ ,7i ,w¢ �I�I Pf70P. x FROP. � rcor. - F TOW ?TO UNm 1,15rA LIF'[R WIT 1ppxr 2rr5ulL5.YN0.l I DIII 1 N0.7 wE10.1NC IR ENIO`126 �i14TAL RM%r+r RE44�R60 :9P SiulSI ■ SI-rLP[ i7•TIER ,. asloo }y 1r r rx I T' Py DTI HS elr! , La sloop { 1434011E TOTAL PARKRJG PROVOEO l R1051hLES • - € FxISHNG701■NG: uLhNN[OCOlANIlRdAllv.R.} - I PROPOSED E[f1H1G: PLANNED COOAMERC COMMERCIAL(11...134 3 - -, " ' --- I _- H �0 'I 19 - . __ - Jc FRISKING GENERAL PLAN LAND UST. TOWN CENTER NPIGHDO411DOC l + -- PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE TOWN CENTER NDC NC0O T i 1 MANIC MUTT PURVEYORS: •I1 _ m1 I I I 1 L - I I I I ELECTRIC-. sour gla cA 0RIIA GASc I7Rm sz...w1 L_. ll-JJ ` + U f CAS: .•SOUTHERN CAUFORNN CATS COMPANY M77i 27&OOP2 I - I q 0.1 ILtEPHONE:WATER 'W OIIIIr CQ�vsO ICAII3NS Mg 921.710! IF I(� 1 I IE� CA3LE:: SPECIDL M VALLErwATER 01ETRCT �m 99 a I ! Si �I. - ! ! I I b .. I I i J I I I I I I. 1 1 ` Foci u7.xrFao WALL uSA: Wi7ERGAC3 STaRVC'E ALERT IB�D7 fE b217 ySFWF+AI CON:FEI k....V..0.1 I7Y WAIFS/PILIX11 1 176D'.39&76S1 I �R" 5 VOW;�r pc:Marc ac.oaa 61,.N.- _ _ _ _ PE NA FLOOD ZONE cesr,HArOe1: . • I - _ 00 00G EC1iR+raARIRlar(P� --• T07F7l:AREA OFINHIK4RL R00.1FIALARO I • ,;'1 :■mod-o AS EMOWH ON mNPRsrx7 CfhR+TY.CAIa'ORrSA PI lWtAA54 P RAW MAN. I ., ,I - COMMUNRY PAHeL IMP HLIMRDL OTOSLC 1193G -R9EO MF/r I o t- -r ElfEC1I7E0ATE:Al1GUGr2aam - -- PA ffY�R�Ry,P��p1 -- --- - - - H#.OYe[FRdL PLAY. 1 �� r [ 1e➢�CAl. .LF.T r- J l..J I TOM.PRIMER LIQUEFACTION:. MODERATE LIDUFFALl10N Ia1F i-r ` I I `I wN.ccPa VY. 4 xDI.ZI TON. IO I 1 111, I J - I_J v .i wam1 I20F4 - Ex• :aeN SCNQQA o6EaCr, rhtM srREHGE 11NIF xual:o { p1lli�eQIRL oPAJ ICI! I I WM-. I.lull MAP ALES NOT nit:INGE ENE ENERF C•'OPRA 01.133 CSWHfkSIeP OF THE LAND OM AR. I II I I r r I I - I 2.1.407!RRF.NO P%STNNG 7.17II NOS,WM C1NCS.OR O1MF.R s1RIJC11RPS KNOWN Gil { II i I_ i I-__I I I I 1rc7ROPERTr. E I I I _! - _ --I 1__I EN-ThEMIP$EATION I I -j • I 'lrp R�'1' E' AD PE- 120- 100' T. Cl Li" CV Source:AO Architects,2021 v r 1 Palm Desert Apartments 1 Exhibit TERRA NOVA° Project Site Plan PLANNING&RE,SEARCI4,INC. Palm Desert, California { 1. 1 1 [ [ 1 1 [ .. 41,11, !!i _ I] 7 —7_, .— ' ET ;• z. E fu_ --I _ _ _ _ _ __ - _ = L _ 1_ NORTH ELEVATION »r.r -- f 1T d fi b b eJ I -7-Fa 11 r. R PlidiP !Ai 4 -i_ Pim 1:: ;: I LI_ Mr i % mIL SOUTH ELEVATION . ____ ,.-V i 4_-- r.,r IR . Q •, II' p In' ', ImII1I f I ' .. ____ L ,_ -- -Ilkil ...-. 14 o d r N N • EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATIONCo CrA' N ✓ I Palm Desert Apartments Exhibit L A TERRA NOVA® Building No. 1 Elevations �A PLANNING&RESEARCH INC. Palm Desert, California • i �v -- b : ii' + III •• _ 4LF,17 EILF111110;111 . $. _^I : L-1—,10, imp 1.761..1111 i I 1 _ 1-1 _ , ELEVATION 1 1 sT I 11 ■ 1' ■ 1 a — — - . ■Twin - — — - • . I t 111 _ I _ - I1■�' ■ 1 =1;■ I■1I _ I1■ I ■.. ELEVATION 2 441 .4. •Ilk t iii ! riifL % CI] .• Tr e■■I! .. _ _ , ��� �i� - I S d r N N c2 1r7 = r a rc N c° ELEVATION 3 ELEVATION 4 Co Co � Palm Desert Apartments Exhibit r A TERRA NOVA Building Nos. 2, 3 & 6 Elevations B PLANNING&RESEARCH,INC. Palm Desert, California Ai _ ,. 1■ , 4O 1:; : : 5 d -- i _ � �:I - _ . iiii _1T-ri 71 114; 1 ; ELEVATION 1 ELEVATION 3 •9f 5,7 j 1 - - gi ,Hi 1 _III ,-I = ■1I.• I•I' gjjlliL{ rI - ILI 1! •:� _ H m LI QL - I [ 11!� ._ ___. m• II II IAN IN -:- 71 - -1 _ 5 :- I -- li ; v r r it rt ELEVATION 2 ELEVATION 4 71 Sri CNA Source:AO Architects,2021 ni CO Palm Desert Apartments r 1 Exhibit L A TERRA NOVA Building Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 & 13 Elevations 5C PLANNING S RESEARCH,INC. Palm Desert, California MA- - --— —. _. . izczni ,, . , -H- — _ - — . -. ,,, 111711 _. _ _: ._- o 4 _ I■ I .' .- _ ■. op lop i;iF. I■I .I. u■ I . I FAST ELEVATION ME ...: r .>0- 1 a g 71 s 11 !IIII1 ■ .. . ii" Y i, 1 , 1 1 ' . 1 . ■ 1 ■ plow y ..e., - a ■ ■.1M■ 1. 11 ■ 1 ■ ■ 1 ■ ^1. 4 1 ■ 1 liii 1 1 ■ 1' 1 ■ I WEST ELEVATION cv — I N !1 II !:.!!1lI I !1�; 11 11 11 . 1 _ I I ■ I1 ■ 1 ■• 1 ■ 1 1 ■ 1 ■ 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 E II ; 11- 1 ■ 711 11111 1 1 ■ 1 ■ Q a �; , II !•�■1 = I .1.■ 1.. 1 ■ 1 I . 1 ■ 0 a N N 1t7 a• r IV az N a r00 NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION Palm Desert Apartments r I Exhibit A TERRA NOVA® Building No. 9 Elevations 5D PLANNING Si RESEARCH.INC. Palm Desert, California • II I I ` I 1 Hici [111 —rir, IRAAA ___. ..,I. - _ I.�! iF7441 'Ft lWI 1 =8� rp-i rp1 ,_,T SBA LIE_ !1-1 .� pi P- d E - ii TE- ' i �� - ��— : — i 4 ' !ILi! . _ I __1 WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION iiiii . -L -11 a II I la _ MI - EL _ ■ — ■1 1 ■ _ 1 ■ :� — — 1 i IL. . - „ _ —i i _ ■ 1'. _ , -r, 'T 1 II 11 1 ■ . _ _ 1 ia��— t. sr EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION p I' �� r cti Lr'i cm Source:AO Architects,2021 Co n Palm Desert Apartments r 1 Exhibit J TERRA NOVA® Building No. 10 Elevations JE PLANNING Si RESEARCH.INC. Palm Desert, California ar6' f' 1 i 6 . = .'SR. .117 Z—=. Ira E7' I- _ -47- _-_- 4 ;'-' 8- -- �_ • !Ilk!. EAST ELEVATION I IL I:I alliii_AL-1-11.a 7 Er-Ar z , im . - —,— , E. ' WEST ELEVATION T1 ! ..__f r, r -� mi li 4 C4 .'51 11 'I' - 1— 7- - ., •C L tirr .- ii . . _ _., , P6 ,.;.• i - , — ,,,._ici.: . k g Ili • N n v r a is ar LW 3 NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION G Palm Desert Apartments r 1 Exhibit A TERRA NOVA® Building No. 14 Elevations F PLANNING&AESEARCH,INC. Palm Desert, California r ,� lit _110. .� _ _ + I � LEGEND -� SHERIFF STATION '• w ' ID GERALD FORD DRIVE STREETSCAPE _pi - --0 -08 - I! * -meandering 8'wide concrete sidewalk _.‘: .6.1,11f lfi ._) . . '. . 4. 4C • �k '_ '` j "14► ` landscaped setback a. • ''�°-0 + =�.*P '�", ` r , ,h = - ��,, 4 --• .' - _ _ i -6'ht.tube-steel fence between buildings e'I u h rt ',6 (:.) ' i 2 REMBRANDT PARKWAY STREETSCAPE 6-- } - = 1 * k 6' 6"wide concrete sidewalk �,� •� � -landscaped setback ` t •�` - 1. ? i J i;!�• g. p ° 6'ht.tube steel fence ' IL0 0 - "� x i 1 ■ R 1'_' w 3❑ DOG PARK(65'x 95') i" 4 —■ ir BUILDING 1 , 4 1 ' -benches i•,... r I -- 1. •�' i,y� '� I 0 ~, 14 s ■ -dog amenities 11 �+ © pl. •�=, Oen 14r I /i , BUILDING T �,,�� , BUILDING 4 111- s ® COMMUNITY ENTRY BUILDING 12 ��.,�; BUILDING 11 ■� © I ■ Y ' m 'ic,;,. ■; ■ matching ht.palms -- 1 p u � ;{ C. p '�f t -short-term bike parking ! ;�'f � I '�' .I. ■ r I A -enhanced plant palette E'. ■ C`{ f, 1 • ►J 3 # �-_ ` _ •+ 7.lira 5❑ COMMUNITY PASEO .1 if Lli �_, ( r it -- ,. 0 - r Pnia_ I ■■ _ t -meanderinglandscaped walkways I r 0, ■ rI I 1 ) L +•L p rI linkeages to common amenities III j � e ❑ bench seating 4111) BUILDING 13 Y� ■ C) Ci. ``_ , ', BUILDING 10 F _ 0 \. 8 BIORETENTION BASINS VACANT >'© • $ 1 OLLI I f'i ❑ LAND ' - t ' BUILDING 2 -see Civil plans for more information �r� yy.. _ �,r , - 4 r - "r ' - I 7❑ MAILBOX CLUSTER LOCATION r 11:- �� i ' C CIF ,'1 w ` 1] EVERGREEN SCREEN PLANTING AT PERIM' * OAPkj • e BLDG.8 BUILDING 5r • F `� ,C3' 4'■ ;. , (r --, _,„_,-, F -- ;d''A ' F I " CISHADE TREES IN PARKING LOT it, 1 ��'aillr I I ,•_ \ . 0J N �!!' N. - 10 EXISTING PEREMITfR WALL TO REMAIN i . ,,' C."_-L_Lit 1-.. , - ...-,,.',,, —- * .* _ ■ .r- =_ �IL _# ' 11 NEW 6'HT.MASONRY WALL AT WEST AND k ' ,rr - _ { 0. •` `.. r t "' ■ B' ► T SOUTH PROPERTY LINE ` .i ; © B LEI >�. $ ,, •� ,� �` : BUILDINGS 0 . 1 ..„ ■ f ' B �, CLUBHOUSE FITNESS *"°e�i w e 1 s , I VICINITY MAP BUILDING 14 NAMI10+ '�L BUILDING 6 _ �� .G.a ® .s BUILDING 9 3❑ .�. L -...,....�, • *Mr 1 _. .,. A+ t 4 1 --I 111(1)..-: .ira, ,. , ,--- _, 7-,rciri ..r - .a.": L, , , ..... r., i.1.1.R4l. ..-.r . . .7... r . y ._4_.... ' _sot A.. _ -,,,,,,..A:714; ,_ „_ _ __ _11, RECREATION AREA — REMBRANDT PARKWAY © Ins MOr,R■_ .. ._ _ .. .„„ _ ___,,, __ ... __ _ . . .... - . - , ,. i - •,._ . , , �1 Illr ilk) MAWAVerdl DR Bail VACANT LAND °' "0 90' 180 IE1 ) i a E r N u7 N Source:Canyon Park Studio Landscape Architecture,2021 v r , Palm Desert Apartments Exhibit L A TERRA NOVA_0 Conceptual Landscape Plan PLANNING&RESEARCH,INC. Palm Desert, California I.AESTHETICS Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Except as provided in Public Resources Significant with Significant Code Section 21099,would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a J scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a J state scenic highway? c)In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings?(Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible I vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area,would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Setting The City of Palm Desert,including the Project site,is located in the Coachella Valley,which is surrounded by the San Bernardino and Little San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa Mountain Ranges, and terminates at the San Gorgonio Pass in the northwest and the Salton Sea in the southeast. The San Bernardino, Santa Rosa, and San Jacinto Mountain Ranges rise significantly above the valley floor with peak elevations of 11,503, 8,715, and 10,834 feet, respectively. The surrounding mountains are of high aesthetic value across the Coachella Valley, including the City of Palm Desert. The City regulates new development to ensure that it does not conflict with or adversely impact scenic resources. State-designated scenic highways in the City include State Route 74 and Highway 111, which is a California eligible state scenic highway. Both are located miles away from the Project site. Discussion of Impacts a) Less Than Significant Impact.The Project site is currently vacant. The Project proposes a multi- family apartment complex in 14 two-and three-story buildings distributed throughout the site. The two-story buildings will extend to 26 feet and 2 inches in height, while the three-story buildings will be up to 36 feet and 3 inches in height. Elevations for the buildings are shown in Exhibits 5A through 5F. These buildings will occupy 22% of the site area, landscape and retention areas will take up 37%, and the remaining (41%) will be access roads, hardscape and parking. -17- The primary scenic resources in the Project area are the Santa Rosa Mountains to the southwest and west. The Indio Hills to the northeast are somewhat visible in the distance, but do not provide significant viewsheds. Lands to the south of the Project have views of the Santa Rosa Mountains which will remain unaffected by the Project. Lands to the west of the Project include a Sheriff Station and a golf club. Because there are no significant viewsheds to the east,the Project impacts on viewers at the Sheriff Station and golf club would be negligible. The Project may have the potential to affect nearby residents on the east,and public views on Gerald Ford Drive,as discussed below. To analyze Project impacts to scenic vistas immediately surrounding the Project, visual simulations of one public viewpoint and two private viewpoints were conducted(Exhibit 7A). The analysis of private views is not required in this CEQA review process,but this simulation analysis was prepared to address potential concerns of surrounding private property owners. Exhibits 7B- 7D present current conditions on the top and built conditions upon Project completion on the bottom for each simulation site. View 1 to the southwest The public view from Gerald Ford Drive, 150 feet east of Rembrandt Way, looking southwest into the Project site was analyzed (Exhibit 7B). Currently, viewers on Gerald Ford Drive can see the mid-and top ranges of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The foothills are blocked due to topography and the existing Sheriff Station. Palm trees to the east of the Project site and trees and landscaping around the Sheriff Station are visible, and these views will remain unaffected at Project buildout. At Project buildout, the visual simulation shows the lower range mountain views will be blocked by the proposed Project rather than the Sheriff Station. The Project buildings will be taller than the Station, and will block portions of the mid-and top mountain ranges in the center of the field of view. Views of the mountains south and north of the Project site will remain. Views of the mountains immediately west on Gerald Ford will remain intact for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians, and some mid-range and more top-range views will also remain toward the south and east of the Project. It is less likely for travelers eastward to see the Santa Rosa Mountains south of the Project site, because the mountain view is in the far right of the sight range. While the Project will block some of the Santa Rosa Mountains range, impact will be less than significant given the transient, limited view available to the eastward travelers on Gerald Ford. View of the Indio Hills will remain intact for the eastward travelers. Impacts on scenic vistas are considered less than significant on Gerald Ford Drive. View 2 to the west The private view from the rear property line of the single-family homes at the western end of Scholar Lane, looking west was analyzed(Exhibit 7C). Under the current conditions, residents on Scholar Lane can see mid- and top ranges of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The lower ranges are blocked by the existing Sheriff Station, which shows parking structure shade structures, monochromatic building walls and perimeter block walls. At Project buildout, the visual simulation shows the lower range mountain views will be blocked by the proposed Project rather than the Sheriff Station. Similar to View 1, as the Project buildings will be slightly taller than the Station structures, they will block some mid-range views of the mountains. However, the top range views will remain; the Project proposes black wrought-iron fences, trees and landscaping along the eastern Project boundary, and the proposed apartment buildings will exhibit varied color tones and conscious design to blend into the environment. -18- Future development on the east side of the extension of Rembrandt Parkway will also block views of the Project from this location. Although viewers along Scholar Lane will have a reduced view of the mid-range of the Santa Rosas,the Project will not significantly block the views of the range. Therefore, the Project will not substantially impact views from near Scholar Lane. View 3 to the northwest The private view from the rear yards at the end of Julie Drive, looking northwest was analyzed (Exhibit 7D). Currently, foreground and midground views consist of vacant land, single-family homes on the east side of Gerald Ford, and the Sheriff Station. The peak of San Jacinto, the intervening Banning Pass,and the San Gorgonio range are visible to the west and northwest in this view. To the southwest, beyond this photograph, the Santa Rosa range occurs, and views of the range will not be affected by the Project from this view point. At Project buildout, the visual simulation shows the Project in the midground views where the mountains appear distant in the background. Because of the distance between Julie Drive and the Project,the size and scale of the Project do not appear significantly larger than the existing Sheriff Station in the same direction. The majority of mountain views to the south and north will remain intact. Mid-range views of the base of San Jacinto and the Pass will be obstructed, but the mid- range and peaks of both the San Jacinto and San Gorgonio range will remain.The Project buildings will be shielded with trees and landscaping, further softening the view. Impacts will be less than significant for View 3. Overall, the Project is not expected to significantly impact scenic vistas in the area. b) No Impact. The Project site is not located near an existing or proposed state scenic highway and there are no scenic resources such as trees,rock outcroppings,or historical buildings located onsite. No impact to these resources will occur. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project is located in an urban environment. The Project will result in a multi-family apartment complex on currently vacant land, which includes 14 two- and three-story buildings, a community pool, play areas and a dog park as well as open space areas throughout the site. The Project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for building height,density and other requirements for scenic quality.The Town Center Neighborhood designation for the Project site describes intended physical character such as formal street tree arrangements,up to three-story buildings,and variety of public open space,which are all proposed by the Project. The Project buildings will have exterior tile finishes in various colors from gray, tan to turquoise and rose, but the overall tones are designed to blend into the desert environment while adding visual interest. The Project would have less than significant impacts on scenic quality and would not conflict with applicable regulations. d) Less Than Significant Impact.Construction of the proposed Project will generate light and glare, primarily from landscape lighting, safety and security lighting on building exteriors, and vehicles accessing the site. The City regulates lighting levels and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent property.Further,residential lighting is generally limited,and of low intensity.All Project lighting will be required to comply with Chapter 24.16 (Outdoor Lighting Requirements) of the Municipal Code, including lighting performance criteria and design guidelines for various light sources. More detailed review during final landscape and lighting plan review will occur during the plan check process. The City standards, combined with the nature of the land use proposed, will assure that impacts are less than significant. -19- Mitigation Measures: None required Monitoring: None required Source: City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report,2016;Palm Desert Municipal Code; Project's Site Plan and Landscape and Architectural Design Plans; Project materials; Project site survey, February 2021; Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7786. -20- -. - --:' • ---\ ;1 A's"llaria PI r r • ... L 4°c tee �' w - j A ',..:_murr-- :4,141_,0010.1 _.:kirtipi_.:, 11.1.7--:'r • ..14,;:ti. it Q: iz--�..- v,s.fir l y i' ^,_. ^r Y .,. -r � y;.:, I --• .. - - r -_ ,,I, Tom¢. ald Ford is IP at -.,"1.,'M ii, 1- 1 � R4� r fia: L 1-Xi —coar-,nW S }olrrrE it, A . 1'r 1• * h, • ► �r,n. . _ t.y - f .I j , - �. b a� + ` • .-% , 6'1 + . r " t `.y '; flower-Ct— ki, 11 1 Ki. L, r, . 9. • .� ry3� • 2ra�� •� y • • • r , •� •• * • 4‘ •+� . y 'i I � I ..M, i ► 4. .?) ulie-Dr a`' I . — .,o ieg PAS_ • a iri 'first-- 00, ', IQ } .4 id i 7s— iiil t 12 r' : • ,csi._., Pi Source:Google Earth,2021 CO Palm Desert Apartments r -1 Exhibit TERRA NOVA Visual Simulation Key Map 7A PLANNING&RESEARCH,INC. Palm Desert, California 1 EXISTING - ; :. ,, ►. VIEW i.. • ....=iikx y Sir . I n' • _ '-*' __.— .- rni f -"-. —ail' r _ -: 7 iir PROPOSED i . _ , , _ -- - ,l...l .,o'-1: ',r1'L = '..: ^ — r _ ^, VIEW _ :: ` F_7AI.: f - \i. /Aft" i.,:::::?, , - o 4------1W411:1FeirlijiliC11--- ' • ai IF m • :c U 7 Ci r , Palm Desert Apartments Exhibit f L A TERRA NOVA Visual�y� Simulation View 1 PLANNING&RESEARCH,INC. Palm Desert, California 7 B EXISTING VIEW -T 1111k/101#4110e . f tom- r . .— �r1 '•4 ' -.. N ,� - •I •et • . . .• t . ar Id . MI F1' q - • �.K . , - ..1ti1� ,l-GGBii GL".mayPROPOSED • ''� TIL ..9 �• �r i," e,i :y� Y ,� ti �c+���i!�r.� �1�!!'�C'� .� r i� lifi'vji VIEW �, �,: - '".}^' Mr - d' S:f ,1 s . - . . - a , r: _ �. �^ +� •tom. i. ice. .� r " 1 ._ .. 1 fit^ .r 4. . T _ -A. .' 4•,:ice#_ Y . 4 • ,_ r t •'v 1 +� �. i_ -. ry - _ _ _. cri ai I yr'a y� ` ti f �.�. a cV In^ ``1. it • -•4y.-s" -...r 1 " • ! : L ,4 :-. - [+] ✓J Palm Desert Apartments Exhibit A TERRA NOVA Visual�y� Simulation View 2 7C PLANNING&RESEARCH,INC. Palm Desert, California ........"...,„ ,.,..„..,..,.,,,..... A..„,.t . :,. .,..„,,...,...,, , _ _, ,, ... . ,„_.. ,..lito,.111: �-- i• . . EXISTING �_- VIEW .. . ;` : ri f� + i I ([1 [ f j �� fpi�r'II r moil i i ` ..e.. `` . �' �, ,. ' yam' ; �ligi 1� �' ? jIl I- . 410111' •'- joiiiiii...e._ --11.- .r. •_ I fr irfi . ... . w PROPOSED - :9" �'f _ - - - , .�;�• _ y ��f 1 'IL +. r y r • r� �! � � t r _ - ` .T a.r fir, -re VI E Y Y +� ` `. wig' ■i 416. -F • rr �a1 * '� , I I ffiliiii��t •}u }� ! Ili 7 r'' �I ro,114i7! � , ` r....... T • r r!_ rr =NW Ili ' 'I JRT I� 1, J'�' Y y' a 1,+0 Y. .y ri i.r i• 1 144 Ow • N > _ — _ z _ `'r. - ~+ - = _ . �+�•jTY •h r 4.�•:w�•y ' ,a:. rcFW` N - •� _ _ • - • s�'v ` t _ - - - - Jig ' ivit U - • - l f , 7 r u7 0 ✓ , Palm Desert Apartments Exhibit f L A TERRA NOVA Visual Simulation View 3 7D PLANNING&RESEARCH,INC. Palm Desert, California II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.In determining whether impacts to forest resources,including timberland,are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land,including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant No Would the project: Significant with Significant P Im act Impact Mitigation Impact a)Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland .1 Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act .1 contract? c)Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland(as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),or timberland zoned Timberland Production(as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d)Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e)Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of I Farmland,to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Setting Agricultural operations have been a significant feature in the economy of Riverside County and the Coachella Valley. The City of Palm Desert is predominantly built out with existing urban uses.According to the California Important Farmlands mapping, the Project site is within an area of `Other Land'. The nearest designated important farmlands are Farmland of Local Importance are located north of Interstate 10 and east of Cook Street, more than 3,700 feet to the northeast and more than 1.4 miles east of the Project site. Per the Palm Desert General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the City does not contain any land designated or zoned for agricultural uses. While not directly related to agriculture and forest uses, the General Plan includes a potential for golf course reuse that may allow community scale agricultural use. The City's -25- General Plan does not include Forestry or Forest Production designations, nor does the City have zones for these uses. The Project area sits on the Coachella Valley floor, and no forestry or forest production lands occur in the desert climate. The Project site is currently vacant and designated as Town Center Neighborhood on the General Plan land use map, which allows a broad range of residential land uses including small-scale multi-family buildings. The Project site is zoned as Planned Residential(PR),where multifamily dwellings are allowed with a conditional use permit. Discussion of Impacts a-e) No Impact. Prime Farmland: No prime or unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance exists within the Project site or vicinity. The Project site is not located on or near any property zoned or otherwise intended for agricultural uses. As such, the Project would not convert farmland to nonagricultural use. No impact would occur. Williamson Act: The Project site and surrounding properties are designated for urban uses in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. No land on or near the Project site is under Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act Contract. No impact would occur. Forest Land: The Project site is located on the desert floor, is currently zoned as Planned Residential(PR)and is surrounded by vacant land and urban uses.The subject site does not contain forest land, timberland or timberland zoned for timberland production. Therefore, the Project would not rezone forest land or timberland as defined by the Public Resources Code. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: None required Monitoring: None required Source: City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016; Palm Desert Municipal Code; Project materials; Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7786; Important Farmland: 1984-2018, California Department of Conservation. -26- III. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria Less Than established by the applicable air quality Potentially Significant Less Than No management district or airpollution Significant Significant g with Impact control district may be relied upon to Impact Impact Mitigation make the following determinations. Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an .1 applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard c)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d)Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Setting The Coachella Valley, including the Project site, is located in the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which covers part of Riverside County and all of Imperial County. The SSAB is characterized by the large scale sinking and warming of air within the semi-permanent subtropical high-pressure center over the Pacific Ocean.The flat terrain near the Salton Sea creates deep convective thermals during the daytime but equally strong surface-based temperature inversions at night. Once the air enters the valley, it gets trapped and influences the local climate. The SSAB is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). All development within the SSAB is subject to the 2016 SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and the 2003 Coachella Valley PM113 State Implementation Plan(2003 CV PM10 SIP). SCAQMD operates and maintains regional air quality monitoring stations at numerous locations throughout its jurisdiction. The Project site is located within Source Receptor Area(SRA) 30, which includes monitoring stations in Palm Springs and Indio, as well as in the unincorporated community of Thermal. Criteria air pollutants are contaminants for which state and federal air quality standards have been established. The Salton Sea Air Basin exceeds state and federal standards for fugitive dust (PMio) and ozone (03), and is in attainment for PM2.5 except the City of Calexico. Ambient air quality in the SSAB, including the Project site, does not exceed state and federal standards for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxides, sulfur dioxide, lead, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, or vinyl chloride. Discussion of Impacts a) No Impact. A project is considered to be in conformity with adopted air quality plans if it adheres to the requirements of the SCAQMD Rule Book, AQMP, and adopted and forthcoming control measures, and is consistent with growth forecasts in the applicable plan(s) (or is directly included in the applicable plan). Conformity with growth forecasts can be established by demonstrating that -27- a project is consistent with the land use plan that was used to generate the growth forecast. A non- conforming project would be one that increases the gross number of dwelling units, increases the number of trips, and/or increases the overall vehicle miles traveled in an affected area relative to the applicable land use plan. The proposed Project site is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin(SSAB) and will be subject to SCAQMD's 2016 AQMP and the 2003 Coachella Valley PMIo SIP. The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that establishes control strategies and guidance on regional emission reductions for air pollutants. The AQMP is based, in part, on the land use plans of the jurisdictions in the region. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020 RTP/SCS) to comply with metropolitan planning organization (MPO) requirements under the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act. The RTP/SCS Growth Management chapter forms the basis of land use and transportation controls of the AQMP. Projects that are consistent with the population forecasts are considered consistent with the AQMP. SCAG forecasts that the City's population will be 64,100 in 2045. The proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation (Town Center Neighborhood) assigned to the subject property by the Palm Desert General Plan(2016). The proposed residential density (23 DU/AC) is within the development intensities range (7.0 to 40 DU/AC) specified for the Town Center Neighborhood designation. The General Plan was used to develop population forecasts in the above-described RTP/SCS, and the RTP/SCS served as the basis for the AQMP. The Project will be part of anticipated growth and the residential land use was included in the SCAG analysis. The proposed Project would be implemented in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations contained in these plans to meet the applicable air quality standards. Therefore, the Project will be consistent with the AQMP, and no conflict will occur. b) Less Than Significant Impact. A project is considered to have significant impacts if there is a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As previously stated,the SSAB is currently a non-attainment area for PMIo and ozone. Therefore,if the Project's construction and/or operational emissions exceed SCAQMD thresholds for PMIo and ozone precursors, which include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxides (NOX), and volatile/reactive organic compounds/gases (VOC or ROG), then impacts would be cumulatively considerable and significant. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)Version 2016.3.2 was used to project air quality emissions that will be generated by the proposed Project (Appendix A). Criteria air pollutants will be released during both construction and operation phases of the proposed Project, as shown in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 summarizes short-term construction-related emissions, and Table 2 summarizes ongoing emissions generated during operation. Construction Emissions: For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that construction will occur over an 18-month period starting mid-2021 with buildout by 2023. The construction period includes all aspects of Project development, including site preparation, grading, paving, building construction, and application of architectural coatings. -28- As shown in Table 1, emissions generated by construction activities will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria pollutant during construction.The data reflect average daily unmitigated emissions over the 18-month construction period, including summer and winter weather conditions. The analysis assumes cut of 52,765 cubic yards and fill of 52,765 cubic yards of dirt/soil materials per the Project preliminary grading plan. Applicable standard requirements and best management practices include,but are not limited to,the implementation of a dust control and management plan in conformance with SCAQMD Rule 403, phased application of architectural coatings and the use of low-polluting architectural paint and coatings per SCAQMD Rule 1113. Table 1 Maximum Daily Construction-Related Emissions Summary (pounds per day) Construction Emissions' CO NO. ROG SO2 PMIo PM2.s Daily Maximum 31.62 46.47 42.86 0.07 9.24 5.79 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Exceeds? No No No No No No 1 Average of winter and summer emissions. Includes implementation of fugitive dust control measures and architectural coating standards required by SCAQMD under Rule 403 and Rule 1113,respectively. Emission Source:CalEEMod model,version 2016.3.1. Given that criteria pollutant thresholds will not be exceeded, and standard best management practices will be applied during construction, impacts will be less than significant. Operational Emissions: Operational emissions are ongoing emissions that will occur over the life of the Project. They include area source emissions, emissions from energy demand (electricity), and mobile source (vehicle) emissions. According to the Project Traffic Analysis (Appendix E), the proposed Project will generate approximately 1,976 daily trips (see Section XVII). Table 2 provides a summary of projected emissions during operation of the proposed Project at build out. As shown below, operational emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance for any criteria pollutants for operations. Impacts related to operational emissions will be less than significant. Table 2 Maximum Daily Operational-Related Emissions Summary (pounds per day) Operational Emissions' CO NO. ROG SO2 PMIo PM2s Daily Maximum 62.93 29.87 11.02 0.16 9.78 2.82 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Exceeds? No No No No No No 1 Average of winter and summer emissions. Includes implementation of fugitive dust control measures and architectural coating standards required by SCAQMD under Rule 403 and Rule 1113,respectively. Emission Source:CalEEMod model,version 2016.3.1. Cumulative Contribution A significant impact could occur if the Project would make a considerable cumulative contribution to federal or state non-attainment pollutants. The Coachella Valley portion of the SSAB is classified as a "non-attainment" area for PM10 and ozone. Cumulative air quality analysis is evaluated on a regional scale (rather than a neighborhood or city scale, for example), given the dispersing nature of pollutant emissions and aggregate impacts from surrounding jurisdictions and -29- air management districts. Any development project or activity resulting in emissions of PAID, ozone, or ozone precursors will contribute, to some degree, to regional non-attainment designations of ozone and PM1o. The SCAQMD does not currently recommend quantified analyses of construction and/or operational emissions from multiple development projects, nor does it provide methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess the significance of cumulative emissions generated by multiple cumulative projects. However, it is recommended that a project's potential contribution to cumulative impacts should be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project-specific impacts.Furthermore, SCAQMD states that if an individual development project generates less than significant construction or operational emissions,then the development project would not generate a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. As shown in the tables above, Project-related PM10, CO,NOR, and ROG emissions are projected to be well below established SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the proposed Project will result in incremental, but not cumulatively considerable impacts on regional PM10 or ozone levels. Summary As shown above, both construction and operation of the proposed Project will result in criteria emissions below the SCAQMD significance thresholds, and neither would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Overall, impacts related to construction and operation will be less than significant and are not cumulatively considerable from a nonattainment standpoint. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, hospitals, and other land uses occupied by individuals who are potentially more sensitive to pollutants than the average. The nearest sensitive receptors to the subject property are the single-family homes located approximately 226 feet to the east of the Project site. To determine if the Project has the potential to generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts, the mass rate Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Look-Up Table was used. Based on the Project's size and proximity to existing housing,the 5-acre tables at a distance of 50 meters were used to provide a conservative air quality analysis. Table 3 shows on-site emission concentrations for Project construction will not exceed LST thresholds. Because the proposed land uses do not include major stationary polluters(such as a landfill, chemical plant, oil field,refinery, etc.), LST analysis was not required or conducted for Project operations. Overall, the impacts will be less than significant. -30- Table 3 Localized Significance Thresholds Emissions (pounds per day) _ Construction CO NO. PM10 PM2.5 Maximum Emissions' 31.62 46.47 9.24 5.79 LST Threshold 3,237 340 44 11 _ Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Emission Source: CalEEMod,version 2016.3.2 LST Threshold Source: Source Receptor Area 30,LST Mass Rate Look-up Table,SCAQMD Operational emissions that affect sensitive receptors are limited to on-site area emissions.Energy and mobile emissions occur off-site. Health Impacts As shown in Tables 1 and 2, construction and operation of the proposed Project will result in criteria emissions that are below the SCAQMD significance thresholds, and neither would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. It is not scientifically possible to calculate the degree to which exposure to various levels of criteria pollutant emissions will impact an individual's health. There are several factors that make predicting a Project-specific numerical impact difficult: • Not all individuals will be affected equally due to medical history. Some may have medical pre-dispositions, and diet and exercise levels tend to vary across a population. • Due to the dispersing nature of pollutants,it is difficult to locate and identify which group of individuals will be impacted, either directly or indirectly. • There are currently no approved methodologies or studies to base assumptions on, such as baseline health levels or emission level-to-health risk ratios. Due to these limitations, the extent to which the Project poses a health risk is uncertain but unavoidable. It is anticipated that the impacts associated with all criteria pollutants will be less than significant overall, and that health effects will also be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact.The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on numerous factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source;wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of the receptors. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be very unpleasant, leading to distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies. The proposed Project will be developed with residential land uses and is not expected to generate objectionable odors during any phase of construction or at Project buildout. Short-term odors associated with paving and construction activities could be generated; however, any such odors would be quickly dispersed below detectable levels as distance from the construction site increases. At buildout, residential units will generate typical odors from cooking and other household activities, but will not generate objectionable odors. Therefore, impacts from objectionable odors are expected to be less than significant. -31- Mitigation Measures: None required Monitoring: None required Sources: SCAQMD AQMP, 2016; 2020 RTP/SCS,Demographics& Growth Forecast Technical Report, Southern California Association of Governments, adopted September 3, 2020; "Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology," prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Revised, July 2008; "2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan," August 1, 2003; CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2; Project materials. -32- IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant No Significant Significant Would the project: Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,policies, or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal, etc.)through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,or other means? d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Setting The Coachella Valley is located within the Sonoran Desert which is a subdivision of the Colorado Desert. The Sonoran Desert contains a wide range of biological resources that are highly specialized and endemic to the region. The central portion of the valley, in which the Project area is located, is predominantly composed of sand dunes and sand fields that are divided into three sub-communities: active sand dunes, active sand fields, and stabilized and partially stabilized desert sand fields. Undeveloped portions of the City of Palm Desert contain a wide range of significant biological resources, many of which are species that are highly specialized and endemic to the valley. Ten (10) special-status plant species and fifteen (15) special-status wildlife species are known to occur in the City. Due to the -33- loss of viable habitat, some of these species have been listed as threatened or endangered by the federal and state governments. The City is within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), a comprehensive Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan encompassing approximately 1,136,400 acres in the Coachella Valley.The City of Palm Desert is one of the CVMSHCP's Permittees and as such is subject to its provisions. The following analysis on potential impacts to biological resources associated with the proposed development is based on the Project-specific Biological Resources Assessment conducted by Wood Environment& Infrastructure Solutions, Inc (Appendix B). Discussion of Impacts a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Project site consists of approximately 12 acres of undeveloped land in a semi-developed urban setting. The Project site is surrounded by the Sheriff Department on the west, vacant land on the south and east, and Gerald Ford Drive on the north. There is existing residential development to the east and farther south. The site is primarily flat with gradual slopes in the southern portion. Vegetation on-site consists of sand fields predominantly vegetated with creosote bush scrub. The subject property is subject to habitat fragmentation resulting from the development of the existing residential dwellings in the surrounding area. The property is somewhat disturbed as a result of off-road vehicular usage, dumping, and "edge effects" including dirt trails, trash deposition/accumulation and use by domestic pets. A biological field survey was conducted on the subject property and a 500-foot radius around the property(where accessible) in December 2020. No special status species were observed onsite. A literature review of the California Natural Diversity Data Base(CNDDB),CDFW Special Animals List,CNPS Inventory of Rare,Threatened,and Endangered Plants of California,and other relevant documents identified 33 special status biological resources known to occur within a±1-mile radius of the subject property. They include 15 plants, three invertebrates, two reptiles, six birds, six mammals, and one sensitive habitat. Seventeen of these species and the single sensitive habitat are considered absent from the site due to a lack of suitable habitat and/or the subject property is outside of the species' geographic range. The subject property is within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(CVMSHCP),which establishes a system of reserves to protect lands with high conservation values, sets forth conservation objectives and measures for covered species, and streamlines compliance with environmental conservation laws. The Project will be required to pay the local development mitigation fee (LDMF) from new development to mitigate impacts to covered species under CVMSHCP that may result from the Project. Covered species with the potential to occur onsite include one invertebrate, one plant, two reptiles, two birds, and three mammals. The Project-specific biological survey determined the likelihood of each of these species to occur onsite,as discussed below.Regardless of their status and potential to occur onsite, Project-related impacts to these covered species would be mitigated through payment of the LDMF fee, and impacts would be less than significant. -34- Coachella giant sand treader cricket (Macrobaenetes valgum) is not listed by federal or state governments,but has CDFW Global/State ranks. The cricket lives in wind-swept sand dune ridges and spring-dampened sandy areas, and is restricted to the Coachella Valley. The subject site contains sandy soils, and there is a low potential for the cricket to occur onsite. Coachella Valley milkvetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae) is a federally listed endangered plant species and has a high potential to occur on the site. There is a moderate potential for the federally threatened and state endangered Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard(Uma inornata) and low potential for the flat-tailed horned lizard(Phrynosoma mcallii)to occur on the subject property. While suitable habitat is present on-site for both species, it is believed no extant populations of the flat-tailed horned lizard are present in the Project area. The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is a state Species of Special Concern and protected from take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA) and CDFW code. The species nests and roosts underground, including along canals and flood control channels, and is particularly sensitive to noise and ground disturbance, such as grading and construction, up to 500 feet away. No natural burrows, owls and/or owl sign were observed during the site survey. However, the site contains other burrows and man-made structures potentially suitable for owl occupation. If the Project site were to be occupied by owls prior to construction, and the Project were to disturb nesting birds, a significant impact would occur. To mitigate potential Project-related impacts and avoid take of the species outside of conservation areas, the CDFW recommends two take avoidance surveys. The first should occur between 14 and 30 days prior to ground disturbance and the second within 24 hours of ground disturbance(Mitigation Measure BIO-1). With implementation of BIO-1,Project- related impacts to burrowing owls will be less than significant. Le Conte's thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei) has a low potential to forage on the property with suitable foraging habitat present onsite. It is not state or federally listed as endangered or threatened, but is a federally designated Birds of Conservation Concern and a BLM sensitive species. The western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus) has a low potential to forage over the site, but no roosting habitat exists onsite. This bat species is not listed as threatened or endangered but is a California Special Concern Species. Both the Palm Springs pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris bangsii) and the Palm Spring round-tailed ground squirrel (Xerospermophilus tereticaudus chlorus) may occur on the Project site, with suitable habitat present onsite. Both are BLM sensitive species. There is a moderate potential for four other plant species to occur on the subject property, namely Abrams' spurge (Euphorbia abramsiana), Arizona spurge (Euphorbia arizonica), flat-seeded spurge (Euphorbia platysperma), and slender woolly-heads (Nemacaulis denudata var. gracilis). These species have the potential to occur in a wide variety of desert habitats including sandy soils in creosote bush scrub habitat.While they are not federally or state listed species,they are included in the California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank and CDFW Global/State ranks. Although they may occur on the Project site, the loss of individuals of the species would not result in a significant impact, and no mitigation is necessary. -35- A variety of special status and common bird species known to occur or potentially occurring in the Project area that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Three other special status bird species, though not covered under the CVMSHCP, have low potential to forage on the site: prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), black-tailed gnatcatcher (Polioptila melanura), and loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). To avoid impacts to nesting birds, the Project should avoid site disturbance during the nesting season (generally February 1 through August 31). If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, additional impact avoidance and minimization measures may be necessary, as provided in Mitigation Measure BIO-2. With implementation of BIO-2, impacts to migratory bird species will be less than significant. b, c) No Impact. The vegetation community on the subject site was identified as stabilized shielded sand fields. The site survey did not identify any springs, seeps, or natural bodies of water or drainages on the Project site. Review of the National Wetlands Inventory(NWI) indicated that no known blue-line streams(drainages)traverse the subject property. The Project site does not contain any streams, riparian habitat, marshes, protected wetlands, vernal pools or sensitive natural communities protected by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. No impact would occur. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. While there are vacant lands in the Project vicinity and larger surrounding area, the vacant lands including the Project site are isolated by roadways and existing development.No wildlife corridors or biological linkages are mapped,known,or expected on the Project site. Although it is used by several common species and may provide marginal habitat for migratory birds and some special status species, it is not identified as a nursery site. As described above, the site may offer limited nesting sites for birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Compliance with the MBTA, provided in Mitigation Measure BIO-2, will ensure impacts to sensitive species are reduced to less than significant levels. e) No Impact.The proposed Project will not conflict with any local ordinances protecting biological species and will be required to comply with the landscaping and other appropriate requirements of the Municipal Code. The proposed Project would also adhere to the City's General Plan Policy 4.3 by incorporating native vegetation materials into the Project landscape. No impact is anticipated. I) No Impact. The City of Palm Desert is a permittee under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(CVMSHCP). The City is required to implement a Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) for projects located within the CVMSHCP plan area. Payment of the LDMF is intended to offset potential impacts of cumulative projects on covered biological species, and reduce impacts throughout the City and valley to less than significant levels. Although the proposed Project site is not within a CVMSHCP-designated Conservation Area, it is located with the General Plan boundaries, and the developer will be required to pay LDMF. The Project will not conflict with any policies or ordinances that protect biological species, or any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. -36- Mitigation Measures: BIO. Burrowing Owl Surveys To mitigate potential impacts to burrowing owl, two pre-construction surveys shall be conducted in accordance with CDFW protocol. The first survey shall occur between 14 and 30 days prior to ground disturbance, and the second shall occur within 24 hours of the initiation of ground disturbance activities. • If no owls are detected during those surveys, ground disturbance may proceed without further consideration of this species, assuming there is no lapse between the surveys and construction, because the protocol states "time lapses between Project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance." • If burrowing owls are detected during the surveys, avoidance and minimization measures shall be required. Avoidance and minimization measures may include establishing a buffer zone, installing a visual barrier,implementing burrow exclusion and/or closure techniques, in conformance with CDFW protocol. BIO. Migratory Bird Treaty Act If ground disturbance or tree or plant removal is proposed between February 1st and August 31st, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within 7 to 10 days of initiation of grading onsite, focusing on MBTA covered species. If active nests are reported, then species-specific measures shall be prepared. At a minimum, grading in the vicinity of a nest shall be postponed until the young birds have fledged. For construction that occurs between September 1st and January 31st, no pre-removal nesting bird survey is required. • In the event active nests are found, exclusionary fencing shall be placed 200 feet around the nest until such time as nestlings have fledged.Nests of raptors shall be provided a 500- foot buffer. Monitoring: BIO.A The Project biologist shall supply the City with reports of findings regarding burrowing owls, and migratory birds. The reports will be attached to the grading permit for the Project. Responsible Parties: City Engineer, Planning Department Sources: Biological Resources Assessment Report Palm Desert Apartments Project Assessor's Parcel Number 694-310-006,prepared by Wood Environment&Infrastructure Solutions,Inc, March 2021; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016; Project materials; Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7786. -37- V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Impact with Mitigation Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource I pursuant to § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological J resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal J cemeteries? Setting The City of Palm Desert lies in the Coachella Valley where the ancestors of the Cahuilla Indians settled centuries ago. The Cahuilla Indians are a Takic-speaking people that before European settlement consisted primarily of hunters and gatherers and are generally divided into three groups based on their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla of the San Gorgonio Pass-Palm Springs area; the Mountain Cahuilla of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilla Valley; and the Desert Cahuilla of the eastern Coachella Valley. The Coachella Valley saw the first noted European explorations in the 1820's. By the 1870's non-native settlements began to occur across the Coachella Valley, as new federal laws opened lands for new settlers. The discovery of underground water sources began to increase farming activities throughout the Valley in the early 20th century. The modern community of Palm Desert was established on the north side of Highway 111, near a now extant water hole. After World War II, the Henderson brothers organized the Palm Desert Corporation to promote their new desert town. In 1946,they started constructing streets and commercial buildings which later became known as Palm Desert. It soon joined the boom of country clubs and golf courses along with other communities in the Coachella Valley, and was officially incorporated as the 17th City in Riverside County in 1973. Development in the Project area did not begin until the late 1950s. By 1956-1958, three buildings were constructed southeast of the Project site,part of a wave of small tract claims and construction later known as "jackrabbit homesteads". These homesteads were often hastily constructed and abandoned in a short period or did not survive the harsh climate. The Project site remained a largely undisturbed desert landscape until 1972,when construction of the present-day Gerald Ford Drive began. Development in the surrounding area followed around the turn of the century, with the Shadow Ridge Golf Club to the west and the residential tract to the east present by 2002 and the neighborhood across Gerald Ford Drive developed gradually between 2006 and 2016. The sheriffs station immediately west of the subject property occurred in 2009-2011, during which time the Project site showed evidence of some disturbance on the western edge. The Project site has remained undeveloped until today. -38- Discussion of Impacts a) No Impact. The Project site was included in a 2016 Phase I cultural resources survey performed by CRM TECH for a total of 132 acres. In 2020, CRM TECH conducted a Cultural Resources Study for the proposed Project and updated and reexamined the findings of the 2016 study in relation to the Project area. The Project-specific study included a review of data gathered during the 2016 study, a Sacred Lands Files search at the State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field inspection of the Project area. Eastern Information Center(EIC) Records Search The results of the 2016 records search at EIC indicated that 22 cultural resources studies had been completed within a one-mile radius of the Project site, but none included the Project site. The records further indicate six cultural resources previously identified within the one-mile radius, including three historical/archaeological sites and three isolates; none of these six resources are located in the Project vicinity, and thus no Project related impact would occur on them. Field Survey Results The 2016 field survey identified remnants of three"jackrabbit homesteads"built in the 1950,none of which were found within the Project area in the most recent field survey,nor demonstrated any potential to be considered historically significant under CEQA. CRM TECH conducted a field inspection of the Project site on December 1,2020. Despite the scattered vegetation growth onsite, ground visibility was excellent(90-100%)throughout the site. As in 2016, no historical resources were encountered on the subject property. Evidence of previous ground disturbances was observed along the western and northern Project boundaries, where underground utility lines have been installed along the south side of Gerald Ford Drive. Based on findings of the 2016 study and 2020 study, CRM TECH concluded that no historical resources are known to occur in the Project area, and the proposed Project will not cause a substantial adverse change to any known historical resources. b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation.On November 24,2020,CRM TECH submitted a written request to the NAHC for a records search in the Commission's Sacred Lands File.NAHC reported no Native American cultural resource(s) in the Project vicinity. However, the NAHC recommended that sixteen local Native American groups be consulted for further information. The 2016 field survey identified disturbance to the ground surface on the edges of the large study area encompassing the Project site. In addition to the remnants described above, a small amount of modern refuse was observed on the surface consisting mainly of building debris and household discards, none of which was of any historical/archaeological interest. As in 2016, the field survey conducted in December 2020 did not encounter any potential historical resources,either prehistoric or historical in origin, within the Project area. Additionally, the City has undertaken independent consultation under AB 52. This process is described in Section XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources. Based on the findings stated above, the Project cultural resources study concluded that no further cultural resources investigation will be necessary for the Project unless development plans change to include areas not covered by this study. To protect against the potential archaeological resources under the site and reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels, Mitigation Measure CUL.1 is included at the end of this section, consistent with the recommendation of the cultural resource study. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, potential impacts associated with archaeological resources will be reduced to less than significant levels. -39- c) No Impact. No cemeteries or human remains are known to occur on-site. The Project site is not located near a known Native American burial site. It is unlikely that human remains will be uncovered during Project development. Should human remains be uncovered during grading of the site, California law requires that all activity stop, that the coroner be notified to determine the nature of the remains and whether Native American consultation is needed. This State requirement assures that there will be no impact to cemeteries or human remains. Mitigation Measures: CUL.1. Earth-moving activities including grading, grubbing, trenching, or excavations at the site shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor. If any cultural materials more than 50 years of age are discovered, they shall be recorded and evaluated in the field. The monitors shall be prepared to recover artifacts quickly to avoid construction delays but must have the power to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to allow for controlled archaeological recovery if a substantial cultural deposit is encountered. The monitors shall determine when excavations have reached sufficient depth to preclude the occurrence of cultural resources, and when monitoring should conclude. If artifacts are discovered, these shall be processed, catalogued, analyzed, and prepared for permanent curation in a repository with permanent retrievable storage that would allow for additional research in the future. Monitoring: CUL.A. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the site,the applicant shall provide a fully executed monitoring agreement to the City. Responsible parties: Project applicant, Planning Division, City Engineer. CUL.B. Within 30 days of the completion of ground disturbing activities on the Project site, a report of findings shall be filed with the City. The report will summarize the methods and results of the monitoring program, including an itemized inventory and a detailed analysis of recovered artifacts, upon completion of the field and laboratory work. The report should include an interpretation of the cultural activities represented by the artifacts and a discussion of the significance of all archaeological finds. Responsible parties: Project applicant, Project archaeologist, Tribal monitor, Planning Division, City Engineer. Sources: Update to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Palm Desert Apartments Project, prepared by CRM TECH on December 16, 2020; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update &University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016; Project materials. -40- VI. ENERGY Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Impact with Mitigation Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of J energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy I efficiency? Setting Primary energy sources include nuclear energy, fossil fuels (e.g. oil, coal and natural gas) and renewable sources (e.g. wind, solar, geothermal and hydropower). Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrical services to the City of Palm Desert. Currently, SCE serves approximately 4.5 million residential service accounts, 575,000 commercial service accounts and 77,000 other accounts in its 50,000 square- mile service area.1 Natural gas is provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). Its service territory encompasses approximately 24,000 square miles in diverse terrain throughout Central and Southern California, from the City of Visalia to the Mexican border.2 Both SCE and SoCalGas offer various programs and incentives for all users to reduce energy consumption. Discussion of Impacts a, b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project will utilize energy resources during both construction and operational activities. Construction related energy demand comes from the operation of construction equipment and the manufacturing of construction materials. Operational energy demand primarily comes from building and site lighting, HVAC systems, and use of electricity and natural gas for residential activities such as kitchens and swimming pools. Both construction and operation phases of the Project would generate fuel consumption, including gasoline and diesel. Construction components including equipment, fuels, materials, and management practices,would be subject to current SCAQMD rules and regulations such as source- specific standards for engines and limit on equipment idling durations. The Project will also adhere to the required state Low Carbon Fuel Standard for construction equipment and heavy-duty vehicle efficiency standards. These standards will reduce wasteful fuel consumption and help maximize fuel efficiency,which in turn reduce emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and CARB set forth up-to-date vehicle fuel efficiency standards to reduce vehicle emissions.Although the Project will increase VMTs, it will not interfere with increased fuel efficiency standards and will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy resources during operation. 1 Edison International and Southern California Edison,2019 Annual Report. 2 SoCalGas,Company Profile,https://www.socalgas.com/about-us/company-profile,Accessed February 2021. -41- All apartment buildings will be constructed in accordance with the Building Code, California Green Building Code, and Energy Code in effect at the time that development occurs, to ensure the most efficient construction/building technologies are used,which will benefit overall building operations, ensure energy efficiency, and reduce wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy resources. These requirements of law assure that future buildings on the site will not waste energy. SCE has actively engaged in renewable power generation and procurement, administers a variety of energy efficiency programs, and encourages rooftop solar energy. According to the CalEEMod outputs for the proposed Project (see Appendix A), at buildout, the Project would consume approximately 1,314,101.4 kWh of electricity and approximately 40,726 therms of natural gas per year. Actual consumption will be offset by onsite use of solar energy systems and/or energy- efficient appliances. The Project will comply with the solar and zero net energy requirement in the 2019 California Building Code and will not interfere with any state or local plan that promotes renewable energy or energy efficiency. Adherence to the applicable laws and standards enforced by government agencies, SCE and SoCalGas will ensure the development is consistent with current energy standards and conservation goals laid out in the City's Environmental Sustainability Plan (2010). Therefore, impacts related to energy will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required Monitoring: None required Sources: City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; City's Environmental Sustainability Plan (2010). -42- VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant No Significant with Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact a)Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss, injury,or death involving: i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other J substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? J iii) Seismic related ground failure,including J liquefaction? iv)Landslides? J b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the J loss of topsoil? c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in J on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code J (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems J where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? f)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique J geologic feature? Setting Regional Geologic Setting The City of Palm Desert is located in the Coachella Valley on the northern end of the Salton Trough, a tectonic depression formed by regional faulting that extends from the San Gorgonio Pass to the Gulf of Mexico. The geology and seismicity of the valley are highly influenced by the tectonics of the San Andrea and San Jacinto fault systems. -43- Episodic flooding of major regional drainages, including the Whitewater River, results in the deposition of sand and gravel on the valley floor. Strong sustained winds emanating from the San Gorgonio Pass cause wind erosion and transport and deposit dry,finely granulated, sandy soils on the central valley floor. Regional soils range from rocky outcrops within the mountains bordering the valley to coarse gravels of mountain canyons and recently laid fine- and medium-grained alluvial (stream-deposited) and aeolian (wind-deposited) sediments on the central valley floor. A Project-specific Geotechnical Investigation was prepared in March 2021 (Appendix D). Discussion of Impacts a.i) No Impact. According to the City's General Plan (Figure 8.1), there are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within the City. The subject property is not located within or adjacent to an Aiquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. According to the Project geotechnical report,no known active faults occur on the property. The nearest earthquake fault is the South Branch of the San Andreas Fault Zone, approximately 3.6 miles northeast of the site.No fault related surface rupture would occur on the Project site. a.ii) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The subject property is in a region with numerous active earthquake faults. The City's General Plan EIR identified the closest active faults to the City and their probable earthquake magnitude range. The San Andreas Fault has a probable magnitude range of 6.8-8.0 on the Richter scale. The San Jacinto Fault and the Elsinore Fault are located 10 miles and 30 miles southwest of the City, respectively, and both have a probable magnitude range of 6.5-7.5. The subject property would be exposed to strong ground shaking during a major quake on nearby faults which could expose people and structures to related risks. The impacts associated with ground shaking could be significant without mitigation. The Project will be required to comply with the current (2019) edition of the California Building Code(CBC)which includes seismic safety specifications and requirements. The Project should be constructed based on parameters for the Site Class D designation. Additionally, Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.28.110 sets development standards and requirements for areas in the Seismic Hazard Overlay District that must be incorporated into development proposals and requires in-depth geological soils investigations and technical studies. The subject property is not located in the Seismic Hazard Overlay on the City's zoning map. Adherence to the CBC based on recommendations from the Project geotechnical report will reduce potential impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking to less than significant levels on the subject property (Mitigation Measure GEO.1). a.iii) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Liquefaction describes the loss of soil strength caused by a sudden increase in pore water pressure shortly after an earthquake. Lateral spreading is a form of liquefaction-related hazards. Liquefaction would occur with a combination of the following conditions: saturated soil or soil below the groundwater table; strong ground shaking; susceptible soil type such as loose sands and gravels. Due to a groundwater table deeper than 150 feet below surface, the potential for liquefaction on the Project site is considered unlikely according to the Project geotechnical report. -44- Moderate and large earthquakes may also induce dry sand settlement. Strong ground motion can rearrange the structure of granular soils such that vertical settlement occurs among dry,clean sands of uniform grain size and in fine-grained soils.A settlement analysis was performed on the 60-feet deep boring during the geotechnical investigation. Results indicate that differential dry sand settlement of up to 1-inch over a horizontal distance of approximately 25 feet may occur on the site, which should be considered during the foundation structural design of the proposed improvements. Provided that the Project grading plan is designed in accordance with site-specific parameters for soils and geological conditions as identified in the geotechnical report, impacts from seismic related ground failure will be less than significant on the subject property(Mitigation Measure GEO.1). a.iv) No Impact. The Project site is generally flat to gently sloping, and far away from mountains and steep slopes. The General Plan Figure 8.2, Landslide Susceptibility, shows areas susceptible to landslide are limited to the southern portion of the City. The subject property is not susceptible to landslide, and no impact will occur. b) Less than Significant Impact. According to the Palm Desert General Plan (Figure 8.3 Wind Erosion Hazard), the subject property is in a very high wind erodibility zone. Future development and improvements facilitated by the Project will result in ground disturbance, including site preparation and grading,that has the potential to increase soil erosion. At buildout,the Project will include new structures, paved surfaces, and landscaping that will stabilize ground surfaces and resist erosion. The Project will be required to submit and implement a site-specific dust control mitigation plan as part of the grading permit process to minimize potential impacts caused by blowing dust and sand during construction.Adherence to this standard requirement will assure that potential wind erosion impacts remain less than significant. As discussed in Section X below,the Project will install onsite drainage retention facilities to retain groundwater onsite and have sufficient capacity to accommodate a 100-year storm event. The Project will be required to implement Best Management Practices(BMPs)identified in the Project hydrology report, which will ensure the Project site design will not result in erosion or siltation on- or off-site. c) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Subsidence Subsidence is the settlement or sinking of the land surface that, in the Coachella Valley, is associated with long-term groundwater withdrawal. Subsidence is considered a regional issue and being addressed by the water agencies and government through water conservation and additional groundwater recharge. The Project Geotechnical Investigation estimated subsidence of between 0.2 and 0.22 feet to occur when exposed bottom surfaces are scarified and re-compacted. Provided the geotechnical recommendations are followed in Project design and construction, including earthwork and grading, impacts regarding subsidence will remain less than significant(Mitigation Measure GEO.1). Landslide and Rockfall See Response VII.a.iv, above. Liquefaction and Dry Sand Settlement See Response VII.a.iii, above. -45- Hydrocollapsible Soils Hydrocollapsible soils are subject to collapse upon the introduction of water. The volume of collapsible soils reduces when the pores in the soil become saturated,causing loss of grain-to-grain contact. Collapsible soils can cause uniform or differential damage to foundations and walls built on this soil type. According to the Project geotechnical report, an average shrinkage on the order of about 20-22%may occur when excavated onsite soils are removed and recompacted as properly compacted fill. This estimate aids the Project planners in determining the earthwork quantities. Provided the geotechnical recommendations are followed in Project design and construction, impacts regarding unstable soil will remain less than significant(Mitigation Measure GEO.1). d) Less than Significant Impact. According to the General Plan EIR (Page 4.7-8), there appears to be no expansive clays or soils exhibiting shrink-swell characteristics in the City area. The Project geotechnical investigation determined that the site soils have expansive indices less than 20, and are considered non-expansive per the 2019 CBC. Nonetheless, the geotechnical report included minimum requirements for design and construction of footings and slabs on-grade. Compliance with recommendations in the Project geotechnical report will ensure impacts are less than significant regarding expansive soil. e) No Impact. The subject property is in an urban area that is well-served by the sewer system, and the proposed Project will be connected to the sewer system. The Project will not result in new septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact will occur. 1) No Impact.The subject property consists of recently deposited aeolian and alluvial sediments that typically do not harbor paleontological resources.According to the Riverside County General Plan EIR (Figure 4.9.3), the Project area is of low paleontological sensitivity. The Project site is not known to have unique paleontological or geologic features. No impact will occur. Mitigation Measures: GEO.1 The Project design and construction should incorporate all recommendations set forth in the Project geotechnical report (Appendix D), including, but not limited to, the final grading plan and all earthwork and grading, as listed below: a. Earthwork Specifications. All earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable requirements of City of Palm Desert, in compliance with all applicable provisions of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and in accordance with the recommendations in the Project geotechnical report. b. Site Clearing. Clearing operations should include the removal of all vegetation and any structural features when found. Large shrubs, when removed, should be grubbed out to include their stumps and major root systems. c. Ground Preparation.All unsuitable surficial materials should be removed down to competent native dune sand deposits. The exposed bottom surface should be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches,watered as necessary to achieve slightly above optimum moisture conditions, and then recompacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. d. Shrinkage and Subsidence.The following estimates of shrinkage and subsidence are intended as an aid for project planners in determining the earthwork quantities and should be used with some caution since they are not absolute values. An average shrinkage on the order of about 20 to 22 percent may occur when excavated onsite soils are replaced (removed and -46- recompacted) as properly compacted fill. A subsidence estimated between 0.2 and 0.22 feet may also be expected when exposed bottom surfaces in removal areas are scarified and re- compacted as recommended herein. Additional recommendations on post-grading considerations, foundations, footings and slabs on- grade design and construction, retaining walls, masonry block walls, exterior concrete flatwork, swimming pool and spa, and preliminary pavement sections should also be followed in the Project design and construction. Monitoring: GEO.A The applicant shall provide the final grading plan to the Project geotechnical consultant for review and ensure the recommendations are incorporated into the design criteria and Project specifications as deemed appropriate by the consultant. Responsible parties: Project engineer, Project geotechnical consultant, Project applicant. Sources: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Palm Desert Apartments, 25.48 Acres, Gerald Ford Drive, prepared by Petra Geosciences, March 4, 2021; City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; City of Palm Desert Zoning Map; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016; Project materials; Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7786. -47- VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS Less Than Potentially Less Than EMISSIONS Significant No Significant with Significant p Im act Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact a)Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,that may have a ./ significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing I the emissions of greenhouse gases? Setting Certain gases in the earth's atmosphere, classified as greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the earth's surface temperature. Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), and fluorinated compounds. Sources of GHGs include both natural and anthropogenic (human-caused)processes. Anthropogenic emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth's climate, known as global climate change or global warming. State laws, such as Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), require all cities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. SB 32 is the extension of AB 32 which requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. To protect air quality locally and contribute to the State mandate to reduce air quality emissions, the City of Palm Desert has adopted an Environmental Sustainability Plan (2010) that is consistent with the goals of AB 32 and S-3-05, which calls for a statewide GHG emission reduction to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. GHG Thresholds On December 5, 2008,the SCAQMD formally adopted a greenhouse gas significance threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/yr that only applies to industrial uses' stationary sources where SCAQMD is the lead agency (SCAQMD Resolution No.08-35). This threshold was adopted based upon an October 2008 staff report and draft interim guidance document that also recommended a threshold for all projects using a tiered approach. It was recommended by SCAQMD staff that a project's greenhouse gas emissions would be considered significant if it could not comply with at least one of the following "tiered"tests: • Tier 1: Is there an applicable exemption? • Tier 2: Is the project compliant with a greenhouse gas reduction plan that is, at a minimum, consistent with the goals of AB 32? • Tier 3: Is the project below an absolute threshold(10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial projects; 3,000 MTCO2e/year for residential and commercial projects)? • Tier 4: Is the project below a(yet to be set) performance threshold? • Tier 5: Would the project achieve a screening level with off-site mitigation? The analysis provided below is based on this tiered approach. -48- Discussion of Impacts a, b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project will generate GHG emissions during both construction and operation. As described above in Section III, Air Quality, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2 was used to quantify air quality emission projections, including greenhouse gas emissions (Appendix A). Applicable standard requirements and best management practices were included in the model, including the implementation of a dust control and management plan in conformance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and phased application of architectural coatings and the use of low-polluting architectural paint and coatings per SCAQMD Rule 1113. Construction Construction activities will result in short-term GHG emissions associated with operation of construction equipment, employee commute, material hauling, and other ground disturbing activities. Construction emissions are projected as follows: 290.51 MTCO2e in 2021 and 623.01 MTCO2e in 2022, for a total of 913.52 MTCO2e over the estimated 18-month construction period. There are currently no construction related GHG emission thresholds for projects of this nature. To determine if construction emissions will result in a cumulative considerable impact,buildout GHG emissions were amortized over a 30-year period and added to annual operational emissions to be compared to applicable GHG thresholds (see Table 4, below). Operation At buildout, there are five emission source categories that will be contributing either directly or indirectly to operational GHG emissions, including energy usage, water usage, solid waste disposal, area emissions (pavement and architectural coating off-gassing),and mobile sources. Operational emissions are projected to be 3,456.99 MTCO2e/year, with mobile (vehicle) source emissions representing about 76% of all operational emissions. During operation, energy usage of the Project account for 638.77 MTCO2e/year. Because the proposed multifamily residential buildings will be constructed zero net energy (ZNE) under the 2019 California Building Code, energy usage can be considered to generate net zero GHG emission, and the net annual operation GHG emission is estimated to be 2,818.22 MTCO2e/year. The combined total of(amortized)construction and operational emissions is projected to be 2,848.67 MTCO2e/year. The proposed Project is a residential development and thus under SCAQMD's Tier 3 residential threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Table 4 provides a summary of the projected short-term construction and annual operational GHG generation associated with buildout of the proposed Project. Table 4 Projected GHG Emissions Summary (Metric Tons) Phase CO2e (MT/YR) Construction (2021-2022) Construction Total 913.52 Operation Construction: 30-year amortized 1 30.45 Annual Operation (Zero Net Energy) 2,818.22 Total Operation 2,848.67 SCAQMD Threshold (Mixed-Use) 3,000.00 1. Buildout construction GHG emissions were amortized over 30 years then added to buildout operational GHG emissions. 913.52/30=30.45 -49- In addition,the Project will also comply with the above-described Tier 2 criteria. The City of Palm Desert adopted an Environmental Sustainability Plan(2010)that establishes energy-efficiency reduction policies and implementation measures for development projects to meet the AB 32 goals. The City has determined that the measures will effectively reduce city-wide GHG emissions through municipal and community efforts. All Project components, including equipment, fuels, materials, and best management practices (BMPs),would be subject to current and future City and SCAQMD rules and regulations related to GHGs. Applicable SCAQMD rules include, but are not limited to, specific standards that control emissions from engines and limit equipment idling times. Adherence to the Sustainability Plan and other applicable GHG policies and regulations will further ensure that Project-related GHG impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required Monitoring: None required Sources: Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2; Project materials. -50- IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS PotentiallyLess Than MATERIALS Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions I involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project located within 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 result .1 in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response .1 plan or emergency evacuation plan? g)Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly,to a significant risk of loss, .1 injury or death involving wildland fires. Setting The subject property is surrounded by vacant land,Gerald Ford Drive,and the County Sheriff Department, as well as residential development and a golf club in the vicinity. The subject site is vacant and undeveloped, but has been subject to some disturbance due to surrounding development. No chemical or hazardous waste disposal has been documented on the site. There are no known underground tanks or buried materials on the Project site. Proposed development would bring commonly used but potentially hazardous materials, including chlorine for the swimming pool and chemicals typical of residential developments to the Project site as part of the daily operation of the Project. -51- Discussion of Impacts a, b) Less than Significant Impact. The development of the site is likely to result in the storage of cleaning materials for household use,pool maintenance, etc.None of these chemicals will be used in sufficient quantities to pose a threat to humans or cause a foreseeable chemical release into the environment. The construction phase would involve the use of heavy equipment, which uses small amounts of oil and fuels and other potential flammable substances. During construction, equipment would require refueling and minor maintenance on site that could lead to fuel and oil spills.The contractor will be required to identify a staging area for storing materials and will be subject to State law regarding the handling, storage, and use of hazardous materials during construction. There are no identified hazardous materials sites within the Project area. The proposed Project would not result in a significant risk of explosion or accidental release of hazardous substances, because the cleaners and household chemicals used are not explosive and will not be stored in large quantities. The use and handling of hazardous materials during construction activities and long-term operation of the proposed Project would occur in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws including California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (CalOSHA)requirements. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Less than Significant Impact. The nearest school to the subject property is Xavier College Preparatory High School located north of Interstate 10 and approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast. As described in responses IX.a and IX.b above, impacts associated with hazardous materials onsite are expected to be less than significant. Given the distance between the Project site and the nearest school, impacts to schools will be less than significant. d) No Impact. According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control "EnviroStor" database and the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker database,the subject property is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact will occur. e) No Impact. The subject property is not located in an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public or private airstrip. The site is 7±miles from the Palm Springs International Airport and 6± miles from the Bermuda Dunes Airport. Therefore,the Project will not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people in the Project area. No impact will occur. f) No Impact. The City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted in 2012 and specifies actions for the coordination of operations, management, and resources during emergencies. Key evacuation routes in the City consist primarily of Monterey Avenue,Portola Avenue, Cook Street, and Washington Street.Both Monterey Avenue and Washington Street provide all weather bridges to Highway 111 and Interstate 10. The proposed Project will not physically interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. The Project will take access from the future Rembrandt Parkway, which will be improved as part of the Project on the easterly property boundary. A full half-street, consisting of a 20-foot travel lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk, will be constructed adjacent to the Project's eastern boundary. In addition, a 12-foot travel lane will be provided on the east half of the street to allow two-way -52- traffic. On the future Rembrandt Parkway,the main entry and a secondary driveway will be located approximately 650 feet and 115 feet south of Gerald Ford Drive, respectively. Gerald Ford connects the Project to Monterey Avenue on the west, and Cook Street on the east,which are both established evacuation routes. The Project will be required to comply with police and fire department regulations to assure adequate emergency access and vehicle turn-around space. No impacts are expected. g) No Impact. According to the Palm Desert General Plan (Figure 8.5), the majority of the City, including the subject property, is classified as `Urban Unzoned' for fire hazard severity. The Project site is not in a wildfire hazard zone. It is sparsely vegetated with sandy soils and provides no fire fuel source. The proposed Project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk associated with wildfire hazards. Mitigation Measures: None required Monitoring: None required Source: City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker, accessed February 2021; California Department of Toxic Substances Control "EnviroStor" Database, accessed February 2021; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016; Project materials; Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7786. -53- X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER Less Than Potentially Less Than QUALITY Significant No Significant with Significant p Im act Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise ✓ substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede ✓ sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (i)result in substantial erosion or siltation on- ✓ or off-site; (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result I in flooding on-or off-site; (iii)create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or I provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv) impede or redirect flood flows? ✓ (d)In flood hazard,tsunami,or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project ✓ inundation? (e)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable I groundwater management plan? Setting Domestic Water The Project site is located within the Coachella Valley Water District(CVWD) service area for domestic water. The District's primary water source is groundwater extracted through a system of wells from the Whitewater River subbasin. In addition to groundwater, CVWD relies on imported water brought to the region by regional canals, which is stored or recharged into the aquifer at basins in the west end of the Valley(Whitewater River,northwest of Palm Springs)and East Valley(Dike No.4 and Martinez Canyon). CVWD's domestic water system includes 97 wells with a total daily pumping capacity of 244 million gallons. CVWD has a total of 64 reservoirs, with an average storage capacity of 153.2 million gallons. -54- CVWD also owns and operates the water distribution system, which is generally located under existing streets in the public right-of-way. There is an existing 18-inch water main within Gerald Ford Drive in the Project vicinity. CVWD is responsible,under the California Water Code, for analyzing its current and future water supply, and assuring that sufficient supply is available to serve land uses within the District, through the preparation of an Urban Water Management Plan(UWMP). CVWD is required to periodically update the Plan. The Project will require installation of onsite water pipelines that connect to existing water infrastructure. The proposed Project will result in a multi-family residential development with 270 units on approximately 12 acres in the City of Palm Desert. State Water Code Section 10910(a) states that any City or county that determines that a"Project," as defined in Water Code Section 10912, shall prepare a water supply assessment. The threshold defined by the Water Code is 500 dwelling units, 500,000 square feet of commercial development, or a combination thereof resulting in the equivalent of 500 dwelling units. The proposed Project does not meet the threshold of 500 dwelling units; therefore, a water supply assessment is not required. Wastewater Treatment Provider and Sewer System The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) also provides sewer service to the City of Palm Desert, including the Project area. The Project site is located in an urban area where the main sewer lines were laid out under the main roads and streets. The Project will extend sewer lines from an existing sewer main on Gerald Ford Drive and construct a public 8" sewer line along the east Project boundary and private 8" sewer lines throughout the site. CVWD maintains sewer trunk lines ranging in size from 4 to 24 inches and five sewer lift stations in City boundaries. Effluent from the City is conveyed to CVWD's Cook Street treatment plant (Water Reclamation Plant No. 10), which has a total capacity of 18 million gallons per day (mgd), including 15 mgd tertiary treatment capacity as of 2019. CVWD also implements the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board pertaining to domestic water quality and wastewater discharge. Flood Control The Project site is located in the Coachella Valley where rainfall on the valley floor, including the Project area,averages 3 inches annually. Several watersheds drain the adjoining elevated terrain of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains towards the valley floor. There are five stormwater channels in Palm Desert: the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel, and its tributaries: Dead Indian Creek, the Deep Canyon Channel, the Palm Valley System, and the East Magnesia Channel. The Project site generally slopes to the east and is surrounded by urban development and vacant land; limited offsite tributary flood flows will be conveyed off the site along the historical flow path. The Project area is subject to City requirements relating to flood control. The City implements standard requirements for the retention of storm flows and participates in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to protect surface waters from pollution. The Project area is divided into seven tributary areas. Onsite flows are conveyed via surface drainage to proposed retention basins or underground retention. The retention basins and underground storage are designed to provide storage of the 100-year controlling storm event. -55- Discussion of Impacts a) Less than Significant Impact. The Project will result in new grading, paving, construction, and landscaping on the subject property. The Project will result in the construction of onsite drainage improvements, including curbs/gutters, pipes and retention basins and underground stormwater storage system. The Project will be required to connect to the existing CVWD sewer system in compliance with applicable standards that minimize impacts to regional groundwater quality. The City requires that all projects retain the 100-year storm on site. A Project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for surface waters was prepared in conformance with the NPDES, as required by the City. The Project will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address the management of pollutants of concern that may be generated onsite, as identified by the WQMP. The proposed Project will comply with City requirements by using retention facilities to manage storm flows via drainage into seven infiltration basins,which are designed to accept the BMP treatment volume.All hydrology improvements will also be required to comply with NPDES standards, to assure that no polluted storm water enters other surface waters either during construction or operation of the Project. A routine BMP maintenance program will be established to assure ongoing implementation. Impacts associated with water quality are expected to be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project will have less than significant impacts on water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) Less than Significant Impact. CVWD's water supply sources include primarily groundwater supplemented with imported water and recycled water for irrigation. CVWD's most recent Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) indicates that sufficient water supplies are available to serve anticipated future growth.3 Water demand during Project construction will be limited and temporary, such as spraying on the ground surface and construction equipment for dust control purposes. During operation, water demand will come from apartment units, drought-tolerant landscaping, and public spaces and facilities including the swimming pool. The Project will be required to comply with Title 24 provisions on efficient use of water. According to CVWD's UWMP, annual gross water use in CVWD's service area was 92,974 acre- feet in 2015.4 As shown in Table 5,full buildout of the Project has a potential to generate an annual demand for approximately 8.29 million gallons, or 25.44 acre-feet annually. This represents less than 0.03% of CVWD's annual gross water use. The Project will include drought-tolerant landscaping, and will be constructed to include water efficient fixtures and equipment, both of which will help to reduce water demand. The Project is consistent with the City's General Plan, which designated the site for densities of up to 40 units per acre. CVWD's UWMP is based, in part, on the City's land use plan. Therefore, the Project will not substantially deplete local groundwater supplies or have a significant impact on groundwater supplies or recharge. Impacts will be less than significant. 3 "2015 Urban Water Management Plan,Final Report,"CVWD,July 1,2016. 4 Ibid. -56- Table 5 Estimated Water Demand at Project Buildout Proposed Area Water Demand Annual Water Land Use (square feet) Factors (gallons per Demand year per square foot) (million gallons) Multifamily 113,460 40 4.54 Housing Native desert 193,844 19.35 3.75 landscaping Total: 8.29 1 Water demand factor for multifamily housing based on EPA Energy Star Portfolio Manager Data Trends Water Use Tracking.Water demand factor for irrigation use developed by ACI irrigation. c) i-iii)Less than Significant Impact. The Project site generally slopes to the east and contains no rivers or streams. There are limited offsite tributary flows that will be conveyed offsite along their historical path and will not interfere with the Project drainage design. The Project will result in new impermeable surfaces onsite, which will increase surface runoff. The Project Preliminary Hydrology Report divided the site into seven tributary areas. Six of these areas will each include a retention basin, and the other area will have an underground catch basin. The site will be graded to direct drainage as surface flow toward the retention basins and underground storage facility that are designed to hold more than the BMP treatment volume specified in the WQMP. The Project Hydrology Report concluded that the proposed retention and storage system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the 100-year storm event. Project design will comply with the conditions of CVWD approval for discharge and relevant standard requirements, which will assure that impacts associated with storm water retention remain less than significant. To reduce discharge of pollutants into stormwater runoff from the site, the proposed Project must implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) included in the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) which need to be approved by the City Engineer, as required by the City's NPDES implementation agreement. Implementation of BMPs will reduce pollutants of concern that may enter receiving retention basins and help reduce short and long-term water quality impacts caused by the construction and operation of the proposed Project. The Project's pollutants of concern include small amounts of pathogens(bacteria/virus),which are generally associated with human activities but are also present in the environment. The on-site retention/infiltration basins designed to exceed the BMP volume will have high effectiveness at addressing pathogens; therefore, the Project will not contribute to receiving water impairment. Approval of the WQMP and the required BMPs will reduce impacts to surface waters by reducing siltation and eliminating pollutants in storm flows. With the implementation of this standard requirement, the impacts associated with surface water pollution will be less than significant. Adherence to City requirements, including WQMP BMPs, will ensure the Project site design will not result in erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Implementation of these and other applicable requirements will assure that the Project will not create or contribute water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. -57- iv) Less than Significant Impact.The subject property is designated Zone X,Area of Minimal Flood Hazard on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The site is not located in a 100-year or 500-year FEMA Flood Zone. Implementation of the proposed onsite drainage retention facilities will further ensure that the Project will have less than significant impact on impeding or redirecting flood flows. d) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is not located in the vicinity of a water body, a levee or a dam. The City is located inland and would not be subject to tsunami. No hazard from tsunami or seiche is possible. While the General Plan identified potential inundation risk from the Wide Canyon Flood Control Dam located in the Fun Valley,it is managed by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District under state laws to ensure dam safety. The General Plan Policy 3.5 calls for disseminating information on dam inundation areas and potential risks including dam failure, and no specific risk is expected for the subject property. The Project site is not located within a 100-year or 500-year floodplain. Impacts due to Project inundation would be less than significant given the low likelihood of inundation in the Project area. e) No Impact. The proposed Project will be required to comply with all applicable water quality standards and will implement a WQMP approved by the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for both construction activities and long-term operation of the site. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and the water demand is addressed in the UWMP. Therefore, it will not conflict with a sustainable groundwater management plan. Adherence to the City's standard requirements related to water quality will ensure there will be no impact to a water quality control plan. Mitigation Measures: None required Monitoring: None required Sources: Preliminary Hydrology Report-TPC Palm Desert,prepared by MSA Consulting,Inc.,February 4,2021; Project Specific Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan For TPC Palm Desert,prepared by MSA Consulting, Inc., February 8, 2021; City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update&University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report,2016; Project materials; Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7786. -58- XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact a)Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy,or regulation adopted for the purpose / of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Setting The Project site is currently vacant and designated as Town Center Neighborhood on the General Plan land use map. This designation allows a broad range of residential land uses including small-scale multi- family buildings. The Project site is zoned as Planned Residential(PR-20),where multifamily dwelling is allowed with a conditional use permit. Discussion of Impacts a) No Impact. The Project site is currently vacant. The area surrounding the Project is partially developed with the County Sheriff Department on the west, single-family residential development across the street to the north, and vacant land on the south and east. The golf club to the west of the Project site and single-family residential communities farther out in the other directions all operate independently, and will not be impacted or divided by the proposed Project. Therefore,the proposed Project will have no impact on the division of an existing community. b) No Impact. The General Plan identifies the intent and purpose of the Town Center Neighborhood is to provide moderate to higher intensity neighborhood development that features a variety of housing choices, walkable streets, and mixed uses. The development intensities range from 7.0 to 40 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). The Project proposes multi-family apartments at 22.6 DU/AC, and provides pedestrian ways that connect apartment buildings and indoor and outdoor recreational amenities. The Project is fully consistent with the General Plan designation. The zoning designation for the site is P.R.-20, which allows multifamily dwellings with a conditional use permit and up to 20 units per acre. The Project will provide 100 percent affordable multi-family units to lower income households, and is eligible for a density bonus of 20 percent above the maximum allowable density, per Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.34.040. The allowable density with affordable density bonus onsite would be 24 DU/AC; therefore, the proposed density(22.6 DU/AC)is consistent with the City Zoning Ordinance. The Project will not conflict with any plans,policy, or regulation on land use and planning. Mitigation Measures: None required Monitoring: None required Sources: City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; Palm Desert Municipal Code. -59- Potentially Less Than Less Than XII. MINERAL RESOURCES Significant Significant No Significant Would the project: Im act with Im act Impact p Mitigation p a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Setting The State of California has recognized the importance of mineral resources for construction materials and other economic purposes. The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) addresses the loss of regionally significant mineral deposits to urban development. The Act requires the Department of Conservation to create Production-Consumption Regions, which are areas where significant mineral resources of statewide importance and regional significance are produced and consumed,and a classification system that identifies lands where significant mineral resource deposits are located. The City is located in the Palm Springs Production-Consumption Region. This region covers approximately 631 square miles of the Coachella Valley from near Cabazon to Thermal. Lands within the Production-Consumption Region are classified according to the presence of valuable mineral resources. The Project area is located within Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3). defined as"areas containing known or inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance." Discussion of Impacts a, b) No Impact. The Project site is located within Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 3. According to the General Plan EIR,no known mineral sources exist in the City, and the significance of any mineral resource in MRZ-3 is considered speculative because no mining has historically occurred in the area. The subject property is not designated, used, or planned for mineral resource extraction or development. The proposed Project would have no impact on mineral resources. Mitigation Measures: None required Monitoring: None required Sources: Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016; Update of Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the Palm Springs Production- Consumption Region, Riverside County, California (Special Report 198), California Geological Survey, 2007. -60- XIII. NOISE Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant No Significant with Significant Impact Would the project result in: Impact Mitigation Impact a)Generation of 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 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c)For a project located within the vicinity of a primate 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 I use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Setting In the City of Palm Desert, the predominant noise source is traffic (motor vehicles), followed by other noise generators such as industrial operations, construction activities,commercial activities and landscape equipment. Noise-sensitive receptors in the City include housing, schools, libraries, and senior care facilities. Effective methods to reduce the impacts of noise on sensitive land uses include vehicle trip reduction, noise barriers, and setbacks. City's Noise Standards Table 7.1 Noise Compatibility Matrix of the General Plan defines the level of acceptable noise for different land uses in the City. Normally acceptable noise levels for multifamily residential development range from 50 to 65 dBA CNEL, 50 to 60 dBA CNEL for single-family residential development, and 50 to 70 dBA CNEL for office buildings,business commercial and professional uses. These allowable noise levels do not include construction-related noise levels, as construction activities generate temporary noise. General Plan standards are supplemented by Municipal Code 9.24.030, Sound Level Limits, which regulate noise in different zones throughout the City. Discussion of Impacts a) Less than Significant Impact. The subject property is currently vacant and undeveloped. The main noise source in the area is vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways (Gerald Ford Drive). The surrounding area consists of primarily residential development, a golf club and the County Sheriff Station. The nearest sensitive receptors are residents in the single-family homes located approximately 226 feet to the east of the Project site. Construction Noise The development of the proposed apartments and onsite amenities will result in temporary construction noise generated from the site. The Project activities will consist primarily of grading, construction of the buildings,paving or concrete pouring for the parking lots,roadways, and other -61- hard surfaces. The highest noise levels can be expected to be generated by heavy equipment, such as graders, bulldozers and similar vehicles during site grading. Heavy equipment can generate noise levels ranging from 70 to 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. Such equipment, however, will be mobile and will not create a source of constant noise at any one location on the site. The Project site is surrounded by Gerald Ford Drive on the north,vacant land on the east and south, and the County Sheriff Department on the west. There are single-family homes in the site vicinity on the east and farther south. Buildings of the Sheriff Department are approximately 90 feet from the Project boundary at its closest point. The single-family homes to the east are approximately 226 feet from the Project boundary at its closest point. Noise attenuation of 6 dB can be expected with doubling of distance. Therefore, the Sheriff Department would be expected to experience noise level reductions of 6 dB lower than the 70 to 90 dBA range, and the single-family homes would be expected to experience noise level reductions of about 12 dB below this range, or 58 to 78 dB during construction activities. Noise from construction activities will cease once the Project is in operation. Construction noise is exempt from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.24.030 of the Municipal Code; it is restricted to generally less sensitive daytime hours on Monday through Saturday (excluding holidays, see Municipal Code Section 9.24.070). Adherence to these limitations will reduce construction-related impacts to less than significant levels. Operational Noise The Project proposes a multifamily apartment complex with 270 units and amenities including a community clubhouse, fitness club, swimming pool and play area. At buildout, noise levels will be comparable to existing residential development in the Project area. Principal noise sources will be from vehicles traveling along Gerald Ford Drive, and general vehicle activity accessing the site (residents, deliveries, etc.). Limited noise may be emitted by onsite mechanical equipment, such as that associated with residential landscaping, and home improvement/repair. Given the similar use and vacant land between the site and nearby residential development,the Project will not result in a perceptible permanent increase in ambient noise levels over existing conditions for the surrounding area. It will be required to comply with the operational noise levels established in the Municipal Code related to residential property,which is 45 dBA during 10pm to 7am and 55 dBA from 7am to 10pm. According to the General Plan EIR (Figure 4.12-1), the Project site in an area that currently experiences low noise levels of up to 60 dBA CNEL (65 dBA CNEL immediately adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive). The General Plan determined future noise levels will be 60 dBA CNEL in the Project area and 65 dBA CNEL immediately adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive. The Project will include a landscaped setback on the Project frontage along Gerald Ford Drive. Future traffic noise from Gerald Ford Drive will not have a significant impact on the proposed Project since it will be subject to noise levels within the normally acceptable noise levels (50 to 65 dBA) for multifamily residential uses. As discussed above,the Project will abide by the sound limits set forth in the Municipal Code(45- 55 dBA) and is not expected to raise the ambient noise levels to exceed the City's standard of 60 dBA CNEL for single-family residential uses. At General Plan buildout, the Project will be surrounded by residential and light commercial uses. Noise impacts associated with the build out of the Project and its ongoing operation are expected to be less than significant. -62- b) Less than Significant Impact. The operation of the proposed apartments will not generate groundborne vibration. Construction activities,however, could generate temporary and short-term vibration from the use of heavy equipment. Groundborne vibration also produces groundborne noise, described as a rumbling sound, that can be heard and felt by adjacent uses. Construction of the proposed Project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers,which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The highest degree of groundborne vibration would be generated during the paving phase of construction due to the operation of a vibratory roller. Based on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) data, vibration velocities from vibratory roller operations are estimated to be approximately 0.1980 inch-per-second PPV at 26 feet from the source of activity. As such, structures located greater than 26 feet from vibratory roller operations would not experience groundborne vibration above the Caltrans significance thresholds (i.e. 0.3 inch-per-second PPV for structures and 0.2 inch-per-second PPV for human annoyance). As the nearest existing structures are located at least 90 feet from any location within the Project boundary where a vibratory roller may be used (such as in preparation for paving parking/driveway areas), the Caltrans significance thresholds would not be exceeded. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) No Impact. The subject property is not located within two miles of any airport, private or public. It is approximately 7 miles from the Palm Springs International Airport and 6 miles from the Bermuda Dunes Airport. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: None required Monitoring: None required Sources: City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; Palm Desert Municipal Code; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update&University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report,2016; Project materials; Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7786. -63- Potentially Less Than Less Than XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING Significant No Would the project: Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact a)Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b)Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,necessitating the ✓ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Setting The Project site is located in the City of Palm Desert, with a current population of approximately 52,986 persons,which is expected to grow to 64,100 in 2045. Currently,the City is composed of a mix of single- family,multi-family, and mobile home development,but the majority(68.3%)of housing units are single- family homes. Discussion of Impacts a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project will result in the development of 270 apartment units with one to three bedrooms. Based on an average household size of 2.15 persons, build out of the Project could result in an increased population of 581. However, the increase will not represent substantial population growth in the area, and the proposed residential units would accommodate the new population anticipated in growth forecasts, since the Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation assigned to the property. The Project site is located on the existing Gerald Ford Drive, and utilities and public facilities are available in the immediate area. While the Project will extend Rembrandt Parkway along the east Project boundary, it is intended to provide access to the Project and future adjacent development only and would not induce substantial unplanned growth in the area. No new road or utility infrastructure other than connections to the Project site is required. Overall, less than significant impacts are anticipated. b) No Impact. The subject property is vacant, and the proposed Project would not displace any existing housing or require replacement housing elsewhere. No impact will occur. Mitigation Measures: None required Monitoring: None required Sources: Project materials; E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, California Department of Finance,January 1,2020;2020-2045 RTP/SCS,Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, Southern California Association of Governments, adopted September 3, 2020. -64- XV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered Less Than Potentially Less Than governmental facilities, need for new or Significant No physically altered governmental Significant with Significant Impact facilities, the construction of which could Impact Mitigation Impact cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? I Police protection? I Schools? I Parks? ✓ Other public facilities? ✓ Setting Fire Protection The City of Palm Desert contracts with the State of California (Cal-Fire) and Riverside County Fire Department to receive fire protection services. Riverside County Fire Station 71 at 73995 Country Club Drive serves north Palm Desert, approximately 1.85 miles southeast of the Project site. This station also receives backup fire support from Station No. 55 in Indian Wells, and Stations No. 50 and No. 69 in Rancho Mirage. Palm Desert has a total Fire Department staffing of 44 positions at the three fire stations (No.33,No.67, and No.71)within the City limits. Police Protection The City of Palm Desert contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for police protection services. The nearest police station is the Palm Desert Police Station on Gerald Ford Drive immediately adjacent and west of the Project site. Staffing consists of 80 sworn deputy officers, 36 of which are dedicated to the patrol division, with the remaining dedicated to special assignments such as the Traffic Division, Special Enforcement Team, the Motorcycle Enforcement Unit, K-9 Officer, Business District Team, School Resource Officers, the Coachella Valley Violent Crime Gang Task Force and Narcotics Enforcement. The City of Palm Desert currently provides about 1.56 sworn officers for every 1,000 residents. In 2013, the response time to the highest priority calls was within 5.58 minutes. Schools The City of Palm Desert is located within the jurisdictions of two school districts: Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) and Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD). The Project site is within the boundary of the Palm Springs Unified School District. The nearest elementary school is James Earl Carter Elementary School, located on Hovley Lane approximately 2.64 miles southeast from the Project site. -65- Parks The City of Palm Desert currently operates and maintains 203.9 acres of park land in twelve parks. The nearest public parks to the Project site are near the University Park located southeast of the Project site, the University Dog Park(±0.75 miles) and the University Park East (±1.10 miles). Discussion of Impacts Fire Protection: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project will increase the demand for fire services in the City due to new permanent residential uses leading to a slight population increase. Project development will be in accordance with all Municipal Code and RCFD Fire Protection Standards to assure adequate fire safety and emergency response. The Project will be required to pay City development impact fees to contribute its fair share of future facilities and apparatus. Impacts will be less than significant. Police Protection: Less Than Significant Impact. The addition of 270 multi-family apartment units will marginally increase the need for police services for 581 additional persons; overall impact to police services is expected to be less than significant. The Project vicinity is currently patrolled and will continue to be patrolled after Project development. The site will be accessible from the future Rembrandt Parkway south of Gerald Ford Drive, and the Project will be required to comply with all Police Department regulations and procedures. No construction of new or expanded police services or facilities are required for the proposed Project. Schools: Less Than Significant Impact.The Project site is within the Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD)boundary and served by the Rancho Mirage Elementary School,Nellie Coffman Middle School, and Rancho Mirage High School. Based on PSUSD student generation factors,shown below,the Project has the potential to generate approximately 49 students from elementary to high school levels. The proposed Project will be subject to the PSUSD developer fees in place at the time development occurs, which currently stand at$4.08 per square foot of residential.'Payment of the developer fee would mitigate potential significant impacts to school resources to less than significant levels. Table 7 Project Student Generation School Type Generation Rate Project's Student (per residential unit) Generation Elementary School 0.0839 23 Middle School 0.0420 12 High School 0.0510 14 Total: 0.1769 49 Sources:Residential And Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study -Palm Springs Unified School District,April 3,2020,Table 3 Student Generation Factors and Project materials. 5 School Developer Fees,Palm Springs Unified School District,effective 4/28/20. -66- Parks/Other public facilities: Less Than Significant Impact.The Project will result in an increase in permanent population and their guests,who have the potential to increase the use of existing local or regional parks and other public facilities. The development proposes onsite recreational amenities and open spaces for the site,including a community clubhouse,fitness center, swimming pool,and play area,which would help offset the impact to the City's existing park and other public facilities. Overall, Project buildout is expected to marginally impact local and/or regional park/other public facilities. No additional public facilities are required for the proposed Project to accommodate residents. Increase in demand for the City's existing park and other public facilities will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required Monitoring: None required Sources: City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; City of Palm Desert website, accessed February 2021; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update&University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016; Project materials; Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7786. -67- XVI. RECREATION Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant No Significant with Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Setting The City currently maintains and operates over 200 acres of park land in twelve public parks, two community centers, an Aquatic Center, and over 25 miles of multi-purpose trails. The City partners with the Desert Recreation District to provide recreational programs and activities for all ages year-round. Other recreational facilities in Palm Desert include three municipally owned golf courses and the Family YMCA located in Civic Center Park. City residents also enjoy access to numerous private golf courses, large open space reserves,the nearby Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Park and other local and regional recreational resources. Discussion of Impacts a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. At buildout, the proposed Project will result in an estimated population of 581 residents. The proposed Project will include onsite recreational amenities such as a swimming pool, fitness center, terrace, and open space common areas. Residents can be expected to utilize onsite recreational amenities as well as local and regional recreational facilities. The addition of approximately 581 persons to the City population constitutes a minor increase in recreational demand, given the availability of public recreational opportunities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures: None required Monitoring: None required Sources: City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; City of Palm Desert website, accessed February 2021; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update&University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016; Project materials. -68- XVII. TRANSPORTATION Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant No Significant with Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact a)Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, J including transit,roadway,bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b)Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section J 15064.3, subdivision(b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature(e.g., sharp curves ✓ or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d)Result in inadequate emergency access? J Setting Roadways in the City of Palm Desert are classified into various roadway types based on number of lanes and other facilities, including bicycle lanes, sidewalks and parkways. The City has not developed new guidelines on the acceptable Level of Service (LOS) for both roadway segments and intersection operations since the 2016 General Plan update; LOS C or better is used for the Project traffic analysis. When physical constraints, land use compatibility or other urban design considerations make achieving LOS C impractical, LOS D shall be acceptable. Currently, the Project site is vacant and undeveloped. Existing roadways in the vicinity of the Project site include Gerald Ford Drive and Rembrandt Parkway. Rembrandt Parkway is designated as a Local Street in the General Plan (Figure 4.1), and Gerald Ford Drive is designated as a Balanced Arterial, which typically consists of a four-lane divided roadway with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The segment of Gerald Ford Drive between Monterey Avenue and Cook Street was not included as a study roadway in the General Plan EIR for buildout (2040) conditions. The intersections of Gerald Ford Drive and Portola Avenue and Gerald Ford and Monterey Avenue will both operate at LOS C or better at General Plan buildout (2040). Changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020. To aid in this transition, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018). Because the City of Palm Desert does not have its own VMT guidelines, Urban Crossroads has prepared a Project VMT analysis(Appendix F)based on the adopted County of Riverside's Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service & Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020). Based on consultation with the City's Traffic Engineer, and the approval of a scoping agreement, Urban Crossroads also prepared a focused traffic analysis for the proposed Project (Appendix E). The Project trip generation rate is based on Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. Land Use Code 220 (Multifamily Housing Low-Rise) was used for the Project trip generation analysis. -69- Discussion of Impacts a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The Project proposes a multifamily apartment development on a currently vacant site on the southwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and the southern extension of Rembrandt Parkway. The Project site is part of a larger area zoned as Planned Residential and designated as Town Center Neighborhood that may be developed in the future. In the Project area, there are existing on-street bike lanes on both sides of Gerald Ford Drive, Portola Road, and Gateway Drive. There are existing sidewalks in the Project area except along undeveloped parcels including the south side of Gerald Ford Drive between the Project's westerly boundary and Portola Road. The Project will make necessary improvements to Gerald Ford Drive and Rembrandt Parkway(future extension south of Gerald Ford Drive) in compliance with City standards. The proposed Project will result in the development of 270 multifamily apartment units. The Project is forecast to generate approximately 1,976 daily vehicle trips, including 125 trips during the AM peak hour and 152 trips during the PM peak hour. The trip reducing potential of modal split was not incorporated into the traffic modeling for conservative analysis. Note that there is potential for multi-modal transportation in the Project area with existing bike routes and facilities, so the Project trip volumes may be overestimated. Table 6 Project Trip Generation Summary Trip Generation Rates Land Use ITE Unit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Code In Out Total In Out Total Multifamily 220 DU 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32 Residential Trips Generated Land Use Quantity Unit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Multifamily 270 DU 30 95 125 95 57 152 1,976 Residential Trip Generation Source:Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE),Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition(2017). DU=Dwelling Units The Project proposes two access driveways from the future Rembrandt Parkway, which will be constructed as a full half-street, consisting of a 20-foot travel lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk, adjacent to the Project's eastern boundary. In addition, a 12-foot travel lane will be provided on the east half of the street to allow two-way traffic. The balance of the east side improvements will be completed in conjunction with development to the east of the site in the future, and are not part of the Project. The main entry will be located approximately 650 feet south of Gerald Ford Drive, and a secondary driveway will be located approximately 115 feet south of Gerald Ford Drive.Both driveways will be gated,with the main entry providing a call box to allow both visitor and resident access, and the secondary driveway providing only resident ingress and egress. Based on consultation with City staff, the traffic analysis studied three existing intersections and the proposed Project main entry driveway as follows: 1. Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive 2. Portola Road/Gerald Ford Drive -70- 3. Rembrandt Parkway (future extension)/Project Driveway 4. Gateway Drive/Gerald Ford Drive The following scenarios were analyzed: • Existing (2021) Conditions • Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project(EAP) (2023) Conditions • Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project Plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2023) Conditions • General Plan Buildout(2040), Without Project • General Plan Buildout(2040), With Project Under existing conditions, all study intersections in the Project area operate at acceptable LOS (D or better) during AM and PM peak hours. Under EAPC (2023) conditions, with the inclusion of the proposed Project, ambient growth and known cumulative projects, the intersection of Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive (#1) is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS without improvements, as shown in the following table. All other studied intersections will operate at acceptable levels. The Project traffic analysis recommended improvements to address deficiencies for EAPC conditions: The Project should contribute fair share of 32.5%towards the installation of a traffic signal and lane improvements at Rembrandt Parkway & Gerald Ford Drive, and the signal timing should be coordinated along Gerald Ford Drive (Mitigation Measure TRANS-1). With the recommended improvements, intersection 1 will operate at acceptable LOS for both AM and PM peak hours. Table 7 Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project Plus Cumulative Intersection Delay and Levels of Service Study Intersection Traffic AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Control1 Average Delay' LOS3 Average Delay LOS 1.Rembrandt Pkwy./Gerald Ford Dr. -Without Improvements CSS 43.4 E 54.3 F -With Improvements TS 19.6 B 12.2 B 2.Portola Road/Gerald Ford Drive TS 26.5 C 27.8 C 3.Rembrandt Parkway(future extension) CSS 9.3 A 9.6 A /Project Driveway 4.Gateway Drive/Gerald Ford Drive TS 15.7 B 16.4 B 1 TS =Traffic Signal; CSS =Cross-street Stop.Underlined=Improvement. 2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6),overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software. BOLD=Unacceptable LOS. 3LOS =Level of Service Under General Plan Buildout (2040) conditions, with the inclusion of the proposed Project, the intersection of Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive (#1) is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS without improvements, as shown in Table 8. The Project traffic analysis determined that with or without the Project under General Plan Buildout conditions, intersection 1 is anticipated to warrant a traffic signal.All other studied intersections will operate at acceptable -71- levels. The traffic analysis recommended improvements to address deficiencies for 2040 conditions: The Project should contribute its fair share of 32.5%towards the installation of a traffic signal and lane improvements at Rembrandt Parkway & Gerald Ford Drive, and the signal timing should be coordinated along Gerald Ford Drive (Mitigation Measure TRANS-1). With the recommended improvements, intersection 1 will operate at acceptable LOS for both AM and PM peak hours. Impacts will be less than significant with Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 incorporated. Table 8 General Plan Buildout(2040)With Project Intersection Delay and Levels of Service Study Intersection Traffic AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Control' Average Delay2 LOS' Average Delay LOS 1.Rembrandt Pkwy./Gerald Ford Dr. -Without Improvements CSS >80 F >80 F -With Improvements TS 37.3 D 22.0 C 2.Portola Road/Gerald Ford Drive TS 35.1 D 36.2 D 3.Rembrandt Parkway(future extension) CSS 10.5 B 11.2 B /Project Driveway 4.Gateway Drive/Gerald Ford Drive TS 16.6 B 16.8 B 1 TS =Traffic Signal; CSS =Cross-street Stop.Underlined=Improvement. 2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6),overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software. BOLD=Unacceptable LOS. 3 LOS =Level of Service Alternative Transportation The Project will improve Gerald Ford Drive along the Project frontage, including an 8" meandering sidewalk and a pedestrian gate to provide multi-modal access. Sidewalk will be constructed as part of the future Rembrandt Parkway along the easterly Project boundary. Residents and visitors will be able to use existing shared bike lanes on both sides of Gerald Ford Drive, Portola Road, and Gateway Drive in the Project area. As future development occurs, these facilities will be added, and the Project's residents and surrounding residents will have access to a comprehensive pedestrian and bike system. SunLine Transit Agency provides bus transit services to the Coachella Valley, including the City of Palm Desert. Currently, the proposed Project site and vicinity are not directly served by SunLine. The nearest existing bus stop is on Dinah Shore Drive at Shoppers Lane served by Route 4, located approximately 1.3 miles northwest from the Project site. Another stop at Cook Street& Berger Drive served by Route 5 is located approximately 1.86 miles to the southeast and may be accessed by bike for future residents, guests, visitors, and employees (construction, security, maintenance etc.). The Project site is located in a semi-developed area, and transit service is reviewed and updated periodically by SunLine to address ridership, budget and community demand needs. The City's General Plan Goal 5 and Policies 5.1 through 5.6 also promote and encourage public and private transit service and the connections to bicycle and pedestrian networks. -72- The proposed Project will not alter or interfere with the existing bike lane on Gerald Ford Drive along the northerly boundary. The proposed Project will not conflict with adopted policies,plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. b) No Impact. SB 743 requires amendments to the CEQA Guidelines (pre-2019) to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating transportation impacts. Particularly within areas served by transit, those alternative criteria must "promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses." (Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(1)). CEQA Guidelines were amended to require all lead agencies to adopt vehicle miles traveled(VMT)as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) for identifying transportation impacts. This statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020. The Riverside County's VMT Guidelines describe specific screening criteria based on the location/project type that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact without conducting a more detailed project level VMT analysis. A land use project need only meet one of the screening thresholds to result in a less than significant impact: • Small Projects • Projects Near High Quality Transit • Low VMT Area The proposed Project is not, as required by the first screening threshold, a low-rise multifamily housing project with no more than 147 dwelling units and would therefore not qualify for this screening criteria;nor is it located within 1/2 mile of a major transit stop or in an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor, so it would not meet the second screening threshold. However,the Project qualifies as"residential and office projects that locate in areas with low VMT and incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility." According to the VMT analysis prepared for the proposed Project, the Project is located in TAZ 4672, a Traffic Analysis Zone identified as a low VMT generating area in the Riverside Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM) because it experiences less than the County average VMT per capita. The Project VMT analysis also verified that the model's underlying land use assumptions contained in the Project TAZ are consistent with the proposed Project's land use. Therefore,the Project,per the County VMT guidelines, can be determined to have less than significant impacts on circulation. The Project will not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision(b). c, d) No Impact. The Project is proposed to have access onto the future extension of Rembrandt Parkway. As discussed in subsection a) above, roadway improvements will be constructed in compliance with the City standards and will not cause significant traffic delay or increase traffic hazards. -73- Both proposed access driveways can serve as emergency access from the future Rembrandt Parkway. Prior to construction, both the Fire Department and Police Department will review the site plan to ensure safety measures are addressed, including emergency access and geometric design. No incompatible uses are proposed. Therefore, the proposed Project will not result in inadequate emergency access or increased traffic hazards. Mitigation Measures: TRANS-1: The Project shall contribute its fair share of 32.5% towards the installation of a traffic signal and lane improvements at Rembrandt Parkway & Gerald Ford Drive as recommended in the Project traffic analysis conducted by Urban Crossroads, Inc. in February 2021. The signal timing should be coordinated along Gerald Ford Drive. TRANS-2: The Project applicant shall participate in the CVAG's TUMF program by paying the requisite TUMF fee. Monitoring: TRANS-A: The City shall confirm future improvements and payment of the Project's fair share contribution for the Project area roadways and intersections during the plan review process. The City Public Works Department shall conduct inspection upon completion of the Project to ensure all required traffic improvements are built in compliance with City standards. Responsible parties: City Planning Department, Public Works Department, Project Applicant, and Project Traffic Engineer. Sources: City of Palm Desert General Plan,2016; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update&University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, August 2016; Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis City of Palm Desert,prepared by Urban Crossroads, February 17, 2021; Pacific West Apartments VMT Screening Analysis, prepared by Urban Crossroads, February 11, 2021. -74- XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES a)Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Less Than tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Potentially Significant Less Than No Resources Code section 21074 as either a Significant Significant with Impact site, feature, place, cultural landscape Impact Impact p Mitigation that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i)Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as J defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k),or ii)A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence,to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)of Public Resources Code Section J 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision(c)of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1,the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Setting As discussed in the Section V, Cultural Resources, Cahuilla Indians are known to have lived in the Coachella Valley for thousands of years. They were Takic-speaking and lived in various groups in the area. Today,Native Americans of Pass or Desert Cahuilla heritage are mostly affiliated with one or more of the Indian reservations in and near the Coachella Valley, including the Cabazon, Augustine, Torres Martinez, Twenty-nine Palms, Agua Caliente, and Morongo. Numerous cultural resources are found throughout the valley which are considered non-renewable resources because they provide important information about the past. Discussion of Impacts a) i,ii) Less Than Significant with Mitigation.On November 24,2020,CRM TECH submitted a written request to the NAHC for a records search in the Commission's Sacred Lands File.NAHC reported no Native American cultural resource(s) in the Project vicinity. However, the NAHC recommended that sixteen local Native American groups be consulted for further information. -75- The City conducted Tribal Consultation in conformance with AB 52 requirements and contacted four tribes in writing in March 2021. No requests for consultation were received, and the consultation period has closed. To protect potential tribal cultural resources, Mitigation Measure CUL.1 is included in Section V, consistent with the findings of the cultural resource study, to require monitoring of ground disturbing activities, which would reduce the impacts to Tribal Resources to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures: See Section V. Monitoring: See Section V. Sources: Update to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Palm Desert Apartments Project, prepared by CRM TECH on December 16, 2020; City of Palm Desert General Plan Update &University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2016; Project materials. -76- XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE Less Than SYSTEMS Potentially SignificantLess Than No Significant with Significant p Im act Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact a)Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power,natural gas, or telecommunications facilities,the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal,dry and multiple dry years? c)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards,or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e)Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Setting Domestic Water The Project site is located within the Coachella Valley Water District(CVWD) service area for domestic water. The District's primary water source is groundwater extracted through a system of wells from the Whitewater River subbasin. In addition to groundwater, CVWD relies on imported water brought to the region by regional canals. CVWD's domestic water system includes 97 wells with a total daily pumping capacity of 244 million gallons. CVWD has a total of 64 reservoirs, with an average storage capacity of 153.2 million gallons. CVWD also owns and operates the water distribution system, which is generally located under existing streets in the public right-of-way. There is an existing 18-inch water main within Gerald Ford Drive in the Project vicinity. CVWD is responsible,under the California Water Code, for analyzing its current and future water supply, and assuring that sufficient supply is available to serve land uses within the District, through the preparation of an Urban Water Management Plan(UWMP). CVWD is required to periodically update the Plan. -77- Wastewater Treatment Provider and Sewer System The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) also provides sewer service to the City of Palm Desert, including the Project area. The Project site is located in an urban area where the main sewer lines were laid out under the main roads and streets. The Project will extend sewer lines from an existing sewer main on Gerald Ford Drive and construct a public 8" sewer line along the east Project boundary and private 8" sewer lines throughout the site. CVWD maintains sewer trunk lines ranging in size from 4 to 24 inches and five sewer lift stations in City boundaries. Effluent from the City is conveyed to CVWD's Cook Street treatment plant (Water Reclamation Plant No. 10), which has a total capacity of 18 million gallons per day (mgd), including 15 mgd tertiary treatment capacity as of 2019. CVWD also implements the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board pertaining to domestic water quality and wastewater discharge. Stormwater Management Several watersheds drain the adjoining elevated terrain of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains towards the valley floor. There are five stormwater channels in Palm Desert: Whitewater River Stormwater Channel, and its tributaries: Dead Indian Creek, the Deep Canyon Channel, the Palm Valley System, and the East Magnesia Channel. For purposes of this Project, the management of stormwater is under the jurisdiction of the City. Electric Power and Natural Gas Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrical services to the City of Palm Desert. Many neighborhoods in the City were developed prior to the placement of underground electric facilities, and thus have overhead power lines. There are overhead power lines on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive and underground lines on the south side in the Project area. Underground electrical lines also run along the western Project boundary. Natural gas is provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). There are underground 4-inch gas lines on the south side of Gerald Ford Drive along the Project boundary. Solid Waste Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services, LLC (Burrtec)provides solid waste disposal to the City through a franchise agreement. Non-hazardous household, commercial and most nonhazardous industrial solid waste collected is taken to the Edom Hill Transfer Station (EHTS) in Cathedral City, which is permitted to receive 3,500 tons of waste per day. From there solid waste is transported to the Lamb Canyon regional landfill, which is owned by the County of Riverside and had a remaining capacity of 19,242,950 cubic yards as of 2015. Discussion of Impacts a-c) Less than Significant Impact. Water and Wastewater The subject property falls within the jurisdiction of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for domestic water and wastewater treatment services. The proposed Project will be connected to the existing domestic water main under Gerald Ford Drive. CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan 2015 Update demonstrates that the District has available, and can supply in the future, sufficient water to serve additional development in its service area. The UWMP includes a combination of continued groundwater extraction, conservation programs, additional water -78- sources and source substitution,and groundwater recharge opportunities. The 2040 projected retail water supply is 230,600 acre-feet.6 As discussed in Section X, the annual water demand at Project buildout is approximately 25.44 acre-feet,which is around 0.01%of the 2040 projected retail water supply. The 2015 UWMP demonstrates that CVWD has available, or can supply, sufficient water to serve the proposed Project and reasonably foreseeable development. The proposed Project will require construction of on-site sewer infrastructure to connect to the existing sewer main located under Gerald Ford Drive. Project-generated sewage will be conveyed to and treated at WRP-10 on Cook Street. WRP-10 treats domestic wastewater from four cities (Palm Desert, Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage, and portions of Cathedral City) and serves a population of approximately 90,000 people. It has a secondary treatment capacity of 18 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently treats an average daily flow of approximately 9 mgd. WRP- 10 also has a tertiary treatment capacity of 15 mgd, and supplies tertiary treated water for golf course and landscape irrigation. Therefore, the plant has sufficient capacity to serve additional development, including the proposed Project. The Project wastewater discharges will be typical of residential uses and would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the CVWD or Regional Water Quality Control Board. Given the relatively small scale of the Project, Project- related impacts to water and wastewater supplies and services will be less than significant. Stormwater Drainage Compared to current conditions, the proposed Project represents an increase in impervious surfaces.The proposed Project includes retention and conveyance facilities to manage storm flows, designed to meet local stormwater retention requirements. The site will be graded to direct drainage as surface flow around the buildings and parking areas toward the proposed catch basins and underground basin that are designed to accept the BMP treatment volume. The retention basins and underground storage are designed to provide storage of the 100-year controlling storm event, as required by the City. The Project will not require the construction or expansion of stormwater management facilities. Electricity The Project will provide local connections to the existing SCE infrastructure in the Project area. SCE has existing facilities underground within Gerald Ford Drive and along the westerly Project boundary. The Project will not require the addition or expansion of electric power facilities. Natural Gas The Project will provide local connections to the existing SoCalGas infrastructure in the Project area. There is a 4-inch gas line located underground within the Gerald Ford Drive right-of-way. The Project will not require the addition or expansion of natural gas facilities. Telecommunications The Project will provide local connections to the existing Frontier Communications and Spectrum infrastructure in the Project area. There are existing underground communications cables within Gerald Ford Drive. The Project will not require the addition or expansion of telecommunication facilities. 6 "2015 Urban Water Management Plan,Final Report,"Coachella Valley Water District,July 1,2016,Table 6-12. -79- d, e) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, Burrtec provides solid waste services to the City of Palm Desert. Solid waste generated by the city is either recycled,reused, or transformed at a waste-to-energy facility',or disposed of at county's landfills,in general at Lamb Canyon regional landfill, which has a remaining capacity of 19,242,950 cubic yards as of 2015.8 The Project will generate 88.70 tons of solid waste per year as shown below. Table 9 Estimated Solid Waste Disposal at Project Buildout Solid Waste Projected Solid Proposed Proposed Disposal Waste Disposal Land Use Disposal Rate* Units (lbs/day) (tons/year) Residential 3.6 pounds/unit/da 270 972 177.39 TOTAL (with 50% diversion) 88.70 *Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates by Calrecycle, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates,accessed March 2021. At buildout, the proposed Project will contribute less than 0.01% of the County landfill's remaining capacity.9 Commingled recyclable materials (e.g., paper, plastic, glass, cardboard, aluminum) will be transported to Burrtec's material recovery facilities for recycling and reuse. Burrtec is responsible for maintaining standards that assure that all waste is handled in a manner that meets local,state and federal standards.These requirements will assure that impacts associated with solid waste disposal remain less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required Monitoring: None required Sources: Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, CVWD,December 1,2019; 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (Final Report), CVWD, July 1, 2016; Solid Waste Information System, www2.calrecyle.ca.gov, CalRecycle, accessed February 2021; Project materials. Riverside County Nondisposal Facility Element by Riverside County Department of Waste Resources (2015), https://www.rcwaste.org/Portals/0/Files/Planning/CIWMP/NDFE.PDF,accessed March 2021. 8 CalRecycle SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2246?sitelD=2368,accessed March 2021. 9 Assumes that 1 CY of residential solid waste is equivalent to 95 lbs."Volume to Weight Conversion Factors,"US EPA Office of Resource Conversion and Recovery.April 2016. -80- XX. WILDFIRE—If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant No classified as very high fire hazard Significant Significant severity zones, would the project: Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency I evacuation plan? b)Due to slope,prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, I pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c)Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources,power ✓ lines or other utilities)that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d)Expose people or structures to significant risks,including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides,as a result of runoff, 1 post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Setting Wildfire is a nonstructural fire that occurs in vegetative fuels, excluding prescribed fire. Wildfires can occur in undeveloped areas and spread to urban areas where landscape and structures are not designed and maintained to be ignition resistant.A wildland-urban interface(WUI)is an area where urban development is located in proximity to open space or "wildland" areas. The potential for wildland fires represents a hazard where development is adjacent to open space or within close proximity to wildland fuels or designated fire severity zones. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) has mapped areas of significant fire hazards in the state through its Fire and Resources Assessment Program(FRAP). These maps place areas of the state into different fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ) based on a hazard scoring system using subjective criteria for fuels, fire history, terrain influences, housing density, and occurrence of severe fire weather where urban conflagration could result in catastrophic losses. The subject property is designated as a local responsibility area,not located in or near a state responsibility area or designated as a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). The City of Palm Desert is exposed to fire-related hazards from two potential sources: wildfires and fires that occur in urban settings. Wildfire hazards are highest in areas of the community near the WUI. Southern portions of the City are susceptible to the risk of wildland fires. The Project site is located in the northwest portion of the City's developed area, and is not adjacent to a wildland fire area. -81- Discussion of Impacts a) No Impact. The primary emergency evacuation routes in the City include I-10, Highway 111, Monterey Avenue,Portola Avenue,Cook Street,and Washington Street.The Project site is located between Monterey Avenue and Portola Avenue, which provide access in an emergency for the majority of the central city. Development on the subject property would not substantially impair the City's adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan as the Project does not propose to amend these routes to impede emergency evacuation. No impact is anticipated. b, c) No Impact. As noted, the proposed Project is not located within a very high wildfire hazard severity zone nor a wildland-urban interface (WUI). The Project is located in an urban environment, and miles from an area of wildland fire potential. Urban roadways exist surrounding the Project, and no new wildfire risk infrastructure will be required. No impact is anticipated. d) No Impact. The Project site is located on the valley floor where there is no potential for flooding, landslide, or post-fire slope instability. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks such as downslope or downstream flooding or landslides,post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. No impact is anticipated. Mitigation Measures: None required Monitoring: None required Sources: City of Palm Desert General Plan, 2016; Project materials; Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7786; California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515 c04f58f414, last updated January 13, 2020. -82- XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Less Than Less Than SIGNIFICANCE Significant Significant Significant No with Impact Impact Impact Mitigation a)Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a J plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c)Does the project have environmental effects,which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Less than Significant with Mitigation.As described above,the proposed Project has the potential to impact biological (covered species under the CVMSHCP, and migratory birds) and cultural resources (archaeological and Tribal). The mitigation measures included in this document, however, will assure that the impacts associated with these resources are reduced to less than significant levels. b) Less than Significant Impact. Project impacts will not be cumulatively considerable because the Project is consistent with the anticipated land use of the subject property analyzed in the General Plan. Population growth and/or employment resulting from the Project will not surpass that anticipated in the General Plan EIR. The Project's incremental effects are not considerable when viewed in connection with other projects. Impacts will be less than significant. c) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed Project could cause environmental effects that could cause adverse effects on humans, specifically as it relates to transportation. However, the mitigation measures provided in this Initial Study and supporting documentation cited herein will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. -83- Appendix A CalEEMOD Air Quality and GHG Modeling A CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual Palm Desert Apartments Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses I Size I Metric I Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Low Rise 99.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 4.20 99,000.00 1 213 Apartments Mid Rise 171.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 4.34 171,000.00 + 367 4 r I• Parking Lot 148.16 1000sgft 3.40 148,164.00 0 . 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 3.4 Precipitation Freq(Days) 20 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2023 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 702.44 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual Project Characteristics -Assume an 18-month construction period from 7/1/2021 to 12/31/2022. Land Use-The project proposes a multifamily apartment complex with 14 buildings. Six buildings are 2-story, with 99 units. Eight buildings are 3-story, with 171 units. Population is based on DOF 2020. The project site is 11.94 acres, total building area 2.6 acres, asphalt parking and roadways is 3.4 acres. The Residential lot acreage includes building footprint, hardscape and landscape areas, and is roughly divided between low rise (2-story) and mid rise (3-story) uses. Construction Phase-site is vacant, no demolition needed. 18-month construction. Grading - cut 52,765 CY, fill 52,765 CY on preliminary grading plan. Materials balance onsite, no import/export will occur. Grading area changed to match site area (11.94 acre). On-road Fugitive Dust-All access to Project site and roads in the Project area are fully paved. Vehicle Trips - Changed all daily trip rates to 7.32 according to ITE 10th edition. Slightly altered Res H-W, H-S, H-O Trip %. Road Dust- Project area has fully paved roads. Woodstoves- No wood burning applicance proposed for the Project. Energy Use - Water And Wastewater-The Project will connect to sewer and no septic tank will be used. Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - assume standard dust control measures per SCAQMD 403.1 rule Area Mitigation - Per SCAQMD Rule 1113, default and building envelope coating VOC contensts are limited to 50 grams per liter of coating, and 100 grams per liter for traffic coatings. Architectural Coating - Low VOC coating per SCAQMD Rule 1113. Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating 7 EF_Nonresidential_Interior r 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating 7 EF_Parking r 150.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating 7 EF_Residential_Exterior r 100.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating 7 EF_Residential_Interior r 100.00 50.00 tblAreaMitigation •UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialExteriorVr 150 1 50 alue t F 4 tblAreaMitigation •UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentiallnteriorV i 150 1 50 alue f F 4 • tblAreaMitigation • UseLowVOCPaintParkingCheck T False True tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintParkingValue 150 100 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 3 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual • tblAreaMitigation •UseLowVOCPaintResidentialExteriorValu• 100 50 e tblAreaMitigation • UseLowVOCPaintResidentiallnteriorValuT 100 1 50 1 • e 4 F 4 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 44.00 l- t tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/11/2023 12/15/2022 r t tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/14/2022 12/28/2022 t tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/15/2022 10/15/2022 i 4 F t tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/17/2022 12/1/2022 l- t tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 2,080.00 0.00 t tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 2,080.00 0.00 t tblGrading AcresOfGrading 75.00 12.00 t tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.19 4.20 4 tblLandUse LotAcreage } 4.50 4.34 4 F t tblLandUse Population } 320.00 213.00 4 F 4 tblLandUse Population } 552.00 367.00 4 F 4 tblOnRoadDust HaulingPercentPave } 50.00 100.00 4 F t tblOnRoadDust HaulingPercentPave } 50.00 100.00 4 F t tblOnRoadDust HaulingPercentPave } 50.00 100.00 4 F t tblOnRoadDust HaulingPercentPave } 50.00 100.00 4 F t tblOnRoadDust HaulingPercentPave } 50.00 100.00 4 F t tblOnRoadDust VendorPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i 4 F t tblOnRoadDust VendorPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i 4 F t tblOnRoadDust VendorPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i 4 F t tblOnRoadDust VendorPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i 4 F t tblOnRoadDust VendorPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i 4 F t tblOnRoadDust WorkerPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i 4 F t tblOnRoadDust WorkerPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i tblOnRoadDust WorkerPercentPave 50.00 100.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual • tblOnRoadDust WorkerPercentPave 50.00 100.00 • tblOnRoadDust WorkerPercentPave i 50.00 100.00 v r • tblRoadDust RoadPercentPave i 50 100 v r • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP } 40.60 41.00 r • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP } 40.60 41.00 r • tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP } 19.20 19.00 r • tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP } 19.20 19.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips HWTTP i 40.20 40.00 r • tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP } 40.20 40.00 r • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR i 7.16 7.32 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips STTR i 6.39 7.32 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 6.07 7.32 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 5.86 7.32 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WDTR i 6.59 7.32 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR i 6.65 7.32 r 4 • tblWater AerobicPercent i 87.46 96.00 v r 4 • tblWater AerobicPercent i 87.46 96.00 v r 4 • tblWater AerobicPercent i 87.46 96.00 v • tblWater •AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent} 2.21 4.00 • tblWater •AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent i 2.21 4.00 • tblWater •AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent i 2.21 4.00 • tblWater SepticTankPercent v 10.33 0.00 r 4 • tblWater SepticTankPercent i 10.33 0.00 tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 • 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 2021 •i 0.2016 1 1.7297 1 1.5400 1 3.2500e- 1 0.2762 1 0.0753 1 0.3515 1 0.1239 1 0.0700 0.1939 0.0000 1 289.0576 1 289.0576 1 0.0581 1 0.0000 i 290.5088 •1 I I I 003 1 I I I I ; 1 I I I •I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I I f J J J J J J J J . I J J J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2022 •1 1.2304 2.5291 1 3.1433 6.9600e- 1 0.2828 1 0.1021 0.3848 1 0.0758 0.0960 ; 0.1717 • 0.0000 1 620.8158 1 620.8158 0.0879 1 0.0000 1 623.0131 •1 I I I 003 1 I I I I ; 1 I I 1 1 •1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 Maximum 1.2304 2.5291 3.1433 6.9600e- 0.2828 0.1021 0.3848 0.1239 0.0960 0.1939 0.0000 620.8158 620.8158 0.0879 0.0000 623.0131 003 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year tons/yr MT/yr I I I 2021 •i 0.2016 I 1 1.7297 1 1 1.5400 I 1 3.2500e- 1 1 0.1621 I 1 0.0753 1 0.2375 1 1 0.0629 1 0.0700 � 0.1329 � I 1 0.0000 i 289.0574 1 289.0574 1 0.0581 1 0.0000 1 290.5086 •I I I I 003 I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 ;� I I I I I I I I . I 1 1 I J J J J J J J J v J J J 4. •1 I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 2022 9 1.2304 1 2.5291 1 3.1433 1 6.9600e- 1 0.2828 1 0.1021 1 0.3848 1 0.0758 1 0.0960 ; 0.1717 .. 0.0000 i 620.8155 620.8155 1 0.0879 1 0.0000 1 623.0128 I I I 003 I I I I I . 1 I I 1 •I I I 1 I 1 1 I I . I 1 1 I Maximum 1.2304 2.5291 3.1433 6.9600e- 0.2828 0.1021 0.3848 0.0758 0.0960 0.1717 0.0000 620.8155 620.8155 0.0879 0.0000 623.0128 003 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.41 0.00 15.49 30.55 0.00 16.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG+NOX(tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG+NOX(tons/quarter) 1 7-1-2021 9-30-2021 1.0601 1.0601 2 10-1-2021 12-31-2021 0.8628 0.8628 3 1-1-2022 3-31-2022 0.7659 0.7659 4 4-1-2022 6-30-2022 0.7823 0.7823 5 7-1-2022 9-30-2022 0.7908 0.7908 Highest 1.0601 1.0601 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total 002 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 1.2972 i 0.0281 i 2.0087 : 1.4000e- i 1 0.0115 i 0.0115 i i 0.0115 0.0115 : 0.0000 i 8.9817 i 8.9817 i 3.2700e- i 1.0000e- 1 9.0945 9 I I : 004 1 I I I I : I I 003 I 004 i 9 I 1 1 I 1 I i 1 I 1 i eI J J J J J J J J 4 I J J J T Energy 9 0.0220 i 0.1876 i 0.0798 i 1.2000e- 1 : 0.0152 i 0.0152 i i 0.0152 0.0152 : 0.0000 i 635.9804 : 635.9804 i 0.0215 1 7.5600e- 1 638.7695 9 I I : 003 1 I I I I . I I I 1 003 I 1 1 1 I 1 I i . I 1 I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J T Mobile 9 0.6668 i 5.2241 i 6.8572 : 0.0281 1 1.7085 : 0.0134 i 1.7219 : 0.4589 i 0.0125 0.4714 : 0.0000 i 2,618.728:2,618.728 i 0.1537 1 0.0000 1 2,622.571 9 I I I I I I I I I 4 I 4 I ; i i I 1 i V I J J J T i i i i i i i i i 1 Waste 9 i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 25.2115 i 0.0000 25.2115 1.4900 0.0000 1 62.4604 9 I I I I I I I I • I I I I i 9I I I I I I I I i . I 1 I I i ,� Ji Ji Ji 1 J J J J: . I J J J T i i i i i :i i i 1 Water 9 i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 6.2239 i 112.2420 118.4659 0.2818 0.0145 1 129.8292 9 I 1 I I I I I I • I I I I i 9 I I I I I I I I i . I 1 I I Total 1.9859 5.4397 8.9457 0.0295 1.7085 0.0400 1.7486 0.4589 0.0392 0.4981 31.4354 3,375.932 3,407.367 1.9502 0.0222 3,462.725 4 8 2 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 1.2111 i 0.0231 : 2.0066 i 1.1000e- 1 : 0.0111 i 0.0111 : i 0.0111 0.0111 • 0.0000 i 3.2774 : 3.2774 i 3.1600e- 1 0.0000 i 3.3563 .1 I I : 004 1 I I I . I : 1 003 . I I ,� J J J J J J V J J J Energy •1 0.0220 i 0.1876 : 0.0798 i 1.2000e- 1 1 0.0152 i 0.0152 : i 0.0152 0.0152 : 0.0000 i 635.9804 : 635.9804 i 0.0215 1 7.5600e- 1 638.7695 .1 I I 1 003 : I I I . I I I 1 003 I . I I 1 f J J J J J J J J J J J Mobile .1 0.6668 i 5.2241 : 6.8572 i 0.0281 1 1.7085 1 0.0134 i 1.7219 : 0.4589 i 0.0125 0.4714 : 0.0000 i 2,618.728:2,618.728 i 0.1537 1 0.0000 1 2,622.571 '1 I I I 1 I I I I I 4 I 4 I I 1 7 '1 I I I I . I I I I �� J J J J J J J J V I J J J i i i 1 i i i i i i 1 Waste •1 i i i i 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 : 25.2115 i 0.0000 : 25.2115 i 1.4900 0.0000 1 62.4604 'I I I I I I I I I . I i I I '9 I I 1 I I I I . I I I I i f J J J J J J J J . I J J J Water •1 i i i i 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 • 6.2239 i 112.2420 : 118.4659 i 0.2818 1 0.0145 1 129.8292 'I 1 I I I I I I I ; I I I I '1 . I I 1 Total 1.8998 5.4348 8.9436 0.0294 1.7085 0.0396 1.7482 0.4589 0.0388 0.4977 31.4354 3,370.228 3,401.663 1.9501 0.0221 3,456.987 1 6 0 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 4.33 0.09 0.02 0.10 0.00 1.00 0.02 0.00 1.02 0.08 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.01 0.45 0.17 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 :Site Preparation +Site Preparation 17/29/2021 :8/11/2021 1 5: 10: + 1 1 2 :Grading :Grading l8/12/2021 :9/22/2021 1 5: 30: I , + i i ,3 :Building Construction :Building Construction 9/23/2021 :11/16/2022 : 51, 300: + , I , 1 1 4 :Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating 10/15/2022 :12/15/2022 : 5: 44: I + 4 5 :Paving "Paving '12/1/2022 '12/28/2022 5' 20' Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 12 Acres of Paving: 3.4 Residential Indoor: 546,750; Residential Outdoor: 182,250; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 8,890 (Architectural Coating—sqft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 9 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Architectural Coating +Air Compressors ; 1! 6.001 78: 0.48 y Grading :Excavators ; 2 8.00i 158' 0.38 y ; Building Construction :Cranes ; 1 7.00i 231' 0.29 y ; Building Construction :Forklifts ; 3 8.00I 89' 0.20 y ; Building Construction :Generator Sets ; 1 8.00i 84' 0.74 y ; Paving :Pavers ; 2 8.00 i 130' 0.42 y i Paving Rollers ; 2 8.00i 80' 0.38 Grading :Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 8.00i 247' 0.40 y ; Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 3 7.00i 97' 0.37 y ; Grading :Graders ; 1 8.00i 187' 0.41 y ; Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 2 8.00i 97' 0.37 y i Paving fraying Equipment ; 2 8.001 132: 0.36 y i Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 4 8.00i 97' 0.37 y i Site Preparation Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 3 8.00I 247' 0.40 y ; Grading :Scrapers ; 2 8.00i 367' 0.48 Building Construction :Welders 1' 8.00: 46' 0.45 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Site Preparation 7; 18.00. 0.00: 0.00: 11.00: 5.40: 20.00;LD_Mix !HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8; 20.00. 0.001 0.00: 11.00: 5.40: 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix THHDT Building Construction i 9; 257.00. 53.001 0.00: 11.00: 5.40: 20.00;LD_Mix ,HDT_Mix THHDT Paving 6; 15.00. 0.001 0.00: 11.00: 5.40: 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix THHDT Architectural Coating : 1' 51.00' 0.00' 0.00' 11.00: 5.40: 20.00TLD_Mix •HDT_Mix 'HHDT CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust :i i i i 0.0903 : 0.0000 : 0.0903 i 0.0497 : 0.0000 : 0.0497 •I I I I I I I • 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 1 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J -I- Off-Road •1 0.0194 i 0.2025 i 0.1058 : 1.9000e- i : 0.0102 : 0.0102 i : 9.4000e- 9.4000e- • 0.0000 i 16.7179 1 16.7179 : 5.4100e- i 0.0000 1 16.8530 9 I 004 003 003 003 I 9 I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.0194 0.2025 0.1058 1.9000e- 0.0903 0.0102 0.1006 0.0497 9.4000e- 0.0591 0.0000 16.7179 16.7179 5.4100e- 0.0000 16.8530 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I I I 1 I I I Hauling •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I I �I J J J J J 7 I J J J t 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I Vendor .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I I �1 J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I Worker .1 4.3000e- 1 3.1000e- 1 3.1100e- 1 1.0000e- 1 7.4000e- 1 0.0000 1 7.5000e- 1 2.0000e- 1 0.0000 2.0000e- i 0.0000 1 0.6141 1 0.6141 1 3.0000e- 1 0.0000 i 0.6147 '1 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 004 I I 004 I 004 I 004 1I 'I I I I I 1 1 I 1 , I I 005 I Total 4.3000e- 3.1000e- 3.1100e- 1.0000e- 7.4000e- 0.0000 7.5000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.6141 0.6141 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.6147 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I Fugitive Dust :i 1 1 I 1 0.0352 1 0.0000 1 0.0352 1 0.0194 I 0.0000 : 0.0194 •. 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 •1 I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 •1 I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J J J t I I I I 1 1 I I I I I Off-Road 9 0.0194 1 0.2025 1 0.1058 1 1.9000e- 1 1 0.0102 1 0.0102 1 1 9.4000e- 9.4000e- • 0.0000 16.7178 1 16.7178 1 5.4100e- 1 0.0000 1 16.8530 '1 1 1 I 004 I I I I I 003 003 . I I 003 I 1 '1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I , I I 1 1 Total 0.0194 0.2025 0.1058 1.9000e- 0.0352 0.0102 0.0455 0.0194 9.4000e- 0.0288 0.0000 16.7178 16.7178 5.4100e- 0.0000 16.8530 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 9 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I I ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 9 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •i 4.3000e- i 3.1000e- i 3.1100e- : 1.0000e- i 7.4000e- 0.0000 : 7.5000e- i 2.0000e- : 0.0000 2.0000e- i 0.0000 i 0.6141 1 0.6141 : 3.0000e- i 0.0000 i 0.6147 •: 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 004 I I 004 I 004 I 004I '� i i i i i I I I I 005 Total 4.3000e- 3.1000e- 3.1100e- 1.0000e- 7.4000e- 0.0000 7.5000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.6141 0.6141 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.6147 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005 3.3 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust :i i i i 0.0967 i 0.0000 1 0.0967 i 0.0503 i 0.0000 : 0.0503 •• 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I I 1 I J J J J J J J J . J J J t Off-Road 91 0.0629 i 0.6960 i 0.4632 : 9.3000e- i : 0.0298 1 0.0298 i : 0.0274 : 0.0274 •• 0.0000 81.7425 1 81.7425 : 0.0264 i 0.0000 i 82.4034 9 I I I 004 I I I I I I I I 1 '� I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 Total 0.0629 0.6960 0.4632 9.3000e- 0.0967 0.0298 0.1265 0.0503 0.0274 0.0777 0.0000 81.7425 81.7425 0.0264 0.0000 82.4034 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 3.3 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 9 I I 1 I I I . I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 9 I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •i 1.4200e- i 1.0200e- i 0.0104 1 2.0000e- i 2.4800e- : 2.0000e- : 2.5000e- i 6.6000e- : 1.0000e- 6.7000e- i 0.0000 i 2.0470 1 2.0470 : 8.0000e- i 0.0000 i 2.0491 9 003 I 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 '� i i I I I I I I I 005 I Total 1.4200e- 1.0200e- 0.0104 2.0000e- 2.4800e- 2.0000e- 2.5000e- 6.6000e- 1.0000e- 6.7000e- 0.0000 2.0470 2.0470 8.0000e- 0.0000 2.0491 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust :i i i i 0.0377 : 0.0000 1 0.0377 i 0.0196 i 0.0000 : 0.0196 •. 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I I I 1 •� I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I J J J J J J J J . J J J t Off-Road 9 0.0629 i 0.6960 i 0.4632 : 9.3000e- i : 0.0298 1 0.0298 i : 0.0274 : 0.0274 •• 0.0000 81.7424 : 81.7424 : 0.0264 i 0.0000 i 82.4033 9 I I I 004 I 1 I I I I I I 1 '� I I I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 Total 0.0629 0.6960 0.4632 9.3000e- 0.0377 0.0298 0.0675 0.0196 0.0274 0.0470 0.0000 81.7424 81.7424 0.0264 0.0000 82.4033 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 3.3 Grading - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling i• 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ' 1 9 I I 1 I I I . I 1 I I 1 ,�1 J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 9 I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •i 1.4200e- i 1.0200e- i 0.0104 1 2.0000e- i 2.4800e- ; 2.0000e- ; 2.5000e- i 6.6000e- ; 1.0000e- 6.7000e- i 0.0000 i 2.0470 ; 2.0470 ; 8.0000e- i 0.0000 i 2.0491 9 003 I 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 '� i i I I I I I I I 005 I Total 1.4200e- 1.0200e- 0.0104 2.0000e- 2.4800e- 2.0000e- 2.5000e- 6.6000e- 1.0000e- 6.7000e- 0.0000 2.0470 2.0470 8.0000e- 0.0000 2.0491 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 3.4 Building Construction -2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 9 0.0684 i 0.6276 � 0.5967 ; 9.7000e- i ; 0.0345 i 0.0345 i i 0.0325 0.0325 � 0.0000 i 83.3894 ; 83.3894 ; 0.0201 i 0.0000 i 83.8924 9 I I I 004 I I I I I I I I '� I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 Total 0.0684 0.6276 0.5967 9.7000e- 0.0345 0.0345 0.0325 0.0325 0.0000 83.3894 83.3894 0.0201 0.0000 83.8924 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 3.4 Building Construction -2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling i• 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 ! 0.0000 ' • 1 9I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 5.3000e- i 0.1707 i 0.0409 1 4.4000e- i 9.4900e- 3.1000e- : 9.8000e- i 2.7400e- : 2.9000e- 3.0300e- i 0.0000 i 41.4170 : 41.4170 : 3.4000e- i 0.0000 i 41.5020 9 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 I 003 1 1 9 . 1 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker 9 0.0437 i 0.0316 i 0.3200 : 7.0000e- i 0.0765 4.8000e- : 0.0770 i 0.0203 : 4.4000e- 0.0208 : 0.0000 i 63.1298 1 63.1298 : 2.5800e- i 0.0000 i 63.1942 9 I I I 004 I I 004 I I I 004 I I 003 I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I Total 0.0490 0.2023 0.3609 1.1400e- 0.0860 7.9000e- 0.0868 0.0231 7.3000e- 0.0238 0.0000 104.5467 104.5467 5.9800e- 0.0000 104.6962 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 9 0.0684 i 0.6276 � 0.5967 1 9.7000e- i 1 0.0345 1 0.0345 i i 0.0325 0.0325 � 0.0000 i 83.3893 1 83.3893 1 0.0201 i 0.0000 i 83.8923 '� I I I 004 I I I I I • I I I I '� I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 Total 0.0684 0.6276 0.5967 9.7000e- 0.0345 0.0345 0.0325 0.0325 0.0000 83.3893 83.3893 0.0201 0.0000 83.8923 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 3.4 Building Construction -2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling i• 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 ! 0.0000 ' • 1 9I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 5.3000e- i 0.1707 i 0.0409 1 4.4000e- i 9.4900e- 3.1000e- : 9.8000e- i 2.7400e- : 2.9000e- 3.0300e- i 0.0000 i 41.4170 : 41.4170 : 3.4000e- i 0.0000 i 41.5020 9 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 I 003 1 1 9 . 1 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker 9 0.0437 i 0.0316 i 0.3200 : 7.0000e- i 0.0765 4.8000e- : 0.0770 i 0.0203 : 4.4000e- 0.0208 : 0.0000 i 63.1298 1 63.1298 : 2.5800e- i 0.0000 i 63.1942 9 I I I 004 I I 004 I I I 004 I I 003 I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.0490 0.2023 0.3609 1.1400e- 0.0860 7.9000e- 0.0868 0.0231 7.3000e- 0.0238 0.0000 104.5467 104.5467 5.9800e- 0.0000 104.6962 003 004 004 003 3.4 Building Construction -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road .1 0.1945 i 1.7802 i 1.8654 i 3.0700e- i : 0.0922 i 0.0922 i i 0.0868 0.0868 •. 0.0000 i 264.1668 : 264.1668 : 0.0633 i 0.0000 i 265.7490 I i I 003 I I I I I • i i i 1 '� I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 Total 0.1945 1.7802 1.8654 3.0700e- 0.0922 0.0922 0.0868 0.0868 0.0000 264.1668 264.1668 0.0633 0.0000 265.7490 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 3.4 Building Construction -2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling i• 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 ! 0.0000 ' • 1 9I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0156 i 0.5115 i 0.1193 1 1.3700e- i 0.0301 I 8.2000e- I 0.0309 i 8.6700e- I 7.8000e- 9.4500e- i 0.0000 i 130.0504 I 130.0504 I 0.0100 i 0.0000 i 130.3006 9 I I I 003 I I 004 1 I 003 I 004 003 ' I I I 1 '� • 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker 9 0.1294 i 0.0912 i 0.9323 I 2.1300e- i 0.2422 I 1.4600e- I 0.2437 i 0.0643 I 1.3500e- 0.0657 : 0.0000 i 192.5923 I 192.5923 I 7.4300e- i 0.0000 i 192.7781 9 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I I 003 I I '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I Total 0.1450 0.6027 1.0517 3.5000e- 0.2723 2.2800e- 0.2745 0.0730 2.1300e- 0.0751 0.0000 322.6427 322.6427 0.0174 0.0000 323.0787 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road . 0.1945 i 1.7802 i 1.8654 i 3.0700e- i I 0.0922 I 0.0922 i i 0.0868 0.0868 •. 0.0000 i 264.1665 I 264.1665 I 0.0633 i 0.0000 i 265.7486 I i I 003 I I I I I • I i I 1 '� I I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 Total 0.1945 1.7802 1.8654 3.0700e- 0.0922 0.0922 0.0868 0.0868 0.0000 264.1665 264.1665 0.0633 0.0000 265.7486 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 3.4 Building Construction -2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 9I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J -1- Vendor •1 0.0156 i 0.5115 i 0.1193 1 1.3700e- i 0.0301 ; 8.2000e- ; 0.0309 i 8.6700e- ; 7.8000e- 9.4500e- i 0.0000 i 130.0504 ; 130.0504 ; 0.0100 i 0.0000 i 130.3006 9 I I I 003 1 1 004 1 1 003 1 004 003 ' I I I 1 '� • 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker •1 0.1294 i 0.0912 i 0.9323 ; 2.1300e- i 0.2422 ; 1.4600e- ; 0.2437 i 0.0643 ; 1.3500e- 0.0657 : 0.0000 i 192.5923 ; 192.5923 ; 7.4300e- i 0.0000 i 192.7781 9 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 I I 003 I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.1450 0.6027 1.0517 3.5000e- 0.2723 2.2800e- 0.2745 0.0730 2.1300e- 0.0751 0.0000 322.6427 322.6427 0.0174 0.0000 323.0787 003 003 003 3.5 Architectural Coating -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit.Coating :: 0.8653 i i i ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I • I I I 1 •� I I I I 1 1 I I • I I I 1 J J J J J I J J . J I J t Off-Road • 4.5000e- i 0.0310 i 0.0399 ; 7.0000e- i ; 1.8000e- ; 1.8000e- i ; 1.8000e- : 1.8000e- • 0.0000 5.6172 ; 5.6172 ; 3.7000e- i 0.0000 1 5.6263 •� 003 005 003 003 003 003 • 004 i '1 I I I I I I I • I I I 1 Total 0.8698 0.0310 0.0399 7.0000e- 1.8000e- 1.8000e- 1.8000e- 1.8000e- 0.0000 5.6172 5.6172 3.7000e- 0.0000 5.6263 005 003 003 003 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 3.5 Architectural Coating -2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 1 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 91 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I i ,� J J J J J J 7 J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 1 I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J • 7 J J J t Worker •i 4.9500e- i 3.4900e- i 0.0357 : 8.0000e- i 9.2800e- : 6.0000e- : 9.3300e- i 2.4600e- : 5.0000e- 2.5100e- i 0.0000 i 7.3755 1 7.3755 : 2.8000e- i 0.0000 i 7.3827 9 003 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 003 I 005 003 I 004 I 1 Total 4.9500e- 3.4900e- 0.0357 8.0000e- 9.2800e- 6.0000e- 9.3300e- 2.4600e- 5.0000e- 2.5100e- 0.0000 7.3755 7.3755 2.8000e- 0.0000 7.3827 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit.Coating 9 0.8653 i i 1 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 q I I I I 1 1 I I • I I I 1 •� I I I I 1 1 I I • I I I 1 J J J J J I J J . J I J t Off-Road •i 4.5000e- i 0.0310 i 0.0399 : 7.0000e- i : 1.8000e- : 1.8000e- i : 1.8000e- : 1.8000e- • 0.0000 5.6172 : 5.6172 : 3.7000e- i 0.0000 i 5.6263 •� 003 005 003 003 003 003 • 004 i '1 1 1 1 1 1 I I • I I I 1 Total 0.8698 0.0310 0.0399 7.0000e- 1.8000e- 1.8000e- 1.8000e- 1.8000e- 0.0000 5.6172 5.6172 3.7000e- 0.0000 5.6263 005 003 003 003 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 3.5 Architectural Coating -2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 1 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 91 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I i ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 1 I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J • 7 J J J t Worker •i 4.9500e- i 3.4900e- i 0.0357 : 8.0000e- i 9.2800e- : 6.0000e- : 9.3300e- i 2.4600e- : 5.0000e- 2.5100e- i 0.0000 i 7.3755 1 7.3755 : 2.8000e- i 0.0000 i 7.3827 9 003 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 003 I 005 003 I 004 I 1 Total 4.9500e- 3.4900e- 0.0357 8.0000e- 9.2800e- 6.0000e- 9.3300e- 2.4600e- 5.0000e- 2.5100e- 0.0000 7.3755 7.3755 2.8000e- 0.0000 7.3827 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 3.6 Paving -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road •i 0.0110 i 0.1113 i 0.1458 : 2.3000e- i : 5.6800e- : 5.6800e- i : 5.2200e- 5.2200e- • 0.0000 i 20.0276 : 20.0276 : 6.4800e- i 0.0000 i 20.1895 9 004 003 003 003 003 • 003 1 ; • I I 1 I J J J J J J J J m J I J t Paving 9 4.4500e- i i i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 003 I i I i I i i i • I I I i 9I I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 Total 0.0155 0.1113 0.1458 2.3000e- 5.6800e- 5.6800e- 5.2200e- 5.2200e- 0.0000 20.0276 20.0276 6.4800e- 0.0000 20.1895 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 3.6 Paving -2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling i• 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ' • 1 91 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I i ,� J J J J J J 7 J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 1 I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 91 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I i �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker •i 6.6000e- i 4.7000e- i 4.7700e- : 1.0000e- i 1.2400e- 1.0000e- : 1.2500e- i 3.3000e- : 1.0000e- 3.4000e- i 0.0000 i 0.9860 1 0.9860 : 4.0000e- i 0.0000 i 0.9870 9 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 1 005 004 '� i i i i i i i i I i 005 Total 6.6000e- 4.7000e- 4.7700e- 1.0000e- 1.2400e- 1.0000e- 1.2500e- 3.3000e- 1.0000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 0.9860 0.9860 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.9870 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 9 0.0110 i 0.1113 i 0.1458 : 2.3000e- i : 5.6800e- : 5.6800e- i : 5.2200e- : 5.2200e- • 0.0000 i 20.0275 : 20.0275 : 6.4800e- i 0.0000 i 20.1895 9 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 1 ; • I I 1 I J J II J J J J J m J I J 1.Paving 9 4.4500e- i i i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 003 I i I i I i i i • I I I i 9I I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 Total 0.0155 0.1113 0.1458 2.3000e- 5.6800e- 5.6800e- 5.2200e- 5.2200e- 0.0000 20.0275 20.0275 6.4800e- 0.0000 20.1895 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 3.6 Paving -2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling i• 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ' • 1 91 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I I ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 1 I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 91 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •i 6.6000e- i 4.7000e- i 4.7700e- : 1.0000e- i 1.2400e- 1.0000e- : 1.2500e- i 3.3000e- : 1.0000e- 3.4000e- i 0.0000 i 0.9860 1 0.9860 : 4.0000e- i 0.0000 i 0.9870 9 004 1 004 1 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 1 004 1 005 004 '� i i i i i i i i I i 005 Total 6.6000e- 4.7000e- 4.7700e- 1.0000e- 1.2400e- 1.0000e- 1.2500e- 3.3000e- 1.0000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 0.9860 0.9860 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.9870 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2 5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 4 0.6668 i 5.2241 : 6.8572 : 0.0281 : 1.7085 i 0.0134 i 1.7219 i 0.4589 i 0.0125 0.4714 : 0.0000 i 2,618.728:2,618.728: 0.1537 0.0000 i 2,622.571 9 I I I I I I I , I 4 4 I I 7 '� I I I I I I I • I I I 3 } 1. 1. 1. 1. } } 1. r I. e } } r Unmitigated • 0.6668 • 5.2241 • 6.8572 • 0.0281 • 1.7085 • 0.0134 • 1.7219 • 0.4589 • 0.0125 • 0.4714 • 0.0000 • 2,618.728•2,618.728• 0.1537 • 0.0000 •2,622.571 4 4 7 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise ; 724.68 ; 724.68 724.68 • 1,618,477 1,618,477 Apartments Mid Rise ; 1,251.72 ; 1,251.72 1251.72 • 2• ,795,551 • 2,795,551 Parking Lot + 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 • • Total I 1,976.40 I 1,976.40 1,976.40 I 4,414,028 I 4,414,028 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 11.00 i 3.50 1 4.50 • 40.00 19.00 • 41.00 • 86 • 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 11.00 3.50 I 4.50 i 40.00 l 19.00 • 41.00 • 86 • 11 3 4 i- < Parking Lot 12.50 4.20 5.40 • 0.00 • 0.00 • 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual Land Use I LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS I MCY SBUS I MH Apartments Low Rise • 0.492822, 0.035624: 0.185121 I i 0.119005 I i 0.014436 I i 0.005121 I i 0.022629 I i 0.112565 I i 0.003037 I I i 0.001863: 0.006214 I i 0.000779: 0.000783 } I i- ---1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + Apartments Mid Rise • 0.492822, 0.0356241 0.1851211 0.1190051 0.0144361 0.0051211 0.0226291 0.1125651 0.0030371 0.0018631 0.0062141 0.000779. 0.000783 } I I I I I I I I I I I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Parking Lot • 0.492822. 0.035624' 0.185121' 0.119005' 0.014436' 0.005121' 0.022629' 0.112565' 0.003037' 0.001863' 0.006214' 0.000779' 0.000783 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Electricity •1 I 1 I I 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 418.7009 1 418.7009 1 0.0173 1 3.5800e- i 420.1988 Mitigated .' I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 003 I .1 I I I I I 1 I I . 1 1 I 1 . J 1 1 1 J J J J 7 J J J T 1 : 1 1 1 1 1 I Electricity •1 I 1 I I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 418.7009 1 418.7009 1 0.0173 1 3.5800e- : 420.1988 Unmitigated : I I I I I I I I . I I I 003 I .1 I I I I I 1 I I . I I I 1 . J J J J J J J J •7 J I J T I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I NaturalGas •1 0.0220 I 0.1876 1 0.0798 1 1.2000e- I 1 0.0152 1 0.0152 I 1 0.0152 0.0152 : 0.0000 1 217.2795 1 217.2795 1 4.1600e- I 3.9800e- : 218.5706 Mitigated ;i I I 1 003 i 1 1 i 1 . i I 1 003 i 003 a I- } } I- 1- } 4 } r • 1. } } 4 r NaturalGas . 0.0220 • 0.1876 • 0.0798 • 1.2000e- • • 0.0152 • 0.0152 • • 0.0152 • 0.0152 • 0.0000 • 217.2795 • 217.2795 • 4.1600e- • 3.9800e- • 218.5706 Unmitigated 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I Apartments Low 1 1.54188e 48.3100e- 1 0.0711 1 0.0302 1 1 4.5000e- I 1 1 1 5.7400e- I 1 5.7400e- I I 1 1 5.7400e- 5.7400e- I 1 0.0000 1 82.2804 1 82.2804 1 1.5800e- 1 1.5100e- 1 82.7693 Rise I +006 '1 003 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 1 I I 003 I 003 1 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 41 J J J J J J I J J I I I I I Apartments Mid 1 2.52979e•1 0.0136 1 0.1166 1 0.0496 I 1 7.4000e- I 1 I 1 9.4200e- I 1 9.4200e- I 1 I 1 9.4200e- 9.4200e- I 0.0000 1 134.9991 I 1 134.9991 1 2.5900e- 1 2.4700e- 1 135.8013 Rise I +006 '1 I I 1 004 1 I 003 I 003 I 1 003 003 I I I 003 1 003 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I . 1 'I I 1 I I 1 9 J J J J J J J 7 I J J I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I Parking Lot 1 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 'I I 1 1 I I I I I • I 1 I 1 1 1 'I I 1 1 I 1 I I I , I I I I 1 Total 0.0220 0.1876 0.0798 1.1900e- 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0000 217.2795 217.2795 4.1700e- 3.9800e- 218.5706 003 003 003 Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I Apartments Low 1 1.54188e�1 8.3100e- 1 0.0711 1 0.0302 1 4.5000e- 1 1 5.7400e- 1 5.7400e- 1 1 5.7400e- 5.7400e- : 0.0000 82.2804 1 82.2804 1 1.5800e- 1 1.5100e- 1 82.7693 Rise I +006 .: 003 1 I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I 1 003 003 ■ I I 003 I 003 1 1 .1 I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 I. 7 J J J J J J J J .. J J J1. Apartments Mid 12.52979e.1 0.0136 I 0.1166 I 0.0496 I 7.4000e- I I 9.4200e- I 9.4200e- I I 9.4200e- 1 9.4200e- • 0.0000 134.9991 I 134.9991 I 2.5900e- I 2.4700e- 1 135.8013 Rise I +006 .: I I 1 004 1 I 003 I 003 I 1 003 003 • I 1 003 1 003 i 1 .1 I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 I. 7 J J J J J J J J - J I J I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1. Parking Lot I 0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 .1 I I 1 I I I I I . I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 Total 0.0220 0.1876 0.0798 1.1900e- 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0152 0.0000 217.2795 217.2795 4.1700e- 3.9800e- 218.5706 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Low : 481166 •i 153.3097 i 6.3300e- : 1.3100e- 1153.8582 Rise I •1 003 I 003 i -t r Apartments Mid i 781078 .1 248.8683 i 0.0103 1 2.1300e- 1249.7587 Rise I :1 i : 003 1 Parking Lot 1 51857.4 •i 16.5229 i 6.8000e- : 1.4000e- I 16.5820 :: I 004 I 004 Total 418.7009 0.0173 3.5800e- 420.1988 003 Mitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Low : 481166 •i 153.3097 : 6.3300e- : 1.3100e- i 153.8582 Rise I :1 I 003 I 003 •9 J J Apartments Mid 1 781078 •1 248.8683 i 0.0103 1 2.1300e- 1249.7587 Rise I :1 1 003 .1 Parking Lot 1 51857.4 .1 16.5229 i 6.8000e- I 1.4000e- I 16.5820 :1 I 004 I 004 Total 418.7009 0.0173 3.5800e- 420.1988 003 6.0 Area Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Use Low VOC Paint- Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint- Residential Exterior Use Low VOC Paint- Non-Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint- Non-Residential Exterior No Hearths Installed ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 1.2111 i 0.0231 i 2.0066 1.1000e- i 1 0.0111 i 0.0111 i : 0.0111 0.0111 : 0.0000 i 3.2774 i 3.2774 i 3.1600e- 1 0.0000 1 3.3563 9 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 Unmitigated • 1.2972 • 0.0281 • 2.0087 • 1.4000e- • • 0.0115 • 0.0115 • • 0.0115 • 0.0115 • 0.0000 • 8.9817 • 8.9817 • 3.2700e- • 1.0000e- • 9.0945 004 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 1 Architectural •i 0.1720 i 1 1 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating '� 1 1 i 1 i i i ; I 1 i 1 '� 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 . I 1 1 NI i i 1 1 i i i i Consumer .1 1.0641 i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 Products '� I I I I I I I . I I I I '� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • I 1 1 9iri J J J J J J J 1. J J Hearth .1 5.8000e- i 4.9300e- : 2.1000e- i 3.0000e- i : 4.0000e- i 4.0000e- : i 4.0000e- 4.0000e- I 0.0000 i 5.7042 : 5.7042 i 1.1000e- : 1.0000e- 1 5.7381 9 004 I 003 I 003 I 005 004 004 004 004I .1 I I I I I 1 I • I I I 004 I 004 e J J J J J J J J I J J J Landscaping .1 0.0605 i 0.0231 : 2.0066 i 1.1000e- i : 0.0111 i 0.0111 : i 0.0111 0.0111 • 0.0000 i 3.2774 : 3.2774 i 3.1600e- : 0.0000 3.3563 1 '1 I I 1 004 1 I I 1 I ; I I 1 003 1 Total 1.2972 0.0281 2.0087 1.4000e- 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0000 8.9817 8.9817 3.2700e- 1.0000e- 9.0945 004 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 1 1 Architectural •; 0.0865 i 1 1 1 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating : I 1 i i I i i . I 1 i Consumer .1 1.0641 i 1 1 1 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 Products ': I I I I I I I I . '� 1 I I I I I 1 •I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J 7 I J J J Hearth •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I • I I I I 91 I I I I I 1 I • I I I I ;� J J J J J J J J J J J Landscaping .1 0.0605 i 0.0231 : 2.0066 i 1.1000e- i 1 0.0111 i 0.0111 : i 0.0111 0.0111 • 0.0000 i 3.2774 : 3.2774 i 3.1600e- : 0.0000 : 3.3563 i '1 004 1 I I 003 I 1 Total 1.2111 0.0231 2.0066 1.1000e- 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0000 3.2774 3.2774 3.1600e- 0.0000 3.3563 004 003 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated •i 118.4659 i 0.2818 i 0.0145 i 129.8292 Unmitigated •• 118.4659 : 0.2818 • 0.0145 : 129.8292 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr • Apartments Low 16.45025/ •i 43.4375 0.1033 5.3100e- 47.6041 Rise 14.06646 : 003 Apartments Mid 111.1413/ ■i 75.0284 0.1785 9.1800e- ! 82.2252 Rise I 7.02389 ;i 003 Parking Lot i 0/0 9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total 118.4659 0.2818 0.0145 129.8292 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr • Apartments Low 16.45025/ •i 43.4375 0.1033 : 5.3100e- I 47.6041 Rise 14.06646 :: : I 003 J Apartments Mid 111.1413/ •i 75.0284 0.1785 1 9.1800e- I 82.2252 Rise 17.02389 :: : 003 i J Parking Lot I 0/0 •: 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 I 0.0000 Total il 118.4659 0.2818 0.0145 129.8292 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e MT/yr Mitigated •i 25.2115 i 1.4900 i 0.0000 . 62.4604 Unmitigated •• 25.2115 : 1.4900 : 0.0000 : 62.4604 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Low : 45.54 •i 9.2442 1 0.5463 : 0.0000 I 22.9021 Rise I ; I r 41 -I- Apartments Mid 1 78.66 •1 15.9673 1 0.9436 : 0.0000 1 39.5582 i �iIRise 1 i 1 ' I' 41 J J T Parking Lot i 0 .i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 I •1 I I I Total 25.2115 1.4900 0.0000 62.4604 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Mitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Low : 45.54 •i 9.2442 1 0.5463 : 0.0000 i 22.9021 Rise I •1 I 1 J J Apartments Mid i 78.66 •i 15.9673 1 0.9436 1 0.0000 i 39.5582 Rise 1 •1 1 1 J J Parking Lot 1 0 •: 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Total il 25.2115 1.4900 0.0000 62.4604 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type I Number I Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 34 Date: 3/1/2021 12:59 PM Palm Desert Apartments- Salton Sea Air Basin, Annual 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer Palm Desert Apartments Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses I Size I Metric I Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Low Rise 99.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 4.20 99,000.00 1 213 Apartments Mid Rise 171.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 4.34 171,000.00 + 367 4 r I• Parking Lot 148.16 1000sgft 3.40 148,164.00 0 . 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 3.4 Precipitation Freq(Days) 20 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2023 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 702.44 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer Project Characteristics -Assume an 18-month construction period from 7/1/2021 to 12/31/2022. Land Use-The project proposes a multifamily apartment complex with 14 buildings. Six buildings are 2-story, with 99 units. Eight buildings are 3-story, with 171 units. Population is based on DOF 2020. The project site is 11.94 acres, total building area 2.6 acres, asphalt parking and roadways is 3.4 acres. The Residential lot acreage includes building footprint, hardscape and landscape areas, and is roughly divided between low rise (2-story) and mid rise (3-story) uses. Construction Phase-site is vacant, no demolition needed. 18-month construction. Grading - cut 52,765 CY, fill 52,765 CY on preliminary grading plan. Materials balance onsite, no import/export will occur. Grading area changed to match site area (11.94 acre). On-road Fugitive Dust-All access to Project site and roads in the Project area are fully paved. Vehicle Trips - Changed all daily trip rates to 7.32 according to ITE 10th edition. Slightly altered Res H-W, H-S, H-O Trip %. Road Dust- Project area has fully paved roads. Woodstoves- No wood burning applicance proposed for the Project. Energy Use - Water And Wastewater-The Project will connect to sewer and no septic tank will be used. Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - assume standard dust control measures per SCAQMD 403.1 rule Area Mitigation - Per SCAQMD Rule 1113, default and building envelope coating VOC contensts are limited to 50 grams per liter of coating, and 100 grams per liter for traffic coatings. Architectural Coating - Low VOC coating per SCAQMD Rule 1113. Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating 7 EF_Nonresidential_Interior r 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating 7 EF_Parking r 150.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating 7 EF_Residential_Exterior r 100.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating 7 EF_Residential_Interior r 100.00 50.00 tblAreaMitigation •UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialExteriorVr 150 1 50 alue t F 4 tblAreaMitigation •UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentiallnteriorV i 150 1 50 alue f F 4 • tblAreaMitigation • UseLowVOCPaintParkingCheck T False True tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintParkingValue 150 100 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 3 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer • tblAreaMitigation •UseLowVOCPaintResidentialExteriorValu• 100 50 e tblAreaMitigation • UseLowVOCPaintResidentiallnteriorValuT 100 1 50 1 • e 4 I. 4 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 44.00 l- t tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/11/2023 12/15/2022 r t tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/14/2022 12/28/2022 t tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/15/2022 10/15/2022 i t tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/17/2022 12/1/2022 l- t tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 2,080.00 0.00 t tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 2,080.00 0.00 t tblGrading AcresOfGrading 75.00 12.00 t tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.19 4.20 4 tblLandUse LotAcreage } 4.50 4.34 4 I- t tblLandUse Population } 320.00 213.00 4 tblLandUse Population } 552.00 367.00 4 tblOnRoadDust HaulingPercentPave } 50.00 100.00 4 I- t tblOnRoadDust HaulingPercentPave } 50.00 100.00 t tblOnRoadDust HaulingPercentPave } 50.00 100.00 4 I- t tblOnRoadDust HaulingPercentPave } 50.00 100.00 4 I- t tblOnRoadDust HaulingPercentPave } 50.00 100.00 4 I- t tblOnRoadDust VendorPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i 4 I- t tblOnRoadDust VendorPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i t tblOnRoadDust VendorPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i 4 I- t tblOnRoadDust VendorPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i 4 I- t tblOnRoadDust VendorPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i 4 I- t tblOnRoadDust WorkerPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i 4 I- t tblOnRoadDust WorkerPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i tblOnRoadDust WorkerPercentPave 50.00 • 100.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer • tblOnRoadDust WorkerPercentPave 50.00 100.00 • tblOnRoadDust WorkerPercentPave i 50.00 100.00 v r • tblRoadDust RoadPercentPave i 50 100 v r • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP } 40.60 41.00 r • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP } 40.60 41.00 r • tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP } 19.20 19.00 r • tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP } 19.20 19.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips HWTTP i 40.20 40.00 r • tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP } 40.20 40.00 r • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR i 7.16 7.32 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips STTR i 6.39 7.32 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 6.07 7.32 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 5.86 7.32 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WDTR i 6.59 7.32 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR i 6.65 7.32 r 4 • tblWater AerobicPercent i 87.46 96.00 v r 4 • tblWater AerobicPercent i 87.46 96.00 v r 4 • tblWater AerobicPercent i 87.46 96.00 v • tblWater •AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent} 2.21 4.00 • tblWater •AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent i 2.21 4.00 • tblWater •AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent i 2.21 4.00 • tblWater SepticTankPercent v 10.33 0.00 r 4 • tblWater SepticTankPercent i 10.33 0.00 tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 • 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year lb/day lb/day I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 2021 •i 4.3036 1 46.4675 1 31.7448 1 0.0637 1 18.2169 1 2.0454 1 20.2623 1 9.9706 1 1.8818 11.8524 0.0000 1 6,173.400 1 6,173.400 1 1.9499 1 0.0000 i 6,222.148 •1 I I I I I I I I ; 1 8 I 8 I I 1 7 •I 1 I I I I I I I , . I I I I 1 �1 J J J J J J J J 1 J J J 1 I : I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 2022 •1 42.9923 1 22.4476 31.4270 1 0.0670 I 2.8431 1 0.9131 1 3.7562 1 0.7602 1 0.8637 1.6239 • 0.0000 16,588.63316,588.6331 0.8218 1 0.0000 16,609.178 •1 I I I I I I I I ; 1 7 I 7 I I I 1 •1 I I I I I I I I , . I I I I 1 Maximum 42.9923 46.4675 31.7448 0.0670 18.2169 2.0454 20.2623 9.9706 1.8818 11.8524 0.0000 6,588.633 6,588.633 1.9499 0.0000 6,609.178 7 7 1 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year lb/day lb/day I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 2021 •i 4.3036 1 46.4675 1 31.7448 1 0.0637 1 7.1964 1 2.0454 1 9.2418 1 3.9129 1 1.8818 5.7947 � 0.0000 i 6,173.400 6,173.400 1 1.9499 1 0.0000 1 6,222.148 •1 I I I I I I I I . I 7 1 7 I I 1 7 ;� I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I J J J J J J J J J J J •1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 2022 .1 42.9923 I 22.4476 1 31.4270 1 0.0670 1 2.8431 1 0.9131 1 3.7562 1 0.7602 1 0.8637 1 1.6239 .. 0.0000 i 6,588.633 6,588.633 I 0.8218 1 0.0000 1 6,609.178 I I I I I I I I . 7 1 7 I I I 1 •1 I I I I 1 1 I I , I 1 I I 1 Maximum 42.9923 46.4675 31.7448 0.0670 7.1964 2.0454 9.2418 3.9129 1.8818 5.7947 I 0.0000 6,588.633 6,588.633 1.9499 0.0000 6,609.178 7 7 1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.33 0.00 45.88 56.45 0.00 44.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 7.7139 i 2.5479 i 23.2703 i 0.0158 : i 0.3086 i 0.3086 : i 0.3086 0.3086 .. 0.0000 i 2,964.718 i 2,964.718 i 0.0947 : 0.0536 i 2,983.063 9 I I I I I 1 . I 0 I 0 1 1 7 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i . I 1 1 Energy 9 0.1203 i 1.0280 i 0.4375 i 6.5600e- : : 0.0831 i 0.0831 : i 0.0831 0.0831 . i 1,312.381 1,312.381 i 0.0252 : 0.0241 1 1,320.180 9I I i 003 i I i I i 1 4 i 4 i I i 2 91 1 1 1 1 1 1 i . I 1 1 f' J J J J J J J V J J T Mobile 9 4.5681 i 28.7372 i 44.3965 i 0.1640 : 9.4973 : 0.0732 i 9.5705 i 2.5486 i 0.0684 2.6170 � i 16,810.07� 16,810.07 i 0.9403 : 1 16,833.58 9I I I I I I I I 9 I I I I I I I I . I 71 i 71 I I i 35 Total 12.4023 32.3131 68.1043 0.1863 9.4973 0.4649 9.9622 2.5486 0.4601 3.0087 0.0000 21,087.17 21,087.17 1.0601 0.0777 21,136.82 65 65 74 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Area . 6.9773 i 0.2570 22.2954 i 1.1800e- 0.1234 i 0.1234 i 0.1234 0.1234 0.0000 i 40.1416 i 40.1416 0.0387 0.0000 1 41.1079 I I I 003 1 I I I I 1 I I I 9I I I I I I I I i I 1 I 1 9 J J J Energy 9 0.1203 : 1.0280 : 0.4375 : 6.5600e- 1 : 0.0831 : 0.0831 : : 0.0831 0.0831 . i 1,312.381 1 1,312.381 : 0.0252 1 0.0241 11,320.180 003 1 I I I I 4 I 4 I I i 2 9I I I I I I I I i I 1 I I 9 J J J J J J J J •• I J J J • Mobile .1 4.5681 i 28.7372 : 44.3965 i 0.1640 : 9.4973 : 0.0732 i 9.5705 : 2.5486 i 0.0684 2.6170 . i 16,810.07 1 16,810.07 i 0.9403 : 116,833.58 9I I I I I I I I 71 71 i 35 9 . I Total 11.6657 30.0222 67.1294 0.1717 9.4973 0.2796 9.7770 2.5486 0.2748 2.8235 0.0000 18,162.60 18,162.60 1.0041 0.0241 18,194.87 01 01 16 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 5.94 7.09 1.43 7.85 0.00 39.85 1.86 0.00 40.26 6.16 0.00 13.87 13.87 5.29 69.03 13.92 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 -Site Preparation +Site Preparation 17/29/2021 :8/11/2021 1 5: 10: 2 -Grading :Grading !8/12/2021 :9/22/2021 i 1 5� 307 + ✓ i I 1 1 3 -Building Construction :Building Construction !9/23/2021 :▪11/16/2022 1 51 300r, i + ✓ 11011512022 I 1 1 4 -Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating i▪12/15/2022 ' 51 447 5 -Paving -Paving :12/1/2022 .12/28/2022 5: 20: Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 12 Acres of Paving: 3.4 Residential Indoor: 546,750; Residential Outdoor: 182,250; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 8,890 (Architectural Coating—sqft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 8 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Architectural Coating +Air Compressors ; 1! 6.001 78: 0.48 y Grading :Excavators ; 2 8.00i 158' 0.38 y ; Building Construction :Cranes ; 1 7.00i 231' 0.29 y ; Building Construction :Forklifts ; 3 8.00I 89' 0.20 y ; Building Construction :Generator Sets ; 1 8.00i 84' 0.74 y ; Paving :Pavers ; 2 8.00 i 130' 0.42 y i Paving Rollers ; 2 8.00i 80' 0.38 Grading :Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 8.00i 247' 0.40 y ; Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 3 7.00i 97' 0.37 y ; Grading :Graders ; 1 8.00i 187' 0.41 y ; Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 2 8.00i 97' 0.37 y i Paving fraying Equipment ; 2 8.001 132: 0.36 y i Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 4 8.00i 97' 0.37 y i Site Preparation Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 3 8.00I 247' 0.40 y ; Grading :Scrapers ; 2 8.00i 367' 0.48 Building Construction :Welders 1' 8.00: 46' 0.45 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Site Preparation 7; 18.00. 0.00: 0.00: 11.00: 5.40: 20.00;LD_Mix !HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8; 20.00. 0.001 0.00: 11.00: 5.40: 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix THHDT Building Construction i 9; 257.00. 53.001 0.00: 11.00: 5.40: 20.00;LD_Mix ,HDT_Mix THHDT Paving 6; 15.00. 0.001 0.00: 11.00: 5.40: 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix THHDT Architectural Coating : 1' 51.00' 0.00' 0.00' 11.00: 5.40: 20.00TLD_Mix •HDT_Mix 'HHDT CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust i• 1 1 1 i 18.0663 : 0.0000 : 18.0663 i 9.9307 : 0.0000 : 9.9307 • i 1 0.0000 : i 1 0.0000 ' I I I I I I I I I I I I 9 ; I I I I ,� • J . J t Off-Road .1 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 : 0.0380 i : 2.0445 : 2.0445 i : 1.8809 : 1.8809 • i 3,685.656 1 3,685.656 1 1.1920 i 13,715.457 '� I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 . 1 9 1 9 1 1 : 3 9 I I I I 1 1 I I . 1 I 1 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 9I I • I I I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I • I I I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker 9 0.1012 i 0.0609 i 0.7797 1.5100e- i 0.1506 9.3000e- : 0.1515 i 0.0400 : 8.5000e- 0.0408 � i 149.7216 1 149.7216 : 6.4100e- i i 149.8818 9 I I I 003 I I 004 1 I 1 004 I I I 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I Total 0.1012 0.0609 0.7797 1.5100e- 0.1506 9.3000e- 0.1515 0.0400 8.5000e- 0.0408 149.7216 149.7216 6.4100e- 149.8818 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i 7.0458 : 0.0000 : 7.0458 i 3.8730 : 0.0000 : 3.8730 •• i : 0.0000 : i 1 0.0000 I I I 1 1 I I ; I I I I 1 •� I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J J J t Off-Road 9 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 0.0380 i 2.0445 1 2.0445 i 1.8809 1.8809 • 0.0000 i 3,685.656 3,685.656 1 1.1920 i 1 3,715.457 9 I I I I I I I • I 9 I 9 I I 3 '1 I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 7.0458 2.0445 9.0903 3.8730 1.8809 5.7539 0.0000 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 9 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I • I I I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker 9 0.1012 i 0.0609 i 0.7797 1.5100e- i 0.1506 9.3000e- : 0.1515 i 0.0400 : 8.5000e- 0.0408 � i 149.7216 1 149.7216 : 6.4100e- i i 149.8818 9 I I I 003 I I 004 1 I 1 004 I I I 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I Total 0.1012 0.0609 0.7797 1.5100e- 0.1506 9.3000e- 0.1515 0.0400 8.5000e- 0.0408 149.7216 149.7216 6.4100e- 149.8818 003 004 004 003 3.3 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i 6.4463 : 0.0000 : 6.4463 i 3.3560 : 0.0000 : 3.3560 •• i 1 0.0000 : i 1 0.0000 I I I I I I I ; I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J J J t Off-Road 9 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 0.0620 1 1.9853 1.9853 i 1.8265 1.8265 • i 6,007.043 1 6,007.043 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 9 I I I 1 I I I • I q I 4 I I 4 '� I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 6.4463 1.9853 8.4316 3.3560 1.8265 5.1825 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer 3.3 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I 1 9 I I I . I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I I I I 1 9 I I I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •1 0.1124 i 0.0676 i 0.8663 1.6700e- i 0.1673 1.0300e- : 0.1684 i 0.0444 : 9.5000e- 0.0453 � i 166.3573 1 166.3573 : 7.1200e- i i 166.5353 9 I I I 003 I I 003 1 I 1 004 I I I 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I Total 0.1124 0.0676 0.8663 1.6700e- 0.1673 1.0300e- 0.1684 0.0444 9.5000e- 0.0453 166.3573 166.3573 7.1200e- 166.5353 003 003 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i 2.5141 : 0.0000 : 2.5141 : 1.3089 i 0.0000 : 1.3089 •• i i 0.0000 : i 1 0.0000 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 •� I I I 1 1 I I , I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J J J t Off-Road 9 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 0.0620 i 1.9853 1.9853 i 1.8265 1.8265 • 0.0000 i 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 i 1 6,055.613 9 I I I 1 1 I I I q I 4 I I 4 9I I I 1 1 I I , I I I 1 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 2.5141 1.9853 4.4994 1.3089 1.8265 3.1354 0.0000 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer 3.3 Grading - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling i• 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 ' I I I 1 9 I I I . I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J 1 J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • 1 I I . I I I I i �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •1 0.1124 i 0.0676 i 0.8663 1.6700e- i 0.1673 1.0300e- : 0.1684 i 0.0444 : 9.5000e- 0.0453 � i 166.3573 1 166.3573 : 7.1200e- i i 166.5353 9 I I I 003 I I 003 1 I 1 004 I I I 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I Total 0.1124 0.0676 0.8663 1.6700e- 0.1673 1.0300e- 0.1684 0.0444 9.5000e- 0.0453 166.3573 166.3573 7.1200e- 166.5353 003 003 004 003 3.4 Building Construction -2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 1.9009 i 17.4321 i 16.5752 0.0269 i 0.9586 0.9586 i i 0.9013 0.9013 • i 2,553.363 2,553.363 0.6160 i 1 2,568.764 '1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 9 9 3 '1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 2,553.363 0.6160 2,568.764 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer 3.4 Building Construction -2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Category lb/day lb/day Hauling i• 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i i 0.0000 ' I I I 1 9 I I 1 I I I . I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.1455 i 4.7209 i 1.0538 0.0124 i 0.2662 8.3800e- 0.2745 i 0.0767 8.0100e- 0.0847 i 1,295.584 1 1,295.584 0.0991 i i 1,298.061 9 I 1 1 003 1 I : 003 1 6 1 6 I i 5 '� 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker 9 1.4445 i 0.8691 i 11.1324 0.0215 i 2.1502 0.0133 2.1635 i 0.5703 0.0122 0.5825 i 2,137.691 1 2,137.691 0.0915 i :2,139.978 9I I I I I I 4 I 4 I I , 4 9I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 1.5900 5.5900 12.1862 0.0339 2.4164 0.0216 2.4380 0.6470 0.0202 0.6672 3,433.276 3,433.276 0.1906 3,438.039 0 0 9 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 1.9009 i 17.4321 i 16.5752 : 0.0269 i : 0.9586 : 0.9586 i i 0.9013 0.9013 •• 0.0000 i 2,553.363:2,553.363: 0.6160 i i 2,568.764 9 I I I I I I I I I 9 I 9 I I 3 9I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 2,553.363 2,553.363 0.6160 2,568.764 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer 3.4 Building Construction -2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling i• 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i i 0.0000 ' I I I 1 9 1 I I I . I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.1455 i 4.7209 i 1.0538 0.0124 i 0.2662 8.3800e- 0.2745 i 0.0767 8.0100e- 0.0847 i 1,295.584 1,295.584 0.0991 i i 1,298.061 9 003 I : 003 1 6 1 6 I i 5 '� 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker •1 1.4445 i 0.8691 i 11.1324 0.0215 i 2.1502 0.0133 2.1635 i 0.5703 0.0122 0.5825 i 2,137.691 1 2,137.691 0.0915 i :2,139.978 9I I I I 4 I 4 I I , 4 9I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 1.5900 5.5900 12.1862 0.0339 2.4164 0.0216 2.4380 0.6470 0.0202 0.6672 3,433.276 3,433.276 0.1906 3,438.039 0 0 9 3.4 Building Construction -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 1.7062 i 15.6156 i 16.3634 i 0.0269 i 0.8090 1 0.8090 i 0.7612 0.7612 • i 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 i i 2,569.632 '1 I I I I I I I I 6 I 6 I I u 2 9I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer 3.4 Building Construction -2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i i 0.0000 I I I 1 9 1 I I I . I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.1350 i 4.4742 i 0.9693 0.0123 i 0.2662 7.0200e- 0.2732 i 0.0767 1 6.7100e- 0.0834 i 1,284.869 1,284.869 0.0919 i i 1,287.167 9 003 I 1 003 1 2 2 I i 5 '� 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker 9 1.3461 i 0.7920 i 10.2472 0.0207 i 2.1502 0.0128 2.1631 i 0.5703 0.0118 0.5821 i 2,059.323 2,059.323 0.0831 i i 2,061.400 9I I I I I 4 4 I I i 6 9I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 1.4811 5.2663 11.2165 0.0330 2.4164 0.0198 2.4362 0.6470 0.0185 0.6655 3,344.192 3,344.192 0.1750 3,348.568 6 6 1 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 1.7062 i 15.6156 i 16.3634 i 0.0269 i : 0.8090 1 0.8090 : : 0.7612 : 0.7612 •• 0.0000 i 2,554.333:2,554.333: 0.6120 i i 2,569.632 9 I I I I I I I I 6 I 6 I I u 2 9I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer 3.4 Building Construction -2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 1 1 I I I I I I 1 9 1 I I I . I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.1350 i 4.4742 i 0.9693 0.0123 i 0.2662 7.0200e- 0.2732 i 0.0767 1 6.7100e- 0.0834 i 1,284.869 1,284.869 0.0919 i i 1,287.167 9 003 I 1 003 1 2 2 I i 5 '� 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker 9 1.3461 i 0.7920 i 10.2472 0.0207 i 2.1502 0.0128 2.1631 i 0.5703 0.0118 0.5821 i 2,059.323 2,059.323 0.0831 i i 2,061.400 9I I I I I 4 4 I I I 6 9I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 1.4811 5.2663 11.2165 0.0330 2.4164 0.0198 2.4362 0.6470 0.0185 0.6655 3,344.192 3,344.192 0.1750 3,348.568 6 6 1 3.5 Architectural Coating -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating •i 39.3332 i i i : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• i i 0.0000 1 i 1 0.0000 I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 •� I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 '� J J J J J J J J m J J J 1. Off-Road 90.2045 i 1.4085 i 1.8136 I 2.9700e- i 0.0817 I 0.0817 i 0.0817 0.0817 • i 281.4481 281.4481 1 0.0183 i 1 281.9062 9 I I 003 I 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 9I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 Total 39.5378 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer 3.5 Architectural Coating -2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 9 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I • I I I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker 9 0.2671 i 0.1572 i 2.0335 4.1100e- i 0.4267 2.5400e- : 0.4293 i 0.1132 : 2.3400e- 0.1155 � i 408.6595 : 408.6595 : 0.0165 i i 409.0717 '� 003 003 003 I I I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.2671 0.1572 2.0335 4.1100e- 0.4267 2.5400e- 0.4293 0.1132 2.3400e- 0.1155 408.6595 408.6595 0.0165 409.0717 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating 9 39.3332 i i i : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• i : 0.0000 1 i 1 0.0000 ; I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 •� I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 '� J J J J J J J J m J J J 1.I I Off-Road 90.2045 i 1.4085 i 1.8136 I� 2.9700e- i 1 0.0817 1� 0.0817 i : 0.0817 1 0.0817 • 0.0000 i 281.4481 1 281.4481 1 0.0183 i i 281.9062 '� I I 1 003 I 1 1 I I . I 1 1 I '� I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Total 39.5378 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer 3.5 Architectural Coating -2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 '9 I 1 I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9 I 1 I I I •I I . I 1 I I ,� J . J Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 . i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '9 I I I 1 I I I . I I I I 9 . 1 I I ,� J . J Worker 9 0.2671 i 0.1572 i 2.0335 4.1100e- i 0.4267 2.5400e- : 0.4293 i 0.1132 : 2.3400e- 0.1155 . i 408.6595 : 408.6595 : 0.0165 i 1 409.0717 9 003 003 003 I I I I 1 9I I I I I I I I • I 1 I II Total 0.2671 0.1572 2.0335 4.1100e- 0.4267 2.5400e- 0.4293 0.1132 2.3400e- 0.1155 408.6595 408.6595 0.0165 409.0717 003 003 003 3.6 Paving -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 1.1028 i 11.1249 i 14.5805 0.0228 i 0.5679 0.5679 i 0.5225 0.5225 • 2,207.660 2,207.660 0.7140 i i 2,225.510 9 I I . 3 I 3 I I 1 4 91 1 I I . I I I 1 '1 i J J J J - J J 1 1. Paving 9 0.4454 i i 1 i : •0.0000 : 0.0000 i : 0.0000 1 0.0000 • : 0.0000 : 1 I 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I . I I I I I 1 Total 1.5482 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 2,207.660 2,207.660 0.7140 2,225.510 3 3 4 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer 3.6 Paving -2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling i• 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 ' • 1 I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I • I I I I i 9I I I • I I I I i �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •1 0.0786 i 0.0462 i 0.5981 1.2100e- i 0.1255 7.5000e- : 0.1263 i 0.0333 : 6.9000e- 0.0340 � i 120.1940 1 120.1940 : 4.8500e- i i 120.3152 9 I I I 003 I I 004 1 I 1 004 I I I 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I . I 1 1 I 1 Total 0.0786 0.0462 0.5981 1.2100e- 0.1255 7.5000e- 0.1263 0.0333 6.9000e- 0.0340 120.1940 120.1940 4.8500e- 120.3152 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 4 1.1028 i 11.1249 i 14.5805 : 0.0228 i : 0.5679 : 0.5679 i : 0.5225 0.5225 � 0.0000 2,207.660:2,207.660: 0.7140 i i 2,225.510 •1 I I 1 I 1 1 I I 3 I 3 I I 1 4 '1 J J J J J J J J - J J 1 t Paving 9 0.4454 i i i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• : 0.0000 : i I 0.0000 •� I I I I I I I I I 1 Total 1.5482 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 0.0000 2,207.660 2,207.660 0.7140 2,225.510 3 3 4 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer 3.6 Paving -2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I • I I I I 9I I I • I I I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •1 0.0786 i 0.0462 i 0.5981 1.2100e- i 0.1255 7.5000e- : 0.1263 i 0.0333 : 6.9000e- 0.0340 I i 120.1940 1 120.1940 1 4.8500e- i i 120.3152 9 I I I 003 I I 004 1 I 1 004 I I I 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I . I 1 1 I 1 Total 0.0786 0.0462 0.5981 1.2100e- 0.1255 7.5000e- 0.1263 0.0333 6.9000e- 0.0340 120.1940 120.1940 4.8500e- 120.3152 003 004 004 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2 5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 4.5681 28.7372 44.3965 i 0.1640 i 9.4973 i 0.0732 i 9.5705 i 2.5486 i 0.0684 2.6170 • i 16,810.07 i 16,810.07 0.9403 i 1 16,833.58 9 . 71 I 71 I I 1 35 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 3 } 1. 1. 1. 1. } 1. 1. r e } 1. r Unmitigated • 4.5681 • 28.7372 • 44.3965 • 0.1640 • 9.4973 • 0.0732 • 9.5705 • 2.5486 • 0.0684 • 2.6170 • 16,810.07• 16,810.07• 0.9403 • • 16,833.58 71 71 35 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise ; 724.68 ; 724.68 724.68 • 1,618,477 • 1,618,477 Apartments Mid Rise ; 1,251.72 ; 1,251.72 1251.72 • 2,795,551 • 2,795,551 Parking Lot + 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 • • Total I 1,976.40 I 1,976.40 1,976.40 I 4,414,028 I 4,414,028 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip°A) Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 11.00 i 3.50 1 4.50 • 40.00 19.00 • 41.00 • 86 • 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 11.00 3.50 I 4.50 i 40.00 l 19.00 • 41.00 • 86 • 11 3 4 i- r Parking Lot 12.50 4.20 5.40 • 0.00 • 0.00 • 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer Land Use I LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS I MCY SBUS I MH Apartments Low Rise • 0.492822, 0.035624: 0.185121 i 0.119005 i 0.014436 i 0.005121 i 0.022629 i 0.112565 i 0.003037 i 0.001863: 0.006214 i 0.000779: 0.000783 i- ---1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + Apartments Mid Rise • 0.492822, 0.0356241 0.1851211 0.1190051 0.0144361 0.0051211 0.0226291 0.1125651 0.0030371 0.0018631 0.0062141 0.000779. 0.000783 rI I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Parking Lot • 0.492822. 0.035624' 0.185121' 0.119005' 0.014436' 0.005121' 0.022629' 0.112565' 0.003037' 0.001863' 0.006214' 0.000779' 0.000783 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas 4 0.1203 i 1.0280 i 0.4375 6.5600e- I 0.0831 1 0.0831 i 0.0831 0.0831 • i 1,312.381 1,312.381 1 0.0252 i 0.0241 i 1,320.180 Mitigated .I I I I 003 I I I I I . I 4 : 4 I I 1 2 1 I 1 . 1 �:I. 1 } } } } 1- } } } r 1- I} } r NaturalGas - 0.1203 • 1.0280 • 0.4375 • 6.5600e- • • 0.0831 • 0.0831 • 0.0831 0.0831 • • 1,312.381 • 1,312.381 • 0.0252 • 0.0241 • 1,320.180 Unmitigated 003 4 4 2 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day I I I I Apartments Low i 4224.32 •i 0.0456 I 0.3893 I I 0.1657 1 I 2.4800e- 1 I 1 I 0.0315 I 0.0315 I I 1 I 0.0315 0.0315 : 1 496.9784 I 1496.9784 I 9.5300e- I 9.1100e- i 499.9317 Rise I •1 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I 003 I 003 i I 'I I I I I I I I I , , I 1 I I 1 -1 J J J J J V I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I Apartments Mid 6930.93 •I 0.0748 I 0.6387 I 0.2718 I 4.0800e- I I 0.0516 I 0.0516 I I 0.0516 0.0516 1 815.4030 I 815.4030 I 0.0156 I 0.0150 i 820.2485 I 1 I I I . 1Rise 1 •1 'I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 16I J J J J J J J 7 I J J I I : 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I Parking Lot 0 •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 'I I 1 1 I I I I I , I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I , , I I I I I Total 0.1203 1.0280 0.4375 6.5600e- 0.0831 0.0831 0.0831 0.0831 1,312.381 1,312.381 0.0252 0.0241 1,320.180 003 4 4 2 Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day IApartments Low I4.22432 • 0.0456 I 0.3893 I 0.1657 I 2.4800e- I I 0.0315 I 0.0315 I I 0.0315 0.0315 •• 496.9784 I 496.9784 I 9.5300e- I 9.1100e- 1 499.9317 Rise I .I I I I 003 I I I I I . I I 003 I 003 1 I I 1 I I I I I , , I .II I I I I• 7 J J J J J J J J J J J1. Apartments Mid I6.93093 1 0.0748 I 0.6387 I 0.2718 I 4.0800e- I I 0.0516 I 0.0516 I I 0.0516 0.0516 • 815.4030 I 815.4030 I 0.0156 I 0.0150 1 820.2485. Rise I .1 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I 1 I q I I I I I I I I , , I I I 1 I. 7 J J J J J J J J - J I J1. Parking Lot I 0 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 9 I q I I 1 I I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I , , I I I I Total 0.1203 1.0280 0.4375 6.5600e- 0.0831 0.0831 0.0831 0.0831 1,312.381 1,312.381 0.0252 0.0241 1,320.180 003 4 4 2 6.0 Area Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Use Low VOC Paint- Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint- Residential Exterior Use Low VOC Paint- Non-Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint- Non-Residential Exterior No Hearths Installed ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 6.9773 i 0.2570 i 22.2954 : 1.1800e- i i 0.1234 i 0.1234 i : 0.1234 0.1234 : 0.0000 i 40.1416 i 40.1416 i 0.0387 1 0.0000 1 41.1079 '� 003 I • I I I I '� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Unmitigated •• 7.7139 • 2.5479 • 23.2703 • 0.0158 • • 0.3086 • 0.3086 • • 0.3086 • 0.3086 • 0.0000 •2,964.718.2,964.718. 0.0947 • 0.0536 •2,983.063 0 0 7 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day 1 1 1 1 1 1 Architectural •i 0.9427 i 1 1 1 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 • i : 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 Coating : I 1 i i i i i . I 1 i 1 1 � 1 1 I 1 1 1 . I I I 1 Consumer .1 5.8305 i 1 1 1 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 • i : 0.0000 i i I 0.0000 Products •I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I '� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , I I I 1 Hearth •1 0.2681 i 2.2909 : 0.9749 i 0.0146 i : 0.1852 i 0.1852 : i 0.1852 0.1852 : 0.0000 i 2,924.576:2,924.576 i 0.0561 1 0.0536 :2,941.955 •1 I I I I I I I I . 5 I 5 I I i 8 '1 . I ,� J J J Landscaping .1 0.6726 i 0.2570 : 22.2954 i 1.1800e- i : 0.1234 i 0.1234 : i 0.1234 0.1234 • i 40.1416 : 40.1416 i 0.0387 : i 41.1079 •1 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I 9I I I I I I 1 I . I I I I Total 7.7139 2.5479 23.2703 0.0158 0.3086 0.3086 0.3086 0.3086 0.0000 2,964.718 2,964.718 0.0947 0.0536 2,983.063 0 0 7 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day 1 1 1 1 1 1 • Architectural •i 0.4742 i 1 1 1 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 • i : 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 Coating ': I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I '� 1 I I I I I 1 I . I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J 7 I J J J Consumer .1 5.8305 i 1 1 1 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 . i : 0.0000 i i I 0.0000 Products ': I I I I I I I I . I I I I I '� 1 I I I I I 1 •I . I I I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J Hearth •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I 9 . I I I �� J J J J J J J J • J J J Landscaping .1 0.6726 i 0.2570 : 22.2954 i 1.1800e- i 1 0.1234 i 0.1234 : i 0.1234 0.1234 • i 40.1416 : 40.1416 i 0.0387 1 i 41.1079 .1 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I 9I I I I I I 1 I . I I I 1 Total 6.9773 0.2570 22.2954 1.1800e- 0.1234 0.1234 0.1234 0.1234 0.0000 40.1416 40.1416 0.0387 0.0000 41.1079 003 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad IEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:57 PM Palm Desert Apartments-Salton Sea Air Basin, Summer Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type I Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter Palm Desert Apartments Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses I Size I Metric I Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Apartments Low Rise 99.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 4.20 99,000.00 1 213 Apartments Mid Rise 171.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 4.34 171,000.00 + 367 4 r I• Parking Lot 148.16 1000sgft 3.40 148,164.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 3.4 Precipitation Freq(Days) 20 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2023 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 702.44 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter Project Characteristics -Assume an 18-month construction period from 7/1/2021 to 12/31/2022. Land Use-The project proposes a multifamily apartment complex with 14 buildings. Six buildings are 2-story, with 99 units. Eight buildings are 3-story, with 171 units. Population is based on DOF 2020. The project site is 11.94 acres, total building area 2.6 acres, asphalt parking and roadways is 3.4 acres. The Residential lot acreage includes building footprint, hardscape and landscape areas, and is roughly divided between low rise (2-story) and mid rise (3-story) uses. Construction Phase-site is vacant, no demolition needed. 18-month construction. Grading - cut 52,765 CY, fill 52,765 CY on preliminary grading plan. Materials balance onsite, no import/export will occur. Grading area changed to match site area (11.94 acre). On-road Fugitive Dust-All access to Project site and roads in the Project area are fully paved. Vehicle Trips - Changed all daily trip rates to 7.32 according to ITE 10th edition. Slightly altered Res H-W, H-S, H-O Trip %. Road Dust- Project area has fully paved roads. Woodstoves- No wood burning applicance proposed for the Project. Energy Use - Water And Wastewater-The Project will connect to sewer and no septic tank will be used. Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - assume standard dust control measures per SCAQMD 403.1 rule Area Mitigation - Per SCAQMD Rule 1113, default and building envelope coating VOC contensts are limited to 50 grams per liter of coating, and 100 grams per liter for traffic coatings. Architectural Coating - Low VOC coating per SCAQMD Rule 1113. Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating 7 EF_Nonresidential_Interior r 150.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating 7 EF_Parking r 150.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating 7 EF_Residential_Exterior r 100.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating 7 EF_Residential_Interior r 100.00 50.00 tblAreaMitigation •UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialExteriorVr 150 1 50 alue t F 4 tblAreaMitigation •UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentiallnteriorV i 150 1 50 alue f F 4 • tblAreaMitigation • UseLowVOCPaintParkingCheck T False True tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintParkingValue 150 100 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 3 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter • tblAreaMitigation •UseLowVOCPaintResidentialExteriorValu• 100 50 e tblAreaMitigation • UseLowVOCPaintResidentiallnteriorValuT 100 1 50 1 • e 4 F 4 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 44.00 l- t tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/11/2023 12/15/2022 r t tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/14/2022 12/28/2022 t tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/15/2022 10/15/2022 i 4 F t tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/17/2022 12/1/2022 l- t tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 2,080.00 0.00 t tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 2,080.00 0.00 t tblGrading AcresOfGrading 75.00 12.00 t tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.19 4.20 4 tblLandUse LotAcreage } 4.50 4.34 4 F t tblLandUse Population } 320.00 213.00 4 F 4 tblLandUse Population } 552.00 367.00 4 F 4 tblOnRoadDust HaulingPercentPave } 50.00 100.00 4 F t tblOnRoadDust HaulingPercentPave } 50.00 100.00 4 F t tblOnRoadDust HaulingPercentPave } 50.00 100.00 4 F t tblOnRoadDust HaulingPercentPave } 50.00 100.00 4 F t tblOnRoadDust HaulingPercentPave } 50.00 100.00 4 F t tblOnRoadDust VendorPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i 4 F t tblOnRoadDust VendorPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i 4 F t tblOnRoadDust VendorPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i 4 F t tblOnRoadDust VendorPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i 4 F t tblOnRoadDust VendorPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i 4 F t tblOnRoadDust WorkerPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i 4 F t tblOnRoadDust WorkerPercentPave 50.00 100.00 i tblOnRoadDust WorkerPercentPave 50.00 100.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter • tblOnRoadDust WorkerPercentPave 50.00 100.00 • tblOnRoadDust WorkerPercentPave i 50.00 100.00 f r • tblRoadDust RoadPercentPave i 50 100 v r • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP } 40.60 41.00 r • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP } 40.60 41.00 r • tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP } 19.20 19.00 r • tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP } 19.20 19.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips HWTTP i 40.20 40.00 r • tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP } 40.20 40.00 r • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR i 7.16 7.32 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips STTR i 6.39 7.32 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 6.07 7.32 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 5.86 7.32 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WDTR i 6.59 7.32 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR i 6.65 7.32 r 4 • tblWater AerobicPercent i 87.46 96.00 v r 4 • tblWater AerobicPercent i 87.46 96.00 v r 4 • tblWater AerobicPercent i 87.46 96.00 v • tblWater •AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent} 2.21 4.00 r 4 • tblWater •AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent i 2.21 4.00 r 4 • tblWater •AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent i 2.21 4.00 • tblWater SepticTankPercent v 10.33 0.00 r 4 • tblWater SepticTankPercent i 10.33 0.00 tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 • 0.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year lb/day lb/day I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 2021 •i 4.2842 1 46.4695 1 31.4968 1 0.0634 1 18.2169 1 2.0454 1 20.2623 1 9.9706 1 1.8818 11.8524 • 0.0000 1 6,146.825 1 6,146.825 1 1.9484 1 0.0000 1 6,195.536 •1 I I I I I I I I ; 1 2 I 2 I I 1 1 •I 1 I I I I I I I , . I I I I I f J J J J J J J J I J J J 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 2022 •1 42.7281 1 22.4287 1 28.0888 1 0.0624 I 2.8431 I 0.9135 1 3.7566 1 0.7602 1 0.8641 1.6243 • 0.0000 16,129.44016,129.4401 0.8130 I 0.0000 16,149.765 .1 I I I 1 I I I I ; 1 7 I 7 I I 1 4 •1 I I I I I I I I , . I I I I 1 Maximum 42.7281 46.4695 31.4968 0.0634 18.2169 2.0454 20.2623 9.9706 1.8818 11.8524 0.0000 6,146.825 6,146.825 1.9484 0.0000 6,195.536 2 2 1 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year lb/day lb/day : I I 1 1 I I I 1 2021 •i 4.2842 46.4695 1 31.4968 1 0.0634 1 7.1964 1 2.0454 1 9.2418 1 3.9129 1 1.8818 5.7947 : 0.0000 i 6,146.825 1 6,146.825 1 1.9484 1 0.0000 i 6,195.536 •1 I I I I I I I I . I 2 I 2 I I 1 1 ;� I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J •1 I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 2022 .1 42.7281 1 22.4287 1 28.0888 1 0.0624 1 2.8431 1 0.9135 1 3.7566 1 0.7602 1 0.8641 1.6243 0.0000 i 6,129.440 6,129.440 1 0.8130 1 0.0000 6,149.765 I I I I I I I I . 7 1 7 I I 1 4 •1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 Maximum 42.7281 46.4695 31.4968 0.0634 7.1964 2.0454 9.2418 3.9129 1.8818 5.7947 0.0000 6,146.825 6,146.825 1.9484 0.0000 6,195.536 2 2 1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.33 0.00 45.88 56.45 0.00 44.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Area 4 7.7139 i 2.5479 i 23.2703 i 0.0158 : i 0.3086 i 0.3086 : i 0.3086 0.3086 : 0.0000 i 2,964.718 i 2,964.718 i 0.0947 : 0.0536 I 2,983.063 9 I I I I I 1 . I 0 I 0 1 1 7 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i . I 1 1 Energy 9 0.1203 i 1.0280 i 0.4375 i 6.5600e- : : 0.0831 i 0.0831 : i 0.0831 0.0831 • i 1,312.381 1,312.381 i 0.0252 : 0.0241 11,320.180 9I I i 003 I I i I i 4 i 4 i I i 2 91 1 1 I 1 I i . I 1 1 'I : : i i i i i i T i i Mobile 9 3.284128.425035.9978 i 0.1470 9.4973 0.0740 i 9.5714 2.5486 i 0.0692 2.6178 •• i 15,100.59 i 15,100.59 i 0.9559 115,124.49 9I I I I I I I I 9 I I I I I I I I . I 69 i 69 I II I 52 Total 11.1183 32.0009 59.7055 0.1694 9.4973 0.4658 9.9631 2.5486 0.4609 3.0095 0.0000 19,377.69 19,377.69 1.0758 0.0777 19,427.73 63 63 90 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Area 4 6.9773 i 0.2570 22.2954 i 1.1800e- 0.1234 i 0.1234 i 0.1234 0.1234 0.0000 i 40.1416 i 40.1416 0.0387 0.0000 1 41.1079 I I I 003 I I I I I 1 I I I 9I I I I I I i I 1 I 1 9 J J J Energy 9 0.1203 : 1.0280 : 0.4375 : 6.5600e- 1 : 0.0831 : 0.0831 : : 0.0831 0.0831 . i 1,312.381 1 1,312.381 : 0.0252 1 0.0241 11,320.180 I I 003 4 4 I i 2 '� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I 9 J J J J J J J J • J J J • Mobile 9 3.2841 i 28.4250 : 35.9978 i 0.1470 : 9.4973 : 0.0740 i 9.5714 : 2.5486 i 0.0692 2.6178 . 15,100.59 1 15,100.59 i 0.9559 1 115,124.49 69 I 69 I i 52 '� I I I I I I I I . I I I Total 10.3817 29.7100 58.7307 0.1548 9.4973 0.2805 9.7779 2.5486 0.2757 2.8243 0.0000 16,453.11 16,453.11 1.0197 0.0241 16,485.78 98 98 33 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 6.63 7.16 1.63 8.63 0.00 39.77 1.86 0.00 40.19 6.15 0.00 15.09 15.09 5.21 69.03 15.14 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 -Site Preparation +Site Preparation 17/29/2021 :8/11/2021 ' 5: 10: + I 1 1 2 -Grading :Grading !8/12/2021 :9/22/2021 i r 1 5� 307 -II 1 1 3 -Building Construction :Building Construction !9/23/2021 :▪11/16/2022 1 51 3007 i + r 11011512022 I 1 1 4 -Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating i▪12/15/2022 ' 51 447 5 -Paving -Paving :12/1/2022 .12/28/2022 5: 20: Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 12 Acres of Paving: 3.4 Residential Indoor: 546,750; Residential Outdoor: 182,250; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 8,890 (Architectural Coating—sqft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 8 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Architectural Coating +Air Compressors ; 1! 6.001 78: 0.48 y Grading :Excavators ; 2 8.00i 158' 0.38 y ; Building Construction :Cranes ; 1 7.00i 231' 0.29 y ; Building Construction :Forklifts ; 3 8.00I 89' 0.20 y ; Building Construction :Generator Sets ; 1 8.00i 84' 0.74 y ; Paving :Pavers ; 2 8.00 i 130' 0.42 y i Paving Rollers ; 2 8.00i 80' 0.38 Grading :Rubber Tired Dozers ; 1 8.00i 247' 0.40 y ; Building Construction +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 3 7.00i 97' 0.37 y ; Grading :Graders ; 1 8.00i 187' 0.41 y ; Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 2 8.00i 97' 0.37 y i Paving fraying Equipment ; 2 8.001 132: 0.36 y i Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 4 8.00i 97' 0.37 y i Site Preparation Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 3 8.00I 247' 0.40 y ; Grading :Scrapers ; 2 8.00i 367' 0.48 Building Construction :Welders 1' 8.00: 46' 0.45 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Site Preparation 7; 18.00. 0.00: 0.00: 11.00: 5.40: 20.00;LD_Mix !HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8; 20.00. 0.001 0.00: 11.00: 5.40: 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix THHDT Building Construction i 9; 257.00. 53.001 0.00: 11.00: 5.40: 20.00;LD_Mix ,HDT_Mix THHDT Paving 6; 15.00. 0.001 0.00: 11.00: 5.40: 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix THHDT Architectural Coating : 1' 51.00' 0.00' 0.00' 11.00: 5.40: 20.00TLD_Mix •HDT_Mix 'HHDT CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust i• 1 1 1 i 18.0663 : 0.0000 : 18.0663 i 9.9307 : 0.0000 : 9.9307 • i 1 0.0000 : i 1 0.0000 ' I I I I I I I I I I I I 9 ; I I I I ,� • J . J t Off-Road .1 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 : 0.0380 i : 2.0445 : 2.0445 i : 1.8809 : 1.8809 • i 3,685.656 1 3,685.656 1 1.1920 i 13,715.457 '� I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 . 1 9 1 9 1 1 : 3 9 I I I I 1 1 I I . 1 I 1 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 9I I • I I I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I • I I I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker 9 0.0837 i 0.0627 i 0.5565 1.2600e- i 0.1506 9.3000e- : 0.1515 i 0.0400 : 8.5000e- 0.0408 � i 125.8036 1 125.8036 : 5.0700e- i i 125.9304 9 I I I 003 I I 004 1 I 1 004 I I I 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 0.0837 0.0627 0.5565 1.2600e- 0.1506 9.3000e- 0.1515 0.0400 8.5000e- 0.0408 125.8036 125.8036 5.0700e- 125.9304 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i 7.0458 : 0.0000 : 7.0458 i 3.8730 : 0.0000 : 3.8730 •• i : 0.0000 : i 1 0.0000 I I I 1 1 I I ; I I I I 1 •� I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J J J t Off-Road 9 3.8882 i 40.4971 i 21.1543 0.0380 i 2.0445 1 2.0445 i 1.8809 1.8809 • 0.0000 i 3,685.656 3,685.656 1 1.1920 i 1 3,715.457 9 I I I I I I I • I 9 I 9 I I 3 '1 I I I 1 1 I I • I I I 1 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 7.0458 2.0445 9.0903 3.8730 1.8809 5.7539 0.0000 3,685.656 3,685.656 1.1920 3,715.457 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter 3.2 Site Preparation - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 9 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I • I I I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker 9 0.0837 i 0.0627 i 0.5565 1.2600e- i 0.1506 9.3000e- : 0.1515 i 0.0400 : 8.5000e- 0.0408 � i 125.8036 1 125.8036 : 5.0700e- i i 125.9304 9 I I I 003 I I 004 1 I 1 004 I I I 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.0837 0.0627 0.5565 1.2600e- 0.1506 9.3000e- 0.1515 0.0400 8.5000e- 0.0408 125.8036 125.8036 5.0700e- 125.9304 003 004 004 003 3.3 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i 6.4463 : 0.0000 : 6.4463 i 3.3560 : 0.0000 : 3.3560 •• i 1 0.0000 : i 1 0.0000 I I I I I I I ; I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J J J t Off-Road 9 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 0.0620 1 1.9853 1.9853 i 1.8265 1.8265 • i 6,007.043 1 6,007.043 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 9 I I I 1 I I I • I q I 4 I I 4 '� I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 6.4463 1.9853 8.4316 3.3560 1.8265 5.1825 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter 3.3 Grading - 2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I 1 9 I I I . I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I I I I 1 9 I I I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •1 0.0930 i 0.0696 i 0.6183 1.4100e- i 0.1673 1.0300e- : 0.1684 i 0.0444 : 9.5000e- 0.0453 � i 139.7818 1 139.7818 : 5.6400e- i i 139.9227 9 I I I 003 I I 003 1 I 1 004 I I I 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I Total 0.0930 0.0696 0.6183 1.4100e- 0.1673 1.0300e- 0.1684 0.0444 9.5000e- 0.0453 139.7818 139.7818 5.6400e- 139.9227 003 003 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i 2.5141 : 0.0000 : 2.5141 : 1.3089 i 0.0000 : 1.3089 •• i i 0.0000 : i 1 0.0000 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 •� I I I 1 1 I I , I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J J J t Off-Road 9 4.1912 i 46.3998 i 30.8785 0.0620 i 1.9853 1.9853 i 1.8265 1.8265 • 0.0000 i 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 i i 6,055.613 9 I I I 1 1 I I I q I 4 I I 4 9I I I 1 1 I I , I I I 1 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 2.5141 1.9853 4.4994 1.3089 1.8265 3.1354 0.0000 6,007.043 6,007.043 1.9428 6,055.613 4 4 4 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter 3.3 Grading - 2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling i• 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 ' I I I 1 9 I I I . I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J 1 J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • 1 I I . I I I I i �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •1 0.0930 i 0.0696 i 0.6183 1.4100e- i 0.1673 1.0300e- : 0.1684 i 0.0444 : 9.5000e- 0.0453 � i 139.7818 1 139.7818 : 5.6400e- i i 139.9227 9 I I I 003 I I 003 1 I 1 004 I I I 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I Total 0.0930 0.0696 0.6183 1.4100e- 0.1673 1.0300e- 0.1684 0.0444 9.5000e- 0.0453 139.7818 139.7818 5.6400e- 139.9227 003 003 004 003 3.4 Building Construction -2021 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 1.9009 i 17.4321 i 16.5752 0.0269 i 0.9586 0.9586 i i 0.9013 0.9013 • i 2,553.363 2,553.363 0.6160 i 1 2,568.764 '1 I I I I I I I I I 9 I 9 I I 3 9I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 2,553.363 0.6160 2,568.764 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter 3.4 Building Construction -2021 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 91 I I I . I I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.1538 i 4.6820 i 1.2634 0.0118 i 0.2662 8.7900e- 0.2750 i 0.0767 8.4000e- 0.0851 i 1,230.327 1,230.327 0.1115 i i 1,233.114 9 003 I : 003 1 2 1 2 I i 3 �� J J J J J J J J • 7 J J J Worker •1 1.1948 i 0.8949 i 7.9457 0.0181 i 2.1502 0.0133 2.1635 i 0.5703 0.0122 0.5825 i 1,796.195 1 1,796.195 0.0724 i i 1,798.006 9 I I I I 7 I 7 I I 4 '� I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 1.3486 5.5768 9.2091 0.0298 2.4164 0.0220 2.4384 0.6470 0.0206 0.6676 3,026.523 3,026.523 0.1839 3,031.120 0 0 7 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 1.9009 i 17.4321 i 16.5752 : 0.0269 i i 0.9586 : 0.9586 i : 0.9013 0.9013 •. 0.0000 i 2,553.363 i 2,553.363 i 0.6160 i i 2;568.764 •I I I I I I I I I I 9 I 9 I I 3 '1 I I I I I I I I I I I I i Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 2,553.363 2,553.363 0.6160 2,568.764 9 9 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter 3.4 Building Construction -2021 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i i 0.0000 I I I 1 9 1 I I I . I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.1538 i 4.6820 i 1.2634 0.0118 i 0.2662 8.7900e- 0.2750 i 0.0767 8.4000e- 0.0851 i 1,230.327 1,230.327 0.1115 i i 1,233.114 9 003 I : 003 1 2 1 2 I i 3 �� J J J J J J J J • 7 J J J Worker 9 1.1948 i 0.8949 i 7.9457 0.0181 i 2.1502 0.0133 2.1635 i 0.5703 0.0122 0.5825 i 1,796.195 1 1,796.195 0.0724 i i 1,798.006 9I I I I 7 I 7 I I , 4 9I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 1.3486 5.5768 9.2091 0.0298 2.4164 0.0220 2.4384 0.6470 0.0206 0.6676 3,026.523 3,026.523 0.1839 3,031.120 0 0 7 3.4 Building Construction -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 1.7062 i 15.6156 i 16.3634 i 0.0269 i 0.8090 1 0.8090 i 0.7612 0.7612 • i 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 i i 2,569.632 '1 I I I I I I I I 6 I 6 I I u 2 9I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter 3.4 Building Construction -2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 1 1 I I ; I I I I 1 91 I I I . I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.1430 i 4.4283 i 1.1681 0.0117 i 0.2662 7.3900e- 0.2736 i 0.0767 7.0700e- 0.0838 i 1,219.726 1,219.726 0.1036 i i 1,222.317 9 003 1 : 003 1 0 1 0 1 1 i 0 �� J J J J J J J J • 7 J J J Worker •1 1.1190 i 0.8146 i 7.2959 0.0174 i 2.1502 0.0128 2.1631 i 0.5703 0.0118 0.5821 i 1,730.522 1,730.522 0.0660 i i 1,732.171 9I 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 I I 7 9I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 1.2620 5.2429 8.4640 0.0290 2.4164 0.0202 2.4366 0.6470 0.0189 0.6659 2,950.248 2,950.248 0.1696 2,954.488 1 1 7 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 1.7062 i 15.6156 i 16.3634 ; 0.0269 i i 0.8090 I 0.8090 ; ; 0.7612 0.7612 •. 0.0000 i 2,554.333;2,554.333; 0.6120 i i 2,569.632 •I I I I I I I I I • 6 I 6 I I u 2 '1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 0.0000 2,554.333 2,554.333 0.6120 2,569.632 6 6 2 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter 3.4 Building Construction -2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 91 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.1430 i 4.4283 i 1.1681 0.0117 i 0.2662 7.3900e- 0.2736 i 0.0767 7.0700e- 0.0838 i 1,219.726 1,219.726 0.1036 i i 1,222.317 9 003 1 : 003 1 0 1 0 1 1 i 0 '� 1 I . 1 1 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker 9 1.1190 i 0.8146 i 7.2959 0.0174 i 2.1502 0.0128 2.1631 i 0.5703 0.0118 0.5821 i 1,730.522 1,730.522 0.0660 i i 1,732.171 9I I I I • 1 I 1 I I 7 9I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 1.2620 5.2429 8.4640 0.0290 2.4164 0.0202 2.4366 0.6470 0.0189 0.6659 2,950.248 2,950.248 0.1696 2,954.488 1 1 7 3.5 Architectural Coating -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating •i 39.3332 i i i : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• i i 0.0000 1 i 1 0.0000 I I I I I I I • I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 •� 1 • 1.'� I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J m J J J Off-Road 90.2045 i 1.4085 i 1.8136 I 2.9700e- i 0.0817 1 0.0817 i 0.0817 0.0817 • i 281.4481 281.4481 1 0.0183 i 1 281.9062 9 1 1 003 I 1 1 I I • I 1 I I 1 '� I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 Total 39.5378 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter 3.5 Architectural Coating -2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 9 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I • I I I I 9I I I • I I I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker 9 0.2221 i 0.1617 i 1.4478 3.4500e- i 0.4267 2.5400e- : 0.4293 i 0.1132 : 2.3400e- 0.1155 � i 343.4110 1 343.4110 : 0.0131 i i 343.7384 '� 003 003 003 I I I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.2221 0.1617 1.4478 3.4500e- 0.4267 2.5400e- 0.4293 0.1132 2.3400e- 0.1155 343.4110 343.4110 0.0131 343.7384 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating 9 39.3332 i i i : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• i : 0.0000 1 i 1 0.0000 ; I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 •� I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 '� J J J J J J J J m J J J 1.I I Off-Road 90.2045 i 1.4085 i 1.8136 I� 2.9700e- i 1 0.0817 1� 0.0817 i : 0.0817 1 0.0817 • 0.0000 i 281.4481 1 281.4481 1 0.0183 i i 281.9062 '� I I 1 003 I 1 1 I I . I 1 1 I '� I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Total 39.5378 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter 3.5 Architectural Coating -2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 '9 I I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I •I I . I 1 I I ,� J . J Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 . i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '9 I I I 1 I I I . I I I I 9 . 1 I I ,� J . J Worker 9 0.2221 i 0.1617 i 1.4478 3.4500e- i 0.4267 2.5400e- : 0.4293 i 0.1132 : 2.3400e- 0.1155 . i 343.4110 1 343.4110 : 0.0131 i 1 343.7384 9 003 003 003 I I I I 1 9I I I I I I I I • I 1 I II Total 0.2221 0.1617 1.4478 3.4500e- 0.4267 2.5400e- 0.4293 0.1132 2.3400e- 0.1155 343.4110 343.4110 0.0131 343.7384 003 003 003 3.6 Paving -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 1.1028 i 11.1249 i 14.5805 0.0228 i 0.5679 0.5679 i 0.5225 0.5225 • 2,207.660 2,207.660 0.7140 i i 2,225.510 9 I I . 3 I 3 I I 1 4 91 1 I I . I I I 1 '1 i J J J J - J J 1 1. Paving 9 0.4454 i i 1 i : •0.0000 : 0.0000 i : 0.0000 1 0.0000 • : 0.0000 : 1 I 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I . I I I I I 1 Total 1.5482 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 2,207.660 2,207.660 0.7140 2,225.510 3 3 4 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter 3.6 Paving -2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling i• 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 ' • 1 I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I • I 1 I I i 9I I I • I I I I i �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker 9 0.0653 i 0.0476 i 0.4258 1.0200e- i 0.1255 7.5000e- : 0.1263 i 0.0333 : 6.9000e- 0.0340 � i 101.0032 1 101.0032 : 3.8500e- i i 101.0995 9 I I I 003 I I 004 1 I 1 004 I I I 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I Total 0.0653 0.0476 0.4258 1.0200e- 0.1255 7.5000e- 0.1263 0.0333 6.9000e- 0.0340 101.0032 101.0032 3.8500e- 101.0995 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 4 1.1028 i 11.1249 i 14.5805 : 0.0228 i : 0.5679 : 0.5679 i : 0.5225 0.5225 � 0.0000 2,207.660:2,207.660: 0.7140 i i 2,225.510 91 1 I I • 3 I 3 I I 4 '1 J J J J J J J J - J J 1 t Paving 9 0.4454 i i i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• : 0.0000 : i I 0.0000 •� 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 Total 1.5482 11.1249 14.5805 0.0228 0.5679 0.5679 0.5225 0.5225 0.0000 2,207.660 2,207.660 0.7140 2,225.510 3 3 4 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter 3.6 Paving -2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I • I 1 I I i 9I I I • I I I I i �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •1 0.0653 i 0.0476 i 0.4258 1.0200e- i 0.1255 7.5000e- : 0.1263 i 0.0333 : 6.9000e- 0.0340 I i 101.0032 1 101.0032 1 3.8500e- i i 101.0995 9 I I I 003 I I 004 1 I 1 004 I I I 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 0.0653 0.0476 0.4258 1.0200e- 0.1255 7.5000e- 0.1263 0.0333 6.9000e- 0.0340 101.0032 101.0032 3.8500e- 101.0995 003 004 004 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2 5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 4 3.2841 28.4250 35.9978 i 0.1470 i 9.4973 i 0.0740 i 9.5714 i 2.5486 i 0.0692 2.6178 • i 15,100.59 15,100.59 0.9559 i i 15,124.49 9 . 69 I 69 I I 1 52 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 3 } 1. 1. 1. 1. } 1. 1. r e } 1. r Unmitigated • 3.2841 • 28.4250 • 35.9978 • 0.1470 • 9.4973 • 0.0740 • 9.5714 • 2.5486 • 0.0692 • 2.6178 • 15,100.59• 15,100.59• 0.9559 • • 15,124.49 69 69 52 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise ; 724.68 ; 724.68 724.68 • 1,618,477 • 1,618,477 Apartments Mid Rise ; 1,251.72 ; 1,251.72 1251.72 • 2,795,551 • 2,795,551 Parking Lot + 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 • • Total I 1,976.40 I 1,976.40 1,976.40 I 4,414,028 I 4,414,028 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 11.00 i 3.50 1 4.50 40.00 19.00 • 41.00 • 86 • 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 11.00 3.50 I 4.50 i 40.00 l 19.00 • 41.00 • 86 • 11 3 4 i- r Parking Lot 12.50 4.20 5.40 • 0.00 • 0.00 • 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter Land Use I LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS I MCY SBUS I MH Apartments Low Rise • 0.492822, 0.035624: 0.185121 i 0.119005 i 0.014436 i 0.005121 i 0.022629 i 0.112565 i 0.003037 i 0.001863: 0.006214 i 0.000779: 0.000783 i- ---1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + Apartments Mid Rise • 0.492822, 0.0356241 0.1851211 0.1190051 0.0144361 0.0051211 0.0226291 0.1125651 0.0030371 0.0018631 0.0062141 0.000779. 0.000783 rI I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Parking Lot • 0.492822. 0.035624' 0.185121' 0.119005' 0.014436' 0.005121' 0.022629' 0.112565' 0.003037' 0.001863' 0.006214' 0.000779' 0.000783 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas 4 0.1203 i 1.0280 i 0.4375 6.5600e- I 0.0831 1 0.0831 i 0.0831 0.0831 • i 1,312.381 1,312.381 1 0.0252 i 0.0241 i 1,320.180 Mitigated .I I I I 003 I I I I I . I 4 : 4 I I 1 2 1 I 1 . 1 �:I. 1 } } } } 1- } } } r 1- I} } r NaturalGas - 0.1203 • 1.0280 • 0.4375 • 6.5600e- • • 0.0831 • 0.0831 • 0.0831 0.0831 • • 1,312.381 • 1,312.381 • 0.0252 • 0.0241 • 1,320.180 Unmitigated 003 4 4 2 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day I I I I Apartments Low i 4224.32 •i 0.0456 I 0.3893 I I 0.1657 1 I 2.4800e- 1 I 1 I 0.0315 I 0.0315 I I 1 I 0.0315 0.0315 : 1 496.9784 I 1496.9784 I 9.5300e- I 9.1100e- i 499.9317 Rise I •1 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I 003 I 003 i I 'I I I I I I I I I , , I 1 I I 1 -1 J J J J J V I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I Apartments Mid 6930.93 •I 0.0748 I 0.6387 I 0.2718 I 4.0800e- I I 0.0516 I 0.0516 I I 0.0516 0.0516 1 815.4030 I 815.4030 I 0.0156 I 0.0150 i 820.2485 I 1 I I I . 1Rise 1 •1 'I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 16I J J J J J J J 7 I J J I I : 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I Parking Lot 0 •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 'I I 1 1 I I I I I , I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I , , I I I I I Total 0.1203 1.0280 0.4375 6.5600e- 0.0831 0.0831 0.0831 0.0831 1,312.381 1,312.381 0.0252 0.0241 1,320.180 003 4 4 2 Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day IApartments Low I4.22432 • 0.0456 I 0.3893 I 0.1657 I 2.4800e- I I 0.0315 I 0.0315 I I 0.0315 0.0315 •• 496.9784 I 496.9784 I 9.5300e- I 9.1100e- 1 499.9317 Rise I .I I I I 003 I I I I I . I I 003 I 003 1 I I 1 I I I I I , , I .II I I I I• 7 J J J J J J J J J J J1. Apartments Mid I6.93093 1 0.0748 I 0.6387 I 0.2718 I 4.0800e- I I 0.0516 I 0.0516 I I 0.0516 0.0516 • 815.4030 I 815.4030 I 0.0156 I 0.0150 1 820.2485. Rise I .1 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I 1 I q I I I I I I I I , , I I I 1 I. 7 J J J J J J J J - J I J1. Parking Lot I 0 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 9 I q I I 1 I I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I , , I I I I Total 0.1203 1.0280 0.4375 6.5600e- 0.0831 0.0831 0.0831 0.0831 1,312.381 1,312.381 0.0252 0.0241 1,320.180 003 4 4 2 6.0 Area Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Use Low VOC Paint- Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint- Residential Exterior Use Low VOC Paint- Non-Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint- Non-Residential Exterior No Hearths Installed ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 6.9773 i 0.2570 i 22.2954 : 1.1800e- i i 0.1234 i 0.1234 i : 0.1234 0.1234 : 0.0000 i 40.1416 i 40.1416 i 0.0387 1 0.0000 1 41.1079 '� 003 I • I I I I '� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Unmitigated •• 7.7139 • 2.5479 • 23.2703 • 0.0158 • • 0.3086 • 0.3086 • • 0.3086 • 0.3086 • 0.0000 •2,964.718.2,964.718. 0.0947 • 0.0536 •2,983.063 0 0 7 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day 1 1 1 1 1 1 Architectural •i 0.9427 i 1 1 1 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 • i : 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 Coating : I 1 i i i i i . I 1 i 1 1 � 1 1 I 1 1 1 . I I I 1 Consumer .1 5.8305 i 1 1 1 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 • i : 0.0000 i i I 0.0000 Products •I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I '� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , I I I 1 Hearth •1 0.2681 i 2.2909 : 0.9749 i 0.0146 i : 0.1852 i 0.1852 : i 0.1852 0.1852 : 0.0000 i 2,924.576:2,924.576 i 0.0561 1 0.0536 :2,941.955 •1 I I I I I I I I . 5 I 5 I I i 8 '1 . I f J J J J J J J J I J J J Landscaping .1 0.6726 i 0.2570 : 22.2954 i 1.1800e- i : 0.1234 i 0.1234 : i 0.1234 0.1234 • i 40.1416 : 40.1416 i 0.0387 : i 41.1079 •1 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I 9I I I I I I 1 I . I I I I Total 7.7139 2.5479 23.2703 0.0158 0.3086 0.3086 0.3086 0.3086 0.0000 2,964.718 2,964.718 0.0947 0.0536 2,983.063 0 0 7 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day 1 1 1 1 1 1 • Architectural •i 0.4742 i 1 1 1 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 • i : 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 Coating ': I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I '� 1 I I I I I 1 I . I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J 7 I J J J Consumer .1 5.8305 i 1 1 1 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 . i : 0.0000 i i I 0.0000 Products ': I I I I I I I I . I I I I I '� 1 I I I I I 1 •I . I I I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J Hearth •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I 9 . I I I �� J J J J J J J J • J J J Landscaping .1 0.6726 i 0.2570 : 22.2954 i 1.1800e- i 1 0.1234 i 0.1234 : i 0.1234 0.1234 • i 40.1416 : 40.1416 i 0.0387 1 i 41.1079 .1 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I 9I I I I I I 1 I . I I I 1 Total 6.9773 0.2570 22.2954 1.1800e- 0.1234 0.1234 0.1234 0.1234 0.0000 40.1416 40.1416 0.0387 0.0000 41.1079 003 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad IEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 28 Date: 3/1/2021 12:54 PM Palm Desert Apartments - Salton Sea Air Basin, Winter Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type I Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation Appendix B Biological Resources Assessment Report B CVMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS REPORT Palm Desert Apartments Project Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Assessor's Parcel Numbers 694-310-006 f Submitted to: Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Tel: (760) 341-4800 Fax: (760) 341-4455 Contact: Nicole Criste, Principal Submitted by: Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. 1845 Chicago Avenue, Suite D Riverside, CA 92507 Tel: (951) 369-8060 Fax: (951) 369-8035 Contact: Lisa Wadley Project Coordinator/Senior Wildlife Biologist lisa.wadley@woodplc.com 30 March 2021 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 Project location 1 3.0 Project DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND 1 3.1 Project Description 1 4.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 8 4.1 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 8 4.2 Protection of Migratory Birds 9 4.2.1 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 9 4.2.2 Section 3503, 3505.5, & 3513 of the State Fish and Game Code 9 4.3 Waters of the United States and the State of California 9 4.3.1 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 9 4.3.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) 9 4.3.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife 10 5.0 METHODS 10 5.1 Literature Review 10 6.0 RESULTS 11 6.1 Weather Conditions 11 6.2 Topography and Soils 11 6.3 National Wetland Inventory 11 6.4 Habitat Description and Environmental Setting 14 6.5 Wildlife 18 6.6 Special-Status Species 18 7.0 Discussion 27 7.1 Discussion of the Special-Status Species Tables 27 7.1.1 Potentially Occurring Plant Species 27 7.1.2 Potentially Occurring Amphibian and Reptile Species 27 7.1.3 Potentially Occurring Avian Species 27 7.1.4 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 28 7.1.5 Special-Status Species — Mammals 29 7.1.6 Jurisdictional Areas 29 7.1.7 CVMSHCP Plan Consistency 29 8.0 CONCLUSION 29 9.0 LITERATURE CITED AND REFERENCES 31 Page ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Regional and Vicinity Map 3 Figure 2. Topo Map 5 Figure 3. Project Vicinity Map 7 Figure 4. Soil Types 13 Figure 5. Vegetation Map 16 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Special-Status Plants 19 Table 2. Special-Status Reptiles 21 Table 3. Special-Status Birds 22 Table 4. Special-Status Mammals 23 Table 5. Special-Status Invertebrates 24 Table 6. Special-Status Natural Community 25 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Species List: Plants and Animals Observed Appendix B. Site Photographs Appendix C. Site Plan Page iii BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT Palm Desert Apartments Project 1.0 INTRODUCTION Wood Environment& Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (Wood)was contracted by Terra Nova Planning and Research Inc. to conduct a biological resources assessment for an approximately ±12-acres project site located in the city of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California (Figure 1).The proposed project involves the development of a residential housing complex (Palm Desert Apartments). The city of Palm Desert requires a biological resources assessment in compliance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) (Coachella Valley Association of Governments [CVAG] 2020)]. 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION The approximately ±12-acres project site is within Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 694-310-006. Specifically, the project site is located within the northeast quarter of Section 32, Township 4 South, Range 6 East, as shown within the Cathedral City, USGS California quadrangle (Figure 2). The site is located southwest of the intersection of Gerald Ford Drive and Rembrandt Parkway (Figure 3). The site is located south of Gerald Ford Drive, east of Monterey Avenue, and west of Portola Road.The geographic coordinates for the approximate center of the biological study area (BSA) are 33.785405° north latitude and 116.377050° west longitude. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND 3.1 Project Description The project is an undeveloped vacant lot that consists of creosote bush scrub with sandy soils and is designated as a stabilized shielded sand field. There are no existing structures or established roadways on-site. The proposed project is for residential housing complex (Palm Desert Apartments) development that includes the development of the ±12-acres. Specifically, the development will include 14 apartment buildings with a total of 271 units, a green space dog park and barbeque area, fitness club, pool, and 2,000 square foot building for a leasing lobby and mail room. Surrounding land uses include residential development to the north and west, the Palm Springs County Sheriff and Palm Desert Police Department office to the west, and undeveloped areas to the south and east. Page 1 This page intentionally left blank. Page 2 Service Layer Credits Sources'.Esri HERE Garrrun USGS,Inlerrnap INCREMENT P NRCan,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri Korea,Esri(Thailand),NGCC,(c) Los Angeles 0 re err San Diego c Mexicali r-.11juana - .. l -4\ Thousand 'Mission Hillso Paints Ramon Rd x Country Club •% 9 : Dinah Shore Dr i a >' Coachella V ly ffi RLatl Wildlife n Refuge 0 Classic Gerald Ford Dr ClubGolf CI Course I Marro IC: e Shadow Illi. 4r Cuy-n Is and Ridge a,,n Country.Club l a10 0 Mr le Frank Srnalra Dr Frank Sinatra Dr Dearsrl Palm Ds cert Island Golf d • Greens De Bert WiIIo:r Country Club Country Club r Desert Avondale � I . ,.I,.,._ , Falls Country Palm Valley 1 i:rF Momings+de Suncrest Country Club Club Country. Club 1 Country. n.untryClub Y Club - a an Country Club Dr E in Caun try Club Dr or Th u rdn rte rd - 79 The Laken Country Club Sunrise_ m • $ Marriott g U Country a L�serl Springs �Clubountry m Indian Ridge Palm Desenl Club r Resort And Ski o courdry Club Piesort And 0 Monterey *agauntry Clue co Country Hoyle,/ Ln ' w Club Chaparral Gauntry Portola Club Country Toscana Oasis Club Country Club Country. Club Porcupine Creek Golf College Palm Desert Club of the Country Club De.e ri Palm Desert - I Fred Waring Dr Indian Wells Golf Course IIn.It...wd I r i Path:Q:\3554_NaturalResources\Palm DesertApartments_3225201091MXD1ReportFigures\Bio1Fig1_Regional.mxd,chris.nixon 12/1/2020 O 1 inch=1 miles 0 0.5 1 Miles FIGURE 1 wood. Q Project Boundary Regional Location Biological Resources Assessment Report Palm Desert Apartments Palm Desert,CA This page intentionally left blank. Page 4 Service Layer Credits:Copyright:©2013 National Geographic Society,i-cubed �� Water ,,..,. •.• p .p -.. � mom` >s •M.M.••_i._ f'. _ t o� 1l •-•._ a ( F 172 C9 .�. 1! ! -• aa 1 N 4 11 o.,44.9 Y s R r if li 1: Il Ea. • \ ... ; srestt 40 r N + �'� �. ,---�r- • • \ ".. 11. • sue[ • • 31 32 3 ... r r (\:—.:-'% . ``L J/• • .r • • ■ • \-\\:. r _ N u f �_ • • Trees Park •- �II ., • - • I ' '. N 10Q n 1 .1 .4 s • i , ¢ • . 4 • I Path:Q:\3554_NaturalResources\PalmDesertApartments_322520109\MXD\ReportFigures\Bio\Fig2_USGS.mxd,chris.nixon 12/1/2020 1 inch=2,000 feet O 0 1,000 2,000 Feet FIGURE 2 woo ■ - Project Boundary Project Location on USGS Topo Biological Resources Assessment Report Palm Desert Apartments Palm Desert,CA This page intentionally left blank. Page 6 Service Layer Credits:Source:Esri,Maxar,GeoEye,Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS,USDA,USGS,AeroGRID,IGN,and the GIS User Community • • . .ihil.'% ':1 . it . -' - 1.- . ,. . ' 41' 21,,-.>2„. i -._. . .'' tifi ei.41,T 7114.-...,,-.7. r. r_- 041 ,fir * A o l ee 7 j Inika l K. p� i • , :'r"Atpek • . Reph+I��' • i ■ Kandiitsicy. h's'ay �5 1 - A.tri e . r �" •ate$• ' .Y **eta," 4. • "-- ofCe# r a ram. -. �. �'I v . r 11:. _ .. oakk.e • .4', • • ,i, r + `- .r yBrt ,..��,.•� ■ °c•�•,I fl '�:•' , A..- o 1 .fir a •.{ ,r 6 Go9' r �■ -Y r 0l '.'- U • I•_/ -. I • '-.b .'fir'A L -.4i - / '+ t rr 4} • Wk..Okeef Wily- ►eMilli CO Or pkii arve-faal ,...*_,,_ . V. ' . . .._ .. fA7. e$,4 -I e r 1' 's Rube - r t t {F _ rr t • • '• ."-',_,••. _ • . _ - __.1, ,4 An . ,! , ,......• ... r 7 i'•ni '. - ..-i, ' I. i.-.rr 11: *.- WS:CD CO ! • _• Vermeer Way. r Mondrian PI { w y , a �. f. t 11111101 dell LV .40/ Illei .4. NIOlt..fig ii. '' m ,-. . �.-- ` tfl1 Ford Dr Gerald Ford Dr. + • • . I, (... ...•=1111111P I i • . .1 k 1 5 2i IC'n ■ a 1 - • • • • lik•- -i , -dr 11.. .- 4. . .., .-. ,.-:-_.. 7. 1:i . a ' =mm- ' • Sc+Iolar Ln+Wry . N� Schalal ■ ray+ a.• •- L. • - - • 01. • •• 0 ... a... • .... 11, trii. - 4 1111 '111L4 11. 1 0 an • ! .. , : .•. '. • ■, Windflowr • ■ .r r IL • •■ I:: : . i , 1 . , . •. : • 4 oil +. • 4 • - r -1 , , _ ...:, ii ' :, ,' :4.- 74)L -' .... r • !el . . . R•. Jeri Ln_ Path:Q83554_NaturalResources\PalmDesertApartments_322520109\MXD\ReportFigures\Bio\Fig3_ProjectVicinity.mxd, chris.nixon 1/8/2021 1 inch=400 feet el 200 400 Feet FIGURE 3 WOO Project Boundary Project Vicinity Biological Resources Assessment Report Palm Desert Apartments Palm Desert,CA 4.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Several relevant biological and environmental regulations have been included in this section, but the CVMSHCP is the primary regulatory entity for this project. 4.1 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Finalized in October 2008, the CVMSHCP is a comprehensive regional plan that addresses the conservation needs of 27 species of native flora and fauna and 27 natural vegetation communities occurring throughout the Coachella Valley region of western Riverside County, California (Coachella Valley Association of Governments [CVAG] 2020). Permits for the CVMSHCP were issued by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) [now the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)] on September 9, 2008 and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on October 1, 2008 (TE104604-0).The CVMSHCP serves two primary purposes: Balancing environmental protection and economic development objectives in the CVMSHCP area and simplifying compliance with endangered species related laws. The CVMSHCP accomplishes this by conserving unfragmented habitat to permanently protect and secure viable populations of the covered species. The covered species include plants and animals that are either currently listed as threatened or endangered, are proposed for listing, or are believed by an USFWS and CDFW appointed Scientific Advisory Committee, to have a high probability of being proposed for listing in the future if not provided protection by the CVMSHCP. The goal of the CVMSHCP is to meet the requirements of the state and federal endangered species acts, while at the same time allowing for the economic growth (land development) within the CVMSHCP area without significant delay or hidden costs. Under the CVMSHCP, mitigation is required from all new development projects occurring in the CVMSHCP area for the purpose of assembling a preserve system for the covered species and natural vegetation communities within areas identified as having high conservation value. Federal approval for the CVMSHCP was achieved under the Endangered Species Act (ESA or Act). The USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service are the designated federal agencies accountable for administering the ESA. ESA defines species as "endangered" or "threatened" and provides regulatory protection at the federal level. Section 10(a)of the ESA authorizes the issuance of incidental take permits and establishes standards for the content of habitat conservation plans, such as the CVMSHCP. State approval for the CVMSHCP was under the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program, managed by the CDFW. NCCPs are intended to conserve multiple species and their associated habitats, while also providing for compatible use of private lands. Through local planning, the NCCP planning process is designed to provide protection for wildlife and natural habitats before the environment becomes so fragmented or degraded by development that species listing are required under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Instead of conserving small, often isolated "islands" of habitat for just one listed species, agencies, local jurisdictions, and/or other interested parties have an opportunity through the NCCP to work cooperatively to develop plans that consider broad areas of land for conservation that would provide habitat for many species. Partners enroll in the programs and, by mutual consent, areas considered to have high conservation priorities or values are set aside and protected from Page 8 development. Partners may also agree to study, monitor, and develop management plans for these high value "reserve" areas. The NCCP provides an avenue for fostering economic growth by allowing approved development in areas with lower conservation value. The Coachella Valley NCCP is included as a part of the CVMSHCP. 4.2 Protection of Migratory Birds 4.2.1 Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) signed by the U.S., Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and the countries of the former Soviet Union make it unlawful to pursue, capture, kill, and/or possess, or attempt to engage in any such conduct to any migratory bird, nest, egg or parts thereof listed in the MBTA document (USFWS 2018). The Secretary of the Interior can issue permits for incidental take of migratory bird species. As with the ESA, the MBTA also allows the Secretary of the Interior to grant permits for the incidental take of these protected migratory bird species. The USFWS permit for the CVMSHCP allows only for the take of covered bird species which are also listed under the ESA, as amended and which are also listed under the MBTA. For other birds protected by the MBTA and not listed under the ESA no take is authorized (including killing and wounding of any such birds or take of eggs and active nests). Take is defined as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct." 4.2.2 Section 3503, 3505.5, & 3513 of the State Fish and Game Code Section 3503 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird. Section 3505.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey, i.e.: owls, hawks, eagles, etc.) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any bird-of-prey. Section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA. See California Legislative Information (2020). 4.3 Waters of the United States and the State of California Impacts to federal and state jurisdictional waters are not covered by the CVMSHCP. 4.3.1 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) The USACE regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States (WUS) pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). 4.3.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) The RWQCB regulates activities pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the CWA. Section 401 of the CWA specifies that certification from the State is required for any applicant requesting a federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities that may result in any discharge into navigable waters.Through the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the RWQCB asserts jurisdiction over Waters of the State of California (WSC) which is generally the same as WUS but may also include isolated waterbodies. The Porter Cologne Act defines WSC as "surface water or ground water, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state". Page 9 4.3.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife The CDFW regulates water resources under Section 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Section 1602 states: "An entity may not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake (CDFW 2015a)." 5.0 METHODS 5.1 Literature Review In preparation for the field assessment, a literature search was conducted to identify special-status biological resources known from the vicinity of the proposed project site. In the context of, and for the purpose of this report, vicinity is defined as areas within a five-mile radius of the site. The literature search included a review of the following documents: • California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) RareFind 5 (CDFW 2020a) • Special Animals List (CDFW 2020b) • California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Inventory of Rare,Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2020) • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Web Soil Survey (USDA, NRCS 2020a) • United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5', Cathedral City„ Myoma, Seven Palms Valley, Rancho Mirage, and La Quinta, California quadrangles. (USGS 2020) Scientific and common name nomenclature for this document follows standard reference sources: For plant communities, CVMSHCP;for flora (2020) and the USDA NRCS (2020b) PLANTS Database; for amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, CDFW (2016); and for birds, California Bird Records Committee (2020). The field assessment of the proposed project site was conducted on 3 December 2020 by Wood senior wildlife biologist Lisa Wadley. The BSA included the proposed project parcel and a 500- foot buffer where accessible. On-site suitable habitats were assessed based on the presence or absence of habitat components (e.g., soils, vegetation, and topography) characteristic of the potentially occurring special-status biological resources determined by the literature review. The BSA was surveyed on foot to record pertinent field data and current site conditions. All flora and fauna observed or otherwise detected (e.g., through vocalizations, presence of scat, tracks, bones and/or remains) during the course of this assessment were identified and recorded in field notes and are included in Appendix A. Dominant, co-dominant and co-occurring plant species observed were recorded in field notes and used in the determination of the on-site vegetation communities. Printed aerial photographs were used to aid in locating parcel boundaries and edges of plant communities. General weather and site conditions were also recorded at the beginning and end of the survey. Temperatures and wind speeds were recorded with a handheld Kestrel 2000 anemometer. Percent cloud cover was estimated. Page 10 6.0 RESULTS 6.1 Weather Conditions Weather conditions during the assessment were mild. Skies were clear with no cloud cover. Temperatures ranged from 62 to 64 degrees Fahrenheit. Winds were calm with wind speeds of no greater than 1 mile per hour (mph). 6.2 Topography and Soils The elevational range of the BSA is from approximately 280 to 300 feet (86 to 92 meters) AMSL. Topography on site is primarily flat with gradual slopes along the south half of the site. A review of the on-site soils (USDA, NRCS 2020a) found that one soil type, Myoma fine sand, 5 to 15% slopes are mapped on-site (Figure 4). Typically, these soils are moderately alkaline fine and very fine sands to a depth of approximately 31 inches; and beyond 31 inches are usually strongly alkaline very fine sands. Additionally, this soil type is known to support Coachella Valley fringe- toed Lizard (Uma inornata), flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii), Coachella Valley milkvetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae), slender woolly threads (Nemacaulis denudata var. gracilis), glandular ditaxis (Ditaxis claryana), Palm Springs pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris bangsi), Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrel (Xerospermophilus tereticaudus chlorus), Coachella Valley giant sand-treader cricket (Macrobaenetes valgum), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). Soils and substrates on the BSA are consistent with the Myoma fine sand soil profile, are typical of sandy desert soils, and have low organic content. Small sand dunes and hummocks are present beneath the creosote bush and across the undulating soils on-site. Hydric soils form under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding providing areas where water can accumulate at or near the soil surface for extended periods of time creating wetland areas that in turn provide habitat for varies wetland species. No hydric soils or clay soils were mapped and/or observed on- site. There is a sandy dirt road along the western boundary, directly adjacent to brick wall of the development that borders the site on the west (Appendix B, Photographic Exhibits). Some illegal dumping was also observed along Gerald Ford Avenue. 6.3 National Wetland Inventory Review of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (USFWS 2020) indicated that no known blue- line streams(drainages),traverse the BSA. No springs,seeps, or natural bodies of water/drainages were evident in the BSA during the field visit(See Appendix B, Site Photographs and Figures 2 and 3). Page 11 This page intentionally left blank. Page 12 cam.]( e[I2 ( Ce --Gerald'Ford—Dr s kli ,r,•. M y Thousand �pe°� 'it F f ISI i1 W1�lit.■ • s DlnaN,Sh6rc Dr :I 1 thedral it•_. ..` V t s 17 ae40 Cfty peratd Fr�.doi f MiIII 4111 rage . • rn ► r t • C Gaud try Club❑r i Bermuda oDunes — 2 i Calm Desert Indian Wells !YrP7.kki"1 i'lli• ,„„ il r U f...-- ti liste . "+, Project Boundary 0-- -ii. i 45 M oma Fine Sand, 5 to 15 A Percent Slopes '04/ . 1 „J.t. .4 .. ..•.„. . 1 r r ..ig, . .= or. Fill, EMI _ % le: 41 ; , . 1 1111 '74111:116 lilt lik i .— 14,21t tt fris, a .• 11 III.. illi 1 inch= 100 feet el 0 100 Feet 1k S II Ili FIGURE 4 r II, Ili • QM.' ria , S el Soil Type W Biological Resources Ilk I" Assessment Report Palm Desert Apartments jrum 1 Ili i '► 1 Ilk •. 1111 4. Palm Desert,CA 44.0:60 .1.11.1.1..... ipi a 110 a' wood. - - i Ilk-,P a Service Layer Credits:Source:Esri,Maxar,GeoEye,Earthstar Geographies,CNES/Airbus DS,USDA,USGS,AeroGRID,IGN,and the Path:Q:\3554_NaturalResources\PalmDesertApartments_322520109\MXD\ReportFigures\Bio\Fig4_Soils.mxd, chris.nixon, 1/7/2021 GIS User Community Sources:Esri,HERE,Garmin,USGS,Intermap,INCREMENT P, 6.4 Habitat Description and Environmental Setting The BSA is located within the Sonoran Desert biome in a portion of the Coachella Valley area of Riverside County, California. The surrounding area is characterized by business and residential development along Gerald Ford Drive to the north,west, east, and natural open space to the south and east of the project site. Generally, the BSA lies adjacent to habitat fragmentation resulting from the development of the existing business and residential dwellings adjacent or near the proposed site to the north, west, and east. The BSA has received low levels of disturbance, as a result of some off-road vehicular usage, dumping, and anthropogenic "edge effects." These "edge effects" include, establishment of dirt trails, trash deposition/accumulation and use by domestic pets (sign of domestic dogs observed). The vegetation community on-site was identified as 'stabilized shielded sand fields' (see Figure 5). This community is a desert sand fields where the sand source and sand transport systems, which would supply sand to the sand fields, have been interrupted or shielded by barriers such as roads, buildings, and landscaping (AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 2010). Soils on-site are sandy, as would be expected. Dominant perennial shrub species observed included: creosote bush, indigo-bush (Psorothamnus schottii), and cheesebush (Ambrosia salsola). Other annuals observed within the BSA include Russian thistle (SaIsola tragus), Arabian schismus (Schismus arabicus), and cryptantha (Cryptantha sp.). No special-status vegetation communities were observed within the BSA. A list of the plant species observed is appended to this report (Appendix A). Page 14 This page intentionally left blank. Page 15 ] [ e[� -c� '.Gerakd.,Ford CZ - --Oereld'Ford"Df s • I air,, � E S. .• ajit• 4 • _ "Qb kir oQ • ,r,- M� 4111171 Thousand e 'Ot! 1• I ■li '• I lilt, e _ Ramon Re Palma r r • R Pmahsharc Dr :I thedral Ate -r ,— ill, r, Chty c'eratd Frod Di T e f r t Mirage ti r 10 r aurlhy Ciub Dr i Bermuda Yo° Dunes. Palm Desert Indian Wells . yr--,4:-.1'11] ,„„ IL 1 dIll�— r AO - I Project Boundary r•...— 3 � rim , �tarsi Vegetation Pr €11111 d Stabilized Shielded Sand Fields elk Air 11 MEI .f '.. yd.* , .f.'t 1 II grfr Ik p : 'PI' b 1 p1 4• IP. . Ili 41% . _ 6 0 lir 1.4‘ . r 1 .-NI - 40 . •• . 1 .0 . .• ' i t. tiaar fris. ,. . Ilk • 1 inch= 100 feet -1"lit 4 O 0 100 Feet s s ; — } t FIGURE 5 • '• ■ = 4 Vegetation Communities • ip, , Biological Resources sk Assessment Report e Palm Desert Apartments 4. 1 1 .S' ° 'I. , a ` Palm Desert,CA 6 a' 1111 wood. • ., . . - Ilk — 4 Service Layer Credits:Source:Esri,Maxar,GeoEye,Earthstar ' - Geographies,ONES/Airbus DS,USDA,USGS,AeroGRID,IGN,and the Path:Q:\3554_NaturalResources\PalmDesertApartments_322520109\MXD\ReportFigures\Bio\Fig5_Vegetation.mxd, chris.nixon, 1/8/2021 GIS User Community Sources:Esri,HERE,Garmin,USGS,Intermap,INCREMENT P, This page intentionally left blank. Page 17 6.5 Wildlife Wildlife directly observed and/or detected otherwise (e.g., scat, bones, prints, feathers, burrows, etc.) within the BSA included a total of nine (9) vertebrate species: five (5) birds and four (4) mammals. No fish, reptiles, or amphibians were detected. See Appendix A for a complete list of all wildlife species detected. The bird species observed on-site include mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), Say's phoebe (Sayornis saya), and common raven (Corvus corax). Other bird species that could occur include but are not limited to: loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and Costa's hummingbird (Calypte costae). The mammals detected included desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), and coyote (Canis latrans). Kangaroo rat (Dipodomys sp). and other small mammals, occur on-site as indicated by observed burrows. Other common desert mammals such as the kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) and bobcat (Lynx rufus) were not detected but have the potential to occur in the BSA. While no reptiles were detected, a wide variety of reptile species are expected to occur. These include, but are not limited to: common side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), desert banded gecko (Coleonyx variegatus variegatus), desert glossy snake (Arizona elegans eburnata), and Colorado Desert sidewinder (Crotalus cerastes laterorepens). It should be noted that short, single-visit biological studies such as that conducted for this report are limited by timing: the seasonality of annual plants; the migratory habits of many birds; and the seasonal, fossorial and nocturnal habits of many invertebrates, reptiles and mammals. Knowledge of habitat associations, natural history, seasonality, and distribution is essential for the assessment of the occurrence potential of plant and wildlife species. Although no special-status species were observed during the field survey, other species, both common and special-status, have potential to occur based on their geographic distribution, habitat preferences, and daily / seasonal activity patterns. 6.6 Special-Status Species Plant or animal taxa may be considered "sensitive" or as having "special-status" due to declining populations, vulnerability to habitat change, or because they have restricted ranges. Some are listed as threatened or endangered by the USFWS or by the CDFW. Others have been identified as special-status species by the USFWS, the BLM, the CDFW, or by private conservation organizations, including the CNPS. Some are covered species under the CVMSHCP. The literature review resulted in the identification of thirty-three (33) special-status biological resources known to occur in the vicinity (within an approximate 1-mile radius) of the BSA. These included: fifteen (15) plants, three (3) invertebrates, two (2) reptiles, six (6) birds, six (6) mammals, and one (1) sensitive natural community. Tables 1 through 6 provide a complete list of the special- Page 18 status species, their associated status, habitat associations and their respective on-site occurrence potentials based on the best available information and the collective expertise of Wood biologists. Table 1. Special-Status Plants Species Status Habitat Probability Abronia villosa var. aurita F: None Sandy areas in chaparral Absent.Suitable habitat C: None and coastal sage scrub 80 is not present on-site for Chaparral sand-verbena CNPS: List 1 B.1 to 1,600 meters(300 to this species. Global rank:G5T2? 5,300 feet) elevation. State rank:S2 BLM: Sensitive USFWS: Sensitive CVMSHCP = No Almutaster pauciflorus F: None Perennial herb found in Absent.Suitable habitat C: None alkaline meadows and is not present on-site for Alkali marsh aster CNPS: List 2B.2 seeps from 200 to 800 this species,site below Global rank:G4 meters(655 to 2,625 feet) elevational range. State rank:S1S2 elevation. CVMSHCP = No Astragalus hornii var. hornii F: None Annual herb found around Absent.Suitable habitat C: None lake margins,alkaline is not present on-site for Horn's milk-vetch CNPS: List 1 B.1 meadow and seeps and this species. Global rank:GUT1 playas at 60 to 850 meters State rank:S1 (196 to 2,788 feet) CVMSHCP = No elevation. Astragalus lentiginosus var. F: Endangered Sandy areas,typically in High:Suitable habitat is coachellae C: None coarse sands in active present on-site. Record CNPS RPR: 1 B.2 sand fields,adjacent to occurrence on-site and Coachella Valley milkvetch Global rank:G5T1 dunes, along roadsides in within 500 feet of the State rank:S1 dune areas, or along the project site. Site is in CVMSHCP = Yes margins of sandy washes, CVMSHCP modeled in Sonoran Desert scrub at habitat for this species. 60 to 655 meters (200 to 2,150 feet)elevation. Astragalus preussii var.laxiflorus F: None Alkaline clay flats, gravelly Absent.Suitable habitat C: None or sandy washes, and (is not present on-site for Lancaster milkvetch CNPS RPR: 18.1 along draws in gullied this species,site below Global rank:G4T2 badlands, in chenopod elevational range. State rank:S1 scrub at about 700 meters CVMSHCP = No (2,300 feet) elevation. Astragalus tricarinatus F: Endangered Found in rock outcrops Absent.Suitable habitat C: None weathering into gravelly is not present on-site for Triple-ribbed milkvetch CNPS RPR: 1B.2 soil in semi-desert this species,site below Global rank:G2 chaparral at the edges of elevational range. Site is State rank:S2 boulder-strewn desert not in CVMSHCP CVMSHCP = Yes washes and adjacent modeled habitat for this slopes in rocky incised species. canyons in Joshua tree woodland and Sonoran Desert scrub; known from west edge of desert at 450 to 1,200 meters(1,500 to 3,900 feet)elevation. Page 19 Table 1. Special-Status Plants Species Status Habitat Probability Camissonia boothii ssp. boothii F: None Joshua tree woodland and Absent:Suitable habitat C: None pinyon-juniper woodland is not present on-site for Booth's evening primrose CNPS RPR: 2B.2 at 880 to 2,400 meters this species. Global rank:G5T4 (2,900 to 7,900 feet) State rank:S3 elevation. CVMSHCP = No Euphorbia abramsiana F: None Annual herb found sandy Moderate: Suitable C: None soils in Sonoran Desert habitat is present on-site Abrams' spurge CNPS RPR: 2B.2 scrub in 5 to 1,310 meters for this species. Global rank:G4 (15 to 4,300 feet) State rank:S2 elevation. CVMSHCP = No Euphorbia arizonica F: None Occurs in creosote bush Moderate: Suitable C: None scrub, in sandy soils 50 to habitat is present on-site Arizona spurge CNPS RPR: 2B.3 300 meters (200 to 1,000 for this species. Global rank:G5 feet) in Sonoran Desert State rank:S3 scrub in Riverside, San CVMSHCP = No Diego, and possibly Imperial Counties. Euphorbia platysperma F: None Sandy places 60 to 950 Moderate: Suitable C: None meters(200 to 3,100 feet) habitat is present on-site Flat-seeded spurge CNPS RPR: 1 B.2 in Sonoran Desert of for this species. Global rank:G3 Riverside, San Diego, State rank:S1 Imperial, (and San CVMSHCP = No Bernardino?)Counties. Nemacaulis denudata var.gracilis F: None Occurs in desert dunes, Moderate: Suitable C: None Sonoran desert scrub,and habitat is present on-site Slender woolly-heads CNPS List RPR:2B.2 coastal dunes; below 400 for this species. Global rank:G3G4T3? meters(1,300 feet) State rank:S2 elevation. CVMSHCP = No Petalonyx linearis F: None Perennial shrub found in Absent:Suitable habitat C: None sandy or rocky canyons in is not present on-site for Narrow-leaf sandpaper-plant CNPS RPR: 2B.3 Mojavean and/or Sonoran this species. Global rank:G4 desert scrub at 30 to 1,090 State rank:S3? meters(90 to 3,576 feet) CVMSHCP = No elevation. Selaginella eremophila F: None Shaded sites in gravelly Absent:Suitable habitat S: None soils and among rocks or is not present on-site for Desert spike-moss CNPS RPR: 2B.2 in crevices from 200 to this species. Site is below Global rank:G4 900(2,425?) meters (700 elevational range for this State rank:S2S3 to 3,000 [8,000?] feet) species. CVMSHCP = No elevation in Sonoran desert scrub. Page 20 Table 1. Special-Status Plants Species Status Habitat Probability Stemodia durantifolia F: None Wet sand or rocks, drying Absent.Suitable habitat S: None riverbeds from 180 to 300 is not present on-site for Purple stemodia CNPS RPR: 2B.1 meters(600 to 1,000 feet) this species. Site is below Global rank:G5 elevation in Sonoran elevational range for this State rank:S2 Desert scrub. species. CVMSHCP = No Xylorhiza cognata F: None Steep slopes of arid Absent.Suitable habitat S: None canyons in sandstone and is not present on-site for Mecca aster CNPS RPR: 1 B clay in Sonoran Desert this species. Site is not CVMSHCP = Yes scrub in Imperial and in CVMSHCP modeled Riverside Counties at 20 habitat for this species to 300 meters (70 to 1,000 feet) elevation; known mostly from the Indio and Mecca hills of Riverside County. Table 2. Special-Status Reptiles Species Status Habitat Probability Phrynosoma mcallii F: None Fine sand in desert washes Low:Suitable habitat is S: SSC and flats with vegetative present on-site for this Flat-tailed horned lizard Global rank:G3 cover and ants, generally species. Site is in State rank: S2 below 180 meters(600 feet) CVMSHCP modeled Other: BLM sensitive elevation. habitat for this species. CVMSHCP = Yes Nearest known occurrence 1.7 miles southwest of the site. No extant populations are believed to persist in the BSA area, however. Uma inornata F:Threatened Fine, loose,windblown sand Moderate:Suitable S: Endangered (dunes), interspersed with habitat is present on-site Coachella Valley fringe-toed Global rank:G1 Q hardpan and widely spaced for this species. Site is in lizard State rank: S1 desert shrubs; known only CVMSHCP modeled CVMSHCP = Yes from the Coachella Valley. habitat for this species. Nearest known occurrence is 1.0 mile west of the site. Page 21 Table 3. Special-Status Birds Species Status Habitat Probability Athene cunicularia F: MBTA, BCC Open, dry annual or Nesting: Low Marginally burrowing owl C: SSC perennial grassland,deserts suitable habitat were (nesting &wintering) Global:G4 &scrublands characterized observed on-site. State: S3 by low-growing vegetation. Foraging: Low Other: BLM sensitive Burrow sites essential. Suitable habitat present CVMSHCP = Yes* on-site. Empidonax traillii extimus F: Endangered; MBTA Rare and local breeder in Nesting:Absent C: Endangered extensive riparian areas of Suitable habitat is not Southwestern willow flycatcher Global:G5T2 dense willows or(rarely) present on site. State: Si tamarisk, usually with Foraging:Absent CVMSHCP = Yes* standing water, in the Same as above. southwestern U.S.and (formerly?) northwestern Mexico.Winters in Central and South America. Falco mexicanus F: MBTA, BCC Open country in much of Nesting:Absent (nesting) C: None North America. Nests in cliffs Suitable habitat is not Global:G4 or rocky outcrops;forages in present on-site for this Prairie falcon State rank:S4 open arid valley and species. CVMSHCP = No agricultural fields. Foraging: Low Foraging habitat is present on-site for this species. Lanius ludovicianus F: MBTA, BCC Open country with short Nesting:Absent C:SSC vegetation and well-spaced Suitable habitat is not Loggerhead Shrike Global:G4 shrubs or low trees with present on-site for this State: rank:S4 spines or thorns.Occurs in species. CVMSHCP = No wide variety of habitats: Foraging: Low Foraging agricultural fields, pastures, habitat is present on-site old orchards, riparian areas, for this species. desert scrublands,Joshua tree woodlands, desert oases, savannas, prairies, golf courses, and cemeteries. Quite often seen along mowed roadsides with fence lines and utility poles. Preferred to nest in thorny shrubs and trees. Polioptila melanura F: None Nests in wooded desert Nesting:Absent C: None wash habitat containing Suitable habitat is not black-tailed gnatcatcher Global rank:G5 mesquite, palo verde, present on-site and/or State rank:S3S4 ironwood, and acacia. May adjacent to the site for CVMSHCP = No also occur in areas with salt this species. cedar, especially when Foraging: Low adjacent to native wooded g g Suitable(wintering) desert wash habitat.Also foraging habitat(desert occurs in desert scrub scrub) present on-site for habitat in winter. this species. Page 22 Table 3. Special-Status Birds Species Status Habitat Probability Toxostoma lecontei F: MBTA, BCC Inhabits sparsely vegetated Nesting:Absent C: None Global desert flats, dunes,alluvial Site is in CVMSHCP Le Conte's thrasher Rank:G4 fans, or gently rolling hills modeled habitat for this State Rank: S3 having a high proportion of species, but suitable Other: BLM sensitive saltbush (Atriplex spp.) or nesting habitat is not CVMSHCP = Yes* cholla (cylindrical Opuntia present on-site and/or spp.),often occurring along adjacent to the site for small washes or sand dunes. this species. Prefers dense thorny shrubs (most often saltbush or Foraging: Low Suitable foraging habitat cholla)for nesting. present on-site for this Uncommon and local resident in low desert scrub species. throughout most of the Mojave Desert, extending up into the southwestern corner of the San Joaquin Valley. Breeding range in California extends from these areas into eastern Mojave, north into the Owens Valley and south into the lower Colorado Desert and eastern Mojave. *Species is to be conserved under the CVMSHCP, but is still protected by the MBTA and state code Table 4. Special-Status Mammals Species Status Habitat Probability Chaetodipus fallax pallidus F: None Desert border areas in Absent: Suitable habitat is C: SSC desert wash, desert scrub, not present on-site for this Pallid San Diego pocket mouse Global:G5T3T4 desert succulent scrub, and species. State:S3S4 pinon-juniper woodlands. CVMSHCP = No Sandy herbaceous areas usually in association with rocks or coarse gravel. Dipodomys merriami collinus F: None Primarily associated with Absent: Suitable habitat is C: None Riversidean sage scrub, not present on-site for this Earthquake (Aguanga) kangaroo chaparral, and non-native species. rat Global:G5T2? grassland. Species needs State:S1S2 sandy loam substrates for CVMSHCP = No digging or burrows. Lasiurus xanthinus F: None Occurs in southern Roosting:Absent C: SSC California in palm oases Suitable habitat is not Western yellow bat Global:G5 and in residential areas with present on-site for this State:S3 untrimmed palm trees. species. WBWG: H Roosts primarily in trees, Foraging: Low CVMSHCP = Yes especially the dead fronds of palm trees. Forages over water and among trees. Page 23 Table 4. Special-Status Mammals Species Status Habitat Probability Neotoma lepida intermedia F: None Found in desert scrub and Absent: Suitable habitat is C: None coastal sage scrub habitat, not present on-site for this San Diego desert woodrat Global:G5T3T4 especially in association species. State:S3S4 with cactus patches. Builds CVMSHCP = No stick nests around cacti,or on rocky crevices. Perognathus longimembris bangsii F: None Prefers sandy soil for Moderate:Suitable habitat S: SSC burrowing but has been is present on-site for this Palm Springs pocket mouse Global rank:G5T2 found on gravel washes species. Site is in State rank: S2 and stony soils. Preferred CVMSHCP modeled BLM:Sensitive habitat includes desert habitat for this species CVMSHCP = Yes riparian, desert scrub, Nearest known occurrence desert wash and sagebrush is 3 miles southeast of the habitats. Most common in site. creosote-dominated desert scrub. Xerospermophilus tereticaudus F: None Desert succulent scrub, Low: Marginally suitable chlorus S: None desert wash, desert scrub, habitat is present on-site Global rank: G5T2Q alkali scrub;will burrow in for this species. Site is in Palm Springs round-tailed ground State rank: S2 man-made levees; prefers CVMSHCP modeled squirrel BLM:Sensitive open,flat, grassy areas in habitat for this species. CVMSHCP = Yes fine textured,sandy soil. Nearest known occurrence Restricted to Coachella is over seven miles Valley. southeast of the site. Table 5. Special-Status Invertebrates Dinacoma caseyi F: Endangered Associated with sandy soils Absent Site is outside of C: None (alluvial gravelly sands) in the known range of the Casey's June beetle Global:G1 the southwestern Coachella species. State:S1 Valley. Restricted to only CVMSHCP = No two populations in a small area in the southern part of Palm Springs. Remaining likely habitat within its range consists of about 600 acres of desert scrub on Carsitas (CdC) soils. Macrobaenetes valgum F: None Wind-swept sand dune Low: Site is sandy and in C: None ridges, spring-dampened CVMSHCP modeled habitat Coachella giant sand treader Global:G1G2 sandy areas. Restricted to for this species. cricket Coachella Valley. State:S1S2 CVMSHCP = Yes Page 24 Table 5. Special-Status Invertebrates Stenopelmatus cahuilaensis F: None Inhabits a small segment of Absent: Suitable habitat is C: None the sand and dune areas of not present on-site for this Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket Global:G1G2 the Coachella Valley, in the species. Not in CVMSHCP vicinity of Palm Springs; modeled habitat for this State:S1S2 found in large, undulating species. CVMSHCP = Yes dunes piled up at the north base of Mt.San Jacinto. Table 6. Special-Status Natural Community Species Status Habitat Probability F: None A desert woodland alliance Absent This habitat does Desert Fan Palm Oasis Woodland C: None habitat found along canyon not occur within or Global:G3 waterways. adjacent to the site. State:S3.2 Definitions of status designations and occurrence probabilities for Tables 1-6 Definitions of occurrence probability: Occurs:Observed in the BSA by Wood personnel or recently reported by another credible source. High:Observed in similar habitat in region by qualified biologists,or habitat on the BSA is a type often utilized by the species and the BSA is within the known range of the species. Moderate:Reported sightings in surrounding region,or BSA is within the known range of the species and habitat on the BSA is a type occasionally used by the species. Low:PPA/APE is within the known range of the species but habitat on the BSA is rarely used by the species Very Low:Habitat is of marginal suitability and/or BSA is at the edge of species known range or distribution. Absent:A focused study failed to detect the species,suitable habitat not present,or BSA is outside the geographic distribution of the species. Unknown:No focused surveys have been performed in the region,and the species'distribution and habitat are poorly known. Federal designations:(F=federal Endangered Species Act or USFWS designations) END:Federally listed,Endangered THR:Federally listed,Threatened CAN:Candidate for Federal listing MBTA:Migratory Bird Treaty Act BGEPA:Bald&Golden Eagle Protection Act BCC:Birds of Conservation Concern BLM sensitive:Bureau of Land Management Sensitive USFS sensitive:U.S. Forest Service Sensitive None:No designation State designations:(C=California Endangered Species Act or CDFW designations) END:State listed,Endangered THR:State listed,Threatened CAN:Candidate for State listing RARE:State listed,Rare FP:Fully Protected Species SSC:Species of Special Concern WL:Watch List Species CDFW State(S)Rankings are a reflection of the overall condition of a resource throughout its range in California.The number after the decimal point represents a threat designation attached to the assigned rank: 51 =Critically Imperiled.Less than(<)6 Element Occurrences(EOs)OR< 1,000 individuals OR< 2,000 acres S1.1 =very threatened 51.2 =threatened 51.3 = no current threats known 52 = Imperiled.6-20 EOs OR 1,000-3,000 individuals OR 2,000-10,000 acres 52.1 =very threatened Page 25 52.2 =threatened 52.3 = no current threats known 53 =Vulnerable.21-80 EOs OR 3,000-10,000 individuals OR 10,000-50,000 acres 53.1 =very threatened 53.2 =threatened 53.3 = no current threats known 54=Apparently Secure.Uncommon but not rare in the state;some cause for long-term concern. 55 = Secure.Common,widespread,and abundant in the state. SH =All known California sites are historical,not extant T1 =Critically Imperiled T2 = Imperiled CDFW Global(G) Rankings are a reflection of the overall status of an element throughout its global range. Both Global and State rankings are represented with a letter and number score that reflects a combination of Rarity,Threat,and Trend factors,with weighting being heavier on Rarity than the other two. Species or Natural Community Levels: G1 = Critically Imperiled.At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity(often 5 or fewer populations),very steep declines, or other factors. G2=Imperiled.At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range,very few populations(often 20 or fewer),steep declines,or other factors. G3 = Vulnerable.At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations(often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines,or other factors. G4=Apparently Secure.Uncommon but not rare;some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. G5 = Secure.Common;widespread and abundant. Subspecies Levels:Taxa which are subspecies or varieties receive a taxon rank(T-rank) attached to their G-rank.Where the G-rank reflects the condition of the entire species,the T-rank reflects the global situation of just the subspecies. CVMSHCP designations Yes: Conserved by the CVMSHCP No: Not Specifically Conserved by the CVMSHCP Considered: Considered, but not included in the CVMSHCP California Native Plant Society(CNPS)designations: Primary Categories LIST 1A:Plants Presumed Extirpated in California and Either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere LIST 1 B:Plants Rare,Threatened,or Endangered in California and Elsewhere LIST 2A:Plants Presumed Extirpated in California, But Common Elsewhere LIST 2B:Plants Rare,Threatened,or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere LIST 3:Plants About Which More Information is Needed-A Review List LIST 4:Plants of Limited Distribution-A Watch List Subdivisions within Categories 0.1:Seriously threatened in California 0.2:Moderately threatened in California 0.3:Not very threatened in California Western Bat Working Group (WBWG)designations: H: High: Species which are imperiled or are at high risk of imperilment based on available information on distribution, status, ecology and known threats. M: Medium: Species which warrant a medium level of concern and need closer evaluation, more research, and conservation actions of both the species and possible threats.A lack of meaningful information is a major obstacle in adequately assessing these species'status and should be considered a threat. L: Low: Species for which most of the existing data support stable populations, and for which the potential for major changes in status in the near future is considered unlikely.There may be localized concerns, but the overall status of the species is believed to be secure. Conservation actions would still apply for these bats, but limited resources are best used on High and Medium status species. P: Periphery:This designation indicates a species on the edge of its range, for which no other designation has been determined. Page 26 7.0 DISCUSSION 7.1 Discussion of the Special-Status Species Tables Of the thirty-three (33) special-status species reported from the vicinity of the project site, seventeen (17) species are considered to be absent from the site due to a lack of suitable habitats and/or the location of the BSA outside of the species geographic range. These species will not be discussed further. Sixteen (16) special-status species known from the area have a low and/or moderate potential to occur (occupy and/or forage) within the project site and are discussed below. 7.1.1 Potentially Occurring Plant Species Coachella Valley milk-vetch is federally listed as endangered plant species with a high potential of occurrence on-site. It is a "covered species" under the CVMSHCP, so possible impacts would be mitigated through payment of the CVMSHCP fee. There is a moderate potential for four (4) plant species to occur on the proposed project site. They are the Abrams' spurge, Arizona spurge, flat-seeded spurge, and slender woolly-heads. These species have the potential to occur in a wide variety of desert habitats including sandy soils in creosote bush scrub habitat. The afford mentioned plant species are not listed as "covered species" under the Coachella Valley MSHCP and require additional evaluation under the CEQA process. These plant species have no legal protection under federal and/or state Endangered Species Act. Also, removal of a few individual plants, if present, will not reduce the population of these species to a less than self-sustaining level and is not considered a significant impact under CEQA. Therefore, additional protocol-level surveys for these sensitive plant species are not required. 7.1.2 Potentially Occurring Amphibian and Reptile Species There is a moderate potential for the federally/state threatened/endangered Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard and low potential for the flat-tailed horned lizard to occur on the proposed project site. Suitable habitat is present on-site for both species, however there are not believed to be any extant populations of the flat-tailed horned lizard in the BSA area. Regardless of the status of these two species on the site, they are both "covered species" under the Coachella Valley MSHCP, and possible impacts would be mitigated through payment of the CVMSHCP fee. 7.1.3 Potentially Occurring Avian Species There is marginally suitable habitat present on-site for the burrowing owl. No natural burrows and no owls and/or owl sign were observed during the assessment, however, other burrows and man-made structures (i.e., drainpipes and drainage feature with rip rap material) suitable for burrowing owl occupation were observed on-site and nearby. Therefore, impacts to burrowing owls potentially occurring on-site or nearby off-site must be considered The burrowing owl is not a listed species, but the species is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (USFWS 2018) and the California Fish and Game Code (California Legislative Information 2020), therefore surveys will be required where habitat is present. Burrowing owls are also sensitive to excessive noise and vibration. Activities such as grading, and operation of heavy Page 27 equipment around occupied burrows may result in nest/burrow abandonment. Such indirect impacts can occur up to 500 feet from work activities, sometimes more. and a pre-construction take avoidance survey is recommended. Burrowing owl is a covered species under the CVMSHCP but is still protected from take. To avoid take of the burrowing owl outside of conservation areas the "CDFW recommends two take avoidance surveys. The first should occur between 14 and 30 days prior to ground disturbance and the second within 24 hours of ground disturbance" (CDFG 2012). Four other special-status bird species have potential to occur in the BSA: the loggerhead shrike, prairie falcon, black-tailed gnatcatcher, and Le Conte's thrasher. None of these species were seen during the field visit. The loggerhead shrike requires thorny, large shrubs, or small trees for nesting, The black-tailed gnatcatcher nests in wooded desert wash habitat.The Prairie falcon nests on cliffs. The Le Conte's thrasher nests in cacti and shrubs such as cholla and salt bush. None of these nesting habitats are present on-site, but there is a low probability that these species may forage on-site. The Le Conte's Thrasher is a covered species under the CVMSHCP, and most impacts to it would be mitigated through payment of the CVMSHCP fee. It would still be protected while nesting, however, if there was nesting habitat. 7.1.4 Migratory Bird Treaty Act A variety of common bird species that have no special-status designations are nevertheless protected by the MBTA and/or the state fish and game code. This includes virtually all native bird species, including birds already known to occur on-site or which have the potential to occur. Avoidance of impacts to all protected birds will be a requirement prior to development of the proposed project site. To avoid impacting nesting birds, avoidance of disturbance during the nesting season (generally 1 February 1 through 31 August) is recommended whenever and wherever possible. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, additional impact avoidance and minimization measures may be required:These measures may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: 1) attendance of and compliance with a project-specific WEAP, 2) pre- construction clearance surveys, 3) biological monitoring, 4) establishment and observance of no disturbance buffer zones around active bird nests found during the daily pre-construction surveys until the young birds have fledged and 5) trash containment and disposal to avoid attracting potential predators. If nesting birds are found on a project site, work would not likely be permitted near the nest site (i.e., within the no disturbance buffer zone[s] surrounding nests) until young have fledged. While there is no established protocol for nest avoidance, when consulted the CDFW generally recommends avoidance buffers of about 500 feet for birds-of-prey, and 100-300 feet for songbirds. Routine monitoring of nests would document when the young have fledged and when potentially disruptive project activities in the vicinity could be implemented without impacting nesting birds. Page 28 7.1.5 Special-Status Species — Mammals One bat species, the western yellow bat has a low potential to forage over the site, but no roosting habitat exists on-site. This bat species is not listed as threatened or endangered but is a California Special Concern Species. It is a covered species under the CVMSHCP and possible impacts to it would be mitigated through payment of the CVMSHCP fee. Both the Palm Springs pocket mouse and/or the Palm Spring round-tailed ground squirrel may occur on the project site. Suitable habitat is potentially present on-site for both rodent species. However, trapping would be required to determine species definitive presence. Regardless of their status on the site, however, the Palm Springs pocket mouse and Palm Spring round-tailed ground squirrel are "covered species" under the Coachella Valley MSHCP, and possible impacts would be mitigated through payment of the MSHCP fee. 7.1.6 Jurisdictional Areas The project site does not have any drainage or other jurisdictional water features. A jurisdictional delineation will not be needed. 7.1.7 CVMSHCP Plan Consistency The site is not within or adjacent to any CVMSHCP Conservation Area, so will not interfere with any conservation area objectives and there will be no edge effects. No wildlife corridors or biological linkages are mapped, known, or expected on-site, so there will be no effects to them. 8.0 CONCLUSION The proposed project site lies within a vacant parcel with no existing structures or roadways. The vegetation community is a stabilized shielded sand field. The Project site is not located within a CVMSHCP Conservation Area, or in a Fluvial Sand Transport Special Provision Area. One listed as federally endangered plant species; the Coachella Valley milk-vetch has a high potential to occur on the on-site. Therefore, marginally suitable habitat is present on-site for this species. The Coachella Valley milk-vetch is a "covered species" under the CVMSHCP and therefore any impacts to the species would be mitigated through payment of the CVMSHCP fee. Two reptile species, the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard and the flat-tailed horned lizard have a moderate potential to occur on-site. Regardless of their status on the site, the Coachella Valley milk-vetch, Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, and flat-tailed horned lizard are "covered species" under the CVMSHCP. Any impacts would be mitigated through payment of the CVMSHCP fee. The burrowing owl is a species of concern and take of this species under the MBTA and/or state code is prohibited. Marginally suitable habitat is present on-site. Although covered by the CVMSHCP,take is not allowed and therefore a pre-construction take avoidance surveys is required prior to grading. Burrowing owls are sensitive to excessive noise and activities such as grading and operation of heavy equipment up to 500 feet away and may abandon nests or burrows Page 29 if/when such activities occur. Therefore, impacts to burrowing owls potentially occurring in adjacent off-site areas must also be considered. Nesting habitat for various bird species protected by the MBTA and/or state code is present on- site and adjacent to the site. To avoid impacting nesting birds on-site and/or within 500 feet of the proposed project site, avoidance of disturbance during the nesting season (generally February 1 through 31 August) is recommended whenever and wherever possible. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, a pre-construction survey for nesting birds, avoidance of active nests, monitoring and other measures will be required to avoid impacts to any active nests within the project site. Page 30 9.0 LITERATURE CITED AND REFERENCES AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 2010. La Quinta General Plan EIR, Technical Appendices, Appendix C, City of La Quinta General Plan Update: Biological Resources. June. California Bird Records Committee. 2020. Official California Checklist. Accessed online at: http://californiabirds.org/ca_list.asp California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. March 7. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020a. California Natural Diversity Data Base, Rarefind 5. Report for the Cathedral City, Calif., Myoma, Calif., Seven Palms Valley, Calif., Rancho Mirage, Calif., and La Quinta, Calif., Quadrangles. Accessed online at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data (accessed 25 November 2020). CDFW. 2020b. Special Animals List.July. Periodic publication. Sacramento, CA. Accessed online at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=109406&inline CDFW. 2016. Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird and Mammal Species in California. May. Accessed online at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=87155&inline California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Rare Plant Program. 2020a. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, Reports for Cathedral City, Calif, Myoma, Calif, Seven Palms Valley, Calif, Rancho Mirage, Calif., and La Quinta, Calif, Quadrangles. (online edition, v8-03 0.38). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org (accessed 25 November 2020). CNPS. 2020b. The California Rare Plant Ranking System. Accessed online at: https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-rare-plant-ranks Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). 2020. Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, including Major Amendment. Accessed online at: cvmshcp.org Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Calif. Fish Game, Sacramento. Jepson Flora Project. 2020. Jepson eFlora. Accessed online at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation (2nd ed.). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service USDA, NRCS. 2020a. Soil Survey Staff. Web Soil Survey. Available online at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. (USDA, NRCS). 2020b. PLANTS Database. Accessed online at: http://plants.usda.gov United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. http://www.fws.g ov/wetl a nds/ USFWS. 2018. Bird Laws and Treaties. Accessed online at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsandPolicies.html Page 31 United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2020. US Topo and Historical Topographic Map Collection. Accessed online at: http://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=262:1:0::NO:RP: Page 32 APPENDIX A PLANTS & WILDLIFE OBSERVED PLANTS OBSERVED Scientific Name Common Name Boraginaceae Borage family Cryptantha sp. Cryptantha Chenopodiaceae Saltbush family Salsola tragus* Russian thistle Fabaceae Pea family Psorothamnus schottii Schott indigo bush Zygophyllaceace Caltrop family Larrea tridentata creosote bush Poaceae Grass family Schismus arabicus* Arabian schismus Ambrosia salsola Cheesebrush WILDLIFE OBSERVED AVES BIRDS Columbidae Pigeons and Doves Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Trochilidae Hummingbirds Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers Sayornis saya Say's phoebe Corvidae Crows and Ravens Corvus corax Common raven Fringillidae Finches Carpodacus mexicanus House finch MAMMALIA MAMMALS LAGOMORPHA RABBITS,HARES AND PIKA Leporidae Rabbits and Hares Lepus californicus Black-tailed jackrabbit Sylvilagus audubonii Desert cottontail RODENTIA RODENTS Heteromyidae Pocket Mice and Kangaroo Rats Dipodomys sp. Kangaroo rat Canidae Foxes,Wolves and Dogs Canis latrans Coyote This page intentionally left blank APPENDIX B PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITS 5-1 Assessor's Parcel Number 694-310-005 Palm Desert, Riverside County, California 300 330 0 30 60 90 I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • • I • • I • • I • I • I • I • I 0 9•N(T)I)33•'755922g—116.3777±6 m A 53 m x ",� `E• _ ' .1-- ' 'r — - =4 , .. Photo 1. Representative condition of site. View facing north from the southwest corner of the project site at west boundary of parcel. 330 0 30 60 90 120 I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • 0 57°NE(T) • 33.784649,—116.377803±3 m•61 m — — • ll _ _ Ail*. • - _PSI"�'!l�9' 'ytyr�p'.u t ytia Photo 2. Representative condition of site. View facing northeast from the southwest corner of the project site. Assessor's Parcel Number 694-310-005 Palm Desert, Riverside County, California � n :0 120 150 180 210 zoo • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • i • I • I • ! • I • I • 0 178°S(T)OO 33.'7$698S,—11b.377681-13 m•5o m _ Palm Desert Apts.,Project_,_ Lookin S fr NW corner 0-3 Dec 20204 10%1S AM. Photo 3. Representative condition of site. View facing south from the northwest corner of the project site at west boundary of parcel. NE E 0 30 60 90 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 - 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 • ® 55°NE (T) S 33°'1845669 —116.377'751 ±4 m Asa ke, x • Photo 4. Representative condition of site. View facing northeast. Photo shows sandy conditions on-site. Assessor's Parcel Number 694-310-005 Palm Desert, Riverside County, California 0 353°N{T)'• 33,7847). -116.375882±4 rn•5o m ....40Whig - --lam d - _il--- -A, � - —,--ems-_- -. PaIm Desert 4ptSoProject -- oundafy Io1ikirig 1:' 03 Dec 2o2°,o9;38 AM Photo 5. Representative condition of site. View facing north from the east boundary of the project site. Photo shows sandy conditions on-site. :x '--, k' -' ' ' "fit- Photo 6. Representative condition of site. View facing west from the east boundary of the project site. Photo shows sandy conditions on-site. This page intentionally left blank 5-2 APPENDIX C SITE PLAN 5-3 0 N Lir L _I 1_(__Jo 1 \\ (-(-J '� x 283,4 \ � 11 x 273,3 1 Jr F- \ X I © ,>� \ 1 J I I x 2I52,5 j , . I-I cl � I I 1 1 I I�I __ e+Qo ter d� - i 7 cE o/H EL c / I d0 I I I \ o/H GOBS C :� r � ,; ---, - �. O Q ® O p SCE 0/H E C \ 1 1V "RCIN T p I 1 KV IRC / / ® / -j-' T �7 ? �_T =__.�- •wit ,i 1T�� I:\ \ - 46 _ _ / SCE /H ELEC \ SCE 0/H FI FC d �H-ECEC�6 � �115-Ff�CIRCUI o k p �- 115 K CIRCUIT / -P 4632959 -�H - HYDRANT-/ - - - O I - O/ 2s5sE- -iv ', - -�MH'667, 115 KV CIRCUIT _ _ _ _ S MH 38 / /�# - � - _ _ + 115 V CIRCUI' �: ��.. I - IRS - PP 4 11- - - O/H E - - - #46329Q- I -L7$.3� - - 01 L - - _^� 4' - - - HYDRANT �� -- - -O r • - - -- L�L1[14 _ ��/ - C. - T� -�` T �� ` J) - -�G�c- - - �.Y�� ! m - -� ��� ���� .� _� / INV ®U 0.67 ci / •-�-rTr \ Conc = 9 - �5�7�3`UBS N&S \ T - - �� w 12"yy��VCP -� � � \ W\ W J\ vJ- - - \ -� SEWL� \ �V 1 �ST S N& -W- -W- \ WATER 18" DIP \ PER C WD DWG 12668\ \ 11 \ \ \ ! \ PN CVWD D G 12669 - ��S �_ -S \ S II S \ S \ \ S �2» V\SEWFRJ \ S -4 \ S -S \ -S \ SS ,- -S \� -\\ \ S -S - �� \ SWR MH 39 I 1 �� \� RRIG}�TION \ TMH 68.79 1 \ \ \ IRRIGATION /-HOLES \ \ \ J ` I SWR MH 37 12" VCP \ 12" VCP 12" VCP TMH 283.08 x 282,4 x 281,5 - � INV IN: 259.9 �ACL SEWER �twt SEWER BMI-7 o 1 - - o I - - ( 1 ,fr-INV IN: 273.57 V OUT: 260. ' J Ildd-o - - - 1 - - - Aspp� , - - � i' 1 \ =J 2 12» sruBs s / -+- - - D=9.52' x 2g3,5 L �IRRIGATAL / �J ;ER CVWD DW) 12669 �- I 2-12" STUBS N&S WATER METER AND PEDESTAL PER CVWD DWG 12668 / Z // BACK FLOW PREVENTER / / / IAsph, / -7 TER 2� -5 T x 281,5 / /- TEf2- 55' WIDE OF WAY-0- -/ & iNlFE1� 1) TEk� GAS STA P 18' CML/CMC / 18 CML/ MC PER DO�. N0. 247410J ON SI WALK 18" CML/CMC / 18" CML/CMC 1- / -W- / W- /- GAS VALVE W- / -W- � �W / RFC 1if/ i/L98 �h ® / W / �j W / -W- /- W W- W W GAG S _GTE VAULT , �` - �� 9 RAW R/W �_ � - - ~c F -. -� � -F - -� �L -- ` c 1 ivwc T1i A - PUL OrC. 5- LE VA X5` 2 3X5 4 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ f't MH \ �TEL FROG FIRE OC. \\ \ \\ \ \ \ �\ - SCE STUB \ SCE lo9•H M5482574 4� \ � -- J7}�. x ,?,9. Ni i \ \ \ PLDSC 3 09 TE TIER COPPE \ \ \ \ \ ��t) MO \ E WARNE' CABLE yy \ \ \ \ o�®I L A I 0 �9 9D \ :OX 4X6.5X7 �URI \ \ 1 --- _ M BLDG. 1 (TYPE A2) BLDG.2(TYPE B2) _ B'L�G.3�(TYP A2) " \ -. \ \ o \ I it i�C3 I 2 STORY�5 UNITS C3 2 STORY-12 UNITS 2 STORY-15 U TS C3 \ \ \ ..........- 1-- - \ \ \ J � \ \ I I \ C II it -CATC�IN 1�1- Al ten, � B1 8� Ale Al .; p Al Al Al Al Al A1� 1 s \ J� \ \ \ \ `,3 40-1 i\ Lii I 7-- ) Ka) .-br:-\-, )77C - 7'( -Qc B1 B1 Al 2P7 A\ B1 g .= =ck7_ ,)z* p Al B\ 1 x 271,1 --�_-� \ \ C3 ( 2,2 C3 C3 \ \ C3 I \ I \ \ \ \ \ aI \ I x2�1,3 \ \ \ \ �7 I \ x 279, \ x 27V \ I /-� \ Q N N / - Al III \ BLDG.4(TYPE B3) 1 1 --*- \ \��270,9 \ \ \ \ \ SH 3 STORY 20 UNITS 03 TRASH ` \ > \ s `1-7 \ \ II I #1 x �8 9 Al B1, 9= 73 / �/ A.,: r; \ / \ \ N \ Ni �� Lf \ „ \ l 8[h.1 ��- \ / A \ CLUB FITS LEASING LOBBY I IIICo \ \ \ 0 x 73,3 ( \ \ Ia `'0 SF 800 SF 2,000 SYf X 2 7 9 \ \ x 272J Z \ \ \ 1 -- Al Al Al, x 279,1 �w BLDG. 14 i.' .� l 1 1 \) / \ (TYPE B3) Ir \ L� \ 0 x� \ ` \ 14-0) I , \ T \ x 279,2 `1 3 STORY I� 11 ` NX )\ \\ \\ 1 GREEN SPACE( \ 20 UNITS D \ \ I \ B 5(TYPE B3) DOG PARK& k' �- A Iw \ C3 S ��Y20 UNITS \BBO AREA It: 'POOL \ riil�I; \ \ ‘•••-• \CI)\ \ \ \ I �A1 Al Al \ x 2g0 T \ I * \ A SIBS. \ • Conc, I I 1914 \ -J I 1 \ \ \ - -- h. \ INS N0. 2 14-02688R59 \�,��� ���� " "'�� A I =p _ _ 7 T REC\07/21/2 O.R. \ \ 11\ II I B1 Al B1 x 280,� f ,� \ Ith y +/ / x 2 ° \ C3 )1 •, APN 94-310 b07 Q __/ t _ _1. � \ ' ... of I I- -- I I c x 280,5� •' 1��+ 1 \ Al* \ 77.9 ��"i. j \� �� .: ' 14 13 \ ' \ � i���;, ��' BLDG. 13 C62 � � \ O�S. I f RASH \ g� TRASH �t�'• (TY E A2) �� U / (1' (.. I '#3 #3 2 STORY \ 1 ?�► r I =1 \ \ / / ( � �\� 15 UNITS \ 0 1', 1 r I i 1' 1 x 279.4 x 279,5 �\ ► .0 L I I. BLDG.6(TYPE B3) BLDG.9(TYPEIA -: ' x 79,2 % .EST \ }� U \ \ 3 STORY 20 UNITS 3 / Cl 3 STORY 25 UNITS C3 ,cP�,� , \ ;i K1 r - ' I C -- � / PEDESTAL �! / ��� I I I �B1 _Al B1� `i_ _Al B1 B1� 40.00 9 I x 27 ,5 _ • \ _ _ V ,_ 1 \ I ' \ �� a o , .b \ 1 (tl / \WiRp �� �� INST. N0. 2008-0577535 0 A 1 REC. 10/30/2008, O.R. 0 I I - -_ r..'- � ,\ 1 \ j8 - - APN 694-310-004 0 I I I cO ,�. ,--_ _ x 27 ,5fiv... 78, v�i' \ - - - , 1 x 273J \ _=_ `r INV x 278, . ` t� \ I , \ � I M �S -�- S 101 \ , \ r D ft ` i/ \ `• SWR MH " V�eP\ � Al Al AlA 1 B1 Al �" \ �, \ / EtlCER - T _ 6 OBIS,/ry/ OBS i� I \ C3 _ II C3 J A II � �� ^V \\\\ / - � - - - I TR MT,jyi,\ i rsLP ALT� / \ \ \ _ �` Tyr \ \ ,. I «C \= /%► -) x/ v� � -jico . 1 BLDG.7(TYPE B3) BLDG. 10(TYPE A3) \ � ,, ��• � �.m� �� _ \ \ \ 3 STORY 20 UNITS 3STORY 25UNITF l /' '•N „�'' / /o PEDES AL �, C3 �� C3 I 7 9 OBS, .';�/OBS, +q \I\ \ \ A Al Al Al A B1 Al_ Al E,; _� MI �� _ 1'� \ x279,7 2. A / / \ „ 01 \ r 1 _ _I L -� C� L_- � A M v :. - -M� x278,1 x2I77 Ilftr s )c \ \ . 027( 17;C' -\ \ PT imo r -,'7(-s, -QS- c f c , t-Th: 1 /r/(24/ o \ ti . ° Conc, 1 w Al 1 61 B1 , 1 IgillE1 \ \ c3-°\ ) 1 < % / / x 278,6 ill ----------"--1 \ I I \ \ \ \ 1 I D . 12 ��: 1 :f� I\ \ Ix .�.,4 J \_ 4L -TRASH IL o1 \ \ \ 278E x266 _ 0R-C ir_fl2ith - 1ile -ise - - I \ 0 \ , 7,7 iiiii 24UI� ' �I 6 o l �: _ 0 \(\,, \ 1\ x 279,3 1 X- '8.3 /_' l 0' 50' 100' 150' 200' co \ I w� BLDG.8( ) \ B1�BG. 11 (TYPE B3) �� �� 7 1 ¢ m / I V N _ _ I I \ 8\ 3 STOR 20 NITS. 1 3 STORY-20 UNITS C3 N.` Nt V I . 0CfBS. 01 .11i ill. x 27 ,40 C w.,i Al Al Al i, Al Al Al an al Ai 1k 0 ff �_ SCALE 1'=50' \ \ \i61 4 - i °e r�:, \ 3 \ - i� x 278, - - - - x 275,5 � \ \ III-- -- ._Imill.,_ \ m _ , -� --.1, / l f� re% 7 J -0 \ I I \ !a '�1'� 1- 7 4- )7 v 277J 2 `5 0 �� x 278,9 \ I .• B1 Al B1 / 0: / ia \ - i--C Oci � \ 1 9 I \ I II I \ \ \ ` \ C3, C3 x v x2±7,8 \ \ 7 NCR 0 \� � \ \ ' Ir -\ \ III \ " \ \ ( N- / o \ 1 I \ I \ \\ \ �� \ RESERVUP ATION INAVO 0' WID fOf, 71 \ \ / OBri \\ \ \ \ \ I I I I I I \ \ ` \_ \ , 7 \ \ lir USA FOR ROADWAY POS \ \ \ I I \ \ \ \ \ \ ARCEL 1 OF F O.C. 88 1 / PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES �- / \ \ • I \ PER INST. NO. 1988-146461 \ PER DOC. NO. 86352 \ \\\ \ \\ \ I • / I \ III h \ \ - -2XC06 R.- - \ - - T x J,S \,-_ 10�/1960, OR. \ \ 1\ \ \ I '-i 1 \ Vs \ \ . II ' \ 4€1\ \ \ \ \ \ l \ APN 9 006 - x 77,7 \\ _ \ I \ 1 yl II I I \ I � \III \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ �, G \ c 11I1I1 Ill n �� I II \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I % x2�77,7 G)\ \ � 4 \ \ \ 11 III I \ _ ��, x 478,E '\ 1 \ APN 1 1 I 1 I I , r�N C , I I VEI\ Iti I \- \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ l 1 II \ \ \ \ \ \ -� 1\' t 1 1 s\ ( Q /�� lit 1- 1- 1�- 1 air \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / x �5 ~ \ ti J 1 0' o 111111111 \ Conc. 1 C I \ \ \ \ \ ✓ 1 illik \ \ \ l \ N \ \ \ ) ) `\ Z �� �- \ ,/ �� 1 ice, 302 \ / II l - e ///t, I 1 I x300,5 4iE EI / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ` �� / \ \' 1 \ \ x 1 / / , I I I � � 41 \ t ±IL -ILLII I \ \ \ \ \ � \ 2 2,3 \ / \ si MSA CONSULTING, INC. AO Architect's Site Plan Overlay with Existing Base, Utilities, and Topography 11 > PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING NOVEMBER 3,2020 Q 34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com The Pacific Companies - Palm Desert Apartments Appendix C Cultural Resource Survey C ��� CRM TECH 1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B '' ' Colton, CA 92324 December 16, 2020 Nicole Sauviat Criste Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Re: Update to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Palm Desert Apartments Project; APN 694-310-006 and -007 City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California CRM TECH Contract No. 3686 Dear Ms. Criste: At your request, CRM TECH has completed a cultural resources study on approximately 13 acres of vacant land in the northwestern portion of the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. The subject property of the study measures generally 900 feet in length and 630 feet in width, consisting of portions of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 694-310-006 and-007. It is located on the south side of Gerald Ford Drive near its intersection with Rembrandt Parkway, in the northeast quarter of Section 32, T4S R6E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian(Figs. 1, 2). The study is part of the environmental review process for the proposed Palm Desert Apartments Project,which entails primarily the construction of approximately 270 residential units in 14 buildings, along with associated administrative and recreational facilities,parking lots, landscaping, and infrastructure improvements. The City of Palm Desert, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the project would cause a substantial adverse change to any"historical resources," as defined by CEQA, that may exist in the project area. Background As you know, the current 13-acre project area was covered entirely by a standard Phase I cultural resources survey that CRM TECH completed in 2016 for a residential development project on a total of 132 acres (Tang et al. 2016; see Attachment A; Figs. 1, 2). The scope of that study included a historical/archaeological resources records search, historical background research,Native American consultation, and an intensive-level field survey. Throughout the course of these research procedures, no "historical resources"were identified as a result of the study(ibid.:15). During the field survey,the remnants of three "jackrabbit homesteads"that were built in the late 1950s and abandoned shortly afterwards, including a concrete slab foundation and scattered building debris, were encountered within the boundaries of that study,but none of these features demonstrated any potential to be considered historically significant, and none of them was found within the current project area(ibid.:13-15). Tel: 909 824 6400 Fax: 909 824 6405 ii Cathedral City Quad.MyOma Quad.j.,..• V — u Qfi v iS uao 'S'.0 J @ors L`=. • N Y . \'' tiIt .yea G v• .N• 4e0 \.\\c‘Ni (TIP" u 01 0 n N •.�a� •° 29 29 f . .. p69 . 2$ l a ■ a4). • )14. -111 ;12 Vp fin• • • D NI Trailer Park — '''N • { I 9-n a api. 4 i Current project area Area covered by .'1 :rC the 2016 study 'J SCALE 1:24,000 I 1000 0 1000 2000 feet . • : • • • Figure 1. Current project area in relation to the area covered by the 2016 study. (Based on USGS Cathedral City and Myoma,Calif.,7.5' quadrangles, 1978/1981 editions) 2 a ra" ' 1 1,• r . ' •1 b 8 . . r. • Y,y _' tom,, /r A.l ••,r ,} _ r . -�--�r 1� '. _t_.�M �` �--. !J I - 3 i 7".�i7' dRt. ,y�L ...... G'e�a_fd�F tJ"D,iVe - -- ..,� • . � •rr ��1 = _ lik:' -Scholar a ,l ' 4 IL .- A =.\ • i,. :,,.. .. . 1 ,.... i s • . a ?fill . • • • • • - ' 1144 7 Pilo �fadow ,r �o v Ridge- !5tF • Golf Club • M • • a - "*� • • Woodward D,rive"'r'_ Current w ! . —`" \� project area ►• K ' ,' • + ,,. ,1 � `> Area covered by I rihniz the 2016 study 1 0 600 feet M rat • �ir''�' r _.�'� ` .4.,. 1Re 'r' ,_, r , r , I ....14,1„, Figure 2. Aerial view of the project area. 3 The present study was designed and implemented to update and reexamine the findings and conclusions of the 2016 study in relation to the current project area. Research procedures completed during this study include a review of data gathered during the 2016 study, a Sacred Lands Files search at the State of California Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC), and a field inspection of the project area. A summary of the methods and results of these procedures is presented below, along with the final conclusion of the study. Previous Cultural Resources Studies in the Project Vicinity Due to delays caused by facility closure during the COVID-19 pandemic, an updated records search could not be obtained in time for this study from the Eastern Information Center(EIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System. Instead, the results of the 2016 records search were consulted for pertinent information. Records obtained from the EIC at that time indicate that 22 cultural resources studies had been completed within a one-mile radius of the current project area prior to 2016, including a 2007 survey on the adjacent property to the west for the Riverside County Sheriff's station at that location today,but none of those studies covered any portion of the project area itself. The records further indicate that six cultural resources were previously identified within the one-mile radius, including three historical/archaeological sites and three isolates (i.e., localities with fewer than three artifacts), as listed below in Table 1. Two of the isolates were prehistoric (i.e.,Native American) in origin, each consisting of a single groundstone artifact, and both of them were found more than a half-mile from the project location. The third isolate dated to the historic period, as did all three of the sites. Other than the Southern Pacific (now Union Pacific) Railroad, the historic- period resources consisted predominantly of scattered refuse items, including those found at the site of the Thousand Palms Dry Camp on the railroad. None of these six cultural resources was located in the immediate vicinity of the project area, and thus none of them requires further consideration during this study. Table 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Scope of the Records Search Resource No. Recorded by/Date Description 33-003439 Various 1988-1999 Remains of Thousand Palms Dry Camp 33-009498 Various 1999-2005 Southern Pacific Railroad 33-015431 Cooley 2006 Isolate: granitic mano 33-015432 Eckhardt 2006 Isolate: blue glass insulator 33-024161 Wilson 2015 Isolate: granitic metate 33-024269 Goodwin 2015 Refuse scatter Land Use History of the Project Area Historical maps and aerial photographs consulted for this study show no evidence of any settlement or development activities within or adjacent to the project boundaries throughout the 1855-1972 era (GLO 1856; USGS 1904; 1941; 1958a; 1958b;NETR Online 1972). As late as 1972, a largely undisturbed desert landscape prevailed in and near the project area(NETR Online 1972). The first man-made feature in the immediate vicinity of the project area,present-day Gerald Ford Drive, came into being sometime between 1972 and 1996 (NETR Online 1996). 4 Development in the surrounding area began in earnest around the turn of the century,with the Shadow Ridge Golf Club to the west and the residential tract to the east present by 2002 and the neighborhood across Gerald Ford Drive developed gradually between 2006 and 2016 (NETR Online 1996-2016; Google Earth 1996-2016). The nearest development to the project location, the sheriff's station on the adjacent property, occurred in 2009-2011 (Google Earth 2009-2011). In the meantime, the project area has exhibited evidence of some disturbance since the beginning of the current century, especially on the western edge during the construction of the sheriff's station,but has remained undeveloped to the present time (Google Earth 2005-2019). Sacred Lands File Search On November 24, 2020, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the NAHC for information in the Sacred Lands File pertaining to any known Native American cultural resources in the project vicinity. In response,the NAHC reported in a letter dated December 1, 2020, that the Sacred Lands File identified no Native American cultural resources in or near the project area. Noting that the absence of specific site information would not necessarily indicate the absence of cultural resources, however, the NAHC recommended that local Native American groups be consulted for further information and provided a referral list of potential contacts. The NAHC's reply is attached to this report in Attachment B for reference by the City of Palm Desert in future government-to-government consultations with the pertinent tribal groups. Current Condition of the Project Area The field inspection of the project area was carried out on December 1, 2020, by CRM TECH field director Daniel Ballester, M.S. The survey was completed at a reconnaissance level by walking a series of parallel north-south transects spaced 30 meters (approximately 90 feet) apart. Ground visibility was excellent(90-100%) over the entire project area despite the scattered vegetation growth (Fig. 3). As in 2016, no historical/archaeological resources were encountered in the current project area during the field inspection. Evidence of previous ground disturbances was observed along the western project boundary as well as the northern boundary, where underground utility lines have been installed along the south side of Gerald Ford Drive. Conclusion and Recommendations In summary, the results of the 2016 study and of research procedures completed during this study have established that no "historical resources" are known to be present within the project area. Accordingly, CRM TECH presents the following recommendations to the City of Palm Desert: • The proposed Palm Desert Apartments Project will not cause a substantial adverse change to any known historical resources. • No further cultural resources investigation is necessary for the project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. • If buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. 5 f = ., - �� ,. -- . • Figure 3. Overview of the current condition of the project area. (Photograph taken on December 1,2020;view to the northwest) Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Should you have any questions or need additional information,please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, Bai "Tom" Tang, M.A. Principal, C References Cited GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1856 Plat map: Township No. 4 South Range No. 6 East, SBBM; surveyed in 1855-1856. Google Earth 1996-2019 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity; taken in 1996, 2002, 2004-2006, 2009, 2011-2013, and 2015-2019. Available through the Google Earth software. NETR(Nationwide Environmental Title Research) Online 1972-2016 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity; taken in 1972, 1996, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. http://www.historicaerials.com. 6 Tang, Bai "Tom," Terri Jacquemain, Daniel Ballester, and Laura Shaker 2016 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: Assessor's Parcel Numbers 694-300-001, -002, -005, -014, -015, and 694-310-002, -003, -006, -007, City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. (See Attachment A) USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1904 Map: Indio, Calif. (30', 1:125,000); surveyed in 1901. 1941 Map: Edom, Calif. (15', 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1941. 1958a Map: Cathedral City, Calif. (7.5', 1:24,000); aerial photographs taken in 1956. 1958b Map: Myoma, Calif (7.5', 1:24,000); aerial photographs taken in 1956, field-checked in 1958. 7 ATTACHMENT A 2016 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 694-300-001, -002, -005, -014, -015, and 694-310-002, -003, -006, -007 City of Palm Desert Riverside County, California For Submittal to: Planning Department City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Prepared for: John Snell Lewis Management Corp. 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 Prepared by: CRM TECH 1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite AB Colton, CA 92324 Bai "Tom" Tang, Principal Investigator Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator December 28, 2016 CRM TECH Contract No. 3147 Title: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: Assessor's Parcel Numbers 694-300-001, -002, -005, -014, -015, and 694-310-002, -003, -006, -007, City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Author(s): Bai "Tom" Tang, Principal Investigator/Historian Terri Jacquemain, Historian/Report Writer Daniel Ballester, Archaeologist/Field Director Nina Gallardo, Archaeologist/Native American Liaison Consulting Firm: CRM TECH 1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite AB Colton, CA 92324 (909) 824-6400 Date: December 28, 2016 For Submittal to: Planning Department City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 346-0611 Prepared for: John Snell Lewis Management Corp. 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 (909) 985-0971 Project Size: Approximately 132 acres USGS Quadrangle: Cathedral City and Myoma, Calif., 7.5' quadrangles (Section 32, T4S R6E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian) Keywords: Coachella Valley, western Colorado Desert; no "historical resources"/"tribal cultural resources"under CEQA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In November and December 2016, at the request of Lewis Management Corp., CRM TECH performed a cultural resources survey on approximately 132 acres of vacant land in the northwestern portion of the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. The project area consists of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 694-300-001, -002, -005, -014, -015, and 694-310-002, -003, -006, -007, located on the south side of Gerald Ford Drive and the west side of Portola Road, in the eastern half of Section 32, T4S R6E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. The study is part of the environmental review process for the proposed subdivision of the property for residential development. The City of Palm Desert, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any "historical resources," or "tribal cultural resources," as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the project area. In order to identify and evaluate such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/ archaeological resources records search, pursued historical background research, contacted Native American representatives, and carried out an intensive-level field survey of the entire project area. As a result of these research procedures, the remnants of three late-1950s "jackrabbit homesteads"were noted in eastern portion of the project area, but were found not to have the potential to be considered eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. No "historical resources" or "tribal cultural resources"have been identified within or adjacent to the project area. Based on these findings, CRM TECH recommends to the City of Palm Desert a determination of No Impact regarding cultural resources. No further cultural resources investigation is recommended for the project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. However, if buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i INTRODUCTION 1 SETTING 3 Current Natural Setting 3 Cultural Setting 5 Prehistoric Context 5 Ethnohistoric Context 5 Historic Context 6 RESEARCH METHODS 7 Records Search 7 Historical Background Research 7 Native American Participation 8 Field Survey 8 RESULTS AND FINDINGS 8 Records Search 8 Historical Background Research 10 Native American Participation 12 Field Survey 13 DISCUSSION 13 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 REFERENCES 15 APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications 18 APPENDIX 2: Correspondence with Native American Representatives 23 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project vicinity 1 Figure 2. Project area 2 Figure 3. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area 3 Figure 4. Aerial image of the project area 4 Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies 9 Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856 11 Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1901 11 Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941 11 Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1956-1958 11 Figure 10. Building debris in the project area 13 ii INTRODUCTION In November and December 2016, at the request of Lewis Management Corp., CRM TECH performed a cultural resources survey on approximately 132 acres of vacant land in the northwestern portion of the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California(Fig. 1). The project area consists of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 694-300-001, -002, -005, -014, -015, and 694-310-002, -003, -006, -007, located on the south side of Gerald Ford Drive and the west side of Portola Road, in the eastern half of Section 32, T4S R6E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian(Fig. 2). The study is part of the environmental review process for the proposed subdivision of the property for residential development. The City of Palm Desert, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any"historical resources,"or"tribal cultural resources," as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the project area. In order to identify and evaluate such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/archaeological resources records search, pursued historical background research, contacted Native American representatives, and carried out an intensive-level field survey of the entire project area. The following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and final conclusion of the study. Personnel who participated in the study are named in the appropriate sections below, and their qualifications are provided in Appendix 1. s . -', 41111Z.. 1 5-__:::1_,./J.r.r) L...40144. '. k '. 11'-'-'0 ,..1 'ilk Sk... '41211t, 11 ''),F\ 1 -.1%'---4; 5 Palm �pn - , —u se , 1 '�, ti,,u Pal s- layer % �[1 --•X ,. )4i\ aeT f14, -_f- Project � a� 4a Cemete Il0[15® f 1; 1 r y 1,.., ]‘ -, -location ? ,'-,,—,-_ _ \ /Op• u0 1dk I _'�y� I mo? frN ` a` 1 +s/ - ,�� AP •1,• _ '` 1. ^,f. ' III I La�,�ren- , — , f.„- Yi r _ _ - - -` Myoma t .-41 .44 Zi- /�a �,-A, � ��- ` I i` v� 11 6. { i ce+n r§t age I'•..` l * "�Aili�� F.t. lam' -, '� - I >, Im Desert r+ ..inn ) ,;63 Iiig,g lIII f� 4- ' o 1 K ? 14,,1111 , SCALE 1:250,000 a I I- I I Ra 0 5 10 miles , jq-'' MI - ' /J 'I ' I 1 � Coa.hell. lk Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS Santa Ana,Calif., 1:250,000 quadrangle [USGS 1979]) 1 v i. 4 Cathedral City Quad.l Myoma Quarl4 (-' V cI U °e° pay . p °* ,Q�O 6 °°t0 `iii _ !. r t u w a a P : ..11. Cl . 2g 29 . .. p '1 ,. 28 1 "fro q . • - Project • area N • \\,\N—I'' \\\' ask. i 1 • 4 !1 32 3 Q \ • . • • • __ ., • _ , Trailer Park - L • 0 �� ' e ii . • \ .. p SCALE 1:24,000 0 1/2 1 mile i 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000feet • • . • _ '.d! \ \ Ate_ !\ Figure 2. Project area. (Based on USGS Cathedral City and Myoma,Calif., 1:24,000 quadrangles [USGS 1978; 1981]) 2 SETTING CURRENT NATURAL SETTING The City of Palm Desert lies in the heart of the Coachella Valley, a northwest-southeast trending desert valley that constitutes the western end of the Colorado Desert. Dictated by this geographic setting, the climate and environment of the region are typical of the southern California desert country, marked by extremes in temperature and aridity. Temperatures in the region reach over 120 degrees Fahrenheit in summer, and dip to near freezing in winter. Average annual precipitation is less than five inches, and the average annual evaporation rate exceeds three feet. The 133-acre project area comprises an irregularly-shaped tract of open desert land located approximately a half-mile south of Interstate Highway 10, in an area on the northern edge of the City that is undergoing accelerated residential and commercial development in recent years (Figs. 3, 4). It is bounded by Gerald Ford Drive on the north and Portola Road on the east, and is surrounded mostly by existing residential neighborhoods on the north, east, and south, with a golf course to the west and a Riverside County Sheriff's station near the northwest corner(Fig. 4). The terrain is level in the northern and eastern portions of the project area, but features sand dunes near the center of the property and along the western boundary. Elevations in the project area range between 260 feet and 310 feet above mean sea level, inclining gently to the west. Soils consist of fine-to medium-grained sands, with imported gravel scattered along the western and eastern boundaries, at locations near past construction activities outside the project area. Vegetation consists of a sparse growth of creosote bushes, brittlebrush, wild mustard, and other small desert shrubs and grasses (Fig. 3). Scattered tamarisk trees, apparently the remnants of former windbreaks, are also observed on the property. __:_a_ _ -- _ - ,3e'i 1 ...ter„'..,_,, _-.. _ _ . _ __ _ ._-„---- :.-„----- , _.___ ___„_ _ _,_...„__ . ..,.,,,...„,....v___._=*_ ...,_ ____.„ _ , .....„,....._ N __ . - ,-....,__,..„, .,,, ..., PI --, -,7%-&-4.4"-'R-- - '''-'---.-_,---•-----(---:—.1:-....-4v' 041,'. . s-• y , -i:,- - I 14,-;:',...2, N.1":7'- -:IT i t,i, ^1=. '-'4- -:. '4" '': -••tt.A" —, '''>'`;',-.. ,1 '''-'-rt' ,.. i ' f , ,- ;or' 1. 4: ''A "., ,,, `..t. ..,5- 1:--, ..-„,,-.i, . ' ' -:;,- Yy r' � ,, i _.y 5 fit^ -, -c S ,3 'R'•.Y.c �-' : 1. -- ' F . .114 344„.ite% /I' ' a,' .1",4. '''''i ----7.:4.,p„viz ..,:.' 1', '„s et: 4, . '" • .' 1...-', ' 'Pov-:•'7".;-•--' -:.,---.4-1:; Nik i 11 � wi�ig?g� ,++^� Figure 3. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area,view to the south. (Photograph taken on November 8,2016) 3 V. 44--- Z I ' ' ';';:-.;_ti?,-i,j,-44 t i,ii,t'IC?, %1,,.. `, • `� lot 1., area Ark i . ;4v-14:: Gerald Ford Drive -, ` .. ~ - 1; Inn . 1� Pi y ram:' , t '- _ f 4?, \rt c i Marriott's Shadow Ridge College Drive lial . ill yr• CC t. , o � '. ■ ti P A F• '' ,TIVI_I-,_.. '`A.rrfT � � '`�1 . '. ' 1 - - 4- s..+.;:... __ ,_ ii, I x011 4r� i. - _ ' rrr'. 1:, :rt. + !CAM)! l� 4 ,.. , tST 1r � 'r A Y 4 t�[!-.I - --' Wks - ...•" _ h i7 r,'T1 tr _ ?In,. -1 _ - __ Frank Sinatra Drive r-. -_ 0 750 1500 feet - 1._ r ? tc., Figure 4. Aerial image of the project area. (Based on Google Earth 2016) 4 CULTURAL SETTING Prehistoric Context Numerous investigations on the history of cultural development in southern California have led researchers to propose a number of cultural chronologies for the desert regions. A specific cultural sequence for the Colorado Desert was offered by Schaefer(1994) on the basis of the many archaeological studies conducted in the area. The earliest time period identified is the Paleoindian (ca. 8,000 to 10,000-12,000 years ago), when"small, mobile bands" of hunters and gatherers, who relied on a variety of small and large game animals as well as wild plants for subsistence, roamed the region(ibid.:63). These small groups settled"on mesas and terraces overlooking larger washes" (ibid.:64). The artifact assemblage of that period typically consists of very simple stone tools, "cleared circles, rock rings, [and] some geoglyph types" (ibid.). The Early Archaic Period follows and dates to ca. 8,000 to 4,000 years ago. It appears that a decrease in population density occurred at this time and that the indigenous groups of the area relied more on foraging than hunting. Very few archaeological remains have been identified to this time period. The ensuing Late Archaic Period(ca. 4,000 to 1,500 years ago) is characterized by continued low population densities and groups of"flexible" sizes that settled near available seasonal food resources and relied on"opportunistic"hunting of game animals. Groundstone artifacts for food processing were prominent during this time period. The most recent period in Schaefer's scheme, the Late Prehistoric, dates from ca. 1,500 years ago to the time of the Spanish missions, and saw the continuation of the seasonal settlement pattern. Peoples of the Late Prehistoric Period were associated with the Patayan cultural pattern and relied more heavily on the availability of seasonal "wild plants and animal resources" (Schaefer 1994:66). It was during this period that brown and buff ware ceramics were introduced into the region. The shores of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, during times of its presence, attracted much settlement and resource procurement; but in times of the lake's desiccation around 1700, according to Schaefer (1994:66), the Native people moved away from its receding shores towards rivers, streams, and mountains. Numerous archaeological sites dating to this time period have been identified along the shoreline of Holocene Lake Cahuilla. Testing and mitigative excavations at these sites have recovered brown and buff ware ceramics, a variety of groundstone and projectile point types, ornaments, and cremations. Ethnohistoric Context The Coachella Valley is a historical center of Native American settlement, where U.S. surveyors noted large numbers of Indian villages and rancherias, occupied by the Cahuilla people, in the mid- 19th century. The Takic-speaking Cahuilla are generally divided by anthropologists into three groups, according to their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla of the San Gorgonio Pass-Palm Springs area, the Mountain Cahuilla of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilla Valley, and the Desert Cahuilla of the eastern Coachella Valley. The basic written sources on Cahuilla culture and history include Kroeber(1925), Strong(1929), and Bean (1978). The following ethnohistoric discussion is based primarily on these sources. 5 The Cahuilla did not have a single name that referred to an all-inclusive tribal affiliation. Instead, membership was in terms of lineages or clans. Each lineage or clan belonged to one of two main divisions of the people, known as moieties. Members of clans in one moiety had to marry into clans from the other moiety. Individual clans had villages, or central places, and territories they called their own, for purposes of hunting game, gathering food, or utilizing other necessary resources. They interacted with other clans through trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies. The Cahuilla people were primarily hunters and gatherers who exploited nearly all of the resources available in a highly developed seasonal mobility system. They were adapted to the arid conditions of the desert floor, the lacustral cycles of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, and the environments of the nearby mountains. When the lake was full, or nearly full, the Cahuilla would take advantage of the resources presented by the body of fresh water. Once the lake had desiccated, they utilized the available terrestrial resources. They also migrated to the higher elevations of the nearby mountains to take advantage of the resources and cooler temperatures available in that environment. The Cahuilla collected seeds, roots, fruits,berries, acorns, wild onions, piiion nuts, and mesquite and screw beans. Common game animals included deer, antelope, big horn sheep, rabbits, wood rats and, when Holocene Lake Cahuilla was present, fish and waterfowls. The Cahuilla hunted with throwing sticks, clubs, nets, traps, snares, as well as bows and arrow (Bean 1978; CSRI 2002). Common tools and utensils included manos and metates, mortars and pestles, hammerstones, fire drills, awls, arrow-straighteners, and stone knives and scrapers. These lithic tools were made from locally available material as well as exotic material procured through trade or travel. They also used wood, horn, and bone spoons and stirrers; baskets for winnowing, leaching, grinding, transporting, parching, storing, and cooking; and pottery vessels for carrying water, storage, cooking, and serving food and drink(ibid.). Population data prior to European contact are almost impossible to obtain, but estimates range from 3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons. During the 19th century, however, the Cahuilla population was decimated as a result of European diseases, most notably smallpox, for which the Native peoples had no immunity. Today, Native Americans of Pass or Desert Cahuilla heritage are mostly affiliated with one or more of the Indian reservations in and near the Coachella Valley, including Agua Caliente, Morongo, Cabazon, Torres Martinez, and Augustine. Historic Context In 1823-1825, Jose Romero, Jose Maria Estudillo, and Romualdo Pacheco became the first noted European explorers to travel through the Coachella Valley when they led a series of expeditions in search of a route to Yuma(Johnston 1987:92-95). Due to its harsh environment, few non-Indians ventured into the desert valley during the Mexican and early American periods, except those who traveled along the established trails. The most important of these trails was the Cocomaricopa Trail, an ancient Indian trading route that was "discovered"in 1862 by William David Bradshaw and known after that as the Bradshaw Trail (Gunther 1984:71; Ross 1992:25). In much of the Coachella Valley, this historic wagon road traversed a similar course to that of present-day State Route 111. During the 1860s-1870s, the Bradshaw Trail served as the main thoroughfare between coastal southern California and the Colorado River, until the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1876-1877 brought an end to its heyday(Johnston 1987:185). 6 Non-Indian settlement in the Coachella Valley began in the 1870s with the establishment of railroad stations along the Southern Pacific Railroad, and spread further in the 1880s after public land was opened for claims under the Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, and other federal land laws (Laflin 1998:35-36; Robinson 1948:169-171). Farming became the dominant economic activity in the valley thanks to the development of underground water sources, often in the form of artesian wells. Around the turn of the century, the date palm was introduced into the Coachella Valley, and by the late 1910s dates were the main agricultural crop and the tree an iconic image celebrating the region as the"Arabia of America" (Shields Date Gardens 1957). Then, starting in the 1920s, a new industry featuring equestrian camps, resorts, hotels, and eventually country clubs began to spread throughout the Coachella Valley, transforming it into southern California's premier winter retreat. The modern community of Palm Desert is located in the general vicinity of Sand Hole, an unreliable water hole on the Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail that has since vanished into obscurity(Johnston 1987:120). The community was founded in 1945-1946 by three brothers, Randall, Clifford, and Phil Henderson, who organized the Palm Desert Corporation to promote their new desert town (Gunther 1984:373-374). Following the footsteps of Palm Springs and other"cove communities" along Highway 111, such as Rancho Mirage and La Quinta, Palm Desert soon joined the ranks of winter resort towns favored by the rich and famous of the era, characterized by country clubs and golf courses. The Palm Desert post office was established in 1947, and in 1973, after four unsuccessful attempts, the community was officially incorporated as the 17th city in Riverside County(ibid.:374). RESEARCH METHODS RECORDS SEARCH On November 7, 2016, CRM TECH archaeologist Nina Gallardo completed the records search at the Eastern Information Center(EIC), University of California, Riverside, which is the State of California's official repository of cultural resources records for the County of Riverside. During the records search, Gallardo examined maps and records on file at the EIC for previously identified cultural resources and existing cultural resources reports within a one-mile radius of the project area. Previously identified cultural resources include properties designated as California Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, or Riverside County Landmarks, as well as those listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the California Historical Resources Inventory. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH Historical background research for this study was conducted by CRM TECH historians Bai "Tom" Tang and Terri Jacquemain on the basis of the following sources: • Published literature in local and regional history; • Archival records of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management(BLM), available at the BLM website; • Historic maps of the project vicinity, including U.S. General Land Office (GLO) land survey plat maps dated 1856 and U.S. Geological Survey(USGS) topographic maps dated 1904-1981, available at the Science Library of the University of California, Riverside, and the California Desert District of the BLM, located in Moreno Valley; 7 • Aerial photographs taken in 1972-2016, available at the NETR Online website and through the Google Earth software; • Online genealogical databases such as census records, marriage index, death index, military enlistment records, and newspaper clippings, available at ancestry.com, genealogybank.com, and myheritage.com. NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION On November 4, 2016, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California's Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC) for a records search in the commission's sacred lands file. On the same day, CRM TECH notified the Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the nearby Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the upcoming archaeological field survey and invited tribal participation. Following the NAHC's recommendations and previously established consultation protocol, on November 16 CRM TECH further contacted 34 representatives of local tribes in writing for additional information on potential Native American cultural resources that may be present in and near the project area. The correspondence between CRM TECH and the Native American representatives is attached to this report in Appendix 2. FIELD SURVEY On November 8, 2016, CRM TECH field director Daniel Ballester and project archaeologists Sal Boites and Amanda Lloyd carried out the field survey of the project area. The survey was completed on foot by walking a series of parallel north-south and east-west transects spaced 15 meters (approximately 50 feet) apart. In addition, the project area was also inspected from the air with the help of a DJI Phantom 3 Professional drone. Using these methods, the ground surface in the entire project area was systematically examined for any evidence of human activities dating to the prehistoric or historic period(i.e., 50 years or older). Ground visibility was excellent(90 to 100 percent) despite the sparse vegetation growth on the property. RESULTS AND FINDINGS RECORDS SEARCH According to EIC records, the project area had not been surveyed for cultural resources prior to this study and no historical/archaeological resources were previously recorded within the project boundary. Outside of the project area but within a one-mile radius, EIC records show a total of 25 previous studies on various tracts of land and linear features (Fig. 5), including a 2007 survey on the site of the sheriff's station adjacent to the project boundary(Sanka 2007). That survey did not find any cultural resources, and further determined the parcel's sensitivity for such resources to be low (ibid.:1). In all, roughly 30% of the land within the scope of the records search has been surveyed, which resulted in the identification of four historical/archaeological sites and four isolates—i.e., localities with fewer than three artifacts—within the one-mile radius (see Table 1). One of the sites and three of the isolates were of prehistoric—i.e.,Native American—origin. Closest to the project area among 8 '•',. Cathedral City Quad.'Myoma Quad.;79 v r 0523 Scope of 4317 4317 records °, search 1>271 0 8496 ‘.• %' /SC73 1189 4240 _ O= . 2$ 1189 • '°' 1271 *- 22 — 8587, 1 1$9 0.S� , 2282 ' 9171 ' $S. ; 7756� \'6723 ?i 36431 • 9017 .7'.4 i �� 7440 .\ \ 9016 ` 11• 'lb •\ 3643 •. , \--,,, .-. t 9017 N hry. . 32 3 CV css7. i 6566 \\\ I — A. ' _ Trailer Park i , 9279 7 1 c r 3625 4 1 Project area f-,. ; Areas previously p surveyed . . - ., ---) Linear surveys \ram. SCALE 1:24,000 1000 0 1000 2000 feet .(� Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies in the vicinity of the project area,listed by EIC file number. Locations of known historical/archaeological sites are not shown as a protective measure. 9 Table 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Scope of the Records Search Site No. Recorded by/Date Description 33-003439 Various 1988-1999 Remains of Thousand Palms Dry Camp 33-005080 Hogan and Moffitt 1993 Ceramic scatter 33-009498 Various 1999-2005 Southern Pacific/Union Pacific Railroad 33-012698 Doan and Hogan 1993 Isolate: ceramic sherd and mano fragment 33-015431 Cooley 2006 Isolate: granitic mano 33-015432 Eckhardt 2006 Isolate: blue glass insulator 33-024161 Wilson 2015 Isolate: granitic metate 33-024269 Goodwin 2015 Refuse scatter them was Site 33-005080, a ceramic scatter located 0.7 mile to the southeast. The isolates were described as a ceramic sherd and several groundstone artifacts. The other recorded sites and isolate identified through the records search dated to the historic period and included the Southern Pacific (now Union Pacific) Railroad, the remains of the Thousand Palms Dry Camp on the railroad, a refuse scatter, and a blue glass insulator. None of these sites or isolates was found in the immediate vicinity of the project area, and thus none of them requires further consideration during this study. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH Historical sources consulted for this study yielded no evidence of any settlement or development activities within the project area prior to the late 1950s. In 1855-1856, when the U.S. government conducted the earliest systematic land surveys in the Coachella Valley, no man-made features of any kind were observed in or near the project area (Fig. 6). During the early 20th century, the Southern Pacific Railroad, constructed in 1876-1877 about a half-mile away, remained the nearest man-made feature to the project location (Figs. 7, 8). By 1956-1958, three buildings had appeared in the eastern portion of the project area, evidently part of a wave of small tract claims on public land in the easternmost 160 acres of Section 32 (BLM n.d.; Fig. 9). Around that time, similar claims were made in large numbers in many areas of the Coachella Valley following post-WWII streamlining of the Small Tract Act of 1938, whereby the U.S. government granted to private owners five-acre homesteads in the southern California desert with the caveat that construction must occur within two years for a claim to remain valid. The resulting"jackrabbit homesteads," as they came to be known, were often hastily constructed using subpar materials and building practices, and were often abandoned soon afterwards or fell victim to the harsh climate (Bellisi n.d.; Verdin 2000). The three buildings in the project area were located on small tract claims filed by Leslie Roy Clarence, Clara Schoenberg, and Gerald Sidney Shapiro and approved by the U.S. government between 1957 and 1959 (BLM n.d.). Clarence, born in 1912 or 1913 in Kansas or Nebraska, depending on the source, was evidently living in San Bernardino with his wife and four children in 1940 and working as a timekeeper(Ancestry.com n.d.; Myheritage.com n.d.). He passed away in that city in 1960 (ibid.). Shapiro, then a resident in the Reseda area of Los Angeles, was born in 1925 in New York and passed away in Los Angeles in 1974 (Van Nuys News 1959; Ancestry.com n.d.). He may have enlisted in the U.S. Army Air Corps in 1943 (Ancestry.com n.d.). Due to the 10 R 60 ._ Project 9 57 area f �,(• >.; Projec S' t ,hr. area ryj�y. ,.& 1,6. Y_ l Lv� - — ��1�/ (r�lfl ay O q. a. T55 R5E1 J ' : 7: 4o N `46 �S'PL - SCALE 1.125 OOD 'a v 0 2000 4000 feet 4.04.,36' . . — 0 1 2 miles fret :. Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856. Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1901. (Source: (Source: GLO 1856a; 1856b) USGS 1904) 19 / — I !Cathedral City Quad. Myorna Quad. t N-.--- --+ - t P Projects` _ �.,�r � roject � area +• 30 \ area ` N. 26----1 , ` �, \ ti Camps, I_ \N 31 32 r i 32 L __ 3 < 6 5 4 F . Y . SCALE 1:62,500 SCALE 1:24,000 0 1 mile --- T T 0 1000 2000 feet Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941. (Source: Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1956-1958. USGS 1941) (Source:USGS 1958) 11 number of people with the same name in southern California at the time, the identity of Clara Schoenberg is unclear(ibid.). No other information was found on any of the three claimants. In 1972, the three buildings remained extant but had clearly been abandoned, as all of them stood isolated on the desert landscape and partially buried by shifting sands, and none of them was accompanied by roads or any other signs of human activities, much like the other"jackrabbit homesteads"in the surrounding area (NETR Online 1972). By 1996, when the first residential development on adjacent properties began to the south, the earlier buildings in and around the project area had been removed(NETR Online 1996). Since then, the entire project area has remained undeveloped to the present time, in contrast to the residential neighborhoods and the golf course that came into being on adjacent land during that period(NETR Online 1996-2012; Google Earth 1996-2016). NATIVE AMERICAN PARTICIPATION In response to CRM TECH's inquiry, the NAHC stated that the sacred lands record search identified no Native American cultural resources within the project area but recommended that local Native American groups be contacted for further information. For that purpose, the NAHC provided a list of potential contacts in the region(see App. 2). Upon receiving the NAHC's reply, CRM TECH sent written requests for comments to all 22 individuals on the referral list and the organizations they represent(see App. 2). In addition, as recommended by the appropriate tribal government staff, the following designated spokespersons for the tribes were also contacted: • David L. Saldivar, Tribal Government Affairs Manager, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians; • Andreas Heredia, Cultural Director, Cahuilla Band of Indians; • Raymond Huaute, Cultural Resource Specialist, Morongo Band of Mission Indians; • Gabriella Rubalcava, Environmental Director, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians; • Judy Stapp, Director of Cultural Affairs, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians; • Javaugh Miller, Tribal Administrator, La Posta Band of Dieguello Mission Indians; • John Perada, Environmental Director, Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupefio Indians; • John Gomez, Cultural Resource Coordinator, Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians; • John Flores, Environmental Coordinator, San Pasqual Band of Dieguello Mission Indians; • Lisa Haws, Cultural Resource Manager, Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation; • Julie Hagen, Environmental Coordinator, Viejas Band of Mission Indians; • Desiderio "Desi"Vela, Environmental Program Manager, Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians. As of this time, three tribal representatives have responded in writing(see App. 2). Among them, Judy Stapp of the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians found the project location to be within the tribe's traditional use area, but stated that the tribe had no specific information on any sites of Native American cultural value in the vicinity. Steven Estrada, Chairman of the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, stated that he had no concerns and deferred further consultation to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Katie Croft, Archaeologist with the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office, also identified the project location as a part of her tribe's traditional use area. She requested copies of all 12 cultural resources documentation generated in connection to the proposed project, including this report, for tribal review. In addition, she requested Native American monitoring during ground disturbances in the project area to ensure that the proper procedures be observed should any buried cultural remains be discovered. FIELD SURVEY The field survey encountered remnants of the three buildings noted in the eastern portion of the project area in the 1950s-1970s, including a 30x20-foot concrete slab foundation with protruding metal pipes (Fig. 10) and scattered building debris such as roof shingles, broken lumber, rusted nails, and pieces of metal flashing. No other artifacts were found at these locations in association with the structural remains. Elsewhere in the project area, it was noted that the ground surface on the edges of the property had been disturbed in the past by the adjacent development, especially along southern, eastern, and northern boundaries. In the western portion of the project area, a small amount of modern refuse was observed on the surface, consisting mainly of building debris and household discards, but none of the items was of any historical/archaeological interest. DISCUSSION The purpose of this study is to identify any cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area, and to assist the City of Palm Desert in determining whether such resources meet the official definition of"historical resources,"or"tribal cultural resources," as provided in the California !- Y .; _ f f i Figure 10. Building debris from a`jackrabbit homestead"formerly located in the project area. (Photograph taken November 8,2016) 13 Public Resources Code, in particular CEQA. According to PRC §5020.1(j), "`historical resource' includes, but is not limited to, any object,building, site, area,place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California." More specifically, CEQA guidelines state that the term"historical resources" applies to any such resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, included in a local register of historical resources, or determined to be historically significant by the lead agency(Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)-(3)). Regarding the proper criteria for the evaluation of historical significance, CEQA guidelines mandate that"generally a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be `historically significant' if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources" (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria: (1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. (2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1(c)) For"tribal cultural resources,"PRC §21074, enacted and codified as part of a 2014 amendment to CEQA through Assembly Bill 52,provides the statutory definition as follows: "Tribal cultural resources" are either of the following: (1) Sites, features,places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following: (A)Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources. (B)Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision(k) of Section 5020.1. (2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision(c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. In summary of the research results presented above, the only cultural remains from the prehistoric or historic period observed within or adjacent to the project area were the remnants of three "jackrabbit homesteads"that were built in the late 1950s and abandoned shortly afterwards, including a concrete slab foundation and scattered building debris. Resulting from the many small tract claims filed on desert land in the post-WWII era, such structural remains are a common occurrence in the Coachella Valley. Dating only to the late historic period, with no associated artifact deposits, and with little 14 historic fabric surviving to relate to their period of origin, these minor structural remains demonstrate little potential for historic significance. Furthermore, a survey of historical records on the persons presumed to be responsible for their presence in the project area identified no figures of known significance. Based on these considerations, the present study concludes that the structural remains found in the project area have no potential to be considered eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, and do not warrant formal recordation into the California Historical Resources Inventory. As such, they do not qualify as "historical resources" or"tribal cultural resources" as defined above. Since no other cultural remains from the prehistoric or historic period were encountered, this study further concludes that no "historical resources" or"tribal cultural resources" exist within or adjacent to the project area. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CEQA establishes that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a "historical resource" or a "tribal cultural resource" is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment(PRC §21084.1-2). "Substantial adverse change," according to PRC §5020.1(q), "means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired." As stated above, the remnants of three late-1950s "jackrabbit homesteads"were noted in eastern portion of the project area,but were found not to have the potential to be considered eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. Therefore, no "historical resources"or"tribal cultural resources," as defined by CEQA, are known to be present within or adjacent to the project area. Based on these findings, CRM TECH presents the following recommendations to the City of Palm Desert: • The proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change to any known"historical resources" or"tribal cultural resources." • No further cultural resources investigation is necessary for the project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. • If buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. REFERENCES Ancestry.com n.d. Genealogical records on Leslie Roy Clarence, Clara Schoenberg, and Gerald Sidney Shapiro. http://www.ancestry.com/. Bean, Lowell John 1978 Cahuilla. In Robert F. Heizer(ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California; pp. 575-587. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 15 Bellisi, Lou n.d. BLM and the Small Tract Act in the Southern California Desert: A Brief History. http://www.publicland.org/3 5_archives/documents/doc_13 06_bellesi.html. BLM (Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior) n.d. Online database of U.S. land patents. http://www.glorecords.blm.gov. CSRI (Cultural Systems Research, Inc.) 2002 The Native Americans of Joshua Tree National Park: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment Study. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/jotr/history6.htm. GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1856a Plat map: Township No. 4 South Range No. 5 East, San Bernardino Meridian; surveyed in 1855-1856. 1856b Plat map: Township No. 4 South Range No. 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian; surveyed in 1855-1856. Google Earth 1996-2016 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity. Available through the Google Earth software. Gunther, Jane Davies 1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. J. D. Gunther, Riverside. Johnston, Francis J. 1987 The Bradshaw Trail; revised edition. Historical Commission Press, Riverside. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Laflin, Patricia 1998 Coachella Valley California:A Pictorial History. The Donning Company, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Myheritage.com n.d. Leslie Roy Clarence, 1913-1960. https://www.myheritage.com/names/leslie_clarence. NETR Online 1972-1996 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity. http://www.historicaerials.com. Robinson, W. W. 1948 Land in California. University of California Press, Berkeley. Ross, Delmer G. 1992 Gold Road to La Paz:An Interpretive Guide to the Bradshaw Trail. Tales of the Mojave Road Publishing Company, Essex, California. Sanka, Jennifer M. 2007 Phase I Culturral Resources Assessment: Palm Desert Sheriff Station, Project FM08250003764, Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. Report on file (RI-7440), Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Schaefer, Jerry 1994 The Challenge of Archaeological Research in the Colorado Desert: Recent Approaches and Discoveries. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16(1):60-80. Shields Date Gardens 1957 Coachella Valley Desert Trails and the Romance and Sex Life of the Date. Shields Date Gardens, Indio. 16 Strong, William Duncan 1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 26. Reprinted by Malki Museum Press, Banning, California, 1972. USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1904 Map: Indio, Calif. (30', 1:125,000); surveyed in 1901. 1941 Map: Edom, Calif (15', 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1941. 1958 Map: Thousand Palms, Calif. (15', 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1951-1956, field-checked in 1958. 1978 Map: Myoma, Calif. (7.5', 1:24,000); 1958 edition photorevised in 1972, photoinspected in 1978. 1979 Map: Santa Ana, Calif (1:250,000); 1959 edition revised. 1981 Map: Cathedral City, Calif (7.5', 1:24,000); 1958 edition photorevised in 1978. Van Nuys News, The 1959 Pair Recite Nuptial Vows. December 17:110. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/ 22790141/. Verdin, Tom 2000 Homesteader Legacy Leaves Desert Littered with Abandoned Shacks. The Los Angeles Times November 5. 17 APPENDIX 1: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/HISTORIAN Bai "Tom" Tang,M.A. Education 1988-1993 Graduate Program in Public History/Historic Preservation, UC Riverside. 1987 M.A., American History, Yale University,New Haven, Connecticut. 1982 B.A., History,Northwestern University, Xi'an, China. 2000 "Introduction to Section 106 Review,"presented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the University of Nevada, Reno. 1994 "Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites,"presented by the Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno. Professional Experience 2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1993-2002 Project Historian/Architectural Historian, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1993-1997 Project Historian, Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California. 1991-1993 Project Historian, Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside. 1990 Intern Researcher, California State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 1990-1992 Teaching Assistant, History of Modern World, UC Riverside. 1988-1993 Research Assistant, American Social History, UC Riverside. 1985-1988 Research Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1985-1986 Teaching Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1982-1985 Lecturer, History, Xi'an Foreign Languages Institute, Xi'an, China. Honors and Awards 1988-1990 University of California Graduate Fellowship, UC Riverside. 1985-1987 Yale University Fellowship, Yale University Graduate School. 1980, 1981 President's Honor List, Northwestern University, Xi'an, China. Cultural Resources Management Reports Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations Regarding California's Cultural Resources Inventory System (With Special Reference to Condition 14 of NPS 1990 Program Review Report). California State Office of Historic Preservation working paper, Sacramento, September 1990. Numerous cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit, Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991. 18 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ARCHAEOLOGIST Michael Hogan, Ph.D., RPA* Education 1991 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 1981 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside; with honors. 1980-1981 Education Abroad Program, Lima, Peru. 2002 Section 106—National Historic Preservation Act: Federal Law at the Local Level. UCLA Extension Course #888. 2002 "Recognizing Historic Artifacts,"workshop presented by Richard Norwood, Historical Archaeologist. 2002 "Wending Your Way through the Regulatory Maze," symposium presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals. 1992 "Southern California Ceramics Workshop,"presented by Jerry Schaefer. 1992 "Historic Artifact Workshop,"presented by Anne Duffield-Stoll. Professional Experience 2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1999-2002 Project Archaeologist/Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside. 1996-1998 Project Director and Ethnographer, Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands. 1992-1998 Assistant Research Anthropologist, University of California, Riverside 1992-1995 Project Director, Archaeological Research Unit, U. C. Riverside. 1993-1994 Adjunct Professor, Riverside Community College, Mt. San Jacinto College, U.C. Riverside, Chapman University, and San Bernardino Valley College. 1991-1992 Crew Chief, Archaeological Research Unit, U. C. Riverside. 1984-1998 Archaeological Technician, Field Director, and Project Director for various southern California cultural resources management firms. Research Interests Cultural Resource Management, Southern Californian Archaeology, Settlement and Exchange Patterns, Specialization and Stratification, Culture Change,Native American Culture, Cultural Diversity. Cultural Resources Management Reports Author and co-author of, contributor to, and principal investigator for numerous cultural resources management study reports since 1986. Memberships * Register of Professional Archaeologists; Society for American Archaeology; Society for California Archaeology; Pacific Coast Archaeological Society; Coachella Valley Archaeological Society. 19 PROJECT HISTORIAN/REPORT WRITER Terri Jacquemain, M.A. Education 2004 M.A., Public History and Historic Resource Management, University of California, Riverside. • M.A. thesis: Managing Cultural Outreach, Public Affairs and Tribal Policies of the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Indio, California; internship served as interim Public Information Officer, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, June- October, 2002. 2002 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 2001 Archaeological Field School, University of California, Riverside. 1991 A.A., Riverside Community College,Norco Campus. Professional Experience 2003- Historian/Architectural Historian/Report Writer, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. • Author/co-author of legally defensible cultural resources reports for CEQA and NHPA Section 106; • Historic context development, historical/archival research, oral historical interviews, consultation with local communities and historical organizations; • Historic building surveys and recordation, research in architectural history; architectural description 2002-2003 Teaching Assistant, Religious Studies Department, University of California, Riverside. 2002 Interim Public Information Officer, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians. 2000 Administrative Assistant,Native American Student Programs, University of California, Riverside. 1997-2000 Reporter,Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Ontario, California. 1991-1997 Reporter, The Press-Enterprise, Riverside, California. Membership California Preservation Foundation 20 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/FIELD DIRECTOR Daniel Ballester, M.S. Education 2013 M.S., Geographic Information System(GIS), University of Redlands, California. 1998 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino. 1997 Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of California, Riverside. 1994 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico. 2007 Certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), California State University, San Bernardino. 2002 "Historic Archaeology Workshop,"presented by Richard Norwood, Base Archaeologist, Edwards Air Force Base; presented at CRM TECH, Riverside, California. Professional Experience 2002- Field Director/GIS Specialist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1999-2002 Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego, California. 1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas, California. 1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/NATIVE AMERICAN LIAISON Nina Gallardo,B.A. Education 2004 B.A., Anthropology/Law and Society, University of California, Riverside. Professional Experience 2004- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. Honors and Awards 2000-2002 Dean's Honors List, University of California, Riverside. 21 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST Salvadore Boites,M.A. Education 2013 M.A., Applied Anthropology, California State University, Long Beach. 2003 B.A., Anthropology/Sociology, University of California, Riverside. Professional Experience 2003- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 2010-2011 Adjunct Instructor, Anthropology etc., Everest College, Anaheim, California. 2001-2002 Teaching Assistant, Moreno Elementary School, Moreno Valley, California. 1999-2003 Research Assistant, Anthropology Department, University of California, Riverside. PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST Amanda Lloyd, B.A. Education 2013 Certificate of Completion, Maritime Archaeology, Sanisera Field School,Port Sanitja Survey,Menorca, Spain. 2010 B.A.,Anthropology(minor in Archaeology),summa cum laude, Biola University, La Mirada, California. 2009 Certificate of Completion, Field Archaeology, Balkan Heritage Field School,Heraclea Lyncestis Excavation,Bitola,Macedonia. Professional Experience 2016- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Colton, California. 2012- Paleontological/Cultural Resource Monitor and Surveyor, ECORP Consulting, Inc., Stantec Consulting Services, and Cogstone Resource Management . 2009-2010 Teaching Assistant(lab supervisor and co-lecturer),Physical Anthropology and Lab and Field Methods in Archeology, Biola University, La Mirada, California. 2008- Site and lab supervisor for mammoth excavation site Biola 2001-1, La Mirada, California 22 APPENDIX 2 CORRESPONDENCE WITH NATIVE AMERICAN REPRESENTATIVES* *A total of 34 local Native American representatives were contacted;a sample letter is included in this report. 23 SACRED LANDS FILE & NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACTS LIST REQUEST NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 (916)373-3710 (916)373-5471 Fax nahc@pacbell.net Project: Lewis Homes Project; APNs 694-300-001, -014, 694-310-002, -003, and -006 (CRM TECH Contract No. 3147) County: Riverside USGS Quadrangle Name: Cathedral City and Myoma, Calif. Township 4 South Range 6 East SB BM; Section(s) 32 Company/Firm/Agency: CRM TECH Contact Person: Nina Gallardo Street Address: 1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B City: Colton, CA Zip: 92324 Phone: (909) 824-6400 Fax: (909) 824-6405 Email: ngallardo@crmtech.us Project Description: The primary component of the project is to construct a residential community on 130 acres of land (APNs 694-300-001 and -014 and 694-310-002, -003, and -006) located southwest of the corner of Portola Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive in the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. November 4, 2016 From: Nina Gallardo <ngallardo@crmtech.us> Sent: Friday,November 4, 2016 10:57 AM To: Agua Caliente Trail Historic Preservation Office (ACBCI-THPO@aguacaliente.net); Katherine Eskew(TRBL) (kcroft@aguacaliente.net); vharvey@aguacaliente. net (vharvey@aguacaliente.net) Subject: Cultural Resources Study&Participation in Fieldwork for the Lewis Homes Project; APNs 694-300-001, -014, 694-310-002, -003, and -006 in the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California(CRM TECH No. 3147) Hello, I'm emailing to inform you that CRM TECH will be conducting a cultural resources study for the Lewis Homes Project on APNs 694-300-001, -014, 694-310-002, -003, and-006 in the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California(CRM TECH No. 3147). I'm contacting you to see if the tribe would like to participate in the field survey for the project and we will contact the tribe again when we have a specific time and date for the fieldwork. CRM TECH would appreciate any information regarding the project area. We will be sending an NA scoping letter with additional information in a few weeks. I'm attaching the proposed project area map and other information. Thank you for your time and input on this project. Nina Gallardo (909) 824-6400 (phone) (909) 824-6405 (fax) CRM TECH 1016 E. Cooley Drive, Ste. A/B Colton, CA 92324 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Exlmmd G.bxown,Jr„Gov®rear NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 1550 Harbor Blvd.,Suite 100 West Sacramento,CA 95691 (916)373-3710 (916)373-5471 FAX November, 2016 Nina Gallardo CRM Tech Sent by E-mail: ngallardo©crmtech.us RE: Proposed Lewis Homes Project;APNs 694-300-001, -014, 694-310-002, -003, and -006 (CRM Tech Contract No. 3147) Project, City of Palm Desert; Cathedral City and Myoma USGS Quadrangles, Riverside County, California Dear Ms. Gallardo: Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the above referenced counties. Please note that the intent of the reference codes below is to avoid or mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, as defined, for California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) projects under AB-52. As of July 1, 2015, Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 and 21080.3.2 require public agencies to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources: Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of,traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice,which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location,the lead agency contact Information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section. (Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(d)) The law does not preclude agencies from initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated with their jurisdictions. The NAHC believes that in fact that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes are consulted commensurate with the intent of the law. In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(d),formal notification must include a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation, The NAHC believes that agencies should also include with their notification letters information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the APE, such as: 1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to: • A listing of any and all known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE; • Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; ■ If the probability is low, moderate,or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the potential APE; and 1° If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. 2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including: ■ Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measurers. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure in accordance with Government Code Section 6254.10. 3. The results of any Sacred Lands File (SFL) check conducted through Native American Heritage Commission.A search of the SFL was completed for the project with negative results. 4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the potential APE; and 5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the potential APE. Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS is not exhaustive, and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a cultural place. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource. This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the case that they do, having the information beforehand well help to facilitate the consultation process. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance we are able to assure that our consultation list contains current information. If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: gayle.totton@nahc.ca.gov_ Sincerely, A. / ‘ 7X ._ 4YJ:éotton, M.A., PhD. .sociate Governmental Program Analyst Native American Contact List Riverside County November 10, 2016 Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians Viejas sand of Mission Indians of the Viejas Reservation Robert Pinto Sr., Chairperson Robert J. Welch, Jr., Chairperson 4054 Willows Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay 1 Viejas Grade Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay I Alpine , CA 91901 Alpine , CA 91901 (619) 445-6315 jhagen@viejas-nsn.gov (619) 445-9126 Fax (619) 445-3810 (619) 445-5337 Fax La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson Doug Welmas, Chairperson 8 Crestwood Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay 84-245 Indio Springs Parkway Cahuilla Boulevard , CA 91905 Indio , CA 92203 LP13boots@aol.com (760) 342-2593 (619) 478-2113 (619) 478-2125 Fax (760) 347-7880 Fax Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Leroy J. Elliott, Chairperson Ralph Goff, Chairperson P.O. Box 1302 Diegueno/Kumeyaay 36190 Church Road, Suite 1 Diegueno/Kumeyaay Boulevard , CA 91905 Campo , CA 91906 (619) 766-4930 rgoff@campo-nsn.gov (619) 478-9046 (619) 766-4957 Fax (619) 478-5818 Fax San Pasqua) Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Jamul Indian Village of California Allen E. Lawson, Chairperson Erica Pinto, Chairperson P.O. Box 365 Diegueno P.O. Box 612 Diegueno/Kumeyaay , Valley Center , CA 92082 Jamul , CA 91935 allenl@sanpasqualtribe.org (619) 669-4785 (760) 749-3200 (619) 669-4817 (760) 749-3876 Fax Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians Cody J. Martinez, Chairperson Shane Chapparosa, Chairman 1 Kwaaypaay Court Diegueno/Kumeyaay P.O. Box 189 Cahuilla El Cajon , CA 92019 Warner Springs , CA 92086 ssilva@sycuan-nsn.gov Chapparosa@msn.com (619) 445-2613 (760) 782-0711 (619) 445-1927 Fax (760) 782-0712 Fax This list is current only as of the date of this document and la booed on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of this lint does not relieve any person or agency of statutory reeponeibility as defined in Public Resourcee Code Sections 21080.3.1 Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5087.98 of the Public Resources Code. This fiat is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed Lewis Homes Project;APNe 694 -300-001,-014,694-310-002,-003,and-006 Project;City of Palm Desert, Riversldo County,California. Native American Contact List Riverside County November 10, 2016 Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Morongo Band of Mission Indians Virgil Oyos, Chairperson Robert Martin, Chairperson P.O Box 270 Diegueno 12700 Pumarra Rroad Cahuilla Santa Ysabel , CA 92070 Banning , CA 92220 Serrano mesagrandeband @msn.com (951) 849-8807 (760) 782-3818 (951) 755-5200 (951) 922-8146 Fax (760) 782-9092 Fax Ramona Band of Cahuilla Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Daniel Salgado, Chairman Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director, THPO P.O. Box 391670 Cahuilla 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Cahuilla Anza , CA 92539 Palm Springs , CA 92264 adm in @ramonatribe.com ACBCI-THPO@aguacaliente.net (951) 763-4105 (760) 699-6907 (760) 567-3761 Cell (951) 763-4325 Fax (760) 699-6924 Fax Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians Steven Estrada, Chairman Luther Salgado, Chairperson P.O. Box 391820 Cahuilla 52701 U. S. Highway 371 Cahuilla Anza , CA 92539 Anza , CA 92539 (951) 659-2700 Chairman@cahuilla.net (951) 763-5549 (951) 659-2228 Fax (951) 763-2808 Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Amanda Vance, Chairperson Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Department P.O. Box 846 Cahuilla P.O. BOX 487 Luiseno Coachella , CA 92236 San Jacinto , CA 92581 Cahuilla (760) 398-4722 jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov (760) 369-7161 Fax (951) 663-5279 (951) 654-5544, ext 4137 (951) 654-4198 Fax Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians lipay Nation of Santa Ysabel Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson Virgil Perez, Chairperson 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Cahuilla P.O. Box 130 Diegueno/Kumeyaay Palm Springs , CA 92264 Santa Ysabel , CA 92070 (760) 699-6800 (760) 765-0845 (760) 699-6919 Fax (760) 765-0320 Fax This list is current only as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person or agency of statutory responsibility as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 21090.3.1 Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097,99 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed Lewis Homes Project;APNs 694 -300-001,-014,694-310-002,-003,and-006 Project;City of Palm Desert,Riverside County,California. Native American Contact List Riverside County November 10, 2016 Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Michael Mirelez, Cultural Resource Coordinator P.O. Box 1160 Cahuilla Thermal CA 92274 mmirelez@tmdci.org (760) 399-0022, Ext. 1213 (760) 397-8146 Fax Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson 4054 Willows Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay Alpine , CA 91901 michaelg@leaningrock.net (619) 445-6315 (619) 445-9126 Fax This list is current only as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of thie list does not relieve any person or agency of statutory responsibility as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list Is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed Lewis Homes Project;APNs 694 -300-001,-014,694-310-002,-003,and-006 Project;City of Palm Desert, Riverside County,California. November 16, 2016 Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Palm Springs, CA 92264 RE: Lewis Homes Project APNs 694-300-001, -014, 694-310-002, -003, and-006 130 Acres in the City of Palm Desert Riverside County, California CRM TECH Contract#3147 Dear Ms. Garcia-Plotkin: I am writing to bring your attention to an ongoing CEQA-compliance study for the proposed project referenced above. The project entails the construction of a residential community on approximately 130 acres of undeveloped land located southwest of the corner of Portola Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive. The accompanying map, based on the USGS Cathedral City and Myoma, Calif., 7.5' quadrangles, depicts the location of the project area in Section 32, T4S R6E, SBBM. According to records on file at the Eastern Information Center(EIC), there are no known historical/ archaeological sites within the boundaries of the project area. Outside the project boundaries but within a one-mile radius, EIC records show that four historical/archaeological sites and four isolates —i.e., localities with fewer than three artifacts—were previously recorded. One of these known sites and three of the isolates were of prehistoric—i.e., Native American—origin. Closest to the project area among them was Site 33-005080 (CA-RIV-5080), a ceramic scatter located 0.7 mile southeast of the project area. The three isolates were described as a ceramic sherd, a mano fragment, a bifacial mano, and a granitic metate. The other three sites and one isolate dated to the historic period and included the Southern Pacific (now Union Pacific) Railroad, a refuse scatter, the remains of the Thousand Palms Dry Camp, and a single blue glass insulator. During an intensive-level field survey conducted on November 8, 2016, no potential historical/ archaeological resources were encountered within or adjacent to the project area. The project area has been disturbed in the past during adjacent residential construction along the southern, eastern, and northern boundaries and a Riverside County sheriffs station built to the west. In a letter dated November 10, 2016, the Native American Heritage Commission reports that the sacred lands record search identified no Native American cultural resources within the project area, but recommends that local Native American groups be contacted for further information(see attached). Therefore, as part of the cultural resources study for this project, I am writing to request your input on potential Native American cultural resources in or near the project area. Please respond at your earliest convenience if you have any specific knowledge of sacred/religious sites or other sites of Native American traditional cultural value in or near the project area to consider as part of the cultural resources investigation. Any information or concerns may be forwarded to CRM TECH by telephone, e-mail, facsimile, or standard mail. Requests for documentation or information we cannot provide will be forwarded to our client and/or the lead agency, namely the City of Palm Desert. We would also like to clarify that CRM TECH, as the cultural resources consultant for the project, is not the appropriate entity to initiate government-to-government consultations or the AB 52- compliance process. Nevertheless,pursuant to the Public Resources Code, "[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment," and as such, tribal consultation is an avenue pursued in cultural resources investigations in compliance CEQA guidelines. We thank you for your time and effort in addressing this important matter. Nina Gallardo Project Archaeologist/Native American liaison CRM TECH Email: ngallardo@crmtech.us Encl.: NAHC response letter and project location map From: Steven Estrada<SEstrada@santarosacahuilla-nsn.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 9:44 AM To: Nina Gallardo Cc: Pattie Tuck Subject: Re: NA Scoping Letter for the Lewis Homes Project; APNs 694-300-001, -014, 694-310- 002, -003, and-006; City of Palm Desert, Riverside County(CRM TECH# 3147) Good morning Nina, Thank you for your consultation efforts. At this time, the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians does not have any specific concerns regarding cultural resources at the project area described. We defer further consultation to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Thank you, Steven Estrada ‘,.►► V OF Ise/y 4N Wi ► A.A.0 * * *�►Iildio.•C P'.44 November 21, 2016 Nina Gallardo CRM TECH 1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B Colton, CA 92324 Re.: Lewis Homes Project APNs 694-300-001, -014, 694-310-002, -003, and -006 130 Acres in the City of Palm Desert Riverside County, California CRM TECH Contract#3147 Dear Ms. Gallardo: Thank you for contacting the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians concerning cultural resource information relative to the above referenced project. The project is located outside of the Tribe's current reservation boundaries but within an area that may be considered a traditional use area. The Tribe has no specific archival information on the site indicating that it may he a sacred/religious site or other site of Native American traditional cultural value within the project area. The Cabazon Band suggests,however,there be an archaeologist on site during all ground disturbing activities to monitor for the discovery of unknown cultural resources. We look forward to continued collaboration in the preservation of cultural resources or areas of traditional cultural importance. Best regards, Judy Stapp Director of Cultural Affairs JAIIA\VA AAA Al-IA AVT /AVIA\ A\/A\/A /A Al-1.�1 84-245 INDIO SPRINGS PARKWAY • INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92203-3499 • 760.342.2593 • FAX: 760.347.7880 AQUA CAUENTE BAND OF CAHURLA INDIANS' 1111111 TRUBAL Nisi-owe Nisi-owe PRESE{#VATFON December 07, 2016 03 026 2016 004 [VIA EMAIL TO:ngallardo@crmtech.us] CRM TECH Ms.Nina Gallardo 1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B Colton, CA 92324 Re: Lewis Homes Dear Ms. Nina Gallardo, The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the Lewis Homes project. The project area is not located within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation. However, it is within the Tribe's Traditional Use Area(TUA). For this reason, the ACBCI THPO requests the folliowing: *Copies of any cultural resource documentation(report and site records) generated in connection with this project. *The presence of an approved Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist(Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary,prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office. Again,the Agua Caliente appreciates your interest in our cultural heritage. If you have questions or require additional information,please call me at (760)699-6829. You may also email me at acbci-thpo@aguacaliente.net. Cordially, iferkz Cif Katie Croft Archaeologist Tribal Historic Preservation Office AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS 5401 DINAH SNORE DRIVE, PALM SFRINGs, CA 52264 7 75G16B9/6800 F 760169A.1dg30r4 WWW A.GUAGALIENT£-l1$#M .GOV ATTACHMENT B NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH RESULT ,i, 1CAv• STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom,Governor R �� Q. NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION ‘ 1 Alf December 1, 2020 ►'���+ Nina Gallardo CRM TECH CHAIRPERSON Laura Miranda Via Email to: ngallardo@crmtech.us Luiseno VICE CHAIRPERSON Re: Palm Desert Apartments Project, Riverside County Reginald Pagaling Chumash Dear Ms. Gallardo: SECRETARY Merri Lopez-Keifer A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) Luiseno was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not PARLIAMENTARIAN indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural Russell Attebery resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites. Karuk Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources COMMISSIONER in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential Marshall McKay adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; Wintun if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed,your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to COMMISSIONER consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of William Mungary notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to Paiute/White Mountain ensure that the project information has been received. Apache If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify COMMISSIONER me. With your assistance,we can assure that our lists contain current information. Julie Tumamait- Stenslie Chumash If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: Andrew.Green@nahc.ca.gov. COMMISSIONER [Vacant] Sincerely, COMMISSIONER [Vacant] 6tY1,0tite-Ar /14Ite/h EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Christina Snider Andrew Green Porno Cultural Resources Analyst Attachment NAHC HEADQUARTERS 1550 Harbor Boulevard Suite 100 West Sacramento, California 95691 (916) 373-3710 nahc@nahc.ca.gov NAHC.ca.gov Page 1 of 1 Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List Riverside County 12/1/2020 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla Indians and Cupeno Indians Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director Shane Chapparosa, Chairperson 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Cahuilla P.O. Box 189 Cahuilla Palm Springs, CA, 92264 Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189 Phone: (760) 699 -6907 Phone: (760) 782 - 0711 Fax: (760) 699-6924 Fax: (760) 782-0712 ACBCI-THPO@aguacaliente.net Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Morongo Band of Mission Indians Indians Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson Robert Martin, Chairperson 5401 Dinah Shore Drive Cahuilla 12700 Pumarra Road Cahuilla Palm Springs, CA, 92264 Banning, CA, 92220 Serrano Phone: (760) 699 -6800 Phone: (951) 849 - 8807 Fax: (760) 699-6919 Fax: (951) 922-8146 dtorres@morongo-nsn.gov Augustine Band of Cahuilla Morongo Band of Mission Mission Indians Indians Amanda Vance, Chairperson Denisa Torres, Cultural Resources P.O. Box 846 Cahuilla Manager Coachella, CA, 92236 12700 Pumarra Road Cahuilla Phone: (760) 398 -4722 Banning, CA, 92220 Serrano Fax: (760) 369-7161 Phone: (951) 849 - 8807 hhaines@augustinetribe.com Fax: (951) 922-8146 dtorres@morongo-nsn.gov Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Doug Welmas, Chairperson Reservation 84-245 Indio Springs Parkway Cahuilla Jill McCormick, Historic Indio, CA, 92203 Preservation Officer Phone: (760) 342 -2593 P.O. Box 1899 Quechan Fax: (760) 347-7880 Yuma, AZ, 85366 jstapp@cabazonindians-nsn.gov Phone: (760) 572 -2423 historicpreservation@quechantrib Cahuilla Band of Indians e.com Daniel Salgado, Chairperson 52701 U.S. Highway 371 Cahuilla Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Anza, CA, 92539 Reservation Phone: (951) 763 - 5549 Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman Fax: (951) 763-2808 Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee Chairman@cahuilla.net P.O. Box 1899 Quechan Yuma, AZ, 85366 Phone: (928) 750 -2516 scottmanfred@yahoo.com This list is current only as of the date of this document.Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Palm Desert Apartments Project, Riverside County. PROJ-2020- 12/01/2020 01:15 PM 1 of 2 006270 Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List Riverside County 12/1/2020 Ramona Band of Cahuilla Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson Indians P.O. Box 391670 Cahuilla Michael Mirelez, Cultural Anza, CA, 92539 Resource Coordinator Phone: (951) 763 -4105 P.O. Box 1160 Cahuilla Fax: (951) 763-4325 Thermal, CA, 92274 admin@ramona-nsn.gov Phone: (760) 399 - 0022 Fax: (760) 397-8146 Ramona Band of Cahuilla mmirelez@tmdci.org John Gomez, Environmental Coordinator P. O. Box 391670 Cahuilla Anza, CA, 92539 Phone: (951) 763 -4105 Fax: (951) 763-4325 jgomez@ramona-nsn.gov Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair P.O. Box 391820 Cahuilla Anza, CA, 92539 Phone: (951) 659 -2700 Fax: (951) 659-2228 Isaul@santarosa-nsn.gov Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Department P.O. BOX 487 Cahuilla San Jacinto, CA, 92581 Luiseno Phone: (951) 663 - 5279 Fax: (951) 654-4198 jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Scott Cozart, Chairperson P. O. Box 487 Cahuilla San Jacinto, CA, 92583 Luiseno Phone: (951) 654 -2765 Fax: (951) 654-4198 jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov This list is current only as of the date of this document.Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Palm Desert Apartments Project, Riverside County. PROJ-2020- 12/01/2020 01:15 PM 2 of 2 006270 Appendix D Geotechnical Study D ky.,4 PETRA GEOSCIENCES'Nc. SOLID AS A ROCK m z C) z rn m I CD O m GEOTECH.VIC' IL I.\I EST/GA T70N O PROPOSED P,1LM DESERT.4PART.IIE\TS, 25.48 ACRES, GER.ILD FORD DRIVE (EASTERLY ADJACENT TO THE P.I1_:11 DESERT SHERIFF'S STATION) IO,\) ASSESSOR PARCEL ,\'1 .1II3ER 694-310-006 I� J PALa1 DESERT, RII'ERSIDE COI',VTY, CALIFORNIA H CD THE PACIFIC C0.11P•I.\IES m z March 4, 2021 20-446 1 0 z m z n n m z H H CD PETRASOLID AS A ROCK GEOSCIENCES' ENGINEERS - VECsLOGISTS - ENVIRONMENTAL Sc1EF1TI„Ta March 4,2021 J.N. 20-446 THE PACIFIC COMPANIES 430 E. State Street, Ste. 100 Eagle,Idaho 83616 Attention: Mr. Darren l3erbarian Subject: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Palm Desert Apartments, 25.48 Acres, Gerald Ford Drive(Easterly Adjacent to the Palm Desert Sheriff's Station),Assessor Parcel Number 694-310-006, Palm Desert,Riverside County,California Dear Mr. l3erbarian: We are submitting herewith our geotechnical investigation report for the subject property located easterly adjacent to the Palm Desert Sheriff's Station on Gerald Ford Drive,Assessor Parcel Number 694-310-006, Palm Desert in Riverside County, California. This work was performed in accordance with the scope of work outlined in our Proposal No. 20-446P, dated December 11, 2020. This report presents the results of our field investigation, laboratory testing and our engineering judgment, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations pertaining to geotechnical design aspects of the proposed development. It has been a pleasure to be of service to you on this project. Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report or should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. Alan Pace Vice President Offices Strategically Positioned Throughout Southern California DESERT REGION OFFICE 42-240 Greet'Way. Sufic E,Palm Desert LA i ''1 T 760 3,10 5303 F 760 340 5090 Fur rnure intdroi9Iurt VI II ds Online at www Petra-rnc.com THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4,2021 Gerald Ford Drive I Palm Desert J.N.20-A46 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION I PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND GRADING I SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 2 LABORATORY TESTING 3 PERCOLATION TESTING 3 FINDINGS 4 Regional Geology 4 Local Geology and Subsurface Conditions 5 Groundwater 5 Faulting 5 Seismic Hazard Zones 6 Seismically-Induced Flooding 6 Earthquake Loads 6 Dry Sand Settlement Analysis 9 Liquefaction Analysis 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 General 10 Grading Plan Review., 10 Effect of Proposed Grading on Adjacent Properties 10 Earthwork 11 Earthwork Specifications I I Site Clearing I I Ground Preparation 11 Protection of Adjacent Properties I, Fill Placement and Testing 12 Geotechnical Observations 1 Shrinkage and Subsidence 13 Post-Grading Considerations 13 Utility Trench Backfill 13 Site Drainage 14 Bottomless Trench Drains 14 Foundations 14 Allowable Bearing Values 15 Static Settlement 15 Lateral Resistance 15 Guidelines for Footings and Slabs on-Grade Design and Construction 16 Conventional Slabs on-Grade System 16 Footing Observations 18 General Corrosivity Screening 19 Retaining Walls 20 Active and At-Rest Earth Pressures 70 Earthquake Loads Retaining Walls 7l Subdrainage Waterproofing 7) Wall Backfill '72 Geotechnical Observation and Testing 22 Masonry Block Walls 22 Exterior Concrete Flatwork 23 PETRA SOLID As RnGk THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4,202 Gerald Ford Drive/Palm Desert J.N.20-446 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pane Subgrade Preparation 23 Drainage 94 Thickness and Joint Spacing 24 Reinforcement 94 Edge Beams(Optional) 25 Tree Wells "5 Swimming Pool and Spa Allowable Bearing and Settlement _25 Lateral Earth Pressures 25 Stability of Temporary Excavation 25 Temporary Access Ramps 26 Pool Bottom 26 Pool Decking 26 Plumbing Fixtures 26 Preliminary Pavement Sections INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS 27 ATTACHMENTS LITERATURE REVIEWED FIGURES RW-I through RW-3—RETAINING WALL DETAILS FIGURE 1 —SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2—SITE PLAN FIGURE 3—REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP APPENDIX A—BORING LOGS APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES / LABORATORY DATA SUMMARY APPENDIX C PERCOLATION TEST SUMMARY APPENDIX D—SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS APPENDIX E—DRY SAND SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS PETRA SOLO AS A ROCA( GEOSCIENCES GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED PALM DESERT APARTMENTS,25.48 ACRES,GERALD FORD DRIVE (EASTERLY ADJACENT TO THE PALM DESERT SHERIFF'S STATION) PALM DESERT,RIVERSIDE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION Petra Geosciences, Inc. (Petra) is presenting herein the results of our geotechnical investigation of the subject property. The purposes of this investigation were to determine the nature of subsurface soils, to evaluate their in-place characteristics, to provide geotechnica! recommendations with respect to site clearing and grading,and for design and construction of building foundations. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The subject site is a vacant, rectangular-shaped lot, approximately 25.48-acres in area (measuring approximately 500 feet by 900 Feet)and is located southwest of the intersection of Gerald Ford Drive and Rembrandt Parkway in the city of Palm Desert, Riverside County,California. The site is bounded by Gerald Ford Drive to the north, vacant land and residential homes to the east, the Palm Desert Sheriff's Station to the west,and vacant land to the south. Interstate 10 is located just northeast of the site.The site is essentially vacant of vegetation. but where observed exhibits sandy desert scrub. A dirt trail runs north to south from Gerald Ford Drive to the vacant land south of the subject site. No man-made structures were observed onsite. The location of the site is shown on Figure 1. Topographically, site elevations range from a high of approximately 300 feet above mean sea level (msl) near the southwest property corner to a low of approximately 272 feet rnsl near the northeast corner, with overall relief on the order of 28 feet. Additionally,there are several small natural undulating dunes located throughout the site. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND GRADING Based on our review of the conceptual site plan prepared by AO Architects dated February 12, 202 1. the property includes approximately 25.48 acres to be developed by The Pacific Companies.The subject project includes construction of 270 Apartment Units within 14, two to three-story buildings (See Site Plan Figure 2). It is our understanding that the proposed new buildings will be wooden structures with concrete floor slabs on grade. Associated site improvements consist of retaining walls up to 5 feet high,access drives and parking stalls,a swimming pool and restroom building,a playground area,exterior concrete walkways and patios, fence/screen walls, courtyards, planter areas, and landscaping. Other proposed improvements include storm water retention systems and underground retention storage tanks. -N-14 PE T RA sDi la As A Rom THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4, 2021 Gerald Ford Drive/Pahrr Desert J.N.20-446 Page 2 A grading plan has not yet been developed for the site, however, it is our understanding that site grading will generally consist of cuts and fills of less than 5 and 1 feet, respectively. It should be noted, however, that the ultimate fill thicknesses throughout the site will be greater due to the required remedial grading (i.e., removal and recompaction of existing unsuitable surficial soils, etc.) as recommended in subsequent sections of this report. Preliminary recommendations for site grading and for the design and construction of building Foundations are presented in the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of this report. These preliminary recommendations are based on assumptions on the design grades (as noted above) and from our understanding of the proposed construction. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our subsurface exploration was performed on December 22,2020 and involved the following: • Drilling and sampling of three relatively shallow borings(B-I,B-3 and B-4)to depths ranging from 16.5 to 21.5 feet below the existing ground surface and one deep boring(B-2)to a depth of 61 feet below the existing ground surface. All of the borings were drilled utilizing a truck-mounted, hollow-stem auger drill rig. • Drilling a boring to a depth of 15 feet(Boring P-1)and performing a pilot percolation test to observe infiltration characteristics of subsurface materials that will be utilized in design of the infiltration system. Earth materials encountered in each of the exploratory borings were field classified and logged in accordance with Unified Soil Classification System procedures. In addition, our subsurface exploration included the collection of bulk samples and relatively undisturbed samples of the subsurface soils for laboratory testing purposes. Bulk samples consisted of selected earth materials obtained at various depth intervals from selected borings. Relatively undisturbed samples were collected using a 3-inch, outside- diameter, modified California split-spoon soil sampler lined with 1-inch high brass rings. The modified sampler was driven with successive 30-inch drops of a hydraulically operated 140-pound automatic trip hammer. Blow counts for each 6-inch driving increment were recorded on the field logs. The central portions of the driven core samples were placed in sealed containers and transported to our laboratory for testing.The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are shown on the attached site plan(Figure 2), and descriptive exploration logs are presented in Appendix A. In addition to the above sampling method, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT's) were also performed at selected depth intervals in accordance with the American Society for Testing Materials(ASTM) Standard PETRASDI W AS RIM THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4, 2021 Gerald Ford Drive/Palm Desert ].N. 20-446 Page 3 Procedure D 1586. This method consists of mechanically driving an unlined standard split-barrel sampler 18 inches into the soil with successive 30-inch drops of the 140-pound automatic trip hammer, Blow counts for each 6-inch driving increment were recorded on the exploration logs. The number of blows required to drive the standard split-spoon sampler for the last 12 of the 18 inches was identified as the uncorrected standard penetration resistance(N). Disturbed soil samples from the unlined standard split-spoon samplers were placed in plastic bags and transported to our laboratory for testing. LABORATORY TESTING To evaluate the engineering properties of site soils, several laboratory tests were performed on selected samples considered representative of those encountered. Laboratory tests included the determination of maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, grain-size analysis, soluble sulfate and chloride contents, pH, resistivity, and shear strength analysis. A description of laboratory test criteria is given in Appendix B. Laboratory test data are summarized in Appendix B and on the Exploration Logs in Appendix A. An evaluation of the data is reflected throughout the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of this report. PERCOLATION TESTING Percolation testing was conducted in Exploratory Boring P-1 in accordance with County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH)test procedures and the guidelines presented in Appendix VII of the County of Orange Technical Guidance Document for WQMPs. The Orange County Manual references the RCDEH percolation test methods as an acceptable method of obtaining site infiltration data. The "percolation rates" determined in accordance with the RCDEH test procedures are based on both horizontal (lateral) and vertical percolation. Therefore, to consider vertical percolation only, the "percolation rates" were converted to a reasonable estimate of the "infiltration rate" using the Porchet Method presented in Appendix VII of the referenced County of Orange Technical.Guidance Document. Boring P-1 was converted to a percolation test hole prior to backfill of the boring. Following the drilling of this boring, a three-inch (1.D.) perforated PVC pipe was placed in the test hole. We note that in this stage and while we were taking the hollow stem auger out of the hole, it collapsed due to presence of dune sand. Consequently, the annular space around the pipe was filled with existing dune sand to the depth of approximately 5 feet below the ground and we were not able to place open-graded gravel (approximately 3/4-inch)within the annular space between the pipe and boring walls,including a 3-inch thick layer of gravel below the pipe. The remainder of the annular space was backfllled with boring cuttings. Clean water was then added to the boring to pre-soak the adjacent soils prior to performing the percolation test. PETRA SOLID AS A rfaum THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4, 2021 Gerald Ford Drive 1 Palm Desert J.N. 24-446 Page 4 The percolation test was conducted in dune sand that exists from the near surface to below the base of the percolation test. Boring P-1 was drilled to a total depth of approximately 15 feet. The test hole was filled with clean water to approximately 1 foot from the ground surface.The drop in water level was measured at 5-minute intervals.From these readings,the percolation characteristics of the underlying dune sand deposits were estimated. Percolation test results are presented in Appendix C and are summarized in Table 1. We note that the calculated infiltration rate presented in this table has a factor of safety of 1 and the project engineer should use an appropriate factor of safety per project Specifications. TABLE 1 Percolation Test Results Type' Depth of Measured= Infiltration Rate(Ii) Test No. Soil Ty } Hole Percolation Rate per Porchet Method (Feet) (Minutes/Inch) (Inches/Hour)(F.S—1) P-1 SP 15 0.06 195.14 Interbedded Strata—see Boring Logs,Appendix A 2 RCDEH Test Procedure s Minutestinch converted to inches/hour per Porchel Method FINDINGS Regional Geology Geologically, the site lies within the Coachella Valley in the northern portion of the Colorado Desert Geomorphic Province (CGS, 2002). The Coachella Valley lies within the northern portion of the Salton Trough, a large northwest-trending structural depression that extends approximately 180 miles from San Gorgonio Pass to the Gulf of California. Part of this basin, including the Salton Sea, lies below sea level and has progressively been filling with sediments eroded from local bounding mountain ranges, sediments from the Colorado River,and by incursions by the Gulf of California since at least the late-Miocene Epoch. The Salton Sea has existed at the southern edge of the Coachella Valley since 1905. Sediments within the Salton Trough are estimated to be over two to five miles thick (Kohler and Fuis, 1986; Fuis and Kohler, 1984; Biehler, et. al., 1964). It is considered the dominant feature of the California Desert Geomorphic Province, and is well known for its exposures of the San Andreas Fault and related fault systems that form the margin between the Pacific and North American Plates. A lake, Ancient Lake Coahuila,extended as far north as Indio (DWR, 1964). The predominant sands, silts, and clays within the upper 50 to 100 Feet of surface within this portion of the valley are deposits from this earlier lake. PETRAspLIa as n ROCK THE PACIFIC COMPANIES Mardi 4,2021 Gerald Ford Drive/Palm Desert J.N. 20-446 Page 5 Regional Geologic maps of the area(Dibblee,T.W.et al), indicate that the subject site is located in an area underlain by dune sand (Qs) as it is shown in Figure 3. Dune sands are generally characterized as mostly loose, fine sand deposited by prevailing winds as dunes or thin cover over Alluvial sand or gravel. This subsurface profile was generally confirmed during the site-specific investigation recently conducted by our firm. Local Geology and Subsurface Conditions In general,the soil materials underlying the site as encountered in our borings were noted to consist of very loose to very dense, poorly graded dune sand to the maximum depth explored of 61 feet. The upper 3 to 4 feet oldie soil was found to be dry and very loose to loose. Soils become medium dense to dense and Finer grained with depth. The moisture content of these native soils is very low and on the order of less than 0.5 percent. Laboratory testing of relatively undisturbed samples of dune sand yielded in-place dry densities ranging from 105 to 120 pounds per cubic foot. Groundwater Free ground water was not encountered in our borings during our field investigation. Based on Water Data Library (WI3L) Station Map from the California department of water resources website, the observation wells around the subject vicinity indicates the groundwater level is at a depth of approximately 150+feet below existing ground elevations. Fluctuations in the level of ground water can occur due to seasonal climatic variations, changes in the land use and other factors. Faulting Based on our review of the referenced geologic maps and literature, no active faults are known to project through the property.Furthermore,the site does not lie within the boundaries of an"Earthquake Fault Zone" as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act(CGS, 2018). The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act(AP Act) defines an active Ault as one that"has had surface displacement within Holocene time(about the last 11,000 years)." The main objective of the AP Act is to prevent the construction of dwellings on top of active faults that could displace the ground surface resulting in loss of life and property, However, it should be noted that according to the USGS Unified Hazard Tool website and/or 2010 CGS Fault Activity Map of California,the S. San Andreas Fault Zone, located approximately 3.6 miles(5.8 km) northeast of the site, would probably generate the most severe site ground motions and, therefore, is the majority contributor to the deterministic minimum component of the ground motion models. This fault is PETRA �5 PaG, THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4, 2021 Gerald Ford Drive/Palm Desert J.N.20-446 Page 6 capable of producing a Magnitude MW 6,5—7.9 earthquake(2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps). Some other less active faults such as Burnt Mountain and Eureka Peak faults are located at approximately 10.3 mile and 12.2 miles to the north of the subject property,respectively. Seismic Hazard Zones Based on our website research at California Geological Survey (CGS), the seismic hazard information pertaining to the subject site, parcel(694-310-000, indicates that the site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, a Landslide Zone or a Liquefaction Zone. According to the Riverside County's Liquefaction Zones Map the site has a moderate susceptibility to liquefaction with the water table depth at more than 100 feet below the ground surface. However, the map indicates that a significant rise in groundwater could increase the liquefaction susceptibility. Seismically-Induced Flooding The types of seismically induced flooding which may be considered as potential hazards to a particular site normally includes flooding due to a tsunami (seismic sea wave),a seiche,or failure of a major reservoir or other water retention structure upstream of the site.Since the site lies more than a hundred kilometers inland from the Pacific Ocean at a minimum elevation of approximately 265 feet above sea level, and does not lie in close proximity to an enclosed body of water or downstream of a major reservoir or other retention structure,the probability of flooding from a tsunami,seiche or dam-break is considered to be very low, Earthquake Loads Earthquake loads on earthen structures and buildings are a function of ground acceleration which may be determined from the site-specific ground motion analysis. Alternatively,a design response spectrum can be developed for certain sites based on the code guidelines. To provide the design team with the parameters necessary to construct the design acceleration response spectrum for this project, we used two computer applications. Specifically, the first computer application, which was jointly developed by Structural Engineering Association of California(SEAOC)and California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development(OSHPD), the SEA/OSHPD Seismic Design Maps Tool website, blips://se ism icmaps.oru. is used to calculate the ground motion parameters (see Appendix D). The second computer application, the United Stated Geological Survey (USGS) Unified Hazard Tool website, httos:llearthquake.usus.uov/hazards/interactivel, is used to estimate the earthquake magnitude and the distance to surface projection of the fault(also see Appendix ❑). PETRA spr+rr ns n avrx THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4, 2021 Gerald Ford Drive I Palm Desert IN. 20-446 Page 7 To run the above computer applications, site latitude and longitude, seismic risk category and knowledge of site class are required. The site class definition depends on the direct measurement and the ASCE 7-16 recommended procedure for calculating average small-strain shear wave velocity, Vs30, within the upper 30 meters(approximately 100 feet)of site soils. A seismic risk category of 11 was assigned to the proposed building in accordance with 2019 CBC,Table 1604.5. No shear wave velocity measurement was performed at the site,however,the subsurface materials at the site appears to exhibit the characteristics of stiff soils condition for Site Class D designation. Therefore, an average shear wave velocity of 600 to 1,200 feet per second for the upper 100 feet was assigned to the site based on engineering judgment and geophysical experience. As such. in accordance with ASCE 7-16, Table 20,3-1, Site Class D (D as per SEAIOSHPD software) has been assigned to the subject site. The following table, Table 2, provides parameters required to construct the seismic response coefficient, C,.curve based on ASCE 7-16, Article 12.8 guidelines. PET'R1 SOLID AS n Rn[n THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4, 2021 Gerald Ford Drive 1 Palm Desert IN, 20-446 Page 8 TABLE 2 Seismic Design Parameters Ground Motion Parameters Specific Reference Parameter Unit Value Site Latitude(North) - 33 785932 ° Site Longitude(West) - -116.376831 ° Site Class Definition Section 1613.2.2 ill,Chapter 70{'-} D«' - Assumed Seismic Risk Category Table 1604.5(I) 11 - _ M„•- Earthquake Magnitude USGS Unified Hazard Tool''' 7.25 01 R— Distance to Surface Projection of Fault USGS Unified Hazard Tool{'' 7.93 '3i km SS-Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Short Period(0.2 second) Figure 1613.2.1(1)I t' 1.786'4' Si-Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Figure I613,2.1 2 {11 0.74_{�y r Long Period(1.0 second) g {_} a Fa—Short Period(0.2 second)Site Coefficient Table 1613.2.3(1)I o 1.0«' _ F,—Long Period(1.0 second)Site Coefficient Table 1613 2.3(2)"' Null'43 - Sms—MCER Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter Equation 16-36 sly 2.7$6{4' Adjusted for Site Class Effect(0.2 second) Sa11- MCER Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter Equation ]b 37'I' Null{a' Adjusted for Site Class Effect (1.0 second) 4 Sos-Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2-s Equation I6-38(1j 1.191{{" g SD]- Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-s Equation 16-39'I) Null(4) g To=0.2 Sal/SDS Section 11.4.6 t'' Null s TS=Soil Sos Section 11.4.6 I'-i Null s TL-Long Period Transition Period Figure 22-14'21 8{4I s PGA-Peak Ground Acceleration at MCEGt'' Figure 22-9 t`' 0.776 g Fpc,. -Site Coefficient Adjusted for Site Class Effect"' Table 1 1.8-1 {'-' I.l t�} - J PGA,.I—Peak Ground Acceleration(2' Adjusted for Site Class Effect Equation 1 1.8 l �'' 0.853{a' g Design PGA=(% PGAr1)rp' - Similar to Eqs. 16-38& 16-39{21 0.569 g Design PGA=(0.4 Sos)—Short Retaining Wails'+" Equation I 1.4-5 t'' 0.476 g CRs-Short Period Risk Coefficient Figure 22-iSA"2' 0.897 I`I1 - CR1- Long Period Risk Coefficient Figure 22-19A '2' 0.882{41 - SDC-Seismic Design Category( i Section 1613.2.5{I' Null'''' - References: '' California Building Code(CBC),2019,California Code of Regulations,Title 24,Part 2_Volume I and 11. '' American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute(ASCEISEI).20I6.Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures,Standards 7-16. `"USGS Unified Hazard Tool-luins://earthouEike.tbus.gov/bazardsilmeructivc/ zardsilmeructncl ` 'SEI/OSHPD Seismic Design Map Application-httos:'.weumiemans.ura Related References: Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA).2015.NEHERP(National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program) Recommended Seismic Provision for New Building and Other Structures iFEMA P-I050). Notes' PGA Calculated at the MCI return period of 2475 years(2 percent chance of exccedance in 50 years). ' PGA Calculated at the Design Level of%of MCE:approximately equivalent to a return period of475 years(10 percent chance olexceedancc in 50 years). ' PGA Calculated for short.stubby retaining walls with an infinitesimal(zero)fundamental period. The designation provided herein may be superseded by the structural engineer in accordance with Section 1613,25.1.if applicable. PETR$1 f S[]LIi7 AS A A4i:1f THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4, 2021 Gerald Ford Drive./Palm Deseri J.N. 20-446 Page 9 Dry Sand Settlement Analysis Dry sand settlement can occur during moderate and large earthquakes when loose. natural or fill sandy soils are densified and settle,often unevenly across a site. In order for dry sand settlement to occur,the following four factors are required: 1) Relatively thy soil or soil situated above the groundwater table; 2) undrained loading(strong ground shaking),such as by earthquake: 3)contractive soil response during shear loading, which is often the case for a soil which is initially in a loose or uncompacted state; and 4) susceptible soil type; such as clean. uniformly graded sands. Structures situated above seismically densifying thy sandy soils may experience settlement. To evaluate the potential for earthquake-induced dry sand settlement at the site and its impact on the proposed improvements, we performed a settlement analysis of the data from our 60 feet deep boring B-2 using LiquefyPro program (Civil Tech, Version 5.9c). LiquefyPro is a software that evaluates liquefaction potential and calculates the settlement of soil deposits due to seismic loads. For the purpose of our dry sand settlement analyses, we considered a design groundwater level at a depth of 150 feet below the existing ground surface, peak ground acceleration for maximum considered earthquake(PGAM) in the site vicinity to be approximately 0.853g, and a predominant earthquake magnitude of 7.25 Mw. The results of our analysis indicate that the loose and medium dense poorly graded dune sand encountered below the ground surface to the depth of approximately 15 to 20 feet in our borings appear to be prone to dry sand settlement during seismic shaking. Assuming that the upper 4 feet of soil will be replaced with a non-susceptible soil to dynamic settlement, we estimate that total dynamic settlement up to about 2 to 3- inches is possible at the ground surface within our borings due to dry sand settlement from the MCE level earthquake. In our opinion,differential dry sand settlement of up to about 1-inch over a horizontal distance of approximately 25 feet may occur across the proposed improvements at the ground surface. A summary of our dry sand settlement analysis is presented in Appendix E. The estimated dry sand settlement should be considered during the structural design of the foundation system of the proposed improvements. Liquefaction Analysis Liquefaction is a soil softening dynamic response, by which an increase in the excess pore water pressure results in partial to full loss of soil shear strength and post-liquefaction dissipation of this pore water pressure results in ground settlement shortly after the earthquake. In order for liquefaction to occur, the following four factors are required: I) saturated soil or soil situated below the groundwater table; 2) undrained loading (strong ground shaking), such as by earthquake; 3) contractive soil response during shear loading, which is often the case for a soil which is initially in a loose or uncompacted state; and PETRAsnr+U AS a ROCK GEOSCIENCES" THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4, 2021 Gerald Ford Drive 1 Palm Desert J.N. 20-446 Page 10 4) susceptible soil type; such as clean, uniformly graded sands, non-plastic silts, or gravels. Structures situated above temporarily liquefied soils may sink or tilt, potentially resulting in significant structural damage. Due to a very deep ground water table at the subject property (+150 feet) the potential for liquefaction at this site is considered unlikely. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General From a soils engineering and engineering geologic standpoint, the subject property is considered suitable for the proposed construction provided the following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into the design criteria and project specifications. Grading Plan Review The following recommendations are based on a review of the conceptual site plan prepared by AO Architects dated February I2, 2021. As such, the recommendations provided in this report should be considered tentative until a finalized grading plan is available and reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant. Depending on the results of the grading plan review,revised and/or additional recommendations should be prepared by the geotechnical consultant as deemed appropriate. Effect of Proposed Grading on Adjacent Properties Provided that proposed grades are as anticipated in this report, it is our opinion that the proposed grading and construction will not adversely affect the stability of adjoining properties in an adverse manner provided grading and construction are performed in accordance with current standards of practice, all applicable grading ordinances and the recommendations presented in this report.However, if the final grades adjacent to the property lines are lowered or raised, it should be brought to the attention of the project geotechnical consultant in order to evaluate the potential effects of the grade changes on existing property line structures and nearby offsite structures. This is critical along the westerly property line where an existing wall is to remain in place. The project civil engineer should provide an adequate number of cross section(s) within this area as an aid For the project geotechnical consultant to determine the impact of the recommended remedial and design grading to be performed. PETRA SOLID AS A ROCK THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4,2021 Gerald Ford Drive/Patin Desert J.N.20-446 Pagel I Earthwork Earthwork Specifications All earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable requirements of City of Palm Desert, in compliance with all applicable provisions of the 2019 California Building Code(CBC) and in accordance with the following recommendations prepared by this him. Site Clearing Clearing operations should include the removal of all vegetation and any structural features where found. Large shrubs,when removed, should be grubbed out to include their stumps and major root systems. Should any unusual conditions or subsurface structures be encountered during demolition operations or during grading that are not described or anticipated herein, these conditions should be brought to the immediate attention of the project geotechnical consultant for corrective recommendations. Ground Preparation The existing surficial dune sand materials were found to be loose to medium dense to depths of approximately 4 feet and are subject to compression under the anticipated footing loads. This may result in adverse settlement of the proposed buildings and exterior hardscape features.Therefore,in order to mitigate possible distress to the proposed building footings and floor slabs and exterior improvements due to the effects of adverse settlement, it is recommended that all unsuitable surficial materials be removed down to competent native dune sand deposits and then replaced as properly compacted fill. This may be accomplished by over-excavating the existing ground surface to a depth of at least 4 feet below existing grades or at least 24 inches below the bottoms of the proposed footings, whichever is deeper, and then reprocessing the next underlying 6 inches in place. That is, prior to replacing the excavated materials as compacted fill, the exposed bottom surface should be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches, watered as necessary to achieve slightly above optimum moisture conditions, and then recompacted in-place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. In order to provide adequate support for sidewalks, patios,and similar perimeter improvements, overexcavation and recompaction of the existing ground surface should essentially extend from property line to property line within the area of proposed construction; however, consideration should be given to the protection of adjacent structures as described in the following section of this report. PETRA sin fa AS R FlOVN THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4,2021 Gerald Ford Drive i Palm Deser! J.N. 20-446 Page 12 Protection of Adjacent Properties During remedial grading of the site, a temporary excavation with sidewalls varying up to approximately 5 feet high will be created during the over-excavation and re-compaction of the existing property. The sidewalls of this excavation are expected to expose native materials that consist of loose to medium dense, dune sands. In order to protect the existing wall structures located along the westerly property lines. it is recommended that the sidewalls of the excavation be laid back at a slope ratio of 2:1,horizontal to vertical. with the top of the cut located at least i 2 inches away from the property line structure. During the preparation of the grading plan for the subject site, the project civil engineer should take into consideration the location and elevation of the footings of existing property line structures that are to be protected in-place. Grades within the site should not be lowered to the extent that they will have an adverse impact on the lateral stability of the existing property line structures unless mitigating measures such as shoring are implemented. Fill Placement and Testing New engineered fills should be placed in lifts not exceeding 6 inches in thickness, watered or air dried as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture conditions,and then compacted in place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Each fill lift should be treated in a similar manner. Subsequent lifts should not be placed until the preceding lift has been tested by the project geotechnical consultant to document that the required 90 percent relative compaction has been achieved. The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each change in soil type should be determined in accordance with Test Method ASTM D 1557. Imported soils, if any,should consist of clean granular materials exhibiting a Very Low expansion potential (Expansion Index less than 20). Soils to be imported should be observed and, if deemed necessary, tested by the project geotechnical consultant prior to importation to determine whether the material meets project specifications. Geotechnical Observations Exposed bottom surfaces in each removal area should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant prior to placing fill.No fills should be placed without prior approval from the geotechnical consultant.The project geotechnical consultant should also be present on site during grading operations to observe proper placement and compaction of fill,as well as to document compliance with the recommendations presented herein. PETRA spt��r,rs n ROCK THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4,2021 Gerald Ford Drive I Palm Desert J.N. 20-446 Page 13 Shrinkage and Subsidence An average shrinkage on the order of about 20 to 22 percent may occur when excavated onsite soils are replaced (removed and recompacted)as properly compacted fill. A subsidence estimated between 0.2 and 072 feel may also be expected when exposed bottom surfaces in removal areas are scarified and re- compacted as recommended herein. The above estimates of shrinkage and subsidence are intended as an aid for project planners in determining the earthwork quantities. However, these estimates should be used with some caution since they are not absolute values. Post-Grading Considerations Utility Trench Hackfill All utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Onsite earth materials cannot be densified adequately by flooding and jetting techniques.Therefore,trench backfill should be placed in lifts no greater than 6 inches in thickness, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture conditions,and mechanically compacted in place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, A representative of the project geotechnical consultant should probe and test the trench backfills to document that adequate compaction has been achieved. As an alternative for shallow trenches where pipe or utility lines may be damaged by mechanical compaction equipment, such as under building floor slabs, imported clean sand having a sand equivalent (SE) value of 30 or greater may be utilized. The sand backfill materials should be watered to achieve near optimum moisture conditions and then tamped into place.No specific relative compaction will be required; however, observation, probing, and if deemed necessary, testing should be performed by a representative of the project geotechnical consultant to verify an adequate degree of compaction. If clean, imported sand is to be used for backfill of exterior utility trenches, it is recommended that the upper 12 inches of trench backfill materials consist of properly compacted onsite soil materials. This is to mitigate infiltration of irrigation and rainwater into granular trench backfill materials. Where an interior or exterior utility trench is proposed parallel to a building footing, the bottom of the trench should not be located below a 1:1 plane projected downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing. Where this condition exists,the adjacent footing should be deepened such that the bottom of the utility trench is located above the 1:1 projection.Where utility trenches cross under a building footing, these trenches should be backfilled with on-site soils at the point where the trench crosses under the footing to reduce the potential for water to migrate under the floor slabs. PETRA SAW AS A ROCk THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4, 2021 Gerald Ford Drive 1 Palm Desert J.N. 20-446 Page 14 Site Drainage Positive surface drainage systems consisting of a combination of sloped concrete flatwork/asphalt pavement, sheet flow gradients, swales and surface area drains(where needed) should be provided around the building and within the planter areas to collect and direct all surface waters to an appropriate drainage facility as determined by the project civil engineer.The ground surfaces of planter and landscape areas that are located within 10 feet of building foundations should be sloped at a minimum gradient of 5 percent away from the foundations and towards the nearest area drains. The ground surfaces of planter and landscape areas that are located more than 10 feet away from building foundations may be sloped at a minimum gradient of 2 percent away from the foundations and towards the nearest area drains. Concrete flatwork surfaces that are located within 10 feet of building foundations should be inclined at a minimum gradient of 2 percent away from the building foundations and towards the nearest area drains. Concrete flatwork surfaces that are located more than 10 feet away from building foundations may be sloped at a minimum gradient of I percent away from the foundations and towards the nearest area drains. Surface waters should not be allowed to collect or pond against building foundations and within the level areas of the site. All drainage devices should be properly maintained throughout the lifetime of the development. Future changes to site improvements, or planting and watering practices, should not be allowed to cause over-saturation of site soils adjacent to the structures. Bottomless Trench Drains When gravel filled bottomless infiltration systems are constructed near foundations, a potential exists for oversaturation of the foundation soils which conflicts with the intended purpose ofonsite drainage facilities. In addition, it has been our experience that a leading cause of distress to buildings and foundations is due to poor management of water next to building foundations. Petra recommends a setback of at least 15 feet between any infiltration system and building foundations. if this setback distance cannot be maintained, then a modified foundation system may be required to alleviate any distress that could be caused by infiltration of water near the footing. A modified foundation system could consist of constructing deepened footings within 15 feet of the infiltration system and installing extra reinforcement. Design of a modified foundation system is referred to the project structural engineer. Foundations Based on Petra evaluation of the engineering characteristics of the site soils, we have provided recommendations For a conventional shallow foundation system. Other foundation system options, such as regular or post-tension mat,can be provided upon request. NPET RA s+)liaAsA ROCK THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4,2021 Gerald Ford Drive/Palm Desert J.N. 20-446 Page I5 Allowable Bearing Values Provided that the existing ground surface within the main (ground level) floor area is processed as recommended herein. An allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be used for foundations embedded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the nearest adjacent final grade. The allowable bearing value may be increased by 300 pounds per square Foot per foot increase in width to a maximum of 3,000 psf. No increase in bearing value is allowed for footings having a greater depth. This recommended allowable bearing value includes both dead and live loads, and may be increased by one- third when designing for short duration wind or seismic forces.The weight of the footings may be neglected for design purposes. Static Settlement Under the above recommended bearing values, total static settlements clue to new building loads are expected to be less than '/_: of an inch, and differential settlement between adjacent footings is expected to be less than I/a of an inch over a span of 25 feet. The majority of the anticipated settlement is expected to take place during construction as building loads are applied. Dynamic (Seismically-Induced)Settlement As stated previously in this report, the maximum differential settlement is estimated to be approximately one inch over a horizontal span of approximately 25 feet,with a corresponding equivalent angular distortion ratio of approximately 1:300. The project structural engineer should determine whether the static and dynamic settlement estimates provided herein should be considered additive for purposes of their structural design. Lateral Resistance A passive earth pressure of 250 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth, to a maximum value of 2,500 pounds per square foot, may be used to determine lateral bearing resistance for footings. in addition, a coefficient of friction of 0.30 times the dead load forces may be used between concrete and the supporting soils to determine lateral sliding resistance, The above values may be increased by one-third when designing for short duration wind or seismic forces. The above values are based on footings placed directly against compacted fill to be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. The upper foot of passive soil resistance should be neglected where soil adjacent to the footing is not covered and protected by a concrete slab or pavement.The above values given for coefficient of friction and passive soil resistance are allowable values with a factor of safety of 1.5 and the designer may choose an appropriate factor of safety based on the loadings. PETRA "LW AS A HAelr GECSCIENCES'" THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4, 2021 Gerald Ford Drive/Pahlr Desert J.N. 20-446 Page 16 Guidelines for Footings and Slabs on-Grade Design and Construction Based on the sandy nature of the material encountered in the borings and Petra experience in the area, the site soils have expansive indices less than 20. As indicated in Section 1803.5.3 of 2019 California Building Code (2019 CBC), these soils are considered non-expansive and, as such, the design of slabs on-grade is considered to be exempt from the procedures outlined in Sections 1808.6.2 of the 2019 CBC and may be performed using any method deemed rational and appropriate by the project structural engineer. However, the following minimum recommendations are presented herein for conditions where the project design team may require geotechnical engineering guidelines for design and construction of footings and slabs on-grade the project site. The design and construction guidelines that follow are based on the above soil conditions and may be considered for reducing the effects of variability in fabric, composition and, therefore, the detrimental behavior of the site soils such as excessive short- and long-term total and differential heave or settlement. These guidelines have been developed on the basis of the previous experience of this firm on projects with similar soil conditions.Although construction performed in accordance with these guidelines has been found to reduce post-construction movement and/or distress, they generally do not positively eliminate all potential effects' of variability in soils characteristics and future heave or settlement. It should also be noted that the suggestions for dimension and reinforcement provided herein are petjbrmance-based and intended only as preliminary guidelines to achieve adequate perforniance under the anticipated soil conditions. However, they should not be construed as replacement for structural engineering analyses, experience and judgment. The project structural engineer. architect and/or civil engineer should make appropriate adjustments to slab and footing dimensions, and reinforcement type. sire and spacing to account ibr internal concrete forces(e.g., thermal, shrinkage and expansion), as well as external forces (e.g.. applied loads) as deemed necessary. Consideration should also be given to minimum design criteria as dictated by local h uilding code requirements. Conventional Slabs on-Grade System Considering an expansion index of less than 20, we recommend that footings and floor slabs be designed and constructed in accordance with the following minimum criteria. PETRA Sad Ip A5 A kl7L'N THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4, 2021 Gerald Ford Drive!Palm Deseri J.N. 20-446 Page 17 Footings 1. Exterior continuous footings supporting three- and four-story structures should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade, respectively. Interior continuous footings may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the top of the adjacent finish floor slabs. 2. In accordance with Table 1809.7 of 2019 CBC for light-frame construction, all continuous footings should have minimum widths of 18 inches for three- and four-story construction. We recommend all continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No, 4 bars, one top and one bottom. 3. A minimum 12-inch-wide grade beam founded at the same depth as adjacent footings should be provided across garage entrances or similar openings(such as large doors or bay windows), The grade beam should be reinforced with a similar manner as provided above. 4. Interior isolated pad footings, if required, should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 15 inches below the bottoms of the adjacent floor slabs for three- and four-story buildings. Pad footings should be reinforced with No.4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways, placed near the bottoms of the footings. 5. Exterior isolated pad footings intended for support of roof overhangs such as second-story decks, patio covers and similar construction should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. The pad footings should be reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways, placed near the bottoms of the footings. Exterior isolated pad footings may need to be connected to adjacent pad and/or continuous footings via tie beams at the discretion of the project structural engineer. 6. The minimum footing dimensions and reinforcement recommended herein may be modified(increased or decreased subject to the constraints of Chapter 18 of the 2019 CBC) by the structural engineer responsible for foundation design based on his/her calculations, engineering experience and judgment. Building Floor Slabs I. Concrete floor slabs should be a minimum 4 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 bars spaced a maximum of 24 inches on centers, both ways. All slab reinforcement should be supported on concrete chairs or brick to ensure the desired placement near mid-depth. Slab dimension, reinforcement type, size and spacing need to account for internal concrete forces (e.g., thermal, shrinkage and expansion) as well as external forces(e.g.,applied loads),as deemed necessary.Consideration should also be given to using a control joint spacing on the order of 2 feet in each direction for each inch of slab thickness, 2. Living area concrete floor slabs and areas to receive moisture sensitive floor covering should be underlain with a moisture vapor retarder consisting of a minimum 10-mil-thick polyethylene or polyolefin membrane that meets the minimum requirements of ASTM E96 and ASTM E 1745 for vapor retarders(such as Husky Yellow Guard®, Stego®Wrap, or equivalent). All laps within the membrane should be sealed, and al least 2 inches of clean sand should be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing of the concrete. To reduce the potential for punctures,the membrane should be placed on a pad surface that has been graded smooth without any sharp protrusions. If a smooth surface cannot be achieved by grading, consideration should be given to lowering the pad finished grade an additional inch and then placing a 1-inch-thick leveling course of sand across the pad surface prior to the PETRA SAS++r A$A ROUX THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4,2021 Gerald Ford Drive I Pahn Desert J.N.20-446 Page 18 placement of the membrane. To comply with Section 1907.1.1 of the 2019 CBC, the living area concrete floor slab should also be underlain with capillary break consisting of a min um of 4 inches of gravel or crushed stone containing not more than 10 percent of material that passes through a No.4 sieve. The capillary break should be placed below the 10-mil moisture vapor retarder and may be considered as the structural fill recommended above. At the present lime, some slab designers,geotechnical professionals and concrete experts vies the sand layer below the slab(blotting sand) as a place,for entrapment o f excess moisture that could adversely impact moisture-sensitive floor coverings. As a preventive measure, the potential,for moisture intrusion into the concrete slab could be reduced if the concrete is placed directly on the vapor retarder. However, if this sand layer is omitted, appropriate curing methods must be implemented to ensure that the concrete slab cures urn for mly, A qua//led materials engineer with experience in slab design and construction should provide recommendations for alternative methods of curing and supervise the construction process to ensure uniform slab curing.Additional steps would also need to be taken to prevent puncturing of the vapor retarder during concrete placement. 3. Garage floor slabs should be a minimum 4 inches thick and reinforced in a similar manner as living area floor slabs. Garage slabs should also be poured separately from adjacent wall footings with a positive separation maintained using Y4-inch-minimum felt expansion joint material. To control the propagation of shrinkage cracks, garage floor slabs should be quartered with weakened plane joints. Consideration should be given to placement of a moisture vapor retarder below the garage slab,similar to that provided in Item 2 above, should the garage slab be overlain with moisture sensitive floor covering. 4. Presaturation of the subgrade below floor slabs will not be required: however,prior to placing concrete, the subgrade below all dwelling and garage floor slab areas should be thoroughly moistened to achieve a moisture content that is at least equal to or slightly greater than optimum moisture content. This moisture content should penetrate to a minimum depth of 12 inches below the bottoms of the slabs. 5. The minimum dimensions and reinforcement recommended herein for building floor slabs may be modified (increased or decreased subject to the constraints of Chapter 18 of the 2019 CI3C) by the structural engineer responsible for foundation design based on his/her calculations, engineering experience and judgment. Footing Observations All footing trenches should be observed by a representative of the project geotechnical consultant to document that they have been excavated into competent bearing soils prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement or concrete. The excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square. All loose, sloughed or moisture-softened soils and/or any construction debris should be removed prior to the placing of concrete. Excavated soils derived from footing and/or utility trenches should not be placed in building slab- on-grade areas or exterior concrete flatwork areas unless the soils are compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. f P T !�! ,,rr0ASARICH THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4,2021 Gerald Ford Drive/Palm Desert J.N. 20-446 Page 19 General Corrosivity Screening As a screening level study, very limited chemical and electrical tests were performed on several samples considered representative of the onsite soils to identify potential con-osive characteristics❑Fthese soils.The common indicators associated with soil corrosivity include water-soluble sulfate and chloride levels, pH(a measure of acidity),and minimum electrical resistivity. Test results are presented in Table 3 below. It should be noted that Petra does not practice corrosion engineering; therefore, the lest results, opinion and engineering judgment provided herein should he considered as general guidelines only.Additional analyses would be warranted, especially,for cases where buried metallic building materials (such as copper and cast or ductile iron pipes) in contact with site soils are planned for the project. In many cases, the project geolechnical engineer may not he informed of these choices. Therefore, for conditions where such elements are considered, we recommend that other, relevant project design professionals (e.g., the architect, landscape architect, civil and/or structural engineer)also consider recommending a qualified corrosion engineer to conduct additional sampling and testing of near-surface soils during the.final stages of site grading to provide a complete assessment of soil corrosivity. Recommendations to mitigate the detrimental effects of corrosive soils on buried metallic and other building materials that may he exposed to corrosive soils should be provided by the corrosion engineer as deemed appropriate. In general, a soil's water-soluble sulfate levels and pH relate to the potential for concrete degradation; water-soluble chlorides in soils impact ferrous metals embedded or encased in concrete, e.g., reinforcing steel; and electrical resistivity is a measure of a soil's corrosion potential to a variety of buried metals used in the building industry, such as copper tubing and cast or ductile iron pipes. Table 3, above, presents test results. with art interpretation of current code indicators and guidelines that are commonly used in this industry. The table includes the classifications of the soils as they relate to the various tests, as well as a general recommendation for possible mitigation measures in view of the potential adverse impact on various components of the proposed structures in direct contact with site soils. The guidelines provided herein should be evaluated and confirmed, or modified, in their entirety by the project structural engineer, corrosion engineer and/or the contractor responsible for concrete placement for structural concrete used in exterior and interior footings, interior slabs on-ground,garage slabs, wall foundations and concrete exposed to weather such as driveways, patios, porches, walkways, ramps, steps, curbs, etc. PETIR►4 1UtfUAS A ROCIf THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4, 2021 Gerald Ford Drive I Palm Deseri J.N.20-446 Page 20 TABLE 3 Soil Corrosivity Screening Results Test Test Results Classification General Recommendations Soluble Sulfates Type II cement;min. f 2,500 psi;no 417 0.0006 percent SO{'' Yp (Cal } water/cement ratio restrictions PH (Cal 643 8.8 Moderately Alkaline No special recommendations } Soluble ChlorideResidence:No special {Cal 477} 117 ppm Cl"- recommendations, minimum concrete cover on reinforcement Resistivity 13,000 ohm-cm Mildly Corrosive"' No special requirements (Cal 643) Notes: I. ACl 318-14,Section 19.3 2. AC1 318-14,Section 19.3 3. Picrre R.Roberge."l landbook of Corrosion Engineering" Retain inv. Walls Allowable Bearing Values Proposed retaining walls should be supported on spread footings using the design criteria recommended previously for building footings; however, when calculating passive resistance, the passive earth pressure should be reduced to 150 pounds per square foot. per foot of depth, to a maximum value of 1,500 pounds per square foot. Active and At-Rest Earth Pressures 1. On-Site Soils Used for Backfill On-site earth materials are considered to have a moderate expansion potential and are not recommended for use as backfill. However, if these materials are used as backfill,active earth pressures equivalent to fluids having densities of 35 and 60 pounds per cubic foot should be used for design of cantilevered walls retaining a level backfill and ascending 2:I backfill, respectively. For walls that are restrained at the top. at-rest earth pressures of 55 and 85 pounds per cubic foot (equivalent fluid pressures) should be used.The above values are for retaining walls that have been supplied with a proper subdrain system (see Figure RW-l). All walls should be designed to support any adjacent structural surcharge loads imposed by other nearby walls or footings in addition to the active and at-rest earth pressures. 2. Imported Sand, Pea Gravel,or Rock Used for Wall Backfill Imported clean sand exhibiting a sand equivalent value (SE) of 30 or greater, pea gravel, or crushed rock may be used for wall backfill to reduce the lateral earth pressures provided these granular backfill materials extend behind the walls to a minimum horizontal distance equal to one-half the wall height. In addition,the sand,pea gravel,or rock backfill materials should extend behind the walls to a minimum horizontal distance of 2 feet at the base of the wall or to a horizontal distance equal to the heel width of the footing,whichever is greater(see Figures RW-2 and RW-3). For the above conditions,cantilevered PETRA sot,AasA yarn GEOSCiENCES THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4, 2021 Gerald Ford Drive I Pcilrir Desert J.N.20-446 Page 21 walls retaining a level backfill and ascending 2:1 backfill may be designed to resist active earth pressures equivalent to fluids having densities of 30 and 41 pounds per cubic foot, respectively. For walls that are restrained at the top,at-rest earth pressures equivalent to fluids having densities of 45 and 62 pounds per cubic foot are recommended for design of restrained walls supporting a level backfill and ascending 2:1 backfill,respectively.These values are also for retaining walls supplied with a proper subdrain system. Furthermore, as with existing soil backfill, the walls should be designed to support any adjacent structural surcharge loads imposed by other nearby walls or footings in addition to the recommended active and at- rest earth pressures. All structural calculations and details should be provided to this firm for verification purposes prior to grading and construction phases. Earthquake Loads Retaining Walls Note I of Section 1803.5.12 of the 2019 CSC indicates that the dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures on foundation walls and retaining walls supporting more than 6 feet of backfill height due to design earthquake ground motions be determined. It is unlikely that any wall retaining 6 or more feet of backfill will be constructed orisite. Accordingly, dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures are not considered necessary for this project. Subdrainage Perforated pipe and gravel subdrains should be installed behind all retaining walls to prevent entrapment of water in the backfill (see Figures RW-1 through RW-3). Perforated pipe should consist of 4-inch-minimum diameter PVC Schedule 40, or SDR-35, with the perforations laid down. The pipe should be encased in a 1-foot-wide column of/'-inch to 1'/z-inch open-graded gravel. lion-site soils are used as backfill,the open- graded gravel should extend above the wall footings to a minimum height equal to one-third the wall height or to a minimum height of 1.5 feet above the footing, whichever is greater. If imported sand, pea gravel, or crushed rock is used as backfill, subdrain details shown on Figures RW-2 and RW-3 should be utilized. The open-graded gravel should be completely wrapped in filter fabric consisting of Mirafi 140N or equivalent. Solid outlet pipes should be connected to the subdrains and then routed to a suitable area for- discharge ofaccumulated water. f f a limited area exists behind the walls for installation of a pipe and gravel subdrain,a geotextile drain mat such as Mirafi Miradrain,or equivalent,can be used in lieu of drainage gravel.The drain mat should extend the full height and lengths of the walls and the filter fabric side of the drain mat should be placed up against the backcut. The perforated pipe drain line placed at the bottom of the drain mat should consist of 4-inch PETRA s0110AsAROCK THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4.2021 Gerald Ford Drive I Palm Desert J.N. 20-446 Page 22 minimum diameter PVC Schedule 40 or SDR-35. The filter fabric on the drain mat should be peeled back and then wrapped around the drain line. Waterproofing The portions of retaining walls supporting backfill should be coated with an approved waterproofing compound or covered with a similar material to inhibit infiltration of moisture through the walls. Wall Backfill Where the onsite soils materials or imported sand (with a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater) are used as backfill behind the proposed retaining walls,the back Fill materials should he placed in approximately 6-to 8-inch-thick maximum lifts,watered as necessary to achieve above optimum moisture conditions,and then mechanically compacted in place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Flooding or jetting of the backfill materials should be avoided. A representative of the project geotechnical consultant should observe the backfill procedures and test the wall backfill to verify adequate compaction. if imported pea gravel or rock is used for backfill, the gravel should be placed in approximately 2- to 3- foot-thick lifts, thoroughly wetted but not flooded, and then mechanically tamped or vibrated into place. A representative of the project geotechnical consultant should observe the backfill procedures and probe the backfill to determine that an adequate degree of compaction is achieved. To reduce the potential for the direct infiltration of surface water into the backfil€, imported sand, gravel, or rock backfill should be capped with at least 12 inches of on-site soil. Filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent, should be placed between the soil and the imported gravel or rock to prevent fines from penetrating into the backfill. Geotechnical Observation and Testing All grading and construction phases associated with retaining wall construction, including backcut excavations,footing trenches, installation of the subdrainage systems, and placement of backfill should be observed and tested by a representative of the project geotechnical consultant. Masonry Block Walls Footings for free-standing masonry block walls and other rigid structures should be designed and reinforced utilizing the criteria recommended for conventional building foundations. Where existing surface soils are not removed and re-compacted as recommended herein, the footings should be extended through these PETRAsun.ro as q FILM THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4, 2021 Gerald Ford Drive/Paler Deseri J.N. 70-446 Page 23 loose surface soils and founded in underlying competent materials. Positive separations in walls should also be provided at corners and at horizontal spacing of approximately 25 feet to permit relative movement.The separations should be provided in the blocks and not extend through the footings. The footings should be poured monolithically with continuous rebars to serve as effective"grade beams" below the walls. Where remedial grading cannot be performed due to site constraints, a reduced bearing value of 1,200 pounds per square foot should be used for 12-inch-wide continuous footings founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. No increase in bearing value may be used for wider or deeper footings for this condition. The recommended allowable bearing value includes both dead and live loads,and may be increased by one-third for short duration wind and seismic forces. In addition, a reduced passive earth pressure of 175 pounds per square foot per foot of depth,to a maximum value of 1,750 pounds per square foot, should be used to resist lateral loads. A coefficient of friction of 0.3 times the dead load forces may still be used between concrete and the supporting soils to determine lateral sliding resistance. An increase of one-third of the above values may also be used when designing for short duration wind or seismic forces. Exterior Concrete Flatwork Subgrade Preparation Compaction To reduce the potential for distress to concrete flatwork, the subgrade soils below concrete flatwork areas to a minimum depth of 12 inches(or deeper, as either prescribed elsewhere in this report or determined in the field)should be moisture conditioned to at least equal to,or slightly greater than,the optimum moisture content and then compacted to a minimum relative compaction of90 percent. Where concrete public roads, concrete segments of roads and/or concrete access driveways are proposed,the upper 6 inches of subgrade soil should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction. Pre-Moistening As a further measure to reduce the potential for concrete flatwork cracking, subgrade soils should be thoroughly moistened prior to placing concrete. The moisture content of the soils should be at least the optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 12 inches into the subgrade. Flooding or ponding of the subgrade is not considered feasible to achieve the above moisture conditions since this method would likely require construction of numerous earth berms to contain the water.Therefore, moisture conditioning should be achieved with sprinklers or a light spray applied to the subgrade over a period of few to several days just prior to pouring concrete. Pre-watering of the soils is intended to promote uniform curing of the concrete, PETRAserr.roas n Rnr'x THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4, 2021 Gerald Ford Drive I Palm Dese,•1 J.N. 20-446 Page 24 reduce the development of shrinkage cracks and reduce the potential for differential expansion pressure on freshly poured flatwork. A representative of the project geotechnical consultant should observe and verify the density and moisture content of the soils,and the depth of moisture penetration prior to pouring concrete. Drainage Drainage from patios and other flatwork areas should be directed to local area drains and/or-graded earth swales designed to carry runoff water to the adjacent streets or other approved drainage structures. The concrete flatwork should be sloped at a minim urn gradient of one percent,or as prescribed by project civil engineer or local codes, away from building foundations,retaining walls, masonry garden walls and slope areas. Thickness and Joint Spacing To reduce the potential of unsightly cracking, concrete walkways, patio-type slabs, large decorative slabs and concrete sub-slabs to be covered with decorative pavers should be at least 4 inches thick and provided with construction joints or expansion joints every 6 feet or less. Private driveways that will be designed for the use of passenger cars for access to private garages should also be at least 4 inches thick and provided with construction joints or expansion joints every 10 feet or less. Concrete pavement that will be designed based on an unlimited number of applications of an 18-kip single-axle load in public access areas,segments of road that will be paved with concrete (such as bus stops and cross-walks) or access roads that will be subject to heavy truck loadings should have a minimum thickness of 5 inches and be provided with control joints spaced at maximum 10-foot intervals. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 125 pounds per cubic foot may be used for design of the public and access roads. Reinforcement All concrete flatwork having their largest plan-view panel dimension exceeding 10 feet should be reinforced with a minimum of No.3 bars spaced 24 inches on centers, both ways.Alternatively,the slab reinforcement may consist of welded wire mesh of the sheet type (not rolled) with 6x6/W l.4xW 1.4 designation in accordance with the Wire Reinforcement Institute(WRI).The reinforcement should be properly positioned near the middle of the slabs. The reinforcement recommendations provided herein are intended as guidelines to achieve adequate performance for anticipated soil conditions. The project architect, civil and/or structural engineer should make appropriate adjustments in reinforcement type, size and spacing to account for concrete internal(e.g.. shrinkage and thermal)and external (e.g., applied loads) forces as deemed necessary. ePETRA SOLID As A RQ1:ll GEOSCIENCES THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4, 2021 Gerald Ford Drive/Palm Desert J.N. 20-446 Page 25 Edge Beams (Optional) Where the outer edges of concrete flatwork are to be bordered by landscaping, it is recommended that consideration be given to the use of edge beams (thickened edges) to prevent excessive infiltration and accumulation of water under the slabs. Edge beams, if used, should be 6 to 8 inches wide, extend 8 inches below the tops of the finish slab surfaces. Edge beams are not mandatory: however, their inclusion in flatwork construction adjacent to landscaped areas is intended to reduce the potential for vertical and horizontal movement and subsequent cracking of the flatwork related to uplift forces that can develop in expansive soils. Tree Wells Tree wells are not recommended in concrete Fatwork areas since they introduce excessive water into the subgrade soils and allow root invasion, both of which can cause heaving and cracking of the flatwork. Swimming Pool and Spa Allowable Bearing and Settlement Based on the currently proposed pool location. the pool may be designed as a conventional pool shell founded on natural,medium dense dune sand. Any loose sand below the pool shell should be removed and replaced with engineered fill. Therefore, the pool shell may be designed using an allowable bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot. A potential for seismic differential settlement on the order of one inch to occur across the pool/spa shells should be considered in the design. Lateral Earth Pressures The pool walls should be designed assuming that an earth pressure equivalent to a fluid having a density of 90 pounds per cubic foot is acting on the outer surface of the pool walls. For this long-tenn condition,the walls should be designed using a lateral earth pressure of 62.4H pounds per square foot(where"H"equals the vertical depth in feet below the ground surface)that is acting on the inner surface of the pool walls. Pool walls should also be designed to resist lateral surcharge pressures imposed by any adjacent footings or structures in addition to the above lateral earth pressures. Stability of Temporary Excavation The pool excavation is expected to expose loose to medium dense dune sand soil. Based on the anticipated physical characteristics of these materials, the pool excavation sidewalls will not remain stable at a vertical PE FR� SOLID AS A ROCK THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4, 2021 Gerald Ford Drive 1 Palm Desert J.N. 20-446 Page 26 gradient during construction of the pool. Therefore_ the temporary excavation sidewalls should be sloped at a slope ratio of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical)or flatter before forming of the pool walls. Temporary Access Ramps It is essential that all backfill placed within temporary access ramps extending into the pool excavation be properly compacted and tested. This will reduce the potential for excessive settlement of the backfill and subsequent damage to pool decking or other structures placed on the backfill. Pool Bottom It is expected that the swimming pool bottom will rest entirely on medium dense to dense dune sand deposits. Therefore, care should be taken while excavating these structures to prevent disturbance of subgrade soils exposed at grade in the pool bottom. Pool Decking Pool decking should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the "Exterior Concrete Flatwork"section of this report. Plumbing„ Fixtures Leakage from the swimming pool or From any of the appurtenant plumbing could create adverse saturated conditions of the surrounding subgrade soils. Localized areas of oversaturation can lead to differential expansion(heave)of the subgrade soils and subsequent raising and shifting of concrete flatwork.Therefore, it is essential that all plumbing and pool fixtures be absolutely leak-free. For similar reasons,drainage from pool deck areas should be directed to local area drains and/or graded earth swales designed to carry runoff water to a suitable discharge point. Preliminary Pavement Sections Onsite soil is highly granular and R-values of future street subgrades following site grading are expected to be over 50. The in-tract streets are expected to be classified as `Local' streets, along with the perimeter boundary streets and associated Traffic Indices(TI)are expected to be 5.5 and 10.0 for the local streets and backbone streets, respectively. A tentative structural pavement section for the future street Rembrandt Parkway(TI of 10.0) is 6.5 inches of asphalt over 7 inches of base material. Final pavement design should be performed at the completion of street rough grading with final R-value testing. PETN A sofa AS A ROCK THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4.2021 Gerald Ford Drive 1 Palma Desert J.N. 20-446 Page 27 Subgrade soils immediately below the aggregate base, to a minimum depth of 12 inches. should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based on ASTM D1557. Final subgrade compaction should be performed prior to placing base materials and after utility-trench backfills have been compacted and tested. The base materials should meet the specifications for Crushed Aggregate Base, Crushed Miscellaneous Base or Processed Miscellaneous Base as defined in Section 200-2 of the cm-rent edition of the Standard Specifications For Public Works Construction (Greenbook). The base course should be compacted to 95 percent or more of the maximum dry density as evaluated by ASTM D1557. Asphaltic concrete materials and construction should conform to Section 203 of the Greenbook or by County of Riverside specifications. INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS This report is based on the proposed project and geotechnical data as described herein. The materials encountered on the project site, described in other literature,and utilized in our laboratory investigation are believed representative of the project area, and the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are presented on that basis. However, soil materials can vary in characteristics between points of exploration, both laterally and vertically, and those variations could affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. As such, observation and testing by a geotechnical consultant during the grading and construction phases of the project are essential to confirming the basis of this report. Without this confirmation, this report is to be considered incomplete and this firm and the undersigned professionals assume no responsibility for its use, This report has been prepared consistent with that level of care being provided by other professionals providing similar services at the same locale and time period. The contents of this report are professional opinions and as such,are not to be considered a guarantee or warranty. This report should be reviewed and updated after a period of one year or if the project concept changes from that described herein. The information contained herein has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes. In addition,this report should be reviewed and updated after a period of one year,or sooner if the site ownership or project concept changes from that described herein. PETRA SW In�, ���,,h GEOSClENCES- THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4, 2021 Gerald Ford Drive/Palm Desert J.N.20-446 Page 28 This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Please call if you have any questions pertaining to this report. Respectfully submitted, PETRA GEOSCIENCES,INC. --fo��FES5F4, �`�' ':� 1. 4 ?A5a7gt r 1 != - 3/4/2D2 t sec " 0 uA�GE Y 1 Mahan Pasdarpour, PE, M.Sc. 6 4 x I Alan Pace { Project Engineer ac �4' C941�1 * Senior Associate Geologist d�� o�Gr PE 90l 1 1 �. CEG 1952 a NO.EG195�2 A �� clvt� CERTIFIED I MPIAPIDRIRARIIv �",�` * ENGINEERING ' q GEOLOGIST /•) W_IIh1Z1I-5I_rp.7NIN Iy_ILµfi Thu f iric Conlpap[c5-Palm[]esen ApannPcpesu[eppns2If-Itf I III CrepLBIllne:II Iraesiiptiondp% Vr'p wp�11'�+ PETRA sni Ici rig s irracx �� GEOSCIENCES THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4,2021 Gerald Ford Drive I Palm Desert J.N. 20-446 LITERATURE REVIEWED American Concrete Institute,2014,Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete(ACI 318-14)and Commentary,Committee 318. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE/SEI), 2016, Minimum Design Load For Buildings and Other Structures, Standards 7-16. California Building Code(CBC), 2019, California Code of Regulations.Title 24, Part 2, Volume I and II. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Seismic Hazard Evaluation of the Laguna Beach 7.5- Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California: CDMG Seismic Hazards Zones Report No. 013, (map date April, 1998). California Geological Survey, 2010, 'Fault Activity Map of California, Geologic Data Map No, 6, lutp://inaps.conservation.ca.gov/cvs/faml. California Geological Survey, 2018,Earthquake Fault Zones,A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Special Publication 42. Caltrans, 2003, Bridge Design Specifications, Section 8—Reinforced Concrete.dated September. Cao. T., et al.. 2003, Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, June 2003: California Geological Survey, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009, NEHERP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program) Recommended Seismic Provision for New Building and Other Structures (FEMA P-750). Dibblee, T.W., and Minch, J.A., 2008, Geologic map of the Thousand Palms & Lost Horse Mountain 15 minute quadrangles, Riverside County, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-372,scale 1:62,500 Hart, E.W..and Bryant, W.A,, 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42(Supplements I and 2 added 1999,and Supplement 3 added 2003). Ishihara, K., 1985,Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes, 1 Ith International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Proceedings, San Francisco, Vol. 1., pp.321-376. Pradel, D., 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils: in Journal of Geoiechnical and Geoenviron,nerrlal Engineering: Vol. 124.No. 4. SEAOC &OSHP❑ Seismic Design Maps Web Application—https://seismicnmaps.org?/ Seed. R.B. et. al., 2003, Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A Unified and Consistent Framework, Earthquake Engineering Research Center; Report No. EERC 2003-06; 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Section Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S. Queen Mary, Long Beach,California, April 30. PETRA soe+v as n r���c'x THE PACIFIC COMPANIES March 4,2021 Gerald Ford Drive/Palm Desert IN. 20-446 LITERATURE REVIEWED Southern California Earthquake Center(SCEC, 1998), Seismic Hazards in Southern California: Probable Earthquakes. 1994 to 2024: by Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities. Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC, 1999, Revised 2008), Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California: organized through the Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California. Sprotte, E.C., Fuller, D.R., and Greenwood, R.B., 1980, Classification and Mapping of Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits for Purposes of Seismic Zonation, South Coastal Los Angeles Basin,Orange County, California: CDMG Open File Report 80-1 9LA. Stewart,J.P., Smith, P.M„ Whang, D.H., University ofCalifornia. Los Angeles.and Bray, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, 2002. Documentation and Analysis of Field Case Histories of Seismic Compression during the 1994 Northridge, California, Earthquake, PEER Report 2002/09, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University.of California, Berkeley, October. Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, 1-I.B., 1987; Evaluation of Settlements in Sands due to Earthquake Shaking: in Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 1 13,No. 8,p. 86]-879. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2014a, Interactive Deaggregation Calculator (Beta), https://geohazards.usus,goVldeawain(/20(18/ 2014b, Youd,T.L., Hansen,C.M., Bartlett, S.F.,2002,Revised Multilinear Regression Equations for Prediction of Lateral Spread Displacement, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, December 2002, Vol. 128,No. 12. PETF A SONOA.S n ROCK FIGURES PETRA sQrm m n Boni+ NATIVE SOIL. BACKFILL .-0"" ....---->Sloped or level ground surface I. 1: ?%'• -Compacted on-site soli N.w �I • f: .,, :Recommended backcut* ,.: A; . `-,Waterproofing compound ` k GIP a 6'' p �',., ''install subdrain s ystem ;: i 4 9ig be� ` 111 '.:n, nlm▪ -- 2:in de column of 3l "- I 112" `'- a'n�; �; ,,' Y °° ▪ :Minimum�2-inch-wi I °I , . 6.- -0: YH13'''.. '.i;r•,- _ a wrapped In filter fabric, ,•' l_4 �: '`-open graded gravel �,: � Via-••�. ''. �• -v N qq, '''"'LLLLLL111711, ,r.` `. Filter fabric(should consist of ':`-' 0 rao` Mirafi. I 40N or equivalent) N g e. a.0�l , ...,. p a -' .4 inch perforated pipe. Perforated pipe should G R 'consist of 4 diameter... . • s d ame a ABSSDR-35or V o r PVC a e. a.c. cry .. `;� •� "'s ��i���;��,= 'Yv;'.'. `.• • -.Schedule 40 or approved equivalent with the • ''' Pipe shouldbe laidon ....;• ` .: • - ;Ali >�':;•::•::'., : _ -••; _ =;perforation5laid down. Pp ,'; :,., ;ill).', at least 2 Inches of open graded gravel. ..Y4t 'r•A. •s•-• : r /' 'i...-• tit+' rl _ ▪ r Y - /.:•.r.•f.^L rS+f.-rSf yrtiny,, y- {,l,." y..'Sey.,}�ti.iL'ryi;".,•d.',fr•-.S•y %• a •.•Y i,+..�P•"• trS.r �Y 9'f`s".r:-.Yat,.+y 1r Sr z1;1 i+'a S'.a:'s,en•;'Ij`]ii, r,..F. yY'- •.•F-FS. i �s✓ti',.•''.. + . •fLt'yn� lNia.:�i.%Y..i..' �:.,. .,F-�• ,•'a+S%yn,,•n• '•YY .YPSn'• ^ry.'i..,0'...i"-JPY %a ,f'..L/..P•.••••'r'0 J-S•^rL.tiY.. , --.• -n ,r,•r`•,v,,,,,,i.r•;r••s••r•n,,,,,,,,r,%•.'r..,...',r-Y"•,e *Vertical height(h)and slope angle Y.yY+.^�/L t�.Yt♦1 j.,.nP,�rYi eS:r'.+t:y+Y.��y..,:y.S!t�..•'. '1..-.;.-r,.••�.YrY, ,t ,Y'',-",",- :�ti - of backcut per soils report. Based .�4:'e,,ri t,rc:t...'Y�Y' 1ZYn,r nL:...- r` :�• on geologic conditions,configuration _ ,_ +-. ._ .'•° of backcut may require revisions (i.e. reduced vertical height, revised slope angle,etc.) , 14 PETRA RETAINING WALL BACKFILL FIGURE RW-1 AND SUBDRAIN DETAILS IMPORTED SAND BACKFILL - - -� _ Sloped or level ground surface On-site native soil cap F ; 112 H .. . `•?1.::'' (12"thick) r'; ;':.::•'-';•'::"::-:;:::: :1'-+`.' .None ansive imported ` }: sand,Non-expansive p . '.1.;;;2:6 °t X w: 'WNaterproofing compound ;: ` Install subdraln system ;,:....,,:i,',.;,:1:�? k..;;:;- :,:r cubic foot per toot msn. of 314"-1 '1/2' k:`° �` . ..•. ` ';.J`,` "'•o en raded ravel wrapped in filter 1,11 :'�_ ' lter f140 or eq d consist of • p� -,,;;1,',t '' Mirafi 14�N or equivalent). :::.:::.:.:::.:::[:::;:::;::a:K:=; ::; ::;•;:::::;• �s:. ,,4�inch perforated i e. Perforated pipe should ::; ' s:s::;:;;;<�:;i;:€= ;:::'1'1,; d o p P P p �.}..,..,Y[., •,.}..i,.,�•�,•, .1,i;•4,•-...o1 [,n i•••. .`S' P4f a '•1,'•� ;•consist Of 4' diameter A65 SDi�-35 or PVC -r y rt'S � :'Y' crd'o-o yr !•.•.•r,�i _�;'- r'ti =::;fir::' r .•,'. - ----'Schedule 40 or approved equivalent with the ti ry ;;� s"iI' ,�.wr13-;, .,��„r n • ''' ''�f %perforations laid down. Pi a should be laid on .r._a,`i.. ��'•�:' �i{3,s. Sir;`� �;� •r` Y ' hes of open-graded g ''_°�-'? •.,,,,. �- ,:� •�: - `:mot feast�ino s,". :r, +^:,. 3 i 4 V , `.44' t. r ;,�� ';`"„ ravel. t�•s°-.t�ti ,_ >>•.$2!:2�x.0!,e lr'kill -.' 1t11i; ' ^.y. r_e,±a„ .. ,. 'r a ' iTsyryr � ]�3i i-�1 r� YJ'. ' yy' J Yf-, - •'•f,t'''.f';� . yr-• ,Jry; 1`�,,tikil 2 min.Y.` ..,-. `r'!lYae,.','r'.'. kr''1. _ ,;i�'/•,..,'o.Lsrrs.r+sr ' ♦ s.. �,�_�L '' •r *At base of wall,the non-expansive , . •;• backfill materials should extend to a min, distance of 2'or to a horizontal distance equal to the heel width of the footing,whichever is greater. PETRA RAND[ SiUBDRA N ❑ETAILS L FIGURE RW-2 M IMPORTED GRAVEL OR CRUSHED ROCK RACKE'lLL -___ ----- '----->Sipped or level ground surface • '' ` (12"t e nazi:� L:• ::j:. .•i; 11 H. -• native sail cap -• .. .. _. _. .. .. : ; (12"thick) ��Lr 3; Ali fFJ-77•'�L`cY :'.�y � _ � �4c� .;�'� �,- x a'.:� ti?,•.,:-, f_'•' �'.lfon-ex ansive imported.9 w mr' 0 is kl6 : ----`-: p o ed ,...• y::.«. 1a 4+a.:-*•yq Y3 ,u ..:7, .. ''-gravel or crushed rock ';.-fA-.i;:.t., k Top.,, ilt:9,4,.io:02, .;.*:•..'9:.i.i ..-Z,'P''-/,'..;.';':,'1,', . %.• fryer- a?{'�liv�� a '! ,% •}-.; ;3 :177,., ,1.,, , r : ,r � 9 f.,;:,,Install filter fabric(Mirafi 140N a =, '+�- j per' "? '� equal)to prevent migration H � _,1-'��,��. Y'�•.�•'wp-y'r �' - � ''�• .�or q ev nt m ration w g�u' • r1= + ,r 7"=':•+-of fines into � , - Y '�.. �.�, bpi _ -- ' K'• ';' !I. `;•W__ate_rp_roofing compound iYfFi:� F`Sy,,��,✓�`Nt' �. ,' I`='r�•+5_f�rri rJ.'r"'�s • .,..„„t„„.„,,-..,,,........,t,.,,,,„,.,.,,,,,..„,4t15 g,r...:e.,.:....d-:-...:,,-;............L. i, �3,-, r- mil'• .aM+r'r- .9... :_,: :___ ► 4, . ' ,^'.i ,:M1 `4 inch'erforated pipe. Perforatedpipe ::i ' =i< is - P p p should s€: %°�•.ti, �'�.��, ,;,o,- s of 4 diameter ABS 5b1�-35 or PVC r.,'°` r=: < , �',, • . Schedule 44 or approved equivalent with the "' ?' ,..- -y �E i--t;--•a,z,: ' ,r f;••` .perforations laid pea gravel used, ';�-`tr 4 '� ,.:,, .Y: i ,. •a -.:.�.': down. It r' ;"• ;". � ;rA; .. 3_ .,;.: : a,,;...r ,'pipe should be encased in 1 cubic foot per =;' ;;; :,7t�'�'' sf r ;.::� <i t.`, ;;."'' ,:loot min.of 3141 - 1 t/2"open-graded gravel ,'ry} - .i I -7f' uL.El:i s ' ar, - :r'' :� ,.,� 1,� �.,,�' ., ;r-.:; ..�, - "wrapped in filter fabric(Mirafi 140N or equal) !;;,r?, ,-. ''r•' ,,s'�,f ',='`, . ;M1`,,,.`.` ' Pipe should be laid on at least 2 inches of 'r•:,ti;;,.r :,', r • ->;¢i ..r-•. - gravel. °Y2' i�Y`ti1.41..'xti.',41.A .* •i - •4�k'':r4,ti'fra - '.•vrs,'+. J: 'I��-�L.-.-' ♦M_is - S••r�A"r ..,. _ • ry".','v-,S••-rra• rr4rr "' 'srai ,,.1• • ' a a.-, .!.• ryr.' S.•� ♦• -r4+"ti tiv ,.rY.i.tisa..v��+•ar :L.".•:.•.,1....:..til.'2.,:.•.. '1. ' l•�h.''J`a.r1r,r�+.'•�+1:�Y�.�,.ss Y,.�ea.-•.'t•_C•.}aa�.• •vr`i'-...}?s.�ri 2r.,�a:s•prar *At base of wail,the non-expansive backfill materials should extend to a min.distance of 2'or to a horizontal distance equal to the heel width of the footing,whichever is greater. PETRA RETAINING WALL BACKRILL .AND SUBDRAIN DETAILS FIGURE RW-3 Ednm � ! o-Aav vbR eR- ` Shadow Ridge Creek c W AU/ocsx•w ` arxar»rcA rep. 3 0.1401 WORE OR 1 Y.II fa r,isrr de �, ' +a. xirrr.rt �ErFe; ., #rr WAD DR i LrnCEA RC•L[R1 RR - - A L.I. ' I - . ..eRwiipp RA 1 _Vr4 Roge5oi �. . l � i 1C 1. J - .. 1:�r.1 •R ne;rfn'Cf T ir.4- ! • 1 f - -""', . : 1 I ®• c.ve.o co�O[�x p c 1c FmIE` iN. r :3 s 4t ..ate .. c4 G. f I 1 I MANX SINAIR4 DR - I FRANK 5.74;1114 DR GREENS- _. __ $ F IWI.,kP r - _ _ .IF/f i f. } a i # -.1 RG4 k • g _ I" Cixxhellu ,out f 1 $ •r s • Valley 1 ;t. a t ta.ic.,}FAR,Rr ra Oe alas{PPr'CL1 AP r ti r, PALM PALM ❑ESER' P a ;.rri § g DESSERT I , s I [al,are x ixselrpui RR 1. CC4.•Rr4r CIAO'AR I I • - C Oun ray CUNT OR 1 - eh rer. I-• • 0 y i.1 d ■ppj,ri.;; ,IFOR DP 6 S w .• 'a ' y nprsr Re. PIP :r [A; x 1_.1 i{tki. F i f - ✓1PREFr iM w FR•Ikukyf[n 'Ri[k tioeMiAnyrp•,., 1I 114 if VA A^ us vO ws' u•e. - .• RYkknv.IPfMGF OR • I 0r1101 • ¢t .'` 4••, r.-r•[,Ir. _ AAUP(5 ,µ r..Ik• �' l,.vaC.Si[C[u 4 d2w rG 112 5� [.4NIMO lReOrOH ; ¢ u 1 - I El 9 ` ,Wuc Pr.r f5w" RN�iII CAwr'• FR .-�'� viR ill. � � LRw i. 3 x Mc •Lie - `F a Sp �Cctnyun - _ a.. ,I.1 , ..:.1. G ..j. . r.at y4 PAD, s„Sf.l i.r vA rvs. I.R FP..,:111A.ilAavA l• PETRA GE ypr�k OSCIENCES, INC. $ 318e Amway Avenue,Suile K ..k,,rr IieF+Y Costa 128 PHONE: T14)548-692 `� i yr� ��^C 1 COSTA MESA TEMECVLA VALENCIA PALM DESERT CORONA "uF uc.F hr',, ' I • =`.—,Te' SITE LOCATION MAP Scale: 1" — 3,nr n FI^R E" _ Palm Desert Apartments • AMR LA ast of Palm Desert heriff tation on erafd .ard Dr FirEA{GSNIFKi PIr , Rip WANW[ •V' fa..r.ROSA r.4r = Palm Desert,California Base Map: portions ofLTISG Pal Springs Cathedral City, Myoma, Rancho .PETRw DAT .March 202= Mirage, and La QuitltaQuadranglOs 7.5-Minute.:TopogFapIlic Sefie"s";2015 ' CEOSCIENCES- 1 20446 ❑®❑rlll _ �_,�_GERALD FORD DRIVE uh , .02. . ,. lip _t J. i , _ r_�I - i ; :./ _ r D [ R I F !_ d I L �� �i ,,__, - I •.L I • , =€ nY it . i _ { I 1 = ' . ; , i 1 { r IW 1. .. hil �. 1 TD f _ • _� i ��J L� f 1 � - , fi ,_, ,_,------ ___1-1---1--r-- _ L � L I. ;i-� a TD=y6. B- ] 'I L ] 3-g , PETRA GEGSCIENCES, INC. 3186 Airway Avenua,Suite K EXPLANATION Costa Mesa,California 92626 PHONE!(714)5494921 - $_'2 COSTA MESA TEMECULA VALEMC A PALM DESERT CORONA Appro mate ocation of ploratar florin SITE PLAN TD=61' NPalm Desert Apartments est of Palm�_l Desert heriff tation on erald ord Dr Palm Desert California Approximate Location of Percolation Boring i�i P=IBA DAT March 202. TD=16"5' Scale: 1" = I 20' GEOSCIENCE-- I. ..2C-046 ".14= A- 4h� } 1 Ii a • I • ryrl _f - i - 'i ti I. 11 R JZ}y ,F'YC-.11" l•J • 7 .4,?.., r 1..: �� nS.r6 M oh. Il1i.a y o r< -_.._ .�+' � CC F. • 1 1E11 f,.Iu:l,l pua-•fi;a1 ii 4 4140. •• park IPIsIdF A • II l'rlillll xI trlTalY' �l, C1~ r61 A:,II I'1' I Fu611l-1) ; 1'< -st% -''i 1,r 1 _ Ns.ate . A— 0 SITE . .__ y4.c UNRInre+ly Pal* M17,I1'11F UM,r.1 rl +7 • . 4 u 6 iii5 _ I)IT1YerElly Llo • - Pori 11 L f� '44urllntl❑ 5flagciu+�noe � . • o • - . L-, •H. i.ti it ?' O'�IIA•'r. Eli••` 7 _ M 4 I-• - I•f.lr,1'i I1:11'., Lill'._ -, 1 {1 '.- , .I-71,,- I.,, L. .• . �K* ., t N -• F PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. 3186 Airway Avanue,Sale K CpsIa Mesa,Califs na 9782B PHONE:(714)549.8921 S 2111 F'C.s•: COSTA MESA TEMECULA VALENCIA PALM DESERT CORONA C IU'"I> REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP Scale: l" = QQO' Palm Desert Apartments East of Palm Desert Sheriff Sta on Gerald Ford Dr Palm Desert.California - N;,ur LI'I II It r, - DAT March 202 I--. -L f_I �.� PETRA -i ! - QEOSCIENCES- ��Jr'. r 1:: :2o ass APPENDIX A BORING LOGS PETRA,_- SOUP ASA ROOK Key to Soil and Bedrock Symbols and Terms PETRA Unified Soil Classification System GRAVELS Clean Gravels GIN Well-graded gravels,gravel-sand mixtures,little or no fines '41 y c more that!half of coarse (less than 5%Fnes) CP Poorly-graded gravels,gravel-sand mixtures,little or no fines a •E1 I o fraction is larger than#4 Gravels GM _Silty Gravels,poorly-graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures bo i w H sieve with fines CC Clayey Gravels,poorly-graded gravel-sand-clay mixtures rn a.. in a „ SANDS Clean Sands SW Well-graded sands,gravelly sands,little or no fines c ° iw E. ".9 more than half of coarse (less than 5%fines) SP Poorly-graded sands,gravelly sands,little or an fines U v u Fraction is smaller than#4 Sands SM Silty Sands,poorly-graded sand-gravel-silt mixtures A -u p sieve with fines SC Clayey Sands,poorIy-graded sand-gravel-clay mixtures •M inorganic silts&very fine sands,silty or clayey fine sands, co tii t, SILTS&CLAYS clayey silts with slight plasticity H 6 ro- Liquid Limit CL Inorganic clays of Iow to medium plasticity,gravelly clays, II g iron Than 5Q 7 0 ,t , A sandy clays,silty clays,Ivan clays 4 w u OL . Organic silts&clays of low plasticity R° - m SILTS&CLAYS MR Inorganic silts,micaceous or diatomaceous fine sand or silt - WSI g Liquid Limit CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity,fat clays A Greater Than 50 OH Organic silts and clays of medium-to-high plasticity Highly Organic Soils PT Peat,humus swamp soils with high organic content Grain Size Description Sieve Size Grain Size Approximate Size Boulders >12" >12" Larger than basketball-sized Cobbles 3- 12" 3 - 12" Fist-sized to basketball-sized coarse 3/4-3" 3/4-3" Thumb-sized to fist-sized Gravel fine #4-3/4" 0.19-0.75" - Pea-sized to thumb-sized coarse #10-#4 0.079-0.19" Rock salt-sized to pea-sized Sand medium #40-#10 0.017-0.079" Sugar-sized to rock salt-sized fine #200-#40 0.0029-0.017" Flour-sized to sugar-sized to Fines Passing#200 <0.0029" Flour-sized and smaller • Laboratory Test Abbreviations Modifiers MAX Maximum Dry Density MA Mechanical(Particle Size)Analysis Trace < 1 % EXP Expansion Potential AT Atterberg Limits Few 1 -5% SO4 Soluble Sulfate Content #200 #200 Screen Wash Some 5- 12% RES Resistivity DSU Direct Shear(Undisturbed Sample) Numerous 12-20% pH Acidity DSR Direct Shear(Remolded Sample) CON Consolidation HYD Hydrometer Analysis SW Swell SE Sand Equivalent CL Chloride Content OC Organic Content RV R-Value COMP Mortar Cylinder Compression Sampler and Symbol Descriptions Bedrock Hardness Approximate Depth of Seepage Can be crushed and granulated by Soft hand;'soil like'and structureless Z Approximate Depth of Standing Groundwater Can be grooved with fingernails; I Moderately gouged easily with butter knife; Hard crumbles under light hammer blows Modified California Split Spoon Sample Cannot break by hand;can be Standard Penetration Test Hard grooved with a sharp knife;breaks �+ with a moderate hammer blow Bulk Sample , Shelby Tube v Lit Sharp knife leaves scratch;chips Very Hard with repeated hammer blows �1J'1 No Recovery in Sampler , Notes: Blows Per Foot: Number of blows required to advance sampler t foot(unless a lesser distance is specified). Samplers in general were driven into the soil or bedrock at the bottom of the hole with a standard(140 lb.)hammer dropping a standard 30 inches unless noted otherwise in Log Notes. Drive samples collected in bucket auger borings maybe obtained by dropping non-standard weight from variable heights, When a SPT sampler is used the blow count conforms to ASTM ❑-1586 EXPLORATION LOG Project: Palm Desert Apartments Baring No.; B-1 Location: of the Palm Desert Sheriff's Station on Gerald Ford Drive,Palm Desert,Riverside County,CA Elevation: ±280 Job No.: 20-446 Client: The Pacific Companies Date: 12/22/2020 Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 140lbs130" Lagged By; KTM w Samples Laboratory Tests A Blows C B Depth Lith- Moisture (Feet) ology Material Description T a u Dry Other E per r Content Density Lab 6 in. e k (%) (pcf) Tests 0 • • DUNE SAND DEPQSITS_(Qs) • • • Poorly graded sand with sit(SP-SM):gray,dry,loose,fine to • medium grained. 5 • Becomes medium dense,no recovery. 4 8 14 10— Same as above. 3 5 1 0.4 109.3 12 15---• • • Becomes dense 15 23 I 0.3 113.5 37 End of boring g 16.5 ft No groundwater encountered during drilling Boring backfrlled 12/22/2020 and tamped with drill cutting. 20— 25— 30— PLATE A-1 Petra Geosciences, Inc. EXPLORATION LOG Project: Palm Desert Apartments Boring No.: D-2 East of the Palm Desert Sheriffs Station on Gerald Ford Drive,Palm Location: Desert,Riverside County,CA Elevation: ±274 Job No.: 20-446 Client: The Pacific Companies Date: 12/22/2020 Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 1401bs/30" Logged By: KTM w Samples Laboratory Tests Depth Lith- A Blows C $ Moisture ❑ (Feet) ology Material Description T o Liry Other E per r Content Density Lab R 6 in. e k (%) (pcf) Tests 0 '• DUNE SAND DEPOSITS(Qs) MA?C,PH, Poorly graded sand with silt(SP-SM);gray,dry,loose,fine to SO4 _ medium dense. . Becomes medium dense,no recovery. 5 6 11 Same as above, no recovery. 4 5— 8 Same as above,no recovery. 13 Same as above,no recovery. 7 10 17 Same as above, no recovery. 4 10 • 18 10 Same as above. 6 12 ' 0.4 113.3 10 15— dense,fine grained sand,Becomes dense,fine grained sand. 8 15 ' 0.5 105.5 23 20 Becomes very dense. 15 23 I 0.3 119.9 40 25— Becomes very dense. 17 r . 25 40 30— 30 31 0.3 116.1 47 PLATE A-2 Petra Geosciences, Inc. EXPLORATION LOG Project: Palm Desert Apartments Boring No.: B-2 Location: East of the Palm Desert Sheriff's Station on Gerald Ford Drive,Palm Desert, Riverside County,CA, Elevation: ±274 Job No.: 20-446 Client: The Pacific Companies Date: I2/22/2020 Drill Method: 8" HolIow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 140Ibs130" Logged By: KTM w Samples Laboratory Tests Depth Lith- A Blows C l3 Moisture Dr (Feet) alvgy Material Description T o u Y Other E per r Content Density Lab R 6 in. e k (%) ((pot) Tests 35 75 r 25 29 • 40— 19 32 I 0.4 107.9 50/6" 45-1 Same as above,no recovery. 14 24 34 50 Same as above,no recovery. 16 26 50/6" 55 Becomes very fine to fine grained sand. 21 33 50/6" 60 Same as above,no recovery. 22 50/6 End of boring @ 61 ft No groundwater encountered during drilling Boring backfilled 12/22/2020 and tamped with drill cutting_ 65--- PLATE A-2 Petra Geosciences, Inc. EXPLORATION LOG Project: Palm Desert Apartments Boring No.: B-3 Location: East of the Palm Desert Sheriffs Station on Gerald Ford Drive,Palm Elevation: ±276 Desert, Riverside County,CA Job No.: 20-446 Client: The Pacific Companies Date: 12/22/2020 Drill Method: 8" HolIow Stein Auger Driving Weight: 140Ibs/30" Logged By: KTM W Samples Laboratory Tests Depth Lith- A Blows C B Moisture DryOther (Feet) oingy Material Description T o u E per r I Content Density Lab R 6 in_ e k (%) (PO) Tests 0 • DUNE SAND DEPOSITS_(Os) Poorly graded sand with sit(SP-SM):gray,dry,loose,fine to medium grained. Becomes medium dense,no recovery. 4 5 9 . Same as above. 6 " Same as above,no recovery. g 12 7 11 I 0.3 107.7 17 10— Becomes dense 9 15 I 0.4 102.2 24 15 Same as above 14 20 I 0.2 112.3 32 20— • Becomes very dense. 15 26 I 0.4 108.8 41 End of boring @ 21.5 ft No groundwater encountered during drilling Boring bachfilled 12/22/2020 and tamped with drill cutting. 25— 30— PLATE A-3 Petra Geosciences, Inc. EXPLORATION LOG Project: Palm Desert Apartments Boring No.: B-4 Location: East of the Palm Desert Sheriffs Station on Gerald Ford Drive,Palm Desert.Riverside County,CA Elevation: ±273 Job No.: 20-446 Client: The Pacific Companies Date: 12/22/2020 Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 140Ibs/30" Logged By: KTM w Samples Laboratory Tests Depth Lith- Material Description T Blows o Moisture Dry Other (Feet) ology E per Content Density Lab rIR 6 in, e k (%) (pef) Tests 0 DUNE SAND DEPOSITS(Qs) — Poorly graded sand with silt(SP-SM):gray,dry,loose,fine to medium grained sand, 5 - • 10 1 0.6 110.0 11 5 Becomes medium dense II5 6 10 Same as above 7 12 1 0.3 109.4 15 10— Same as above 4 7 I 0,4 108.1 16 15 Becomes dense 17 24 I 0.4 108 1 36 20— Becomes very dense. 15 28 I 0.3 114.2 39 End of boring @ 21.5 ft No groundwater encountered during drilling Boring backtilled 12/22/2020 and tamped with drill cutting. 25— 30— PLATE A-4 Petra Geosciences, Inc. EXPLORATION LOG Project: Palm Desert Apartments Boring No.: P-I Location: East of the Palm Desert Sheriff's Station on Gerald Ford Drive,Palm Elevation: ±272 Desert,Riverside County,CA Job No.: 20-446 Client: The Pacific Companies Date: 12/22/2020 Drill Method: 8"Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 1401bs/30" Logged By: KTM w Samples Laboratory Tests A C B Depth Lith- Blows Moisture DryOther Feet) ()logy Material Description T o u E per Content Density Lab R 6 in. k (%) (Pct.) Tests e • 0 DUNE SAND DEPOSITS(Qs) Poorly graded sand with silt(SP-SM):gray,dry,loose,fine to medium grained sand. Becomes medium dense. 4 -- 5 6 10 Same as above. 5 — g 13 15— Becomes dense. 10 16 20 ._ End of boring 16.5 ft No groundwater encountered during drilling Boring backfilled 12/22/2020 and tamped with drill cutting. 20— 25 30— PLATE A-5 Petra Geosciences, Inc. APPENDIX B LABORA TOR Y TEST PROCEDURES LABORA TOR Y DATA SUMMARY a PETRA MO AS A OCR LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES Soil Classification Soil materials encountered within the property were classified and described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and in general accordance with the current version of Test Method ASTM D 2488.The assigned group symbols are presented in the exploration logs,Appendix A. Moisture Content and In Situ Moisture Content and Dry Unit Weight Moisture content of selected bulk samples and in-place moisture content and dry unit weight of selected, relatively undisturbed soil samples were determined in accordance with the current version of the Test Method ASTM D 2435 and Test Method ASTM D2216, respectively. Test data are presented on the exploration logs,Appendix A. Laboratory Maximum Dry Unit Weight and Optimum Moisture Content The maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content of the on-site soils were determined for a selected bulk sample in accordance with current version of Method A of ASTM D 1557. The results of these tests are presented on Plate B-1. Corrosivity Screening Chemical and electrical analyses were performed on a selected bulk sample of onsite soils to determine their soluble sulfate content, chloride content, pH(acidity),and minimum electrical resistivity. These tests were performed in accordance with the current versions of California Test Method Nos. CTM 417, CTM 422 and CTM 643,respectively. The results of these tests are included on Plate B-I. Grain Size Distribution A grain size analysis was performed on a selected bulk sample of onsite soils in accordance with the current versions of Test Method ASTM D 136 and/or Test Method ASTM D 422. The test result is graphically presented on Plate B-2. PETRA GEOSCIENCES,INC. Laboratory Address: 1251 W. Pomona Road, Unit 103, Corona, CA, 92882 J.N. 20-446 Q �eeE. a q �- j 2 7 ' 0 �k z . k ^ c c 0. — k d2 � — \ % \ _ a QC a CS 0 ° ci k 2 06± \ - tv t ,E ' Q 7 -a -ti) i - ;, & 2ct N b ) \ ` \ \ \ 7 / c. 2 7 \ 7 r 2 ) k / i 3 ©r # 2 A k \ , 4i a ) = = .2 fg e \ \ \ / \ , a I— g \Q § /� / .02 Q b- 3 ;c- » ; ( / 0 \ \ en f 2 & » ". \ k g g r 2 2 ^ 3 j j / \ \ j 7 / \ 2 2 2 ƒ j O _2 VI T11 elq 2 2 2 / § R P H H a. ) 2 -5 _ ' R ® - / § � \ rt- 2c � a c ...4 / _ § \ \ $ 2 = m 2 = 0 \ kN . � % COMPACTION TEST REPORT Project No.: 20-446 Date: 1/26/2021 Project: Palm Desert Apartments Client: The Pacific Companies Source of Sample: 13-2 Depth: 0-5 Remarks: MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Description: Gray.fine to medium Sand with Silt Classifications- USCS: AASHTO: Nat. Moist. = Sp.G. = Liquid Limit= Plasticity Index= %< No.200= 5.3% TEST RESULTS Maximum dry density= I21.5 pef Optimum moisture= 12.5°%q 140 Test specification: ASTM D 1557-12 Method A Modified 130 - 120 - - --' 100% SATURATION CURVES NWT FOR SPEC, GRAV. EQUAL TO: N■A■ • ■. 2.8 a 110 • ■BEN■■■ 2,6 0 ■�■E■ — . . WN■ M■■■■ ■■■■■■ 90 --- - _ - MN. NN ■■■■ ■■■ ■■■EMN _ _ _ ■�?.�■ - - - - MIE 80 _ _ �■ ■•Un■ N ■■■■ ■ ■ ■■ ' _ - - ■NM■N■■■■■■ - - 70 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Water content,% Figure B Petra Geosciences, Inc. Particle Size Distribution Report C O 0 0 •C s. G , C V O^ oN oCr, 'I' O V 0 eo ���� K1 # # ik ik # * # 100 ^ w 90 80 7❑ • CC UJ 60 z U- 1- z 50 w [.] CC w 40 C'L 30 20 , 10 , 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.00T GRAIN SIZE-mm. 0/0+3„ '1 Gravel %Sand %Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.7 36.0 5.3 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.' PASS? Material Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Gray. fine to medium Sand with Silt 3 100.0 2 100.0 1.5 100.0 1 100.0 Atterperg Limits 75 100.0PL= LL= P1= .375 100.0 Coefficients #4 100.0 Dgo= 1.0154 D85= 0.8958 D80= 0.5903 #10 100.0 050= 0.5034 i030= 0.2595 D15= 0.1242 #20 82.5 Di0= 0.0976 Cu= 6.05 Cc= 1,17 #40 41.3 #60 29.4 Classification #100 19 3 USCS= AASHTO= #140 11.6 Remarks #200 5.3 * (no specification provided) Source of Sample: 6-2 Depth: 0-5 Date: i127/2021 Client:The Pacific Companies PETRAProject: Palm Desert Apartments GEOSCIENCES 20-446 Project No: Figure B-2 APPENDIX C PERCOLATION TEST SUMMARY PETRA ststiO A}4 ROCK Test Number: P-1 Deep Percolation Teet Method Total Depth of Boring,DI(ft): 15 Diameter of Hole, ❑(in): 8 Diameter of Pipe,d(in): 3 Agg.Correction(%Voids): 20 D Pre-soak depth(ft): 5 CI Time Depth to Water Surface Fem. Change in Perc.Rate interval DW(ft) Head(in) Rate (galldaylftA2) (min) 1st Reading 2nd Reading (min/En) 13,81 15.00 14.28 0.07 ^ 876.75 1 13.79 15.00 14.52 0.07 879.93 [}., 1 13.74 15.00 15.12 0.07 887.54 • • 1 13.68 15.00 15.84 0.06 896.06 ■ • 1 13.52 15.00 16.56 0.06 903.98 •• • 1 13.55 15.00 17.40 0.06 912.55 • ■ • • • • • • • ■ • • • ■ _ • • ■ ■ • • • • ❑i • • • • • • Percolation Rate: 0.06 Minutes/Inch • • 912.55 gal/day/ft` • • • • Infiltration Rate: 195.14 Inches/Hour* • • (Porchet Method) • • • • where Infiltration Rate.It=6H(60r)!At(r+2He q) : • r=D12 • • • • Hp=Dt-Dq • • HI=DI-Dr • • • • oH=AD=He-Hf ■ ■ =(Hp+H1)12 • • • • Factor of Safety 1 • •• • • Allowable Infiltration Rate: 195.14 IncheslHour* •• • (Porchet Method) • • • • PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC. 3186 Airway Mende.suite K Costa Mesa,Celifomia 92626 PHONE:(714)549-9021 COSTA MESA TEMECULA VALEHCIA PALM DESERT CORONA PERCOLATION TEST SUMMARY Palm Desert Apartments Reference: RCFFwco Design frei,dnnok for LID,Ended June,2014or Palm Desert,California SARwcC9,Te[hrlllal Guidance Document Appendix VII.dated Qocernher 20.2013 ar P DATE:February,2r21 Co139ASP,TethAftel Guidance Demme'Appendix!),dated May 19,2011 or ETryC'R E^ J,I�. 20_446 Figure 2 APPENDIX D SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS PETRA soup As ROCK 2/23/2021 s�A U.S. Seismic Design Maps OSHPD = Latitude, Longitude: 33.785932, -116.376831 Gerald Ford Dr n Palm Springs County Gerald Ford Dr Sheriff Department Palm Desert n w -0 a Police Department Y A m a a IT 4 dab Scholar Ln W S+:Hulot Ln 1= Q OimEitiorver t:i Go gie Map data 02021 Date 2/23/2021,2:22:08 PM Design Code Reference Document ASCE7-16 Risk Category II Site Class D-Stiff Soil Type Value Description Ss 1.786 MCER ground motion.(for 0.2 second period) Si 0.742 MCER ground motion.(for 1.0s period) Skgs 1.786 Site-modified spectral acceleration value Stint null-See Section 11.4.8 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SDS 1.191 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA SD- null-See Section 11.4.8 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA Type Value Description SDC null-See Section 11.4.8 Seismic design category Fa 1 Site amplification factor at 0.2 second F„ null-See Section 11.4.8 Site amplification factor at 1.0 second PGA 0.776 MCEG peak ground acceleration FPGA 1-1 Site amplification factor at PGA PGAM 0.853 Site modified peak ground acceleration Ti_ 8 Long-period transition period in seconds SsRT 2.125 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion.(0.2 second) SsIJH 2.369 Factored uniform-hazard(2%probability of exceedance in 50 years)spectral acceleration SsD 1.786 Factored deterministic acceleration value.(0.2 second) S1 RT 0.837 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion.(1.0 second) S1 UH 0.949 Factored uniform-hazard(2%probability of exceedance in 50 years)spectral acceleration. S1 D 0.742 Factored deterministic acceleration value.(1.0 second) PGAd 0.776 Factored deterministic acceleration value.(Peak Ground Acceleration) CRS 0.897 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods CR1 0,882 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s https://seismicmaps.org 1/2 2/23/2021 U.S.Seismic Design Maps DISCLAIMER While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct,SEAQC IOSHPD and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy.The material presented in this web application should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy,suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals.SEAOC/OSHPD do not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals,having experience and knowledge in the field of practice,nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the seismic data provided by this webslte.Users of the information from this webslte assume all liability arising from such use.Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the search results of this website. https://seismicmaps_org 2/2 2/2 312 0 2 1 Unified Hazard Tool U.S. Geological Survey- Earthquake Hazards Program Unified Hazard Tool Please do not use this toot to ❑btain ground motion parameter values for the design code reference documents covered by the U.S. Seismic Design Maps web tools (e.g., the International Building Code and the ASCE 7 or 41 Standard). The values returned by the two applications are not identical. Input Edition Spectral Period Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 (u,.. Peak Ground Acceleration Latitude Time Horizon Decimal degrees Return period in years 33.785932 2475 Longitude Decimal degrees, negative values for western longitudes -116.376831 Site Class 259 m/s (Site class D) https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ 115 2/23/2021 Unified Hazard Tool es Hazard Curve Hazard Curves Uniform Hazard Response Spectrum le+D- t 3.5- - le-1- 3.0- El 1e-2- v m a▪ 1e 3- 2.5- C 6 1 1... 2A- u —Time Horizon 2075 year . 1e-5- '+-Paoli6raund Atteteration a ...-0.10 Second Spectral Acceleration C 1.5- a a20 second Sped.al 4cceterati. 3 1 1e-6- cy _ti 1330 5ecand Spectral Acceleration Q —0.595econd Spectral Acceleration 1.0- — le-T- -•0.75 Second Spectral Rcrekratron c -_- 1.005ecnnd$pectratacceteration Spectral Period(s):PGA le•8- LOD Second Spectral Acceleration 0-5- IA/Second Spectral AcceleraNn Ground Motion(8):0.9283 leis- 4-e0 scowl Siredral Acceleration - SAD Second Spectral Acceleration 0.9- 1e-2 le'-1 1e+0 D.D ❑.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 A-D 4.5 5.0 Ground Motion(g) Spectral Period{s} Component Curves for Peak Ground Acceleration 1e+D le-1 a ---e—_ a le-2 m 01 le-3 6 O le•1 \ T ` N, m le-5 �1\ Kr. e le-fi 7 \\ le-7 tv —Time Hodzon 2AT5 years Q le-8 5yslem - Grid —6—Interface 1c-9 .__Fault 1e-2 le-1 1e+0 Ground Motion(g) View law Data https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ 2/5 2/23/2021 Unified Hazard Tool ^ Deaggregation Component Total II E_(-'3..-2.5) E_[-2.5..-2) il E=(-2..-1.5) : Ni E=(-1.5..-1) ❑ E=[-1.. 0.5y ' Il• 11] E=10.5..07 I' 1 -_ '.1. El £_[O..0.5) ��k\-- (1.a I E=[1..1.5) �L �s� �II , -f 'CJ�S4a� E_[2..2.5) Cp . E=[2.5 +4.j .� III ..�� �� ?..r" � it � r 5 4. + r 0. 6 rt L. °^sFa 3; , t-0 ri, 7 'l. •tR� � 1 `\-' ' Ili (4rl 5 5 z+c.N_N.\e. 6.5 ,,a 5 �, h;a https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ 3/5 2/23/2021 Unified Hazard Tool Summary statistics for, Deaggregation: Total Deaggregation targets Recovered targets Return period: 2475 yrs Return period: 3232.1328 yrs Exceedance rate: 0.0004040404 yr-' Exceedance rate: 0.00030939323 yr' PGA ground motion: 0.92826306 g Totals Mean(over all sources) Binned: 100% m: 7.25 Residual: 0 0/0 r: 7.93 km Trace: 0.05% Eo: 1.59 a Mode(largest m-r bin) Mode(largest m-r-co bin) m: 7.49 m: 7.49 r: 6.92 km r: 6.88 km Eo: 1.49 a Eo: 1.39 6 Contribution: 16.56% Contribution: 11.95% Discretization Epsilon keys r: min=0.0,max=1000.0, =20.0 km E0: [ oo..-2.5) m: min=4.4,max=9.406=0.2 El: [-2.5..-2.0) E: min=-3.0,max=3.0,E=0.5a E2: [-2.0..-1.5) E3: [-1.5..-1.0) E4: [-1.0..-0.5) E5: [-0.5..0.0) E6: [0.0..0.5) E7: [0.5..1.0) E8: [1.0..1.5) E9: [1.5..2.0) E10: [2.0..2.5) E11: [2.5..+oo] https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ 4/5 2/23/2021 Unified Hazard Tool Deaggregation Contributors Source Set iy Source Type r rn E* Ion lat ax % UC33brAvgjFM31 System 39.41 San Andreas(San Gorgonio Pass-Garnet HIll)[1] 6.81 7.61 1,47 116.339°W 33.837°N 31.71 31.55 San Andreas(North Branch Mill Creek)[10] 8.31 7.88 1,29 116.327°W 33.843°N 36,11 4.15 San Andreas(Coachella)rev[0] 12.07 7,22 2.02 116.246°W 33.788°N 88.74 1.11 UC33brAvg_FM32 System 39.34 San Andreas)San Gorgonio Pass-Garnet Hill)[1) 6.81 7.60 1.47 116,339°W 33.837°N 31.71 31,39 San Andreas(North Branch Mill Creek)[10] 8.31 7.85 1.29 116.327`W 33.843°N 36.11 4.38 UC33brAvg_FM31(opt) Grid 10.63 PaintSourceFinite:-116.377,33.808 5.61 5,69 1.68 116.377°W 33.808"N 0.00 3.11 PointSourceFinite;-116.377,33.808 5.61 5.69 1.68 116,377°W 33.808"N 0,00 3.10 [1C33brAvg FM32(opt) Grid 10.62 PaintsourceFinite:-116.377,33.808 5,61 5.69 1.68 116.377°W 33.808°N 0,00 3.11 PointSourceFinite:-116.377,33,808 5.61 5.69 1.68 116,377`W 33.808°N 0,00 3.10 https7llearthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ 515 APPENDIX E DRY SAND SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS PETRA sOcrn As R ROCk GEOSCIENCES°° LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS The pacific apartment Hole No.=B-2 WaterDeprh=150 ft Magnizucfe=7.25 Accelerarion=O.853g N-VeYre UP0 Weight-pcl Fines 50 1) 0 100 0 200 0 29 N� �Je�h1 Fm�rs —� 1 l r r 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I I r l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 50 110 3 50 110 3 13 94 3 17 100 3 —r❑ 18 100 3 14 100 24 110 3 — 27 110 1 05 130 3 —�0 49 130 3 St 130 3 a4 104 130 3 t00 130 3 Aso 1C0 t:tl 3 SPT er OPT lest a 00 3 u- e—70 fr CivilTech Corporation Plate A-1 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS The pacific apartment Hole No.=B-2 Water Depth=150 ft Magnitude=7.25 Acceleration=0.853g Reyr IJi.rt Fines Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Settlement i5. PrYeig t h 0 1 0 1 5 0i:in.) 10 1 I Illilll Ii IIII111 — 56 Is0 3 — 50 110 3 13 00 3 — - ` 17 106 3 1 18 100 3 —10 is 100 3 24 110 3 —20 27 110 3 65 130 3 —30 46 130 3 5< 130 3 —aD 100 130 3 - 100130 3 1s1.100 rs2.1 S.180 In —6Q 106 136 3 CRR COR fat— ts2— Saturated — 9— Shaded Zone hat Lpueta Ginn P61ental llnsatvral — —60 s s yy9,,- E— —70 CMITech Corpora1ion Plate A•1 B-2 Dry Sand Settlement Details.sum.txt *****:r',::':*i:****'***********?:*** ******:: *****7:*****::**;R ****** ** *::;r *****::******* *******fir**;':**i:*„-*** LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY Copyright by CivilTech Software www.civiltech.com **f:****:: k********** **it*****i;*****;r-.':**it*****is:::r**fir******;:;r*****..******** ******* **'**•l;*****ic y':***:r**;: Font: Courier New, Regular, Size 8 is recommended for this report. Licensed to , 2/26/2021 12:41:42 PM Input File Name: S:\! PROJECTS\2020\4005\20-446 - The Pacific Companies\Calcs & Analysis\B-2 Dry Sand settlement.liq Title: The pacific apartment subtitle: Surface Elev.-- Hole No.=B-2 Depth of Hole= 50.00 ft Water Table during Earthquake= 150.00 ft water Table during In-Situ Testing= 150.00 ft Max. Acceleration= 0.85 g Earthquake Magnitude= 7.25 Input Data: Surface Elev.= Hole No.=B-2 ❑epth of Hole=50.00 ft Water Table during Earthquake= 150.00 ft Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 150.00 ft Max. Acceleration=0.85 g Earthquake Magnitude=7.25 No-Liquefiable Soils: CL, OL are Non-Liq. Soil 1. sPT or BPT Calculation. 2. Settlement Analysis Method: Tokimatsu/seed 3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Stark/Olson et al .* 4. Pine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefactions* 5. Settlement Calculation in: All zones* 6. Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce = 1 7. Borehole Diameter, Cb= 1 8. Sampling Method, Cs= 1 9. User request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , user. 1 Plot two CSR (fsl=User, fs2=1) 10. use Curve Smoothing: Yes* Recommended Options In-Situ Test Data: Depth SPT gamma Fines ft pcf 2.00 50.00 110.00 3.00 4.00 50.00 110.00 3.00 5.00 13.00 90.00 3.00 7.00 17.00 100.00 3.00 9.00 18.00 100.00 3.00 11.00 14.00 100.00 3.00 15.00 24.00 110.00 3.00 20,00 27.00 110.00 3.00 25.00 65.00 130.00 3.00 30.00 49.00 130.00 3.00 Page 1 B-2 Dry Sand settlement Details.sum.txt 35.00 54.00 130.00 3.00 40.00 100.00 130.00 3.00 45.00 100.00 130.00 3.00 50.00 100.00 130.00 3.00 Output Results: Settlement of Saturated Sands=0.00 in. Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=2.80 in. Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=2.80 in. Differential Settlement=1.399 to 1.846 in. Depth CRRm CSRfs F.S. S_sat. S_dry S_all ft in. in. in. 2.00 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 2.05 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 2.10 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 2.15 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 2.20 0. 55 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 2.25 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 2.30 0. 55 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 2.35 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 2.40 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 2.45 0. 55 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 2. 50 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 2.55 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 2.60 0. 55 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 2.65 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 2.70 0. 55 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 2.75 0.55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 2.80 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 2.85 0.55 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 2.90 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 2.95 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 3.00 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 3.05 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.80 2.80 3.10 0. 55 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 3.15 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 3.20 0. 55 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 3.25 0. 55 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 3.30 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 3.35 0. 55 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 3.40 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 3.45 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 3. 50 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 3.55 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 3.60 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 3.65 0. 55 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 3.70 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 3.75 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 3.80 0.55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 3.85 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 3.90 0. 55 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 3.95 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 4.00 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 4.05 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 4.10 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 4.15 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 4.20 0. 55 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 4.25 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 4.30 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 4.35 0. 55 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 Page 2 B-2 Dry sand settlement Details.sum.txt 4.40 0. 55 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 4.45 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 4.50 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 4.55 0.55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 4.60 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 4.65 0.55 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 4.70 0. 55 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 4.75 0.39 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 4.80 0.33 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 4.85 0.29 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 4.90 0.25 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 4.95 0.22 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.79 2.79 5.00 0.20 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.78 2.78 5.05 0.20 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.78 2.78 5.10 0.20 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.77 2.77 5.15 0.20 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.77 2.77 5.20 0.20 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.76 2.76 5.25 0.20 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.75 2.75 5.30 0.20 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.75 2.75 5.35 0.21 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.74 2.74 5.40 0.21 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.74 2.74 5.45 0.21 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.73 2.73 5.50 0.21 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.72 2.72 5.55 0.21 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.72 2.72 5.60 0.21 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.71 2.71 5.65 0.21 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.70 2.70 5.70 0.22 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.70 2.70 5.75 0.22 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.69 2.69 5.80 0.22 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.68 2.68 5.85 0.22 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.68 2.68 5.90 0.22 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.67 2.67 5.95 0.22 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.66 2.66 6.00 0.23 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.66 2.66 6.05 0.23 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.65 2.65 6.10 0.23 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.64 2.64 6.15 0.23 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.64 2.64 6.20 0.23 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.63 2.63 6.25 0.23 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.62 2.62 6.30 0.23 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.61 2.61 6.35 0.24 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.61 2.61 6.40 0.24 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.60 2.60 6.45 0.24 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.59 2.59 6. 50 0.24 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.58 2. 58 6. 55 0.24 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.58 2. 58 6.60 0.24 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.57 2.57 6.65 0.25 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.56 2. 56 6.70 0.25 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.55 2. 55 6.75 0.25 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.54 2. 54 6.80 0.25 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.54 2. 54 6.85 0.25 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.53 2. 53 6.90 0.25 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.52 2. 52 6.95 0.26 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.51 2. 51 7.00 0.26 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.50 2. 50 7.05 0.26 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.49 2.49 7.10 0.26 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.48 2.48 7.15 0.26 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.47 2.47 7.20 0.26 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.46 2.46 7.25 0.25 0.55 5.00 0.00 2.45 2.45 7.30 0.25 0. 55 5.00 0.00 2.44 2.44 7.35 0.25 0. 54 5.00 0.00 2.43 2.43 7.40 0.25 0. 54 5.00 0.00 2.42 2.42 7.45 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.41 2.41 7.50 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.40 2.40 Page 3 B-2 ❑ry sand Settlement ❑etails.sum.txt 7. 55 0.25 0. 54 5.00 0.00 2.39 2.39 7.60 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.37 2.37 7.65 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.36 2.36 7.70 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.35 2.35 7.75 0.25 0. 54 5.00 0.00 2.34 2.34 7.80 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.33 2.33 7.85 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.32 2.32 7.90 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.31 2.31 7.95 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.30 2.30 8.00 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.29 2.29 8.05 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.28 2.28 8.10 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.26 2.26 8.15 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.25 2.25 8.20 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.24 2.24 8.25 0.28 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.23 2.23 8.30 0.28 0. 54 5.00 0.00 2.22 2.22 8.35 0.28 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.21 2.21 8.40 0.28 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.20 2.20 8.45 0.28 0.54 5.00 ❑.00 2.19 2.19 8.50 0.28 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.18 2.18 8.55 0.28 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.17 2.17 8.60 0.28 0. 54 5.00 0.00 2.16 2.16 8.65 0.28 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.15 2.15 8.70 0.28 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.15 2.15 8.75 0.28 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.14 2.14 8.80 0.28 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.13 2.13 8.85 0.28 0. 54 5.00 0.00 2.12 2.12 8.90 0.28 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.11 2.11 8.95 0.28 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.10 2.10 9.00 0.28 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.09 2.❑9 9.05 0.27 0. 54 5.00 ❑.00 2.08 2.08 9.10 0.27 0. 54 5.00 0.00 2.07 2.07 9.15 0.27 0.54 5.0❑ 0.00 2.06 2.06 9.20 0.27 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.05 2.05 9.25 0.26 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.04 2.04 9.30 0.26 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.03 2.03 9.35 0.26 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.02 2.02 9.40 0.26 0.54 5.00 0.00 2.01 2.01 9.45 0.25 0.54 5.0❑ 0.00 1.99 1.99 9.50 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.98 1.98 9.55 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.97 1.97 9.60 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.96 1.96 9.65 0.24 0. 54 5.00 0.00 1.95 1.95 9.70 0.24 0. 54 5.00 ❑.00 1.94 1.94 9.75 0.24 0. 54 5.00 0.00 1.93 1.93 9.80 0.24 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.92 1.92 9.85 0.24 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.91 1,91 9.90 0.23 0. 54 5.00 0.00 1.89 1.89 9.95 0.23 0. 54 5.00 0.00 1.88 1.88 10.00 0.23 0. 54 5.0❑ 0.00 1.87 1.87 10.05 0.23 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.86 1.86 10.10 0.23 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.85 1.85 10.15 0.22 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.83 1.83 10.20 0.22 0. 54 5.00 0.00 1.82 1.82 10.25 0.22 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.81 1.81 10.30 0.22 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.79 1.79 10.35 0.22 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.78 1.78 10.40 0.21 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.77 1.77 10.45 0.21 0. 54 5,00 0.00 1.75 1.75 10.50 0.21 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.74 1.74 10.55 0.21 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.73 1.73 10.60 0.21 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.71 1.71 10.65 0.20 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.70 1.70 Page 4 B-2 Dry Sand Settlement Details.sum.txt 10.70 0.20 0. 54 5.00 0.00 1.69 1.69 10.75 0.20 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.67 1.67 10.80 0.20 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.66 1.66 10.85 0.20 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.64 1.64 10.9❑ 0.20 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.63 1.63 10.95 0.19 0. 54 5.00 0.00 1.61 1.61 11.00 0.19 0. 54 5.00 0.00 1.60 1.60 11.05 0.19 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.58 1. 58 11.10 0.19 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.57 1. 57 11.15 0.20 0.54 5.00 0.00 1. 56 1. 56 11.20 0.20 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.55 1. 55 11.25 0.20 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.55 1. 55 11.30 0.20 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.54 1.54 11.35 0.20 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.54 1.54 11.40 0.20 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.53 1.53 11.45 0.20 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.52 1.52 11.50 0.20 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.52 1.52 11.55 0.21 0, 54 5.00 0.00 1. 51 1.51 11.6❑ 0.21 0. 54 5.00 0.00 1. 51 1.51 11.65 0.21 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.50 1. 50 11.70 0,21 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 11.75 0.21 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 11.80 0.21 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.48 1.48 11.85 0.21 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.48 1.48 11.90 0.21 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.47 1.47 11.95 0.22 0. 54 5.00 0.00 1.46 1.46 12.00 0.22 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.46 1.46 12.05 0.22 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.45 1.45 12.10 0.22 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.45 1.45 12.15 0.22 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.44 1.44 12.2❑ 0.22 0.54 5.0❑ 0.00 1.44 1.44 12.25 0.22 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.43 1.43 12.30 0.22 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.43 1.43 12.35 0.22 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.42 1.42 12.40 0.23 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.42 1.42 12.45 0.23 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 12.50 0.23 0. 54 5.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 12.55 0.23 0. 54 5.00 0.00 1.40 1.40 12.60 0.23 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.39 1.39 12.65 0.23 0. 54 5.00 0.00 1.39 1.39 12.70 0.23 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.38 1.38 12.75 0.23 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.38 1, 38 12.80 0.24 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.37 1.37 12.85 0.24 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.37 1.37 12.90 0.24 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.36 1.36 12.95 0.24 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.36 1.36 13.00 0.24 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.35 1.35 13.05 0.24 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.35 1.35 13.10 0.24 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.34 1.34 13.15 0.24 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.34 1.34 13.20 0.24 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.33 1.33 13.25 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.33 1.33 13,30 0.25 0. 54 5.00 0.00 1.32 1.32 13.35 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.32 1.32 13.40 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.31 1.31 13.45 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.31 1.31 13.50 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 13.55 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.30 1.30 13.60 0.25 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.29 1.29 13.65 0.26 0. 54 5.00 0.00 1.29 1.29 13.70 0.26 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.29 1.29 13.75 0.26 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.28 1.28 13.80 0.26 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.28 1.28 Page 5 B-2 Dry sand Settlement Details.sum.txt 13.85 0.26 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.27 1.27 13.90 0.26 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.27 1.27 13.95 0.26 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.26 1.26 14.00 0.26 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.26 1.26 14.05 0.26 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.25 1.25 14,10 0.27 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.25 1.25 14.15 0.27 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.24 1.24 14.20 0.27 0. 54 5.00 0.00 1.24 1.24 14.25 0.27 0. 54 5.00 0.00 1.23 1.23 14.30 0.27 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.23 1.23 14.35 0.27 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.22 1.22 14.40 0.27 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.22 1.22 14.45 0.27 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.22 1.22 14.50 0.28 0. 54 5.00 0.00 1.21 1.21 14.55 0.28 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.21 1.21 14.60 0.28 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 14.65 0.28 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 14.70 0.28 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.19 1.19 14.75 0.28 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.19 1.19 14.80 0.33 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.18 1.18 14.85 0.33 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.18 1.18 14.90 0.34 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.18 1.18 14.95 0.34 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.17 1.17 15.00 0.34 0.54 5.00 0.00 1.17 1.17 15.05 0.34 0.53 5.00 ❑.00 1.17 1.17 15.10 0.34 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.16 1.16 15.15 0.34 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.16 1.16 15.20 0.34 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.16 1.16 15.25 0.34 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.15 1.15 15.30 0.34 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.15 1.15 15.35 0.34 0. 53 5.00 0.00 1.15 1.15 15.40 0.34 0. 53 5.00 ❑.00 1.14 1.14 15.45 0.34 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.14 1.14 15.50 0.34 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.14 1.14 15.55 0.34 0.53 5.00 ❑.00 1.13 1.13 15.60 0.34 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.13 1.13 15.65 0.34 0. 53 5.00 0.00 1.13 1.13 15.70 0.34 0. 53 5.00 0.00 1.12 1.12 15. 75 0.34 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.12 1.12 15.80 0.34 0. 53 5.00 0.00 1.12 1.12 15.85 0.34 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.11 1.11 15.90 0.34 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.11 1.11 15.95 0.34 0. 53 5.00 0.00 1.10 1.10 16.00 0.33 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.10 1.10 16.05 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 1.10 1.10 16.10 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 1.09 1.09 16.15 0.33 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.09 1.09 16.20 0.33 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.09 1.09 16.25 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 1.08 1.08 16.30 0, 33 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.08 1.08 16.35 0.33 0. 53 5.00 ❑.00 1.07 1.07 16.40 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 16.45 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 1.06 1.06 16.50 0.33 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.06 1.06 16. 55 0.33 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.06 1.06 16.60 0.33 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.05 1.05 16.65 0.33 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.05 1.05 16.70 0.33 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 16.75 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 16.80 0.33 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.03 1.03 16.85 0.33 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.03 1.03 16.90 0.33 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.03 1.03 16.95 0.33 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.02 1.02 Page 6 B-2 Dry sand Settlement Details.sum.txt 17.00 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 1.02 1.02 17.05 0.33 0.53 5.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 17.10 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 17.15 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 17.20 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 17.25 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 17.30 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 17.35 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.98 0.98 17.40 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.98 0.98 17.45 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.97 0.97 17. 50 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.97 0.97 17.55 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 17.60 0.33 0.53 5.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 17.65 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.95 0.95 17.70 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.95 0.95 17.75 0.33 0.53 5.00 0.00 0.94 0.94 17.80 0.33 0.53 5.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 17.85 0.33 0.53 5.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 17.90 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.92 0.92 17.95 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.92 0.92 18.00 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.91 0.91 18.05 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.91 0.91 18.10 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 18.15 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.89 0.89 18.20 0.33 0.53 5.00 0.00 0.89 0.89 18.25 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.88 0.88 18.30 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.88 0.88 18.35 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.87 0.87 18.40 0.33 0.53 5.00 0.00 0.86 0.86 18.45 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.86 0.86 18. 50 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.85 0.85 18. 55 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.85 0.85 18.60 0.33 0.53 5.00 0.00 0.84 0.84 18.65 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.83 0.83 18.70 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.83 0.83 18.75 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 18.80 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 18.85 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.81 0.81 18.90 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.80 0.80 18.95 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.79 0.79 19.00 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.79 0.79 19.05 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 19.10 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.77 0.77 19.15 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.77 0.77 19.20 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.76 0.76 19.25 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 19.30 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 19.35 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 19.40 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.73 0.73 19.45 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.72 0.72 19.50 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.72 0.72 19. 55 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.71 0.71 19.60 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 19.65 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.69 0.69 19.70 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 19.75 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 19.80 0.32 0.53 5.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 19.85 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.66 0.66 19.90 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 19.95 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 20.00 0.32 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.64 0.64 20.05 0.33 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 20.10 0.34 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.62 0.62 Page 7 B-2 Dry Sand Settlement Details.sum.txt 20.15 0.34 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.61 0.61 20.20 0.35 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.61 0.61 20.25 0.36 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 20. 30 0.37 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0. 59 0.59 20.35 0.37 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0. 59 0.59 20.40 0.38 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0. 58 0.58 20.45 0.40 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0. 57 0.57 20. 50 0.41 0.53 5.00 0.00 0. 57 0.57 20.55 0.42 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0. 56 0.56 20.60 0.45 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0. 56 0.56 20.65 0.49 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0. 55 0.55 20.70 0. 55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0. 54 0.54 20.75 0. 55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0. 54 0.54 20.80 0. 55 0.53 5.00 0.00 0. 53 0.53 20.85 0. 55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0. 53 0.53 20.90 0. 55 0.53 5.00 0.00 0. 53 0.53 20.95 0.55 0.53 5.00 0.00 0. 52 0.52 21.00 0. 55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0. 52 0.52 21.05 0. 55 0.53 5.00 0.00 0. 51 0.51 21.10 0.55 0.53 5.00 0.00 0. 51 0.51 21.15 0.55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0. 50 0.50 21.20 0. 55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0. 50 0.50 21.25 0. 55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0. 50 0.50 21.30 0.55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 21.35 0. 55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 21.40 0.55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 21.45 0.55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 21.50 0.55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 21. 55 0. 55 0.53 5.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 21.60 0.55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 21.65 0.55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 21.70 0. 55 0.53 5.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 21.75 0. 55 0.53 5.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 21.80 0.55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 21.85 0. 55 0.53 5.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 21.90 0. 55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 21.95 0.55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 22.00 0. 55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 22.05 0.55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 22.10 0.55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 22.15 0. 55 0.53 5.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 22.20 0. 55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 22.25 0. 55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 22.30 0. 55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 22.35 0. 55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.43 0.43 22.40 0. 55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.43 0.43 22.45 0.55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.43 0.43 22. 50 0. 55 0.53 5.00 0.00 0.43 0.43 22. 55 0.55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.43 0.43 22.60 0. 55 0.53 5.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 22.65 0. 55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 22.70 0. 55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 22.75 0.55 0. 53 5.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 22.80 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 22.85 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 22.90 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 22.95 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 23.00 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 23.05 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 23.10 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 23.15 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 23.20 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 23.25 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 Page 8 B-2 Dry sand settlement Details.sum.txt 23.30 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 23.35 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 23.40 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 23.45 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 23.50 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 23.55 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 23.60 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 23.65 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 23.70 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 23.75 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 23.80 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 23,85 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 23.90 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 23.95 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 24.00 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 24.05 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 24.10 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 24.15 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 24.20 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 24.25 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 24.30 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 24.35 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 24.40 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 24.45 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 24.50 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 24. 55 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 24.60 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 24.65 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 24.70 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 24.75 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 24.80 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 24.85 0. 55 0.52 5.0❑ 0.00 0.39 0.39 24.90 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 24.95 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 25.00 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 25.05 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 25.10 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 25.15 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 25.20 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 25.25 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 25.30 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 25.35 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 25.40 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 25.45 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 25. 50 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 25. 55 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 25.60 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 25.65 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 25.70 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 25.75 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 25.80 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 25.85 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 25.90 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 25.95 0.55 ❑.52 5.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 26.00 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 26.05 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 26.10 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 26.15 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0. 37 0.37 26.20 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 26.25 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 26.30 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 26.35 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 26.40 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 Page 9 8-2 Dry Sand settlement Details.sum.txt 26.45 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 26.50 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 26. 55 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 26.60 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 26.65 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 26.70 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 26.75 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 26.80 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 26.85 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 26.90 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 26.95 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 27.00 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 27.05 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 27.10 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 27.15 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 27.20 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 27.25 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 27.30 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 27.35 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 27.40 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 27.45 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 27. 50 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 27.55 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 27.60 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 27.65 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 27.70 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 27.75 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 27.80 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 27.85 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 27.90 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 27.95 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 28.00 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 28.05 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 28.10 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 28.15 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 28.20 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 28.25 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 28.30 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 28.35 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 28.40 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 28.45 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 28.50 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 28. 55 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 28.60 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 28.65 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 28.70 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 28.75 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 28.80 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 28.85 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 28.90 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 28.95 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 29.00 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 29.05 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 29.10 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 29.15 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 29.20 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 29.25 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 29.30 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 29.35 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 29.40 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 29.45 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 29.50 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 29.55 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 Page 10 B-2 Dry sand settlement Details.sum.txt 29.60 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 29.65 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 29.70 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 29.75 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 29.80 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 29.85 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 29.90 0.55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 29.95 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 30.00 0.55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 30.05 0. 55 0. 52 5.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 30.10 0. 55 0.52 5.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 30.15 0.55 0. 51 5.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 30.20 0.55 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 30.25 0.55 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 30.30 0.54 0. 51 5.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 30.35 0.54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 30.40 0. 54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 30.45 0.54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 30.50 0.54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 30.55 0. 54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 30.60 0. 54 0. 51 5.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 30.65 0.54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 30.70 0.54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 30.75 0. 54 0. 51 5.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 30.80 0. 54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 30.85 0.54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 30.90 0. 54 0. 51 5.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 30.95 0. 54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 31.00 0.54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 31.05 0. 54 0. 51 5.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 31.10 0.54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 31.15 0.54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 31.20 0. 54 0. 51 5.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 31.25 0. 54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 31.30 0. 54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 31.35 0.54 0. 51 5.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 31.40 0.54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 31.45 0.54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 31. 50 0.54 0. 51 5.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 31. 55 0. 54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 31.60 0.54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 31.65 0. 54 0. 51 5.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 31.70 0.54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 31.75 0.54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 31.80 0.54 0. 51 5.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 31.85 0. 54 0. 51 5.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 31.90 0.54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 31.95 0.54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 32.00 0. 54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 32.05 0. 54 0. 51 5.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 32.10 0.54 0. 51 5.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 32.15 0. 54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 32.20 0. 54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 32.25 0.54 0. 51 5.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 32.30 0. 54 0.51 5.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 32.35 0. 54 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 32.40 0.54 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 32.45 0.54 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 32.50 0. 54 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 32.55 0. 54 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 32.60 0. 54 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 32.65 0. 54 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 32.70 0. 54 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 Page 11 B-2 Dry Sand settlement Details.sum.txt 32.75 0. 54 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 32.80 0. 54 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 32.85 0. 54 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 32.90 0. 54 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 32.95 0. 54 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 33.00 0. 54 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 33.05 0. 54 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 33.10 0. 54 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 33.15 0. 54 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 33.20 0. 54 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 33.25 0. 54 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 33.30 0. 53 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 33.35 0. 53 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 33.40 0. 53 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 33.45 0. 53 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 33. 50 0. 53 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 33.55 0. 53 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 33.60 0. 53 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 33.65 0. 53 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 33.70 0. 53 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 33.75 0. 53 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 33.80 0. 53 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 33.85 0. 53 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 33.90 0. 53 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 33.95 0. 53 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 34.00 0. 53 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 34.05 0. 53 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 34.10 0. 53 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 34.15 0. 53 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 34.20 0. 53 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 34.25 0.53 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 34.30 0. 53 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 34.35 0. 53 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 34.40 0. 53 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 34.45 0.53 0. 50 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 34. 50 0. 53 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 34. 55 0. 53 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 34.60 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 34.65 0.53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 34.70 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 34.75 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 34.80 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 34.85 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 34.90 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 34.95 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 35.00 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 35.05 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 35.10 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 35.15 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 35.20 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 35.25 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 35.30 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 35.35 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 35.40 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 35.45 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 35.50 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 35.55 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 35.60 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 35.65 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 35.70 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 35.75 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 35.80 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 35.85 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 Page 12 6-2 Dry sand settlement ❑etails.sum.txt 35.90 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 35.95 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0. 17 0.17 36.00 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0. 17 0. 17 36.05 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0. 17 0.17 36. 10 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0. 17 0.17 36. 15 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0. 17 0.17 36.20 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0. 17 0.17 36.25 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0. 17 0.17 36.30 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 36.35 0. 53 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 36.40 0. 52 0.49 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 36.45 0. 52 0.49 5.00 0.00 0. 16 0.16 36.50 0. 52 0.49 5.00 0.00 0. 16 0.16 36. 55 0. 52 0.49 5.00 0.00 0. 16 0.16 36.60 0. 52 0.49 5.00 0.00 0. 16 0.16 36.65 0. 52 0.49 5.00 0.00 0. 16 0.16 36.70 0. 52 0.49 5.00 0.00 0. 16 0.16 36.75 0.52 0.49 5.00 0.00 0. 16 0.16 36.80 0.52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0. 16 0.16 36.85 0.52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 36.90 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 36.95 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 37.00 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0. 15 0.15 37.05 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0. 15 0. 15 37.10 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 37.15 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 37.20 0.52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 37.25 0.52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 37. 30 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 37. 35 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 37.40 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 37.45 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0. 14 0.14 37. 50 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0. 14 0.14 37. 55 0.52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0. 14 0.14 37.60 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.14 0. 14 37.65 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 37. 70 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 37.75 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 37.80 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 37.85 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 37.90 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 37.95 0.52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 38.00 0.52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0. 13 0.13 38.05 0.52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0. 13 0.13 38. 10 0.52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0. 13 0.13 38. 15 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 38.20 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 38.25 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 38.30 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 38.35 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 38.40 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 38.45 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 38.50 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0. 13 0.13 38. 55 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0. 13 0. 13 38.60 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0. 13 0.13 38.65 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0. 12 0.12 38.70 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 38.75 0.52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0. 12 0.12 38.80 0.52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 38.85 0.52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 38.90 0. 52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 38.95 0.52 0.48 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 39.00 0. 52 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 Page 13 B-2 Dry Sand Settlement Details.sum.txt 39.05 0.52 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 39.10 0. 52 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 39.15 0. 52 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 39.20 0.52 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 39.25 0. 52 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 39.30 0. 52 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 39.35 0.52 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 39.40 0. 52 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 39.45 0. 52 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 39.50 0.52 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 39.55 0.52 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 39.60 0. 52 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 39.65 0. 51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 39.70 0.51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 39.75 0. 51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 39.80 0. 51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 39.85 0.51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 39.90 0. 51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 39.95 0. 51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 40.00 0.51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 40.05 0.51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 40.10 0. 51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 40.15 0. 51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 40.20 0.51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 40.25 0.51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 40.30 0. 51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 40.35 0. 51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 40.40 0.51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 40.45 0. 51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 40. 50 0. 51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 40.55 0.51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 40.60 0. 51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 40.65 0. 51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 40.70 0.51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 40.75 0.51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 40.80 0. 51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 40.85 0.51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 40.90 0.51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 40.95 0. 51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 41.00 0. 51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 41.05 0.51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 41.10 0.51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 41.15 0. 51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 41.20 0.51 0.47 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 41.25 0.51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 41.30 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 41.35 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 41.40 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 41.45 0.51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 41.50 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 41.55 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 41.60 0.51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 41.65 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 41.70 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 41.75 0.51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 41.80 0.51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 41.85 0.51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 41.90 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 41.95 0.51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 42.00 0.51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 42.05 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 42.10 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 42.15 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 Page 14 B-2 Dry sand Settlement Details.sum.txt 42.20 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 42.25 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 42.30 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 42.35 0.51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 42.40 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 42.45 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 42. 50 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 42. 55 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 42.60 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 42.65 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 42.70 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 42.75 0.51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 42.80 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 42.85 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 42.90 0.51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 42.95 0.51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 43.00 0. 51 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 43.05 0. 50 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 43.10 0. 50 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 43.15 0.50 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 43.20 0. 50 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 43.25 0. 50 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 43.30 0.50 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 43.35 0. 50 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 43.40 0. 50 0.46 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 43.45 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 43. 50 0.50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 43. 55 0.50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 43.60 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 43.65 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 43.70 0.50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 43.75 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 43.80 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 43.85 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 43.90 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 43.95 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 44.00 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 44.05 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 44.10 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 44.15 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 44.20 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 44.25 0.50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 44.30 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 44.35 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 44.40 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 44.45 0.50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 44.50 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 44. 55 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 44.60 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 44.65 0.50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 44.70 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 44.75 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 44.80 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 44.85 0.50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 44.90 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 44.95 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 45.00 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 45.05 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 45.10 0.50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 45.15 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 45.20 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 45.25 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 45.30 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 Page 15 B-2 Dry Sand settlement Details.sum.txt 45.35 0.50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 45.40 0. 50 0.45 5 .00 0.00 0.04 0.04 45.45 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 45.50 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 45. 55 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 45.60 0. 50 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 45.65 0.50 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 45.70 0. 50 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 45.75 0. 50 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 45.80 0. 50 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 45.85 0. 50 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 45.90 0. 50 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 45.95 0. 50 ❑.44 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 46.00 0. 50 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 46.05 0. 50 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 46.10 0. 50 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 46.15 0. 50 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 46.20 0. 50 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.04 0,04 46.25 0.50 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 46.30 0. 50 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 46.35 0. 50 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 46.40 0. 50 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 46.45 0. 50 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 46. 50 0. 50 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 46. 55 0. 50 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 46.60 0. 50 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 46.65 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 46.70 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 46.75 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 46.80 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 46.85 0.49 0.44 5 .00 0.00 0.03 0.03 46.90 0.49 0.44 5 .00 0.00 0.03 0.03 46.95 0.49 0.44 5 .00 0.00 0.03 0.03 47,00 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 47.05 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 47.10 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 47.15 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 47.20 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 47.25 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 47.30 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 47.35 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 47.40 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 47.45 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 47.50 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 47. 55 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 47.60 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 47.65 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 47.70 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 47.75 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 47.80 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 47.85 0.49 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 47.90 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 47.95 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 48.00 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 48.05 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 48.10 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 48.15 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 48.20 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.02 0,02 48.25 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 48.30 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 48.35 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 48.40 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 48.45 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 Page 16 B-2 Dry Sand Settlement Details.sum.txt 48.50 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 48. 55 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 48.60 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 48.65 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 48.70 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 48.75 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 48.80 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 48.85 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 48.90 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 48.95 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 49.00 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 49.05 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 49.10 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 49.15 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 49.20 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 49.25 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 49.30 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 49.35 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 49.40 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 49.45 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 49.50 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 49.55 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.60 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.65 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.70 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.75 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.80 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.85 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.90 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.95 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.49 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 * F.S.<1, Liquefaction Potential Zone (F.S. is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2) Units: Unit: qc, fs, Stress or Pressure = atm (1.0581tsf) ; Unit weight = pcf; Depth = ft; Settlement = in. 1 atm (atmosphere) = 1 tsf (ton/ft2) CRRm Cyclic resistance ratio from soils cSRsf Cyclic stress ratio induced by a given earthquake (with user request factor of safety) F.S. Factor of Safety against liquefaction, F.S.=CRRm/CSRsf S_sat settlement from saturated sands S_dry settlement from Unsaturated Sands Sall Total Settlement from Saturated and unsaturated Sands NoLiq No-Liquefy Soils Page 17 Appendix E Traffic Analysis E URBAN CRGSSRQADS Palm Desert Apartments FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS CITY OF PALM DESERT PREPARED BY: John Kain, AICP jkain@urbanxroads.com (949) 375-2435 Marlie Whiteman, P.E. mwhiteman@urbanxroads.com (714) 585-0574 Janette Cachola jcachola@urbanxroads.com FEBRUARY 17, 2021 13831-04 TA Report.docx Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I APPENDICES III LIST OF EXHIBITS V LIST OF TABLES VII LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS IX 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Summary of Findings 1 1.2 Project Overview 1 1.3 Analysis Scenarios 3 1.4 Study Area 4 1.5 Analysis Findings 4 1.6 Circulation System Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements 7 1.7 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms 7 1.8 Cumulative Impacts 8 1.9 On-Site Roadway and Site Access Improvements 10 2 METHODOLOGIES 13 2.1 Level of Service 13 2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis 13 2.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology 15 2.4 Minimum Level of Service (LOS) 16 2.5 Deficiency Criteria 16 2.6 Project Fair Share Calculation Methodology 16 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 17 3.1 Existing Circulation Network 17 3.2 City of Palm Desert General Plan Circulation Element 17 3.3 Transit Service 17 3.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 17 3.5 Existing Traffic Volumes 17 3.6 Existing Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis 21 3.7 Existing Conditions Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis 25 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC 27 4.1 Project Trip Generation 27 4.2 Project Trip Distribution 27 4.3 Modal Split 27 4.4 Trip Assignment 27 4.5 Cumulative Growth Traffic 31 4.6 General Plan Buildout (2040)Volume Development 34 5 EAP(2023)TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 35 5.1 Roadway Improvements 35 5.2 EAP (2023)Traffic Volume Forecasts 35 5.3 EAP (2023) Intersection Operations Analysis 35 5.4 EAP (2023)Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis 35 13831-04 TA Report.docx ��/URBAN CROSSROADS I Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis 6 EAPC(2023)TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 39 6.1 Roadway Improvements 39 6.2 EAPC(2023)Traffic Volume Forecasts 39 6.3 EAPC(2023) Intersection Operations Analysis 39 6.4 EAPC(2023)Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis 39 6.5 Recommended Improvements 42 7 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT(2040)TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 43 7.1 Roadway Improvements 43 7.2 GPBO (2040) Without Project Traffic Volume Forecasts 43 7.3 GPBO (2040) With Project Traffic Volume Forecasts 43 7.4 Intersection Operations Analysis 43 7.5 GPBO (2040)Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis 48 7.6 Recommended Improvements 48 8 REFERENCES 49 13831-04 TA Report.docx URBAN II cROssROAos Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis APPENDICES APPENDIX 1.1: APPROVED TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT APPENDIX 3.1: EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS—(2016, 2018,&2021) APPENDIX 3.2: EXISTING (2021)CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 3.3: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 5.1: EAP (2023) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 6.1: EAPC(2023)CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 7.1: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 7.2: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 13831-04 TA Report.docx tL4 URBAN III CROSSROa EIS Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 13831-04 TA Report.docx URBAN IV CRassROaQs Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1-1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 2 EXHIBIT 1-2:TRAFFIC ANALYSIS STUDY AREA 5 EXHIBIT 1-3: SUMMARY OF DEFICIENT INTERSECTIONS BY ANALYSIS SCENARIO 6 EXHIBIT 1-4: SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS 12 EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS 18 EXHIBIT 3-2: CITY OF PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT 19 EXHIBIT 3-3: CITY OF PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS 20 EXHIBIT 3-4: EXISTING (2018/2016) PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES (TO BE ADJUSTED FOR ESTIMATION OF "TYPICAL/NON-COVID-19" 2021 CONDITIONS). 22 EXHIBIT 3-5: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ESTIMATED FOR"TYPICAL/NON-COVID-19" 2021 CONDITIONS) 23 EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 29 EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 30 EXHIBIT 4-3: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP 32 EXHIBIT 5-1: EAP(2023)TRAFFIC VOLUMES 36 EXHIBIT 6-1: EAPC (2023)TRAFFIC VOLUMES 40 EXHIBIT 7-1: GPBO (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 44 EXHIBIT 7-2: GPBO (2040) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 45 13831-04 TA Report.docx tL4 URBAN V CROSSROa EIS Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 13831-04 TA Report.docx URBAN VI CRassROaQs Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS 4 TABLE 1-2: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS 9 TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION OF LOS 14 TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION OF LOS 14 TABLE 2-3: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOCATIONS 15 TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2021)CONDITIONS 24 TABLE 4-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY 28 TABLE 4-2: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY 33 TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2023) CONDITIONS 37 TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC(2023) CONDITIONS 41 TABLE 7-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GPBO(2040)WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS 46 TABLE 7-2: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GPBO (2040)WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS 47 13831-04 TA Report.docx tL4 URBAN V I I C ROSS R Oa EIS Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 13831-04 TA Report.docx URBAN VIII CRassROaQs Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS (1) Reference ADT Average Daily Traffic Caltrans California Department of Transportation CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CMP Congestion Management Program CVAG Coachella Valley Association of Governments EAP Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project EAPC Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative GPBO General Plan Buildout HCM Highway Capacity Manual ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers LOS Level of Service MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices N/A Not Applicable NP Without Project PHF Peak Hour Factor Project Palm Desert Apartments RivTAM Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model RTP Regional Transportation Plan SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy sf Square Feet TA Traffic Analysis TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee WP With Project 13831-04 TA Report.docx ��URBAN CROSSROaEIS IX Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 13831-04 TA Report.docx ii/URBAN X CROSSROADS Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the focused traffic analysis (TA) for the proposed Palm Desert Apartments ("Project"), which is located west of Rembrandt Parkway and south of Gerald Ford Drive, in the City of Palm Desert as shown on Exhibit 1-1. The purpose of this focused TA is to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the proposed Project, and recommend improvements to achieve acceptable circulation system operational conditions. This focused TA has been prepared based in accordance with the County of Riverside's Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service &Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020) as the City of Palm Desert does not have its own LOS/VMT analysis guidelines. (1) To ensure that this TA satisfies the City of Palm Desert's traffic study requirements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a traffic study scoping package for review by City staff prior to the preparation of this report.The Agreement provides an outline of the Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology. The Agreement approved by the City is included in Appendix 1.1. 1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS For both Existing (2021) and Existing plus Ambient plus Project (2023)traffic conditions the study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS"D" or better). For Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (2023) and General Plan Buildout (2040) conditions, the Project was found to contribute to a cumulative transportation deficiency at the intersection of Rembrandt Parkway / Gerald Ford Drive (#1). Installation of a traffic signal, in addition to extending Rembrandt Parkway, south of Gerald Ford Drive, is anticipated to address intersection operational deficiencies. The Project applicant shall participate in the CVAG's TUMF program by paying the requisite TUMF fee; and in addition, shall pay the Project's fair share of 32.5% towards the installation of traffic signal and lane improvements at the intersection of Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive (#1), or as agreed to by the City and Project Applicant. 1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW The Project is proposed to consist of 270 multifamily housing units. It is anticipated that the Project would be fully developed by year 2023. A preliminary site plan of the proposed Project is shown in Exhibit 1-1. Project will have one full access driveway and one emergency access driveway along Rembrandt Parkway (future extension). Regional access to the project site is provided via the 1-10 Freeway at Monterey Avenue and Cook Street along Gerald Ford Drive. Trips generated by the Project's proposed land uses have been estimated based on trip generation rates collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. (2) The Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 1,976 trip-ends per day with 125 AM peak hour trips and 152 PM peak hour trips. The site is currently designated as a Town Center Neighborhood in the City's General Plan, which would allow for the Project's 13831-04 TA Report.docx ►URBAN CROSSROADS 1 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 1-1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN E GERALD FORD DRIVE GERALD FORD DRIVE r FiZ AI IIMMTIEVO1111 J C Ii(�A 1'J�I•: I 1e Y WW1". El itiltrialle Ily 00-71 •11 I I I I I.J L H 11111 _ 1111 LiIIIIIINL11111 1 WATER RETENTION ■ ,- (EMERGENCY ACCESS) 'A cA I ,. BASIN(N.A.P.) ■ [IIIIII 1111111' 11111 I . SHERIFF DEPARTMENT T ■ - i tp13 ''�� 10 - m I rn (N.A.P.) ie 1a�kb.Il+ + i l„ • _ 16. 116- ' fl ' Nil Ii..1e42.Y1 i s AI I ON-SITE WATER RETENTION AREA& • .„_ � ��I ! lir ;la i� rat—i RESIDENT OPEN SPACE AMENITIES • C WENl- • ®_ rI E3 �• l1IIII1u111IIII r. .. ...1 ... . ,.. ,,L.E.I � — �� ■ r FUTURE PKWY. . ;Ili! :XTENSIO N� gi— 7 I 1. atill 11 11 fl IIII 7• i .��.81 .- - ark a ; I Al 1 1 G ■ ■ CJII11111I�g111L IIIIII / \J ILIIIIII 1 SHERIFF DEPARTMENT ■ _ �'E "x ) PROJECT DRIVEWAY (N.A.P.) ■ �1 fl IIIII ■■ C MI MI C3� g' • —I I— C3, I M ■ — 4EV. .. .-,14`. 1 7, Alf ill `I i_U I — r� GPI 'r WALL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SITE(N.A.P.) 13831-01.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS 2 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis multifamily residential land use. The assumptions and methods used to estimate the Project's trip generation characteristics are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.1 Project Trip Generation of this report. 1.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS For the purposes of this traffic study, potential impacts to traffic and circulation have been evaluated for each of the following conditions: • Existing (2021) Conditions • Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) (2023) Conditions • Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project Plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2023) Conditions • General Plan Buildout (2040), Without Project • General Plan Buildout (2040), With Project All study area intersections will be evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition analysis methodology. 1.3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing physical conditions have been disclosed to represent the baseline traffic conditions as they existed at the time this report was prepared. 1.3.2 EAP CONDITIONS The EAP (2023) traffic conditions analyses determine potential traffic impacts based on a comparison of the EAP traffic conditions to Existing conditions. To account for background traffic growth, an ambient growth factor from Existing conditions of 4.04% (2 percent per year over 2 years, compounded annually) for 2023 conditions is included for EAP traffic conditions. Consistent with County of Riverside traffic study guidelines, the EAP analysis is intended to identify "Opening Year" deficiencies associated with the development of the proposed Project based on the expected background growth within the study area. 1.3.3 EAPC CONDITIONS The EAPC (2023) traffic conditions analyses determine the potential near-term cumulative circulation system deficiencies. Background traffic for these analysis scenarios follow the same ambient growth methodology described above for EAP traffic conditions. However, EAPC traffic conditions also include the addition of cumulative development traffic. The comprehensive list of cumulative development projects was compiled from information provided by the City of Palm Desert. 1.3.4 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT(2040)CONDITIONS The General Plan Buildout (2040) conditions analysis is utilized to determine if improvements funded through regional transportation mitigation fee programs, such as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), or other approved funding mechanism (e.g., Community Facilities District, etc.) can accommodate the long-range cumulative traffic at the target Level of 13831-04 TA Report.docx ►URBAN CROSSROADS 3 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Service (LOS) identified in the City of Palm Desert (lead agency) General Plan. Each of these regional transportation fee programs are discussed in more detail in Section 1.6 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms. 1.4 STUDY AREA The Project study area was defined in coordination with the City of Palm Desert. Consistent with County of Riverside traffic study guidelines, the study area includes any intersection of "Collector" or higher classification street, with "Collector" or higher classification streets, at which the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips. Exhibit 1-2 presents the study area and intersection analysis locations. The "50 peak hour trip" criteria generally represents a minimum number of trips at which a typical intersection would have the potential to be substantively impacted by a given development proposal. Although each intersection may have unique operating characteristics, this traffic engineering rule of thumb is a widely utilized tool for estimating a potential area of impact (i.e., study area). To ensure that this TA satisfies the needs of the City of Palm Desert, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a Project specific traffic study scoping agreement for review by City staff prior to the preparation of this TA. The agreement provides an outline of the study area, trip generation,trip distribution, and analysis methodology. The agreement approved by the City of Palm Desert is included in Appendix 1.1. 1.4.1 INTERSECTIONS The following 4 study area intersections shown on Exhibit 1-2 and listed in Table 1-1 were selected for this TA based on consultation with City of Palm Desert staff. In general, the study area includes intersections where the Project is anticipated to contribute 50 or more peak hour trips, and input from the City of Palm Desert staff. TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS ID Intersection Location 1 Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive 2 Portola Road/Gerald Ford Drive 3 Rembrandt Parkway(future extension)/Project Driveway 4 Gateway Drive/Gerald Ford Drive 1.5 ANALYSIS FINDINGS This section provides a summary of the analysis results for Existing (2021), EAP (2023), EAPC (2023), General Plan Buildout (2040) without and with Project traffic conditions. The results of the potentially significant cumulative impacts for the study area intersections for near term traffic conditions are summarized in Exhibit 1-3. 13831-04 TA Report.docx ►URBAN CROSSROADS 4 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 1-2: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS STUDY AREA � a o I- > a z ce a 0 ce O GERALD FORD DR. ....(EMERGENT Y.ACC SS) >- ate, 6 o SITE 1 I LL 0 ce PROJECT:DWY:. 1 _ a II ON OM 0 ..................... • -Y I I . t Y • • ' LEGEND: Q =EXISTING ANALYSIS LOCATION 1-3 =FUTURE ANALYSIS LOCATION —�— =FUTURE ROADWAY 13831-01.dwg le, URBAN CROSSROADS 5 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 1-3: SUMMARY OF DEFICIENT INTERSECTIONS BY ANALYSIS SCENARIO c I U _ O a) N O _ O U N M N C d C ,- C N N 3 O C O d a a m m a a # Intersection W a; w c3 § U7 1 Rembrandt Pkwy./Gerald Ford Dr. Ti __ -- 2 Portola Rd./Gerald Ford Dr. E ED CD ED IT 3 Rembrandt Pkwy.(Future Ext.)/Project Dwy. NA CDICD NA ED 4 Gateway Dr./Gerald Ford Dr. ED CD ED ED CD LEGEND: IC =AM PEAK HOUR D =PM PEAK HOUR CD =LOS A-D CD =LOS E • =LOS F NA =NOT AN ANALYSIS LOCATION FOR THIS SCENARIO 13831-01.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS 6 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Existing (2021) Conditions For Existing (2021) traffic conditions, the study intersections are operating at an acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS "D" or better) during AM and PM peak hours. Opening Year (2023) Conditions For EAP (2023) traffic conditions, the study intersections were found to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS "D" or better) during AM and PM peak hours. For EAPC (2023) traffic conditions, the study intersection on Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive (#1) is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS (i.e., LOS "E" or worse) during AM and PM peak hours. General Plan Buildout (2040) Conditions For General Plan Buildout (2040) Without and With Project conditions, no additional study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS (i.e., LOS E or worse) during one or more peak hours. 1.6 CIRCULATION SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 1.6.1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AT INTERSECTIONS A summary of the operationally deficient study area intersections and recommended improvements required to achieve acceptable circulation system performance are described in detail within Section 5 EAP (2023) Traffic Analysis, Section 6 EAPC (2023) Traffic Analysis, and Section 7 General Plan Buildout(2040) Traffic Analysis of this report. Installation of a traffic signal at the deficient intersection of Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive (#1), is anticipated to address intersection operational deficiencies for EAPC (2023), and GPBO (2040) without and with Project conditions. A fair share financial contribution based on the Project's fair share impact may be imposed in order to mitigate the Project's share of impacts in lieu of construction. These fair share financial contributions are collected and distributed by the County of Riverside to surrounding agencies to ensure that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected vehicle trip increases. Additional information related to these various fee programs are contained in Section 1.7 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms of this report. 1.7 LOCAL AND REGIONAL FUNDING MECHANISMS 1.7.1 TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE(TUMF)PROGRAM The TUMF program is administered by CVAG based upon a regional Nexus Study most recently updated in 2009 to address major changes in right of way acquisition and improvement cost factors. CVAG is currently in the process of completing a current Nexus Study update to the program. Final changes to network facilities, network cost allocations, and fee changes were not available at the time this assessment was prepared. This regional program was put into place to ensure that development pays its fair share and that funding is in place for construction of 13831-04 TA Report.docx ►URBAN CROSSROADS 7 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis facilities needed to maintain the requisite level of service and critical to mobility in the region. The CVAG TUMF boundary covers many of the municipalities in the Coachella Valley while WRCOG TUMF cover those found in Western Riverside County. TUMF fees are imposed on new residential, industrial, and commercial development through application of the TUMF fee ordinance and fees are collected at the building or occupancy permit stage. In addition, an annual inflation adjustment is considered each year in February. In this way, TUMF fees are adjusted upwards on a regular basis to ensure that the development impact fees collected keep pace with construction and labor costs, etc. 1.7.2 FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION Project mitigation may include a combination of fee payments to established programs (e.g., TUMF), construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair share contribution toward future improvements or a combination of these approaches. Improvements constructed by development may be eligible for a fee credit or reimbursement through the program where appropriate (to be determined by the funding program administrator). When off-site improvements are identified with a minor share of responsibility assigned to proposed development, the approving jurisdiction may elect to collect a fair share contribution or require the development to construct improvements. Detailed fair share calculations,for each peak hour, has been provided on Table 1-2 for the applicable deficient intersection of Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive (#1). Improvements included in a defined program and constructed by development may be eligible for a fee credit or reimbursement through the program where appropriate. 1.8 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS A summary of the cumulatively impacted study area intersections and recommended mitigation measures to address cumulatively significant impacts are described in detail within Section 5 EAP (2023) Traffic Conditions, Section 6 EAPC (2023) Traffic Conditions, and Section 7 General Plan Buildout(2040) Traffic Conditions. Cumulative impacts are deficiencies that would not be directly caused by the Project. The Project would, however, contribute traffic to these deficient facilities along with other cumulative development projects, resulting in a cumulatively considerable impact. The following mitigation measures are based on the improvements needed under EAPC (2023), and GPBO (2040) traffic conditions. 1.8.1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AT INTERSECTIONS Installation of a traffic signal at the deficient intersection of Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive (#1), is anticipated to address intersection operational deficiencies for EAPC (2023), and GPBO (2040) without and with Project conditions. For improvements that do not appear to be in the CVAG's TUMF program, a fair share financial contribution based on the Project's fair share impact shall be imposed (for City of Palm Desert facilities) and may be imposed by other jurisdictions in order to mitigate the Project's share of impacts in lieu of construction. These fees 13831-04 TA Report.docx ►URBAN CROSSROADS 8 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis TABLE 1-2: FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS Existing EAPC i (2021) (2023) Project Only Total New Project ID Intersection Traffic Traffic3 Traffic Traffic' Fair Share(%)2 1 Rembrandt Pkwy./Gerald Ford Dr. • AM Peak Hour 1,172 1,520 113 348 32.5% • PM Peak Hour 1,195 1,657 138 462 29.9% ' Total New Traffic=(EAPC-Existing Traffic) 2 Project Fair Share%=(Project Only Traffic/Total New Traffic) 3 Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative(2023)Conditions C:\UXRjobsL13600-14000L13800\13831\Exce103831-Report.xlsx]FS URBAN C RO S S ROA ID S 9 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis (both to the City of Palm Desert, and as determined, to surrounding agencies as fair-share contributions) are collected as part of a funding mechanism aimed at ensuring that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected vehicle trip increases. Table 1-2 shows the Project's fair share cost for EAPC (2023) traffic conditions. These estimates are a rough order of magnitude only as they are intended only for discussion purposes and do not imply any legal responsibility or formula for contributions or mitigation. 1.8.2 CUMULATIVE MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 1.1 Rembrandt Parkway & Gerald Ford Drive (#1) - The intersection is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS "E" or worse) under EAPC (2023) and will continue to operate at LOS F under GPBO (2040) without and with Project traffic conditions. Mitigation Measure 1.1—The Project applicant shall participate in the CVAG's TUMF program by paying the requisite TUMF fee; and in addition, shall pay the Project's fair share of 32.5%towards the installation of traffic signal at the intersection of Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive (#1), or as agreed to by the City and Project Applicant. 1.9 ON-SITE ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS The Project is proposed to have access onto the future extension of Rembrandt Parkway. Roadway improvements necessary to provide site access and on-site circulation are assumed to be constructed in conjunction with site development and are described below. These improvements should be in place prior to occupancy. 1.9.1 SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS The recommended site-adjacent roadway improvements for the Project are described below. These improvements need to be incorporated into the Project description prior to Project approval or imposed as conditions of approval as part of the Project approval. Exhibit 1-4 illustrates the site adjacent and site access roadway improvement recommendations for near- term traffic conditions. 1.9.2 SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS The recommended site access driveway improvements for the Project are described below. Exhibit 1-4 also illustrates the on-site and site adjacent recommended intersection lane improvements for Project traffic conditions. The following intersection recommendations represent the minimum lanes that must be provided to achieve acceptable peak hour operations. Gerald Ford Drive - Construct Gerald Ford Drive from the Project's western boundary to Rembrandt Parkway (future extension) at its ultimate half-section width as an enhanced arterial roadway in compliance with the applicable City of Palm Desert standards. 13831-04 TA Report.docx ►URBAN CROSSROADS 10 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Rembrandt Parkway-Construct Rembrandt Parkway as a 2 lane roadway, between Gerald Ford Drive and the Project's southerly boundary. Rembrandt Parkway & Gerald Ford Drive (#1) — Contribute fair share of 32.5% towards the installation of a traffic signal and construct the intersection with the following geometrics: • Provide 1 northbound shared left/thru lane with a defacto right turn lane. • Modify existing raised median to provide a dedicated westbound left turn lane Rembrandt Parkway& Project Driveway(#3)—Install a stop control on the eastbound approach and construct the intersection with the following geometrics: • Provide 1 shared northbound left/thru lane. • Provide 1 shared southbound right/thru lane. • Provide 1 shared eastbound left/right lane. On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site. Sight distance at each project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of Palm Desert sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. 13831-04 TA Report.docx ►URBAN CROSSROADS 11 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 1-4: SITE ADJACENT ROADWAY AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS 1 RembrandtPkwy.& Gerald Ford Dr. it 4_ it � G � CONSTRUCT GERALD FORD DRIVE FROM THE PROJECT'S D-,ao WESTERN BOUNDARY TO REMBRANDT PARKWAY (FUTURE EXTENSION)AT ITS ULTIMATE HALF-SECTION D o WIDTH AS A ENHANCED ARTERIAL IN COMPLIANCE WITH �� la THE APPLICABLE CITY OF PALM DESERT STANDARDS. o GERALD FORD DRIVE J irtirAit C Ii.(0 1JfIL I .-*, Y 1Wirg •11 11111'J�VLLTJ 11111 _ 11111 LJ I I I I I ��� T III 1 ■ s (EMERGENCY ACCESS) E" OA " ■ [I I n 1111111 Hill PARKWAY AS A 2-LANE REMBRANDTCONSTRUCT • — ROADWAY BETWEEN GERALD —r 1■ �1 ! — _ rj �,rn FORD DRIVE AND PROJECT'S SHERIF(NAP)TMENT ■ e Ii'«tt�1ra 1•+ C l Illril RIM SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY. ■ �r ■ C �R����� �� . Ii� Y14 Raw .. I ON-SITE WATER RETENTION AREA& `D• �,iV- I 0 i d coit+ `r, ' RESIDENT OPEN SPACE AMENITIES ■ II. iIlIait! * ! 4 • IIIIII ILJIIIII Kr ■ r P i,, FUTURE ili is . , r 1 PKWY. I — j I XTENSION 7• — _. ■ - n — on I, _ E FRNESS 3 tRo a Extension)Pk & • C I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1— r �� (Future & B �._ Project Dwy. — YY1Rwrd l if ki I ■ :1ir At A, A, WI� p[Y. POOL I / 1 k ICJ4 ``-- 4 '1 ■ • aIIIIIII�gI11L IIIIII / \J IIJ11111 1 I SHERIFF DEPARTMENT ■ _ GATE ) PROJECT DRIVEWAY ID (N.A.P.) ■ �1 Ll IIIII I I\ ■■ C !O!B1 CB B! .!. _J L— G3, V .. _ .` 1 = _ 6 1, LEGEND: i a- C I 4 1 Q =INTERSECTION ID ri iti I EP =NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL n Ate, GuI — i =NEW STOP SIGN CONTROL = =EXISTING LANE REWAALL I • • • �' IL II�L i =LANE IMPROVEMENT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SITE(N.A.P.) ON-SITE TRAFFIC SIGNING AND STRIPING SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH DETAILED CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE PROJECT SITE. SIGHT DISTANCE AT EACH PROJECT ACCESS POINT SHOULD BE REVIEWED WITH RESPECT TO STANDARD CALTRANS AND CITY OF PALM DESERT SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF FINAL GRADING,LANDSCAPE AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS. 13831-01.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS 12 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis 2 METHODOLOGIES This section documents the methodologies and assumptions used to perform this traffic assessment. 2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described using the term "Level of Service" (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on several factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are typically defined ranging from LOS A, representing completely free-flow conditions,to LOS F, representing breakdown in flow resulting in stop-and-go conditions. LOS E represents operations at or near capacity,an unstable level where vehicles are operating with the minimum spacing for maintaining uniform flow. 2.2 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS The definitions of LOS for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control. The LOS is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway. The Highway Capacity Manual(HCM) methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches.(5) The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control. 2.2.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The City of Palm Desert require signalized intersection operations analysis based on the methodology described in the HCM 6th Edition (5). Intersection LOS operations are based on an intersection's average control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. For signalized intersections LOS is directly related to the average control delay per vehicle and is correlated to a LOS designation as described in Table 2-1. Study area intersections have been evaluated using the Synchro (Version 10) analysis software package. Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program that is based on the signalized intersection capacity analysis as specified in the HCM. Macroscopic level models represent traffic in terms of aggregate measures for each movement at the study intersections. Equations are used to determine measures of effectiveness in addressing such parameters as delay and queue length. The level of service and capacity analysis performed by Synchro takes into consideration optimization and coordination of signalized intersections within a network. 13831-04 TA Report.docx 0 URBAN CROSSROADS 13 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis TABLE 2-1:SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION OF LOS Average Control Level of Service, Level of Service, Description Delay(Seconds), V/C<_1.0 V/C>1.0 V/C<_1.0 Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable 0 to 10.00 A F progression and/or short cycle length. Operations with low delay occurring with good 10.01 to 20.00 B F progression and/or short cycle lengths. Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle 20.01 to 35.00 C F failures begin to appear. Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C 35.01 to 55.00 D F ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. 55.01 to 80.00 E F Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation,poor progression,or very 80.01 and up F F long cycle lengths Source: HCM 6th Edition(5) 2.2.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The City of Palm Desert require the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using the methodology described in the HCM 6th Edition. (5) The LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (see Table 2-2). TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION OF LOS Average Control Delay Per Level of Service, Level of Service, Description Vehicle(Seconds) V/C<_1.0 V/C>1.0 Little or no delays. 0 to 10.00 A F Short traffic delays. 10.01 to 15.00 B F Average traffic delays. 15.01 to 25.00 C F Long traffic delays. 25.01 to 35.00 D F Very long traffic delays. 35.01 to 50.00 E F Extreme traffic delays with >50.00 F F intersection capacity exceeded. Source: HCM 6th Edition At two-way or side-street stop-controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled movement and for the left turn movement from the major street, as well as for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. For all-way stop controlled intersections, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole. 13831-04 TA Report.docx 12/URBAN CROSSROADS 14 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis 2.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The term "signal warrants" refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. This focused TA uses the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest edition of the Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), for all study area intersections. (7) The signal warrant criteria for Existing conditions are based upon several factors, including volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, and location of school areas. The CAMUTCD indicates that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or more of the signal warrants are met. (7) Specifically, this focused TA utilizes the Peak Hour Volume-based Warrant 3 as the appropriate representative traffic signal warrant analysis for existing study area intersections for all analysis scenarios. Warrant 3 is appropriate to use for this TA because it provides specialized warrant criteria for intersections with rural characteristics (e.g. located in communities with populations of less than 10,000 persons or with adjacent major streets operating above 40 miles per hour). For the purposes of this study, the speed limit was the basis for determining whether Urban or Rural warrants were used for a given intersection. Future intersections that do not currently exist have been assessed regarding the potential need for new traffic signals based on future average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, using the Caltrans planning level ADT-based signal warrant analysis worksheets. Traffic signal warrant analyses were performed for all of the following unsignalized study area intersections (see Table 2-3): TABLE 2-3: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOCATIONS ID Intersection Location 1 Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive 3 Rembrandt Parkway(future extension)/Project Driveway—Future Intersection The Existing conditions traffic signal warrant analysis is presented in the subsequent section, Section 3 Existing Conditions of this report. The traffic signal warrant analysis for future conditions is presented Section 5 EAP(2023) Traffic Analysis, Section 6 EAPC(2023), and Section 7 GPBO (2040) Traffic Analysis, of this report. It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. Meeting this condition does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified. It should also be noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with LOS. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above acceptable LOS or operate below acceptable LOS and not meet a signal warrant. 13831-04 TA Report.docx ►URBAN CROSSROADS 15 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis 2.4 MINIMUM LEVEL OF SERVICE(LOS) Per Goal 2, Policy 1, Program 1.A of the City of Palm Desert General Plan, the following LOS will be utilized for study area intersections located within the City: The City shall make good-faith efforts to achieve LOS C along roadway segments and for peak hour intersection operations. LOS D shall be acceptable in instances when physical constraints, land use compatibility or other urban design considerations make achieving LOS C impractical. 2.5 DEFICIENCY CRITERIA This section outlines the methodology used in this analysis related to identifying circulation system deficiencies. To determine whether the addition of project traffic at a study intersection would result in a deficiency, the following will be utilized: • A deficiency occurs at study area intersections if the pre-Project condition is at or better than LOS D (i.e., acceptable LOS), and the addition of project trips causes the peak hour LOS of the study area intersection to operate at unacceptable LOS (i.e., LOS E or F). Per the County of Riverside traffic study guidelines, for intersections currently operating at unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F), a deficiency would occur if the Project contributes 50 or more peak hour trips to pre-project traffic conditions. 2.6 PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY In cases where this TA identifies that the Project would contribute additional traffic volumes to cumulative traffic deficiencies, Project fair share costs of improvements necessary to address deficiencies have been identified. The Project's fair share cost of improvements is determined based on the following equation, which is the ratio of Project traffic to total future traffic: Project Fair Share % = Project Traffic/ (EAPC Total Traffic— Existing Traffic) The Project fair share contribution calculations are presented in Section 1.7 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms of this TA. 13831-04 TA Report.docx ?/URBAN CROSSROADS 16 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section provides a summary of the existing circulation network, the City of Palm Desert General Plan Circulation Network, and a review of existing peak hour intersection operations, freeway mainline operations, and traffic signal warrant analyses. 3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK Pursuant to the agreement with City of Palm Desert staff(Appendix 1.1), the study area includes a total of 4 existing and future intersections as shown on Exhibit 1-2. Exhibit 3-1 illustrates the study area intersections located near the proposed Project and identifies the number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls. 3.2 CITY OF PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT Exhibit 3-2 shows the adopted City of Palm Desert General Plan Circulation Element, and Exhibit 3-3 illustrates the adopted City of Palm Desert General Plan roadway cross-sections. 3.3 TRANSIT SERVICE The study area is not currently served by the Sunline transit routes. The nearest bus services are located along Monterey Avenue via Route 32 and Cook Street via Route 20, Route 21. Transit service is reviewed and updated by Sunline periodically to address ridership, budget and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate. 3.4 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES Existing on-street bike lanes are located on both sides of the roadways along Portola Road,Gerald Road, and Gateway Drive. There are no existing sidewalks on the south side of Gerald Ford Drive, between the Project's westerly boundary and Portola Road. 3.5 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Traffic count datasets from a recent traffic study (Draft Section 31 Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study, March 2019, prepared by Fehr & Peers) for the intersection of Portola Rd./Gerald Ford Drive (#2) is available from March 2018. December 2016 data is also available at Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive (#1). New 2021 intersection peak hour counts at Gateway Drive/Gerald Ford Drive (#4) has been collected on February 3rd where "typical/non-COVID-19" 2020 counts are not available. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, these new February 2021 peak hour counts are anticipated to be lower than typical conditions. Therefore, new February 2021 counts were also taken at the Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive (#1) location where pre-COVID data is available. 13831-04 TA Report.docx (2!)URBAN CROSSROADS 17 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS !PEED / I LIMIT 50 SPEED LIMIT I: a 50 0 z w ce Q co 9 a E N C N SPEED GERALD FORD DR. 4 LIMIT 55 O 5D 5D ................... 5D 6D ......(EMERGENcY.ACCESS),1 3^ :: SITE' ' ' m / :.:PROJECT DWY:. o an ct II 0 .....................I I SPEED LIMIT 60 I 1 Rembrandt Pkwy.&12 Portola Rd.& 3 Rembrandt Pkwy. 4 Gateway Dr.& LEGEND: Gerald Ford Dr. Gerald Ford Dr. (Future Extension)& Gerald Ford Dr. _ Project Dwy. 0 =INTERSECTION ID tti 4_el L iii�� =TRAFFIC SIGNAL FUTURE I;LI- i =STOP SIGN _4 _4 INTERSECTION � 4 =NUMBER OF LANES - Tifff7 D =DIVIDED U =UNDIVIDED DEF =DEFACTO RIGHT TURN LANE 13831-01.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS 18 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 3-2: CITY OF PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT Frea'Nanng Dr Il Q ' Flar .. IMF 1 �- e f'� '' r--, 11\4 lik r .. 1' - Gaw wine S: �y1"�� L' _ - I 1 i irlsal Thvusanc Dalris �oachella VaIIBy Presar�a �4i1 ..„. i NNN If T "'raid M1ard Or r ,,,,,,„ SITE* �� Rancho I.rot,..; I! 'r Z y A i ar s rack s;�ra Ura _ zN f ... 1 1%:"41'....'.".4. .,''4 ,W'f'r/.....•. ,r. . ,/./,./Z./ .: / i • „ ..0,4i, . ., ..- i' i f17 I- � Ttn Cruelly Clue Dr �� .`�� - . _ "- Jtjf tr./ Ci ? -�.• ;T77 3 qr L `I , E .a H Har y In A; — I ----i) r --71%----------z..---___ . . ,rr . r-- • - Fr,-!Ll'xm-,I W ) --__ - n _ _- w NdaC Ave, t,sGti _ Indian Welts ., ,,, r`i'1 n oi4emW 5le 4 n See Inset -"---- Enhanced Arterial - Secondary Street Local Sheet fF sw Vehicular Oriented Arterial -Collector Street 0 City Boundary ' •--w broncos]Secondary Roadway - Downtown Collector 1n Palm Desert SQl Balanced Arreiial - El Paseo . WtaCewater River Canal 13831-01.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS 19 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 3-3: CITY OF PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS ENHANCED ARTERIAL - (S LANES,DIVIDED) VEHICULAR ORIENTED ARTERIAL VEHICULAR ORIENTED ARTERIAL IS LANES,DIVIDED) (8 LANES,DIVIDED) WITH BICYCLE LANES WITH SHARED SIIEWALKS • tt •Ag 4. „as t i .fflim. it t BALANCED ARTERIAL BALANCED ARTERIAL (4 LANES,DIVIDED) (4 LANES,DIVIDED) WITH BICYCLE LANES WITH SHARED SIDEWALKS ENHANCED SECONDARY (4 LANES,DMDEDI WITH BICYCLE LANES SECONDARY STREET SECONDARY STREET (4 LANES,DIVIDED) (4 LANES.DIVIDED) WITH BICYCLE LANES WITH SHARED ROADWAY V _ Alta- - ff • ti n r'-i�r� n - DOWNTOWN COLLECTOR STREET (2 LANES,UNDIVIDED) WITH BICYCLE LANES tr_ . COLLECTOR STREET (2 LANES,UNDIVIDED) WITH SHARED ROADWAY 1111 1 LLL :--� ,rS_ 11_114 T f EL PASEO (4 LANES,DMDED,WTH PARKINS) WITH SHARED ROADWAY SOURCE: CITY OF PALM DESERT 13831-01.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS 20 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Exhibit 3-4 presents the currently available 2016, 2018, and 2021 morning and evening peak hour intersection volumes (to be adjusted for estimation of"typical/non-COVID-19" 2021 conditions). Average morning and evening peak hour volume comparison at the Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive indicate that the Existing December 2016 data ("typical/non-COVID-19") are approximately 30% higher than the February 2021 counts (see table below). EXISTING RAW COUNTS Existing,2016 Existing, February 2021 (typical/non-COVID-19) (during COVID-19 counts) ID Intersection AM PM TOTAL AM PM TOTAL 1 Rembrandt Pkwy./Gerald Ford Dr. 1,052 1,068 2,120 773 853 1,626 AVERAGE AM/PM GROWTH 30% (to be applied to the new study intersections with February 2021 only counts) These adjustments have been applied as needed at the new intersection location where previous counts are not available. For the December 2016 dataset at Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive (#1), December 2016 traffic volumes have been adjusted by adding five years of background (ambient) growth (2% per year,total of 10.41%for 5 years) in order to estimate "typical/non-COVID-19" 2021 conditions. For the March 2018 dataset at Portola Road/Gerald Ford Drive (#2), March 2018 traffic volumes were adjusted by adding three years of background (ambient) growth (2% per year, total of 6.12% compounded over a 3-year period) in order to estimate "typical/non-COVID-19" 2021 conditions. Existing (estimated for typical/non-COVID-19) 2021 traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit 3-5. Existing weekday average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on arterial highways throughout the study area are also shown on Exhibit 3-5. Existing ADT volumes are based upon factored intersection peak hour counts. using the following formula for each intersection leg: Weekday PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) x 12 = Leg Volume The above equation utilizing a factor of 12 estimates the ADT volumes on the study area roadway segments assuming a peak-to-daily relationship of approximately 8.33 percent (i.e., 1/0.0833 = 12). 3.6 EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis of this report. The intersection operations analysis results are summarized in Table 3-1 which indicates that the existing study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours. The intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 3.2 of this TA. 13831-04 TA Report.docx LIP)URBAN CROSSROADS 21 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 3-4: EXISTING (2018/2016) PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES (TO BE ADJUSTED FOR ESTIMATION OF "TYPICAL/NON-COVID-19" 2021 CONDITIONS) oe a o F a o a z a W ct m a o ce GERALD FORD DR. (€MEAGENLY.ACCEsS) . . , ..... I o Ia'' ;SITE 1m� o 1 &"LL V O< PROJECT DW�Y� 1 a I o I 1 1 .................. I I • AM PEAK HOUR 1 Rembrandt Pkwy.&Gerald Ford Dr. 2016 COUNTS 2021 COUNTS 2 Portola Rd.& 3 Rembrandt Pkwy. 4 Gateway Dr.& Gerald Ford Dr. (Future Extension)& Gerald Ford Dr. 2018 COUNTS Project Dwy. 2021 COUNTS m Mv`c'i '-28 (MN 4_17 vNsc'' f409 •`Oao 4-61 l, f554 .1 l, f388 , 1, t-43 FUTURE -.-339 11-4' 16-4 9- r INTERSECTION 18_4 371— 296— 139� =tea 262� N PM PEAK HOUR Rembrandt Pkwy.&Gerald Ford Dr. 2016 COUNTS 2021 COUNTS 2 Portola Rd.& 3 Rembrandt Pkwy. 4 Gateway Dr.& Gerald Ford Dr. (Future Extension)& Gerald Ford Dr. 2018 COUNTS Project Dwy. 2021 COUNTS vm r- *3" thNN 31 Nc0 L. --457 L -330 , L t-43 FUTURE � �325 40-4 34-4' 9- r INTERSECTION 33-4' 492— 415— 365— coin.° 321- 129—* EvM^r LEGEND: 0 =INTERSECTION ID O =PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION COUNT DATE:MARCH 2018 I 1 1_ I =PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION COUNT DATE:DECEMBER 2016 =PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION COUNT DATE:FEBRUARY 2021 13831-01.dwg 12> URBAN C RO S S ROADS 22 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 3-5: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ESTIMATED FOR "TYPICAL/NON-COVID-19rr 2021 CONDITIONS) V �0}3 {V W to m a E 0 ce • GERALD FORD DR. 11.0 0 13.4 13.5 © 12.8 ......(EMERGENcY.ACCESS).. .........::......::.. l o w : SITE' ' ' m / ce o IME. a .:PWECI toWY 41= F 0 1� AM PEAK HOUR 1 Rembrandt Pkwy.& 2 Portola Rd.& 3 Rembrandt Pkwy. 4 Gateway Dr.& Gerald Ford Dr. Gerald Ford Dr. (Future Extension)& Gerald Ford Dr. Project Dwy. inLEGEND: nun —31 7"1",° r43 F.. 4 4_79 L.r612 ...1 *-46 FUTURE J 1... —441 0 =INTERSECTION ID 21-41 10-4'1 t (► INTERSECTION 23_4 4-100 =PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 410-.-i 30055� No- 341� 10.0 =VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) � M PM PEAK HOUR 1 Rembrandt Pkwy.& 2 Portola Rd.& 3 Rembrandt Pkwy. 4 Gateway Dr.& Gerald Ford Dr. Gerald Ford Dr. (Future Extension)& Gerald Ford Dr. 1 Project Dwy. MIA NM L122 MN i 52 ..1505 .� � *-469 FUTURE i 1, f423 44-4' 10-4 "1 t ' INTERSECTION 43-4' 543-4- 387-.- .olnm 417-4- 137—* thMM 13831-01.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS 23 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING(2021)CONDITIONS Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay' Level of Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Secs) Service2 # Intersection Control3 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 Rembrandt Pkwy./Gerald Ford Dr. CSS 0 0 0 1 0 d 1 2 0 0 3 1 21.3 20.4 C C 2 Portola Rd./Gerald Ford Dr. TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 0 2 3 1 24.7 26.0 C C 3 Rembrandt Pkwy.(Future Ext.)/Project Dwy. Intersection Does Not Exist 4 Gateway Dr./Gerald Ford Dr. TS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 1 13.8 14.8 B B 1 When a right turn is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L= Left;T=Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane 2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition(HCM6),overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software. 3 TS=Traffic Signal;CSS=Cross-street Stop C:\UXRjobsL13600-14000L13800l13831 IEvrel\(13831-Repart.xls43-1 112> URBAN CROSSROADS 24 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis 3.7 EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrants for Existing traffic conditions are based on existing peak hour intersection turning volumes. For Existing (2021)traffic conditions,there are no study area intersections that currently warrant a traffic signal based on peak hour traffic flows (see Appendix 3.3). 13831-04 TA Report.docx LP1 URBAN CROSSROADS 25 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 13831-04 TA Report.docx LP1 URBAN CROSSROADS 26 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC This section presents the traffic volumes estimated to be generated by the Project, as well as the Project's trip assignment onto the study area roadway network. The Project is proposed to consist of 270 multifamily housing units. 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. Project will have one full access driveway and one emergency access driveway along Rembrandt Parkway(future extension). Regional access to the project site is provided via the 1-10 Freeway at Monterey Avenue and Cook Street along Gerald Ford Drive. 4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the specific land uses being proposed for a given development. Trip generation rates used to estimate Project traffic and a summary of the Project's trip generation are shown in Table 4-1. The trip generation rates are based upon data collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for Multifamily Housing-Low Rise (ITE Land Use Code 220) land use in their published Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. (2) As shown on Table 4-1, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 1,976 trip-ends per day with 125 AM peak hour trips and 152 PM peak hour trips. 4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION The trip distribution pattern for the proposed Project is depicted on Exhibit 4-1. The trip distribution has been developed based on past work experience in the vicinity of the Project site and refined to reflect the roadway network and the surrounding uses in the vicinity of the proposed Project as they exist today. 4.3 MODAL SPLIT Although the use of public transit, walking, and/or bicycling have the potential to reduce Project- related traffic, such reductions have not been taken into considerations in this traffic study in order to provide a conservative analysis of the Project's potential to contribute to circulation system deficiencies. 4.4 TRIP ASSIGNMENT The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project weekday ADT, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4-2. 13831-04 TA Report.docx (2!)URBAN CROSSROADS 27 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis TABLE 4-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Trip Generation Rates' ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Code Quantity2 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Multifamily Housing(Low-Rise) 220 270 DU 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32 Trip Generation Results ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Code Quantity2 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Multifamily Housing(Low-Rise) 220 270 DU 30 ' 95 125 95 57 152 1,976 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE),Trip Generation Manual,10th Edition(2017). 2 DU=Dwelling Unit C:i UXRjobsL13600-14000L13800i13831\Exceli(13831-Report.xlsx]Trip Gen URBAN CROSSROADS 28 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION A in V o in Ix G O 0 F i a a • 35 40 GERALD FORD DR. . ....(EMERGENCY.ACCESS) SO 35 .. I............ ..--.. • ... Y o I z Iaw a EE • 1 PROJECT DWY.I I....:......... :.:::.....:100.... � I .................... I • . . 0 4 ,. - . i; • . 91 LEGEND: 10 =PERCENT FROM/TO PROJECT =FUTURE ROADWAY 13831-01.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS 29 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES } / 0 ri 0 F rn 3 _ Z so a W O ce CO a W is GERALD FORD DR. 0.7 0 0.8 1.0 © 0.7 ......(EMERGENC.Y.ACCESSI,I ! ..... 0-o ............ . E :'•'SITE ' '' `I, F mt I f LL (r .................. I I W— a I _1 tV PROJECT DWY fifi�7 of o ct Z.O 1 0 AM PEAK HOUR 1 Rembrandt Pkwy.& 2 Portola Rd.& 3 Rembrandt Pkwy. 4 Gateway Dr.& Gerald Ford Dr. Gerald Ford Dr. (Future Extension)& Gerald Ford Dr. Project Dwy. LEGEND: r` MI MI �l5 ~11 �f �33 0 =INTERSECTION ID 5-486� 4-100 =PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 12� co co p� 10� 11� 10.0 =VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) PM PEAK HOUR 1 Rembrandt Pkwy.& 2 Portola Rd.& 3 Rembrandt Pkwy. 4 Gateway Dr.& Gerald Ford Dr. Gerald Ford Dr. (Future Extension)& Gerald Ford Dr. Project Dwy. so in 48 �33 co, In L.-20 f 3— 51-4 38- , 26� 6— 33� 13831-01.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS 30 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis 4.5 CUMULATIVE GROWTH TRAFFIC 4.5.1 AMBIENT GROWTH RATE Future year traffic forecasts have been based upon background (ambient)growth at 4.04 percent (2 percent per year over 2 years) for EAP and EAPC traffic conditions. The ambient growth factor is intended to approximate regional traffic growth. This ambient growth rate is added to existing traffic volumes to account for area-wide growth not reflected by cumulative development projects. Ambient growth has been added to daily and peak hour traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, in addition to traffic generated by the development of future projects that have been approved but not yet built and/or for which development applications have been filed and are under consideration by governing agencies, for EAPC traffic conditions. 4.5.2 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)guidelines require that other reasonably foreseeable development projects which are either approved or being processed concurrently in the study area also be included as part of a cumulative analysis scenario. A cumulative project list was developed for the purposes of this analysis through consultation with planning and engineering staff from the City of Palm Desert. Exhibit 4-3 illustrates the cumulative development location map. A summary of cumulative development projects and their proposed land uses are shown on Table 4-2. If applicable, the traffic generated by individual cumulative projects was manually added to the Opening Year Cumulative forecasts to ensure that traffic generated by the listed cumulative development projects in Table 4-2 are reflected as part of the background traffic. 4.5.3 NEAR-TERM TRAFFIC FORECASTS The "buildup" approach combines existing traffic counts with a background ambient growth factor to forecast EAP (2023) and EAPC (2023) traffic conditions. An ambient growth factor of 2% per year accounts for background (area-wide)traffic increases that occur over time up to the year 2023 from the year 2021 (compounded 2% per year growth over a 2-year period). Project traffic is added to assess both forecast EAP (2023) and EAPC (2023) traffic conditions. Traffic volumes generated by cumulative development projects are not included in the EAP(2023)traffic conditions. The near-term traffic analysis includes the following traffic conditions, with the various traffic components: • EAP (2023) o Existing 2021 volumes o Ambient growth traffic (4.04%) o Project Traffic • EAPC (2023) o Existing 2021 volumes o Ambient growth traffic (4.04%) o Cumulative Development traffic o Project Traffic 13831-04 TA Report.docx (2!)URBAN CROSSROADS 31 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 4-3: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP , Ww."1137°131137 F . - - _ . DINAH SHORE DR. PD29 t * , ... . Ex. =IN ewe �'- �� _ . • r . 4 . 3 • (PD17 l • RM47 PD25 f 43) '',. - : . ..,..,-.. • `' • tap �GERALD FORD D1CIO • '`' .a 1'N / _ PD30 SITE 6 PD8 PD1 cc ' `e o PD2 R1N49 a CD .' N RF .' FRANK SINATRA DR. 5• • ... •...v•s:-,n-r�:ii,i,t-Iivelrmen:auntrni..rnr-riitnv6,.rr----�---_:—. -. = - . --.•fr7--"•-jr'-7- - - 13831-01.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS 32 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis TABLE 4-2: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY ID Project Name Land Use' Quantity Units2 CITY OF PALM DESERT Office 62.01 TSF Retail 18.0 TSF PD1 Gerald Ford Business Park Bank 4.5 TSF Restaurant 16.0 TSF PD2 Candlewood Suites Hotel 88 RM PD8 Fairfield Inn&Suites Marriott Hotel Hotel 108 RM SFDR 166 DU Multi-Family 612 DU PD10 Millennium Palm Desert Commercial 551.0 TSF Hotel 250 RM SFDR 773 DU PD12 University Park — — Multi-Family 336 DU PD14 Dolce SFDR 159 DU PD16 Catavina SFDR 159 DU PD17 Falling Waters SFDR 159 DU SFDR 111 DU PD21 Ponderosa II Multi-Family 114 DU Multi-Family 384 DU PD25 Monterey Specific Plan Commercial 120.0 TSF SFDR 400 DU PD28 128-Acres Multi-Family 270 DU PD29 Monterey Crossings Commercial 120.0 TSF PD30 Santa Barbara Apartment Multi-Family 48 DU Resort Hotel 350 RM Surf Lagoon 1350 Guests PD31 Desert Surf Shopping Center 4.0 TSF High-Turnover(Sit-Down)Restaurant 11.250 TSF CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE RM28 TTM 32308(Los Ranchos) SFDR 7 DU RM47 Monterey Medical Center Medical Office 75.164 TSF Hotel 400 RM Retail 175.0 TSF RM49 Section 31 Specific Plan Multi-Family(Mid Rise) 832 DU Single Family 1100 DU SFDR=Single Family Detached Residential 2 DU=Dwelling Units;TSF=Thousand Square Feet;RM=Rooms C:i UXRjobsL13600-14000L13800\13831l Excel\[13831-Report.xlsx]CM List URBAN CROSSROADS 33 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis 4.6 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT(2040)VOLUME DEVELOPMENT Future horizon year 2040 traffic projections from the Draft Section 31 Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study, March 2019, prepared by Fehr & Peers is utilized. For intersections without 2040 data, a minimum growth of 10%over existing (2021) has been applied to turn movements in addition to traffic data from known cumulative projects in the area. Lastly, eastbound and westbound through volumes along Gerald Ford Drive have been adjusted accordingly based the available GPBO (2040) data at Portola Road/Gerald Ford Drive (#1). 13831-04 TA Report.docx 121 URBAN CROSSROADS 34 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis 5 EAP (2023) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS This section discusses the methods used to develop Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) (2023) traffic conditions and the resulting peak hour intersection operations, freeway mainline operations, and traffic signal warrant analyses. 5.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for EAP conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3-1, with the exception of the following: • Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for EAP conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements at the Project's frontage and driveways). 5.2 EAP(2023)TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS To account for background traffic growth, an ambient growth from Existing conditions of 4.04% (2 percent per year over 2 years, compounded annually) is included for EAP traffic conditions. Cumulative development projects are not included as part of the EAP analysis. EAP weekday ADT, weekday PM, and weekend peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 5-1. 5.3 EAP(2023) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS EAP peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TA. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 5-1, which indicate that there are no intersections operating at an unacceptable LOS with the addition of Project traffic. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAP traffic conditions is included in Appendix 5.1 of this TA. 5.4 EAP(2023)TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS For EAP (2023) traffic conditions, the intersection of Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive (#1) appears to warrant a traffic signal based on ADT volumes (see Appendix 3.3). As mentioned previously, a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. Meeting this condition does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified. It should also be noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with LOS. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above acceptable LOS or operate below acceptable LOS and not meet a signal warrant. 13831-04 TA Report.docx ��/URBAN CROSSROADS 35 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 5-1: EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT(2023) TRAFFIC VOLUMES I / I cp w is GERALD FORD DR. 12.4 O 14.9 15.3 © 14.3 ....(EMERGENC.Y.ACCESS) o w / SITE ' 7 0 m� ce i fiI = .3 M d • .'.'PRWECT MAN ;l rr Z.O 1 0 rL AM PEAK HOUR 1 Rembrandt Pkwy.& 2 Portola Rd.& 3 Rembrandt Pkwy. 4 Gateway Dr.& Gerald Ford Dr. Gerald Ford Dr. (Future Extension)& Gerald Ford Dr. Project Dwy. o LEGEND: 4L.57 � 4 �*-48 � 4 L.--492 0 f =INTERSECTION ID �100 =PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 4 12� }o 170. }n 10� ? 3 1� 10.0 =VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) PM PEAK HOUR 1 Rembrandt Pkwy.& 2 Portola Rd.& 3 Rembrandt Pkwy. 4 Gateway Dr.& Gerald Ford Dr. Gerald Ford Dr. (Future Extension)& Gerald Ford Dr. Project Dwy. M4-4 7 ONv 4-127 o �NN 3 483 viN L 71.i48 4 l_*— .i L► f49 565 423 }n 61� 0 468� 13831-01.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS 36 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP(2023)CONDITIONS Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay' Level of 1 Traffic _Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Secs) Service' # Intersection Control3 L T R I. T R I. T R I. T R AM PM AM PM 1 Rembrandt Pkwy./Gerald Ford Dr. CSS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 1 2 0 1 3 1 33.8 34.7 D D 2 Portola Rd./Gerald Ford Dr. TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 0 2 3 1 25.2 26.4 C C 3 Rembrandt Pkwy.(Future Ext.)/Project Dwy. CSS 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 9.0 9.1 A A 4 Gateway Dr./Gerald Ford Dr. TS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 1 13.9 14.9 B B 1 When a right turn is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L= Left;T=Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement 2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition(HCM6),overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software. 3 TS=Traffic Signal;CSS=Cross-street Stop C:\UXRjobsL13600-14000L13800l13831 IEvrel\(13831-Repart.xls45-1 112> URBAN CROSSROADS 37 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 13831-04 TA Report.docx ii/URBAN CROSSROADS 38 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis 6 EAPC (2023) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS This section discusses the methods used to develop Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2023) traffic conditions and the resulting peak hour intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses. 6.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3-1, with the exception of the following: • Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements at the Project's frontage and driveways). • Driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by cumulative developments to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along the cumulative development's frontages and driveways). 6.2 EAPC(2023)TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS To account for background traffic, other known cumulative development projects in the study area were included in addition to 4.04% of ambient growth for EAPC traffic conditions in conjunction with traffic associated with the proposed Project. EAPC weekday ADT, weekday PM, and weekend peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 6-1. 6.3 EAPC(2023) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS EAPC peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TA. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 6-1, which indicate that the intersection of Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive (#1) is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS under EAPC conditions. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC traffic conditions is included in Appendix 6.1 of this TA. 6.4 EAPC(2023)TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS For EAPC(2023)traffic conditions,the intersection of Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive (#1) appears to warrant a traffic signal based on both peak hour traffic flows and ADT volumes (see Appendix 3.3). 13831-04 TA Report.docx ►URBAN CROSSROADS 39 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 6-1: EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT PLUS CUMULATIVE (2023) TRAFFIC VOLUMES � d � H � } p 3 Z P a W R co [O � W GERALD FORD DR. 15.1 17.5 17.4 © 18.0 ....(EMERGENcY.ACCESS)..1 ..................... o w NIa� / sITE 'II m, cc IWLL a q J..PROJECT MAN..ilix of rr Z.O 0 a I AM PEAK HOUR 1 Rembrandt Pkwy.& 2 Portola Rd.& 3 Rembrandt Pkwy. 4 Gateway Dr.& Gerald Ford Dr. Gerald Ford Dr. (Future Extension)& Gerald Ford Dr. Project Dwy. LEGEND: vN.° -697 °,32 rn_ -519 N1991 `°- -102 =INTERSECTION ID L.f-18 L.*-56 ...14 L. r568 0 �100 =PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 496— } 419� ? 0� ? 416- 10.0 =VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) 23—* r` 178—* _:2 v PM PEAK HOUR 1 Rembrandt Pkwy.& 2 Portola Rd.& 3 Rembrandt Pkwy. 4 Gateway Dr.& Gerald Ford Dr. Gerald Ford Dr. (Future Extension)& Gerald Ford Dr. Project Dwy. M �47 �189 rne 74 4_NN75 6� i �s-5 Li -.� . 1. f 554 679.. 55. } 6-* 571-- 13831-01.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS 40 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC(2023)CONDITIONS Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay' Level of Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Secs) Service' # Intersection Control3 L T R I. T R I. T R I. T R AM PM AM PM 1 Rembrandt Pkwy./Gerald Ford Dr. -Without Improvements CSS 0 0 0 1 0 d 1 2 0 0 3 1 43.4 54.3 E F -With Improvements TS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 1 2 0 1 3 1 19.6 12.2 B B 2 Portola Rd./Gerald Ford Dr. TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 0 2 3 1 26.5 27.8 C C 3 Rembrandt Pkwy.(Future Ext.)/Project Dwy. CS5 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 9.3 9.6 A A 4 Gateway Dr./Gerald Ford Dr. TS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 1 15.7 16.4 B B r When a right turn is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L= Left;T=Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement 2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition(HCM6),overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software. BOLD=LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements(i.e.,unacceptable LOS). 3 TS=Traffic Signal;CSS=Cross-street Stop C:l UXRjobsL13600-14000L13800l13831 IEvrel\(13831-Report.xls46-1 112> URBAN CROSSROADS 41 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis 6.5 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 6.5.1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AT INTERSECTIONS Improvement strategies have been recommended for those intersections identified as deficient for EAPC (2023) traffic conditions. The recommended improvements would improve each location's peak hour delay and achieve acceptable LOS standards. The effectiveness of the proposed recommended improvements is presented in Table 6-1 for EAPC (2023) traffic conditions. Recommended improvements to address deficiencies for EAPC (2023) traffic conditions are described below. Recommended Improvement—Rembrandt Parkway& Gerald Ford Drive(#1) • Contribute fair share of 32.5%towards the installation of a traffic signal and lane improvements. It is recommended that the signal timing is coordinated along Gerald Ford Drive. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC (2023) traffic conditions, with improvements, is included in Appendix 6.1 of this TA. 13831-04 TA Report.docx V RBAN CROSSROaoS 42 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis 7 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS This section discusses the methods used to develop GPBO (2040) traffic forecasts, and the resulting intersection operations and roadway segment operations analyses. 7.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for GPBO (2040) traffic conditions are consistent with those shown on Exhibit 3-1, in conjunction with other long-range City roadway facilities that would be likely be in place by GPBO (2040) traffic conditions. 7.2 GPBO (2040)WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS Future horizon year 2040 traffic projections were obtained from the Draft Section 31 Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study, March 2019, prepared by Fehr& Peers. Adjustments have been made to the Draft Section 31 Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study where the volumes are lower than the current (2021) baseline condition. For intersections without 2040 data, a minimum growth of 10% over existing (2021) has been applied to turn movements plus traffic data from known cumulative projects near the study area. Lastly, eastbound and westbound through volumes along Gerald Ford Drive have been adjusted accordingly based on the directional traffic flow from intersection with available GPBO (2040) data (Portola Road/Gerald Ford Drive -#1). 7.3 GPBO (2040)WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS The proposed Project has been added to the GPBO 2040 Without Project conditions. The ADT and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes which can be expected for GPBO (2040) With Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 7-2. 7.4 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under GPBO (2040)traffic conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with Section 7.1 Roadway Improvements. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Tables 7-1 & 7- 2. As shown in Tables 7-1 & 7-2, the study area intersection of Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald For Drive (#1) is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours under GPBO (2040) Without Project traffic conditions. With the changes proposed by the Project, the intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for GPBO (2040) Without Project and GPBO (2040) With Project traffic conditions are included in Appendices 7.1 and 7.2 of this TA, respectively. 13831-04 TA Report.docx /URBAN CROSSROADS 43 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 7-1: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES I / I (.) ct GERALD FORD DR. 23.8 O 25.8 24.3 © 24.8 ....(EMERGENC.Y.ACCESS).. ! .........::......::.. F w : SITE q1m o �LL ix W— a • .:PROJECT c FY: o r rr O.O 0 rL I AM PEAK HOUR 1 Rembrandt Pkwy.& 2 Portola Rd.& 3 Rembrandt Pkwy. 4 Gateway Dr.& Gerald Ford Dr. Gerald Ford Dr. (Future Extension)& Gerald Ford Dr. Project Dwy. amain 4-34 4-340 .o� �114 LEGEND: J L�11 - *-100 FUTURE � f845 0 =INTERSECTION ID 23—*'1 t r 104-4'( f (' INTERSECTION 40-4 4-100 =PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 942-* N'^M 3203-* Nago 858� 10.0 =VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) PM PEAK HOUR 1 Rembrandt Pkwy.& 2 Portola Rd.& 3 Rembrandt Pkwy. 4 Gateway Dr.& Gerald Ford Dr. Gerald Ford Dr. (Future Extension)& Gerald Ford Dr. Project Dwy. in as 4-50 V328 4-340 .os 35 8 *-132 FUTURE .1 � 135 L.s— � 1203 48-4'') t (' 185—t"1 t r INTERSECTION 98-4' 10137— corn- 4 6966 0=0 1008� N 13831-01.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS 44 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 7-2: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES I / I 0 w is GERALD FORD DR. 24 49 26.5 25.3 © 25.5 ....(EMER.GENC.Y.ACCESS)..1 .........::......:: IF,w : SITE 'I •i W= a r .:PROJECT DWY r ilix rr Z.O 0 rL AM PEAK HOUR 1 Rembrandt Pkwy.& 2 Portola Rd.& 3 Rembrandt Pkwy. 4 Gateway Dr.& Gerald Ford Dr. Gerald Ford Dr. (Future Extension)& Gerald Ford Dr. Project Dwy. M in 4-34 os 4-340 r-M ooa LEGEND: Crrn'° f917 cm"— 756 `�`^ `o,— —119 =INTERSECTION ID L. 26 1.-*-100 L. r878 0 23-4'1 t r 109-4'1 t (' 86-4'I t 40-4 4-100 =PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 954—* 'n.0 330—* �.o0 10� �'� 869� 10.0 =VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) PM PEAK HOUR 1 Rembrandt Pkwy.& 2 Portola Rd.& 3 Rembrandt Pkwy. 4 Gateway Dr.& Gerald Ford Dr. Gerald Ford Dr. (Future Extension)& Gerald Ford Dr. Project Dwy. LEI cr."-1248 + n--725 +CV sOsoN" �138 �83 *-113 f1223 1075��. l6154 } 6��0 1041� NOv 13831-01.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS 45 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis TABLE 7-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT(2040)WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay' Level of Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Secs) Service' # Intersection Control3 L T R I. T R I. T R I. T R AM PM AM PM 1 Rembrandt Pkwy./Gerald Ford Dr. -Without Improvements CSS 0 0 0 1 0 d 1 2 0 0 3 1 >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 1 2 0 1 3 1 37.1 15.4 D B 2 Portola Rd./Gerald Ford Dr. TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 0 2 3 1 34.5 35.9 C D 3 Rembrandt Pkwy.(Future Ext.)/Project Dwy. Intersection Does Not Exist 4 Gateway Dr./Gerald Ford Dr. TS 0 0 0 I 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 1 16.5 16.7 B B 1 When a right turn is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L= Left;T=Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement ' Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition(HCM6),overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software. BOLD=LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements(i.e.,unacceptable LOS). 3 TS=Traffic Signal;CSS=Cross-street Stop clUXRjobsL13600-14000L13800l13831lExcell(13831-Repsrt.xls47-1 112> URBAN CROSSROADS 46 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis TABLE 7-2: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT(2040)WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay' Level of Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (Secs) Service' # Intersection Control3 L T R I. T R I. T R I. T R AM PM AM PM 1 Rembrandt Pkwy./Gerald Ford Dr. -Without Improvements CSS 0 0 0 1 0 d 1 2 0 0 3 1 >80 >80 F F -With Improvements TS 0.5 0.5 d 0.5 0.5 d 1 2 0 1 3 1 37.3 22.0 D C 2 Portola Rd./Gerald Ford Dr. TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 0 2 3 1 35.1 36.2 D D 3 Rembrandt Pkwy.(Future Ext.)/Project Dwy. CSS 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 10.5 11.2 B B 4 Gateway Dr./Gerald Ford Dr. TS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 1 16.6 16.8 B B 1 When a right turn is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped.To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L= Left;T=Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1 = Improvement 2 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition(HCM6),overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control,the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 analysis software. BOLD=LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements(i.e.,unacceptable LOS). 3 TS=Traffic Signal;CSS=Cross-street Stop clUXRjobsL13600-14000L13800l13831lExcell(13831-Repsrt.xls47-2 112> URBAN CROSSROADS 47 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis 7.5 GPBO (2040)TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS For GPBO (2040) without and with Project traffic conditions, the intersection of Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive (#1) is anticipated to warrant a traffic signal based on both peak hour traffic flows and ADT volumes (see Appendix 3.3). 7.6 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 7.6.1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AT INTERSECTIONS Improvement strategies have been recommended for those intersections identified as deficient for 2040 traffic conditions. The recommended improvements would improve each location's peak hour delay and achieve acceptable LOS standards. The effectiveness of the proposed recommended improvements is presented in Table 7-1 for 2040 without Project traffic conditions and Table 7-2 for 2040 with Project traffic conditions. Recommended improvements to address deficiencies for 2040 without and with Project traffic conditions are described below. Recommended Improvement—Rembrandt Parkway& Gerald Ford Drive(#1) • Contribute fair share of 32.5%towards the installation of a traffic signal and lane improvements. It is recommended that the signal timing is coordinated along Gerald Ford Drive. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for GPBO (2040) Without Project and GPBO (2040) With Project traffic conditions, with improvements, are included in Appendices 7.1 and 7.2 of this TA, respectively. 13831-04 TA Report.docx V RBAN CROSSROaoS 48 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis 8 REFERENCES 1. Riverside County Transportation Department. Transportation Analysis Guideines for Level of Service& Vehicle Miles Traveled. County of Riverside : s.n., December 2020. 2. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. 10th Edition. 2017. 5.Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual(HCM), 6th Edition. s.l. : National Academy of Sciences, 2016. 7. —. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). [book auth.] California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices(CAMUTCD). 2014. 13831-04 TA Report.docx URBAN cROssROA0s 49 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 13831-04 TA Report.docx URBAN CRassRoaos 50 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis APPENDIX 1.1: APPROVED TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT 13831-04 TA Report.docx URBAN cROssROAos Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 13831-04 TA Report.docx URBAN CRassRoaos 0 URBAN CROSSROADS January 27, 2021 Mr. Randy Bowman City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 SUBJECT: PALM DESERT APARTMENTS FOCUSED TRAFFIC AND VMT ANALYSES SCOPING AGREEMENT Dear Mr. Randy Bowman: Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to resubmit this scoping letter to City of Palm Desert regarding the Focused Traffic and VMT Analyses for the proposed Palm Desert Apartments development ("Project"), which is located west of Rembrandt Parkway and south of Gerald Ford Drive in the City of Palm Desert. It is our understanding that the Project is to consist of 270 multi-family residential dwelling units. The remainder of this letter describes the proposed analysis methodology, Project trip generation, trip distribution, and Project traffic assignment/project trips on the surrounding roadway network. The following scoping assumptions have been prepared in accordance with the County of Riverside's Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service & Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020) as the City of Palm Desert does not have its own LOS/VMT analysis guidelines. A preliminary site plan the proposed Project is shown on Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2 depicts the location of the proposed project in relation to the existing roadway network. It is anticipated that the Project would be fully developed by year 2023. Project will have one full access driveway and one emergency access driveway along the Rembrandt Parkway future extension. TRIP GENERATION In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed project, trip-generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (10th Edition, 2017) manual for the proposed land use (ITE Land Use Codes: 220 — Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)) is used. Table 1 presents the trip generation rates and the resulting trip generation summary for the proposed Project. As shown in Table 1, the Project is anticipated to generate a net total of 1,976 trip-ends per day with 125 AM peak hour trips and 152 PM peak hour trips. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The trip distribution pattern is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of surrounding uses, and the proximity to the regional freeway system. Exhibit 3 presents the Project distribution pattern. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project ADT and peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 8. 13831-02 TA& VMT Scope.docx 1.1-1 Mr. Randy Bowman City of Palm Desert January 27, 2021 Page 2 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS Consistent with the County's LOS guidelines, intersection analysis will be provided for the following analysis scenarios: • Existing (2021) Conditions • Existing plus Ambient plus Project (EAP) (2023) • Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2023) • General Plan Buildout (2040), Without and With Project EAP traffic conditions will be utilized to determine direct Project traffic impacts, while the Interim Year (2023) With Project analysis will be utilized to determine the Project's cumulatively considerable impacts (subject to payment of fees/fair share). The City of Palm Desert General Plan Circulation Element is depicted on Exhibit 4, while the accompanying roadway cross-sections are presented on Exhibit 5. STUDY AREA The traffic impact study area was defined in conformance with the requirements of County of Riverside's Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service &Vehicle Miles Traveled. Consistent with the County's LOS guidelines, study area intersections have been identified for the Project based on the contribution of 50 or more peak hour trips. Based on this criterion, anticipated trip generation and trip distribution, the following intersections will be evaluated: ID Intersection Location 1 Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive 2 Portola Road/Gerald Ford Drive 3 Rembrandt Parkway(future extension)/Project Driveway 4 Gateway Drive/Gerald Ford Drive Exhibit 2 identifies the proposed study area intersection analysis locations. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CRITERIA Per the City of Palm Desert's General Plan, LOS D as the threshold for acceptable traffic conditions on the circulation network. 13831-02 TA& VMTScope.docx eo URBAN CROSSROADS 1.1-2 Mr. Randy Bowman City of Palm Desert January 27, 2021 Page 3 PREFERRED ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY For the purposes of this analysis, signalized intersection operations analysis will be based on the methodology described in the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition). Intersection LOS operations are based on an intersection's average control delay. Unsignalized intersections will be evaluated using the methodology described in the HCM 6th Edition. At two-way or side-street stop-controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled movement and for the left turn movement from the major street, as well as for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. EXISTING 2021 VOLUME ESTIMATES For the intersection of Portola Rd./Gerald Ford Drive (#2), 2018 traffic count datasets from a recent traffic study (Draft Section 31 Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study, March 2019, prepared by Fehr & Peers) will be utilized. Exhibit 6 presents the currently available March 2018 morning and evening peak hour intersection volumes at the intersection of Portola Road/Gerald Ford Drive (#1). These 2018 counts will be adjusted by adding 3 years of background (ambient) growth (2% per year, total of 6.12% compounded over a 3-year period) in order to estimate "typical/non-COVID-19" 2021 conditions. For the intersections of Rembrandt Parkway/Gerald Ford Drive (#1) and Gateway Drive/Gerald Ford Drive (#4), new traffic counts will be collected in February 2021 during the following timeframes: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, these new February 2021 peak hour counts are anticipated to be lower than typical conditions for winter. Therefore, new February 2021 counts will be adjusted accordingly for the eastbound and westbound through volumes based on the estimated "typical/non-COVID-19" 2021 volumes at Portola Road/Gerald Ford Drive (#2) intersection. CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC Future horizon year 2040 traffic projections from the Draft Section 31 Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study, March 2019, prepared by Fehr & Peers will be utilized. The Interim Year (2023) traffic projections will be determined by interpolating between the existing traffic volumes and the year General Plan Buildout 2040 projections. In addition, we request that City staff review the list of cumulative development projects (shown on Exhibit 7 and listed on Table 2) for inclusion in the traffic study. Consistent with other studies performed in the area, an ambient growth rate of 2% per year will be utilized as a minimum if necessary. The rate will be compounded over a 2-year period (i.e., 1.022YearS = 1.0404 or 4.04%) for Interim Year (2023) conditions. 13831-02 TA& VMTScope.docx ( P URBAN CROSSROADS 1.1-3 Mr. Randy Bowman City of Palm Desert January 27, 2021 Page 4 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) The VMT analysis will be prepared under separate cover in accordance with SB743 and consistent with the methodology and thresholds outlined in the County of Riverside's December 2020 VMT methodology guidelines. Please review this scoping agreement let us know if it is acceptable, or if the City requests any changes to this proposed scope of work. If you have any questions, please contact John Kain at (949) 375-2435 or Marlie Whiteman (714) 585-0574. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. /Lot. k° i L/176444--, -t-&,0-4,4--) John Kain,AICP Marlie Whiteman, PE Principal Senior Associate 13831-02 TA& VMTScope.docx eo URBAN CROSSROADS 1.1-4 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN GERALD FORD DRIVE GERALD FORD DRIVE J Pi!:ArVirtiMill•C 41.1 1-f::Y I i�Y Y I Writialt.. 'or r 4�'1 �ar 11� r, •11 11111.[ LH 11111 _ 1111 IJIIIIIINL11111 1 WATER RETENTION ■ s (EMERGENCY ACCESS) E" ' I ,. BASIN(N.A.P.) ■ [IIIIIu IIIIIII' 11111 I . SHERIFF DEPARTMENT T ■ r� ,..,.., llR.tr.±ia C I I (N.A.P.) ie�a�kb �+ +�i l„ T:il— 111 [1111111 • _ . .. .., = , , ulti6.4., : .„ r- . .'Ell".1111.PA. R.4 Z111,1 rile�`L: , I ON-SITE WATER RETENTION AREA& • .„— P#P9RL� � �� + ` , RESIDENT OPEN SPACE AMENITIES • C � l- • Lai I E3 Ir ■ — i Laird�I II II Iulll l l rpm,,.•L ■ r .4. � fi P FUTURE PKWY � . Nu i : pow + :XTENSIO. N If I . . L�r C, WFI1NESS zo zo • arA if — 3 ; I ■ _1 �Al A, A, Wei. A POOL 1 1 G C ie'Jta!R . �! _ ' btil 141 • a111111I[g111L IIIIII / \J 1J111II 1 SHERIFF DEPARTMENT ■ _ �'E ) PROJECT DRIVEWAY (N.A.P.) ■ �1 a IIIII .. C WOW' C3� B I _1 L C3, I • k kid = = 1 `I ... 1 I. 'r ALL - . . ■ ■ • -H-LI+-F 1+1+hf W FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SITE(N.A.P.) 13831-scope.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS 1.1-5 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 2: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS STUDY AREA � a o I- > a z � a w co m a O GERALD FORD DR. ...(EMERGENCY.ACCESS) 1 > I iQX CC CC r '. SITE aw a o CC PROJECT.DWY.I: 1CC a 1 LEGEND: Q =EXISTING ANALYSIS LOCATION 1-3 =FUTURE ANALYSIS LOCATION —�— =FUTURE ROADWAY 13831-scope.dwg le, URBAN CROSSROADS 1.1-6 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis TABLE 1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Trip Generation Rates' ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Code Quantity2 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Multifamily Housing(Low-Rise) 220 270 DU 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32 Trip Generation Results ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Code Quantity2 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Multifamily Housing(Low-Rise) 220 270 DU 30 ' 95 125 95 57 152 1,976 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE),Trip Generation Manual,10th Edition(2017). 2 DU=Dwelling Unit C:i UXRjobsL13600-14000L13800i13831\Exceli(13831-TG.xlsx]Trip Gen URBAN CROSSROADS 1.1-7 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 3: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION A in V o in Ix G O 0 F i a a • 35 40 GERALD FORD DR. . ....(EMERGENCY.ACCESS) SO 35 Y d o - • I zwo SITE:: Iowa d EE • I PROJECT DWY.I . I....:......... :.:::.:....:IOQ.... � I .................... I 1 0 fi tl 4 - . I; . . 91 LEGEND: 10 =PERCENT FROM/TO PROJECT =FUTURE ROADWAY 13831-scope.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS 1.1-8 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 4: CITY OF PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT NR �— EI �� - I Frec'Nanng Dr cD )12..... k' T.'ti I175 -r` 'l ..Nitlit--1. , 11 • lik . j . : ' J ElPyaeu / �- ` ITirh-7 l _i_........-r........R._ 'N....N., .. f., ^ Gawine S: Er irlSei .,1 11 , .. Thousarlc pa]rns i g ` - aoachella Valley Preserve NNN If ! or "47 e SITE* ilk --A • Rancho I.: et•,; r' /' ' 1G r As rra w wYljr/ / ; ...-• ir i f1 7 ,- ... 'ttt n T7<n,- Catarrh.Clu:i Dr r-d`� 1/ ■ •sr F r 6 .,/ /.* 43 Ci ? -�.• :T Q 3 L i -e�` H Havwsr to 40 r --71%----------z..---„.._ . . • - Frs-!'41,n,-,I W t --__ UV- n _ _- w ��NrlaC Ave, - -- t-.iGti J radian Wela r ;tiT,_r`i'1 n el n See inset -'---- 1/. -1,'t. Enhanced Arterial — Secondary Street Local Sheet w s Vehicular Oriented Arterial —Collector Street 0 City Boundary •--w Enhanced Secondary Roadway - Downtown Collector 1ligr Pain/Desert SQl Balanced Arterial — El Paseo . Whiteeater River Canal 13831-scope.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS 1.1-9 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 5: CITY OF PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS t tilit % =_A T t 11111 ENHANCED ARTERIAL - (S LANES,DIVIDED) VEHICULAR ORIENTED ARTERIAL VEHICULAR ORIENTED ARTERIAL IS LANES,DIVIDED) (8 LANES,DIVIDED) WITH BICYCLE LANES WITH SHARED SIIEWALKS ik IF If 1 4 tt •Ag ok, 4. _Ai „as f t iii -AK si__.. '----. - it t BALANCED ARTERIAL BALANCED ARTERIAL (4 LANES,DIVIDED) (4 LANES,DIVIDED) WITH BICYCLE LANES MTH SHARED SIDEWALKS t I, tt, - t 111 ENHANCED SECONDARY (4 LANES,DMDEDI WITH BICYCLE LANES SECONDARY STREET SECONDARY STREET (4 LANES,DIVIDED) (4 LANES.DIVIDED) WITH BICYCLE LANES WITH SHARED ROADWAY ff sti t.,t n r'-irmr-1 n _ DOWNTOWN COLLECTOR STREET (2 LANES,UNDIVIDED) WITH BICYCLE LANES 11 tr_j____c=1_, COLLECTOR STREET (2 LANES,UNDIVIDED) a WITH SHARED ROADWAY �i+' i 1 r :--� a ,rS- &Jai , T Sri Iih I- EL PASEO (4 LANES,DMDED,WTH PARKING) WITH SHARED ROADWAY SOURCE: CITY OF PALM DESERT 13831-scope.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS 1.1-10 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 6: EXISTING (2018) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (TO BE ADJUSTED FOR ESTIMATION OF "TYPICAL/NON-COVID-19" 2021 CONDITIONS) } Y 0 d 0 F > o a z a w ce m o ce GERALD FORD DR. 0' '0' ...(EMERGENCY.ACCESS)I > ar • low g SITE � IZw Q w J I2E ~0 ix w` o PROJECT DWY, 4 a _'I !I #2 PORTOLA RD.&GERALD FORD DR. AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LEGEND: 0 =INTERSECTION ID vN�'o �409 ,NN �319 =PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION COUNT DATE:MARCH 2018 �43 4 L*-43 =NEW FEBRUARY 2021 COUNTS VII 9—*1 } (' 9— ' 4 (' TO BE COLLECTED AND ADJUSTED 139— Nv 129~ NN N � ^t+1 13831-scope.dwg le, URBAN CROSSROADS 1.1-11 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 7: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP • I DINAH SHORE DR. PD29 f t... -,. _,-,/.- :1110, 11111 t giLi 411 ewe �'-.' : i�+ _ r . • PD17 • • RM47 • PD25 f 4111) . PD1 '. GER ALD FORD DR.p PD30 SITE N. 6 PD8 PD1 ,. i ,. ix Q _ :'-•I.1 del o PD2 —P-- RM49 i a 111414.4.. 1 . 'Ck::' . ' e • .. 4:11) .. . , . ', e:., . • RF FRANK SINATRA DR. '- •...v's:-intr iiIiit-11.-0irm.1:arrKcrni•M1,0-1rsraei:,.rr---- --- - . - . ----••fr7•-,•.._-_'_ - `[„, :. -__;• G ` a_L11ay."y'al.Ldl.L rllLi�i.1. '• - .{ ' - " .1 13831-scope.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS 1.1-1^f2 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis TABLE 2: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY ID Project Name Land Use1 Quantity Units2 CITY OF PALM DESERT Office 62.01 TSF Retail 18.0 TSF PD1 Gerald Ford Business Park Bank 4.5 TSF Restaurant 16.0 TSF PD2 Candlewood Suites Hotel 88 RM PD8 Fairfield Inn&Suites Marriott Hotel Hotel 108 RM SFDR 166 DU Multi-Family 612 DU PD10 Millennium Palm Desert Commercial 551.0 TSF Hotel 250 RM SFDR 773 DU PD12 University Park — — Multi-Family 336 DU PD14 Dolce SFDR 159 DU PD16 Catavina SFDR 159 DU PD17 Falling Waters SFDR 159 DU SFDR 111 DU PD21 Ponderosa II Multi-Family 114 DU Multi-Family 384 DU PD25 Monterey Specific Plan Commercial 120.0 TSF PD28 128-Acres SFDR 400 DU Multi-Family 270 DU PD29 Monterey Crossings Commercial 120.0 TSF PD30 Santa Barbara Apartment Multi-Family 48 DU Resort Hotel 350 RM Surf Lagoon 1350 Guests PD31 Desert Surf Shopping Center 4.0 TSF High-Turnover(Sit-Down)Restaurant 11.250 TSF CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE RM28 TTM 32308(Los Ranchos) SFDR 7 DU RM47 Monterey Medical Center Medical Office 75.164 TSF Hotel 400 RM Retail 175.0 TSF RM49 Section 31 Specific Plan Multi-Family(Mid Rise) 832 DU Single Family 1100 DU SFDR=Single Family Detached Residential 2 DU=Dwelling Units;TSF=Thousand Square Feet;RM=Rooms C:i UXRjobsL13600-14000L13800\13831l Excel\[13831-TG.xlsx]CM List URBAN CROSSROADS 1.1-13 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 8: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES } / ri 0 0 F > o z o a w C ce co a E GERALD FORD DR. 0.7 0 0.8 Q 1.0 © 0.7 ...(EMERCENCVACCESS) ^ ilao IIIw E eoI Qz SITE el 1E or .....CI.2.O• F o 2.0 1• o "._..._...•II a , 1Ir c AM PEAK HOUR 1 Rembrandt Pkwy.& 2 Portola Rd.& 3 Rembrandt Pkwy. 4 Gateway Dr.& Gerald Ford Dr. Gerald Ford Dr. (Future Extension)& Gerald Ford Dr. Project Dwy. LEGEND: r- *—l5 ~11 �f tv MI �33 0 =INTERSECTION ID 5- 86-4 4-100 =PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 12� co co p� 10� 11� 10.0 =VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) PM PEAK HOUR 1 Rembrandt Pkwy.& 2 Portola Rd.& 3 Rembrandt Pkwy. 4 Gateway Dr.& Gerald Ford Dr. Gerald Ford Dr. (Future Extension)& Gerald Ford Dr. Project Dwy. so in S-48 �33 -20 f 3— 51-4 38� 26- 6— 33� 13831-scope.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS 1.1-14 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis APPENDIX 3.1: EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS-(2016, 2018, & 2021) 13831-04 TA Report.docx URBAN cROssROAos Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 13831-04 TA Report.docx URBAN CRassRoaos Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona,CA 92878 (951)268-6268 City of Palm Desert File Name : PLDREGEAM N/S: Rembrandt Parkway Site Code : 07516669 E/W:Gerald Ford Drive Start Date : 12/8/2016 Weather:Clear Page No : 1 Groups Printed-Total Volume Rembrandt Parkway Gerald Ford Drive Gerald Ford Drive Southbound Westbound Eastbound Start Time Left Right App.Total Thru Right App.Total Left Thru App.Total Int.Total 1 07:00 AM 8 3 11 125 3 128 3 46 49 188 07:15 AM 15 14 29 134 6 140 3 79 82 251 07:30 AM 11 5 16 137 6 143 2 105 107 266 07:45 AM 18 10 28 158 7 165 4 111 115 308 Total 52 32 84 554 22 576 12 341 353 1013 08:00 AM 9 6 15 125 9 134 2 76 78 227 08:15 AM 5 9 14 112 4 116 3 102 105 235 08:30 AM 8 10 18 120 7 127 8 85 93 238 08:45 AM 2 10 12 98 5 103 3 101 104 219 Total 24 35 59 455 25 480 16 364 380 919 Grand Total 76 67 143 1009 47 1056 28 705 733 1932 Apprch% 53.1 46.9 95.5 4.5 3.8 96.2 Total% 3.9 3.5 7.4 52.2 2.4 54.7 1.4 36.5 37.9 Rembrandt Parkway Gerald Ford Drive Gerald Ford Drive Southbound Westbound Eastbound Start Time Left 1 Right 1 App.Total Thru 1 Right 1 App.Total Left 1 Thru 1 App.Total Int.Total 1 Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM-Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 15 14 29 134 6 140 3 79 82 251 07:30 AM 11 5 16 137 6 143 2 105 107 266 07:45 AM 18 10 28 158 7 165 4 111 115 308 08:00 AM 9 6 15 125 9 134 2 76 78 227 Total Volume 53 35 88 554 28 582 11 371 382 1052 %App.Total 60.2 39.8 95.2 4.8 2.9 97.1 PHF .736 .625 .759 .877 .778 .882 .688 .836 .830 .854 3.1-1 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona,CA 92878 (951)268-6268 City of Palm Desert File Name : PLDREGEAM N/S: Rembrandt Parkway Site Code : 07516669 E/W:Gerald Ford Drive Start Date : 12/8/2016 Weather:Clear Page No : 2 Rembrandt Parkway Out In Total 39I I 881 127I I 35I 53I Right Left Peak Hour Data To o� A N.C.. O �~ North A— A m i'v u_ — — Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM —a,5:on 2 rn —co Total Volume I—B aco,_ N o H co 0 0o ow rn— Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM-Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM +0 mins. 15 14 29 134 6 140 2 105 107 +15 mins. 11 5 16 137 6 143 4 111 115 +30 mins. 18 10 28 158 7 165 2 76 78 +45 mins. 9 6 15 125 9 134 3 102 105 Total Volume 53 35 88 554 28 582 11 394 405 %App.Total 60.2 39.8 95.2 4.8 2.7 97.3 P H F .736 .625 .759 .877 .778 .882 .688 .887 .880 3.1-2 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona,CA 92878 (951)268-6268 City of Palm Desert File Name : PLDREGEPM N/S: Rembrandt Parkway Site Code : 07516669 E/W:Gerald Ford Drive Start Date : 12/8/2016 Weather:Clear Page No : 1 Groups Printed-Total Volume Rembrandt Parkway Gerald Ford Drive Gerald Ford Drive Southbound Westbound Eastbound Start Time Left Right App.Total Thru Right App.Total Left Thru App.Total Int.Total 1 04:00 PM 6 7 13 97 11 108 10 121 131 252 04:15 PM 4 6 10 121 9 130 8 119 127 267 04:30 PM 5 3 8 98 8 106 10 112 122 236 04:45 PM 4 4 8 118 9 127 13 135 148 283 Total 19 20 39 434 37 471 41 487 528 1038 05:00 PM 4 8 12 120 15 135 9 126 135 282 05:15 PM 7 5 12 102 13 115 8 117 125 252 05:30 PM 6 3 9 91 9 100 9 107 116 225 05:45 PM 2 5 7 82 3 85 6 88 94 186 Total 19 21 40 395 40 435 32 438 470 945 Grand Total 38 41 79 829 77 906 73 925 998 1983 Apprch% 48.1 51.9 91.5 8.5 7.3 92.7 Total% 1.9 2.1 4 41.8 3.9 45.7 3.7 46.6 50.3 Rembrandt Parkway Gerald Ford Drive Gerald Ford Drive Southbound Westbound Eastbound Start Time Left 1 Right 1 App.Total Thru 1 Right 1 App.Total Left 1 Thru 1 App.Total Int.Total 1 Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM-Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM 04:15 PM 4 6 10 121 9 130 8 119 127 267 04:30 PM 5 3 8 98 8 106 10 112 122 236 04:45 PM 4 4 8 118 9 127 13 135 148 283 05:00 PM 4 8 12 120 15 135 9 126 135 282 Total Volume 17 21 38 457 41 498 40 492 532 1068 %App.Total 44.7 55.3 91.8 8.2 7.5 92.5 PHF .850 .656 .792 .944 .683 .922 .769 .911 .899 .943 3.1-3 Counts Unlimited PO Box 1178 Corona,CA 92878 (951)268-6268 City of Palm Desert File Name : PLDREGEPM N/S: Rembrandt Parkway Site Code : 07516669 E/W:Gerald Ford Drive Start Date : 12/8/2016 Weather:Clear Page No : 2 Rembrandt Parkway Out In Total 81 I I 381 119I I I 21I 17I Right Left Peak Hour Data 7,o ,-- o5. o w —v m� North A— m m m u_—'— — Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 PM — —A 5 o N > (O 2 w — 1� Total Volume ~c m o (7.v _Ha, O oo ow V— Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM-Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 04:45 PM 04:15 PM 04:15 PM +0 mins. 4 4 8 121 9 130 8 119 127 +15 mins. 4 8 12 98 8 106 10 112 122 +30 mins. 7 5 12 118 9 127 13 135 148 +45 mins. 6 3 9 120 15 135 9 126 135 Total Volume 21 20 41 457 41 498 40 492 532 %App.Total 51.2 48.8 91.8 8.2 7.5 92.5 P H F .750 .625 .854 .944 .683 .922 .769 .911 .899 3.1-4 DRAFT Section 31 Specific Plan Transportation Impact Study Prepared for: fir+ ' +edAu+us March 2019 0C18-0555 FEHR '' PEERS 3.1-5 1IIIIIA �rFr= o N. t liti CI - J,ICi LIB __ °` ` t- __ ■N■i_ .IIIII Nib_ L�_ . F1 114111111 !EII .�- IIIII IIII.— I =. Nil' -IIf11IIIIII[,. I 11 MP = 1111119'Ramon Road ! �o '�I1.i111111 .. 10.6k mm' 1IIIpoi (i ! . ZL� —:11;_:;1\ri71 III III II i 3 IIIII111_ l of) 4 = 1II ��!.s Qo2 �; — ,(`y��'J� ill I'pl J I J! Om_ Dinah Shore Drive ! . ��' 1 ill!;p1111 .2_1 3E .t.., / "Nly ---n a utim , J N , ,.. Illill� t,", 0'+I`rr d1 _.... : .' * 10 . ii ` _ _ Q - ��rnrr.rwicz� IIIJL - ,�_ �„ ,1 r . . I %-t111--'"11:-TZ:. ( N t 1 �, i ...'Jbdor 'DrivJ13i ���rhl 1.44.I� E 11 r '` ,ir 13 F . 14 M _ 16 17 N 18 i -, — 16, ,L�i tlll_I�e�+C`-1 34t 201 #* -- I Frank Sinatra Drive � '''''''' ' 1 = ® ® m - _ .i. j .•,,1..M•I.. ; - . i r k:,;'„,k,-v,'iErii-k_N„ :1i, I k___4S1:1F-F-.1 1 j a-V 'A-7L c e—1_A j- ' t im itLIIlil ; , . j Country Club Drivel 14 l F, y� - VI _ - .... .-- m ` 111 ? Hovel y Lane West C. I t 117...11-.4-1-14-c1,;-1', Vk 4;301* jr_4: ... 1 J — +E 1 0 '*\\C," ci3J,e o c �_- u - I 61ei,i7k, _ _ �i= I a 31 I ,1; I a Fred Waring Drive���. iff r _........, E i _41I ,_ F44 a 1po � 2; -___�i ao Highway 111�j ,—_ bii. it r-�pr�� , r f A -;iil� = 1_1;,-.1.-_ ED�_ 13 Study Intersections rill Project Driveways Figure 2-3 ill Project Site Study Area 3.1-6 1.Bob Hope Dr/I-10 WB On Ramp A 2.Bob Hope Dr/I-10 EB Off Ramp 3.Rattler Rd/Ramon Rd A 4.Bob Hope Dr/Ramon Rd !Cr!" O� m Mfg 231(115) rn 73(77) '°ON o m F 4(20) o 1(2) u' F ( )865 1,125 7_, u) r 411(338) 41111 r559(523) 111LL 41" U 'WILL 0-80(82) I-10 WB On Ramp I-10 EB Off Ramp Ramon Rd Ramon Rd 1I111 259(159)_.4ttP r 86(55)-4' 'n tttr v 0(1)-4► c�0 44(46) 823(738)—1. o M � — 997(992)� co CD 636(382) 4 N 221(208)� N� M I— M N CO 7 N 7 7 M N 1-CO M N 5.Bob Hope Dr/Dinah Shore Dr n 6.Monterey AveNarner Rd i 7.1-10 WB Off RampNarner Rd A. 8.Monterey Ave/I-10 EB Ramps +41 0 0 n von Mvv ,� �79(197) �co —108(172) co c1rn r 388(614) a CO v 194(192) 224(245)411yy r79(111) JUL r696(491) omen snore or }1} Vamer Rtl }} Vamer Rtl }f 54(69)a 1)111r 19(33)-4 »ttr T1r Illr400(560) M co M 87(78)�► M N 180(194) ov M M147(152)-4 �4) 201(213) ��03 mU' ?O M CO N�o- �cocA7 N a LOLO rNN g 1-- r M g O 9.Monterey Ave/Dinah Shore Dr A 12.Portola Rd/Dinah Shore Dr 1 13.Date Palm Dr/Gerald Ford Dr i 14.Da Vall Dr/Gerald Ford Dr A m MAN M� n Or. 01 Q g 312(479) �—100(80) o v 147(166) m N o 93(108) co-Ico 201(351) 40(25) ccoo v cO 56(56) m co r 300(386) 144LL 34(49) �11 278(235) �11 40(42) Dinah snore or }1 omen snore or Gataltl coon or y 1} Gerald coon or y 1} .I ��11� )ttr 37 Ilr 268(521)� 10(10)� ��r 47(52)„ (55)„ 233(327)—► rnmM 120(100)—' rno 51(39)—► -co- 379(312)—► ooN CMo -4 Nv 21 27 SmU 191 58 174(355) �o1,-LOco 235(320) O ( ) r",� ( ) 7 rn co.r... CO N N M 1— I n O N 7 V M N CD N N N V 15.Bob Hope Dr/Gerald Ford Dr 16.Monterey Ave/Gerald Ford Dr I 17.Portola Rd/Gerald Ford Dr 18.Cook SUI-10 WB Ramps 6 E 22 0 8 I (-- I a M co m .oO f NN R MN •--rn co r 80(71) m rn r 45(85) v �—153(115) m 83(41) CO M LO r 368(403) .-.-M r 376(290) v N co 409(319) v v 3(2) )11LL r 114(68) )111LL r 101(115) )111LL Pr-43(43) 411 848(474) Gerald F.DrIII Gerald F.Or Gerald F.OrIII L10 WBRemps 8 97(171)--- »ttr 77(133)--% »11lf 9(9)_.* ' tttr IIr 386(373)—► N C.3 286(293)—► 12 m 1- 287(365)—' a o m 6 o 7Tm 151 136 - NN 139 129 - ' NC; NO 140(104) ( ) ( ) COO N �M 7 CO7 a—M LO O O) .-co O N co -N 7 M N A. A. A. Figure 4 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations AFT! Existing Year (2018) Conditions MOW 3.1-7 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS T218 PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC.tel:714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com DATE: LOCATION: Rancho Mirage PROJECT#: SC1659 Thu,Mar 22, 18 NORTH&SOUTH: Monterey LOCATION#: 22 EAST&WEST: Gerald Ford CONTROL: SIGNAL NOTES: • N /W E► S la Add U-Turns to Left Turns V NORTHBOUND 1 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS Monterey Monterey Gerald Ford Gerald Ford NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: 2 j 3 ; 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 25 96 1 6 165 18 14 38 12 11 80 8 474 0 0 0 0 0 ' 7:15 AM 11 112 6 5 223 23 14 56 30 12 79 9 580 1 0 0 0 1 7:30 AM 23 123 10 6 324 23 15 91 47 26 104 9 801 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 23 141 7 10 415 32 23 74 41 28 96 10 900 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 30 156 8 12 276 29 21 66 28 23 98 9 756 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 15 144 7 7 283 42 18 55 35 24 78 17 725 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 26 122 12 13 274 27 17 70 28 21 86 14 710 0 0 0 0 0 g 8:45 AM 28 161 7 14 319 28 29 58 40 17 58 19 778 0 0 0 1 1 < VOLUMES 181 1,055 58 73 2,279 222 151 508 261 162 679 95 5,724 1 0 0 1 2 APPROACH% 14% 82% 4% 3% 89% 9% 16% 55% 28% 17% 73% 10%_ -- APP/DEPART 1,294 / 1,301 2,574 / 2,702 920 / 640 936 / 1,081 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 7:30 AM VOLUMES 91 564 32 35 1,298 126 77 286 151 101 376 45 3,182 APPROACH% 13% 82% 5% 2% 89% 9% 15% 56% 29% 19% 72% 9% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.885 0.798 0.840 0.939 0.884 APP/DEPART 687 / 686 1,459 / 1,550 514 / 353 522 / 593 0 4:00 PM 32 348 11 13 280 25 32 71 38 17 68 21 956 0 1 0 0 1 4:15 PM 48 334 19 18 320 19 27 68 35 23 62 19 992 1 1 0 0 2 4:30 PM 40 307 19 15 268 33 37 87 36 40 98 19 999 0 0 0 1 1 4:45 PM 41 288 17 15 261 24 34 58 33 17 63 24 875 1 0 0 0 1 5:00 PM 48 339 12 12 251 30 35 80 32 35 67 23 964 0 0 0 1 1 5:15 PM 39 287 16 15 278 34 30 80 35 15 69 18 916 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 33 263 10 12 234 30 37 95 30 22 71 19 856 0 1 0 1 2 E 5:45 PM 35 251 11 12 205 28 24 54 22 17 45 16 720 0 1 0 0 1 a VOLUMES 316 2,417 115 112 2,097 223 256 593 261 186 543 159 7,278 2 4 0 3 9 APPROACH% 11% 85% 4% 5% 86% 9% 23% 53% 24% 21% 61% 18% APP/DEPART 2,848 / 2,836 2,432 / 2,543 1,110 / 819 888 / 1,080 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 4:15 PM VOLUMES 177 1,268 67 60 1,100 106 133 293 136 115 290 85 3,830 APPROACH% 12% 84% 4% 5% 87% 8% 24% 52% 24% 23% 59% 17% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.943 0.887 0.878 0.780 0.958 APP/DEPART 1,512 / 1,487 1,266 / 1,351 562 / 421 490 / 571 0 Monterey 1' 1' SIDE r Gerald Ford WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Gerald Ford 1 + 4— SOUTH SIDE Monterey PEDESTRIAN+ BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 7:00AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _0 _ AM BEGIN PEAK HR 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 5:00PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 5:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM BEGIN PEAK HR 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 3.1-8 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS T218 PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC.tel:714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com DATE: LOCATION: Rancho Mirage PROJECT#: SC1659 Thu,Mar 22, 18 NORTH&SOUTH: Portola LOCATION#: 23 EAST&WEST: Gerald Ford CONTROL: SIGNAL NOTES: • N /W E► S 121 Add U-Turns to Left Turns V NORTHBOUND 1 SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS Portola Portola Gerald Ford Gerald Ford NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 0 2 3 j 1 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 16 41 13 10 38 0 1 39 18 5 90 18 289 0 0 0 0 0 ' 7:15 AM 7 54 9 10 29 0 4 81 28 8 94 39 363 0 0 3 0 3 7:30 AM 30 62 12 8 61 0 2 75 41 18 107 34 450 0 0 1 0 1 7:45 AM 32 61 9 22 63 1 3 62 36 9 121 47 466 0 0 1 0 1 8:00 AM 25 78 17 21 41 2 1 80 35 10 102 38 450 0 0 1 0 1 8:15 AM 27 85 10 12 43 1 3 70 27 6 79 34 397 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 31 53 9 8 36 3 1 76 31 12 75 33 368 0 0 1 0 1 2 8:45 AM 32 61 6 20 43 0 4 65 23 10 69 30 363 0 0 1 1 2 < VOLUMES 200 495 85 111 354 7 19 548 239 78 737 273 3,146 0 0 8 1 I 9 APPROACH% 26% 63% 11% 24% 75% 1% 2% 68% 30% 7% 68% 25% APP/DEPART —780 / 779 472 / 670 806 / 745 1,088 / 952 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 7:30 AM VOLUMES 114 286 48 63 208 4 9 287 139 43 409 153 1,763 APPROACH% 25% 64% 11% 23% 76% 1% 2% 66% 32% 7% 68% 25% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.918 0.799 0.922 0.855 0.946 APP/DEPART 448 / 445 275 / 390 435 / 398 605 / 530 0 4:00 PM 23 66 9 25 53 1 1 68 24 7 70 30 377 0 1 1 0 2 4:15 PM 32 70 15 21 51 3 1 82 37 8 79 31 430 0 0 1 0 1 4:30 PM 30 71 10 38 56 2 3 98 30 9 94 20 461 0 1 1 0 2 4:45 PM 31 76 7 25 64 0 3 80 35 7 83 42 453 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 34 85 8 36 48 1 0 92 34 14 67 22 441 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 33 93 11 29 46 0 3 95 30 13 75 31 459 0 0 1 0 1 5:30 PM 24 53 2 34 55 2 2 110 33 7 79 24 425 0 0 1 0 1 E 5:45 PM 20 71 4 20 41 1 3 69 14 6 63 17 329 0 0 0 0 0 a VOLUMES 227 585 66 228 414 10 16 694 237 71 610 217 3,375 0 2 5 0 7 APPROACH% 26% 67% 8% 35% 63% 2% 2% 73% 25% 8% 68% 24% APP/DEPART 878 / 815 652 / 722 947 / 986 898 / 852 0 BEGIN PEAK HR 4:30 PM VOLUMES 128 325 36 128 214 3 9 365 129 43 319 115 1,814 APPROACH% 26% 66% 7% 37% 62% 1% 2% 73% 26% 9% 67% 24% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.892 0.898 0.960 0.903 0.984 APP/DEPART 489 / 448 345 / 386 503 / 528 477 / 452 0 Portola 'I' NORTH SIDE t I I Gerald Ford WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Gerald Ford 1 + 4— SOUTH SIDE Portola PEDESTRIAN+ BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE CROSSINGS N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 7:00AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _0 _ AM BEGIN PEAK HR 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 5:00PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 5:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM BEGIN PEAK HR 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 3.1-9 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona,CA 92878 (951)268-6268 City of Palm Desert File Name :02_PLD_Rembrandt_Gerald Ford AM N/S:Rembrandt Parkway Site Code :05121043 E/W:Gerald Ford Drive Start Date :2/3/2021 Weather:Clear Page No : 1 Groups Printed-Total Volume Rembrandt Parkway Gerald Ford Drive Gerald Ford Drive Southbound Westbound Eastbound Start Time Left Right App.Total Thru Right App.Total Left Thru App.Total Int.Total 07:00 AM 1 4 5 74 2 76 1 32 33 114 07:15 AM 7 6 13 106 2 108 2 52 54 175 07:30 AM 5 2 7 93 3 96 5 57 62 165 07:45 AM 8 9 17 137 5 142 3 77 80 239 Total 21 21 42 410 12 422 11 218 229 693 08:00 AM 4 8 12 76 8 84 3 51 54 150 08:15 AM 8 5 13 81 4 85 5 78 83 181 08:30 AM 9 5 14 94 0 94 5 90 95 203 08:45 AM 6 10 16 98 4 102 4 73 77 195 Total 27 28 55 349 16 365 17 292 309 729 Grand Total 48 49 97 759 28 787 28 510 538 1422 Apprch% 49.5 50.5 96.4 3.6 5.2 94.8 Total% 3.4 3.4 6.8 53.4 2 55.3 2 35.9 37.8 Rembrandt Parkway Gerald Ford Drive Gerald Ford Drive Southbound Westbound Eastbound Start Time Left Right App.Total Thru Right App.Total Left Thru App.Total Int.Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM-Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 8 9 17 137 5 142 I 3 77 80 239 08:00 AM 4 8 12 76 8 84 3 51 54 150 08:15 AM 8 5 13 81 4 85 5 78 83 181 08:30 AM 9 5 14 94 0 94 5 90 95 203 Total Volume 29 27 56 388 17 405 16 296 312 773 %App.Total 51.8 48.2 95.8 4.2 5.1 94.9 P H F .806 .750 .824 .708 .531 .713 .800 .822 .821 .809 3.1-10 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona,CA 92878 (951)268-6268 City of Palm Desert File Name :02PLD_Rembrandt_Gerald Ford AM N/S:Rembrandt Parkway Site Code :051210_ 43 E/W:Gerald Ford Drive Start Date :2/3/2021 Weather:Clear Page No :2 Rembrandt Parkway l I Out 33I I 1n56I Tot891 I I I 271 291 Right Left Peak Hour Data - — CON 5 r W Q ~ > ♦ North ON C1 .co v -� a i° c M— _ Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AN — —o 5 o 0. v 2 _ �W- 0 —N 1� Total Volume ~c v, o C�=. H e 0 NQ ww o— Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM-Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 07:45 AM 07:15 AM 07:45 AM +0 mins. 8 9 17 106 2 108 3 77 80 +15 mins. 4 8 12 93 3 96 3 51 54 +30 mins. 8 5 13 137 5 142 5 78 83 +45 mins. 9 5 14 76 8 84 5 90 95 Total Volume 29 27 56 412 18 430 16 296 312 %App.Total 51.8 48.2 95.8 4.2 5.1 94.9 P H F .806 .750 .824 .752 .563 .757 .800 .822 .821 3.1-11 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona,CA 92878 (951)268-6268 City of Palm Desert File Name :02_PLD_Rembrandt_Gerald Ford PM N/S:Rembrandt Parkway Site Code :05121043 E/W:Gerald Ford Drive Start Date :2/3/2021 Weather:Clear Page No : 1 Groups Printed-Total Volume Rembrandt Parkway Gerald Ford Drive Gerald Ford Drive Southbound Westbound Eastbound Start Time Left Right App.Total Thru Right App.Total Left Thru App.Total Int.Total 04:00 PM 2 7 9 90 8 98 6 112 118 225 04:15 PM 7 4 11 101 6 107 6 99 105 223 04:30 PM 9 5 14 74 3 77 6 109 115 206 04:45 PM 5 4 9 76 13 89 13 82 95 193 Total 23 20 43 341 30 371 31 402 433 847 05:00 PM 6 5 11 79 7 86 9 125 134 231 05:15 PM 3 6 9 69 12 81 8 103 111 201 05:30 PM 3 6 9 74 11 85 14 89 103 197 05:45 PM 4 3 7 48 6 54 9 72 81 142 Total 16 20 36 270 36 306 40 389 429 771 Grand Total 39 40 79 611 66 677 71 791 862 1618 Apprch% 49.4 50.6 90.3 9.7 8.2 91.8 Total% 2.4 2.5 4.9 37.8 4.1 41.8 4.4 48.9 53.3 Rembrandt Parkway Gerald Ford Drive Gerald Ford Drive Southbound Westbound Eastbound Start Time Left Right App.Total Thru Right App.Total Left Thru App.Total Int.Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM-Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM 04:15 PM 7 4 11 101 6 107 6 99 105 223 04:30 PM 9 5 14 74 3 77 6 109 115 206 04:45 PM 5 4 9 76 13 89 13 82 95 193 05:00 PM 6 5 11 79 7 86 9 125 134 231 Total Volume 27 18 45 330 29 359 34 415 449 853 %App.Total 60 40 91.9 8.1 7.6 92.4 P H F .750 .900 .804 .817 .558 .839 .654 .830 .838 .923 3.1-12 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona,CA 92878 (951)268-6268 City of Palm Desert File Name :02PLD_Rembrandt_Gerald Ford PM N/S:Rembrandt Parkway Site Code :051210_ 43 E/W:Gerald Ford Drive Start Date :2/3/2021 Weather:Clear Page No :2 Rembrandt Parkway I Out InTotal 63 I I 451 1081 I I 181 271 Right Left Peak Hour Data _ — com o, AO c North n' m E-ci - t cam— —� �� a Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 PN —N o v 3 _ m a s m — 1� Total Volume ~c o v U —Im 0 ooQ ow Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM-Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 04:15 PM 04:00 PM 04:30 PM +0 mins. 7 4 11 90 8 98 6 109 115 +15 mins. 9 5 14 101 6 107 13 82 95 +30 mins. 5 4 9 74 3 77 9 125 134 +45 mins. 6 5 11 76 13 89 8 103 111 Total Volume 27 18 45 341 30 371 36 419 455 %App.Total 60 40 91.9 8.1 7.9 92.1 P H F .750 .900 .804 .844 .577 .867 .692 .838 .849 3.1-13 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona,CA 92878 (951)268-6268 City of Palm Desert File Name :01_PLD_Gateway_Gerald Ford AM N/S:Gateway Drive Site Code :05121043 E/W:Gerald Ford Drive Start Date :2/3/2021 Weather:Clear Page No : 1 Groups Printed-Total Volume Gateway Drive Gerald Ford Drive Gerald Ford Drive Southbound Westbound Eastbound Start Time Left Right App.Total Thru Right App.Total Left Thru App.Total Int.Total 1 07:00 AM 13 3 16 71 11 82 4 29 33 131 07:15 AM 13 3 16 96 12 108 6 40 46 170 07:30 AM 15 4 19 97 13 110 5 55 60 189 07:45 AM 33 2 35 104 23 127 4 58 62 224 Total 74 12 86 368 59 427 19 182 201 714 08:00 AM 10 2 12 78 7 85 2 51 53 150 08:15 AM 18 6 24 76 16 92 5 66 71 187 08:30 AM 20 6 26 81 15 96 7 87 94 216 08:45 AM 18 4 22 94 10 104 3 56 59 185 Total 66 18 84 329 48 377 17 260 277 738 Grand Total 140 30 170 697 107 804 36 442 478 1452 Apprch% 82.4 17.6 86.7 13.3 7.5 92.5 Total% 9.6 2.1 11.7 48 7.4 55.4 2.5 30.4 32.9 Gateway Drive Gerald Ford Drive Gerald Ford Drive Southbound Westbound Eastbound Start Time Left Right App.Total Thru Right App.Total Left Thru App.Total Int.Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM-Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 33 2 35 104 23 127 I 4 58 62 224 08:00 AM 10 2 12 78 7 85 2 51 53 150 08:15 AM 18 6 24 76 16 92 5 66 71 187 08:30 AM 20 6 26 81 15 96 7 87 94 216 Total Volume 81 16 97 339 61 400 18 262 280 777 %App.Total 83.5 16.5 84.8 15.2 6.4 93.6 P H F .614 .667 .693 .815 .663 .787 .643 .753 .745 .867 3.1-14 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona,CA 92878 (951)268-6268 City of Palm Desert File Name :01PLD_Gateway_Gerald Ford AM N/S:Gateway Drive Site Code :05_121043 E/W:Gerald Ford Drive Start Date :2/3/2021 Weather:Clear Page No :2 Gateway Drive I Out InTotal 791 I 971 1761 I I 161 811 Right Left Peak Hour Data -7, — cO M O. W 0 North GA C.m m af• ro =rn i°—N— — Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AN — —A 5 o N i O0. • —N 1� Total Volume ~cci, o v o 5 M H N 0 -,1 P. A 91 co— I Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM-Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 07:45 AM 07:15 AM 07:45 AM +0 mins. 33 2 35 96 12 108 4 58 62 +15 mins. 10 2 12 97 13 110 2 51 53 +30 mins. 18 6 24 104 23 127 5 66 71 +45 mins. 20 6 26 78 7 85 7 87 94 Total Volume 81 16 971 375 55 430 18 262 280 %App.Total 83.5 16.5 87.2 12.8 6.4 93.6 P H F .614 .667 .693 .901 .598 .846 .643 .753 .745 3.1-15 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona,CA 92878 (951)268-6268 City of Palm Desert File Name :01_PLD_Gateway_Gerald Ford PM N/S:Gateway Drive Site Code :05121043 E/W:Gerald Ford Drive Start Date :2/3/2021 Weather:Clear Page No : 1 Groups Printed-Total Volume Gateway Drive Gerald Ford Drive Gerald Ford Drive Southbound Westbound Eastbound Start Time Left Right App.Total Thru Right App.Total Left Thru App.Total Int.Total 04:00 PM 32 3 35 61 17 78 9 67 76 189 04:15 PM 14 6 20 102 20 122 8 97 105 247 04:30 PM 23 7 30 71 10 81 2 67 69 180 04:45 PM 21 4 25 86 12 98 12 75 87 210 Total 90 20 110 320 59 379 31 306 337 826 05:00 PM 28 8 36 66 21 87 11 82 93 216 05:15 PM 18 7 25 67 11 78 12 91 103 206 05:30 PM 23 6 29 63 14 77 8 69 77 183 05:45 PM 18 2 20 42 13 55 8 64 72 147 Total 87 23 110 238 59 297 39 306 345 752 Grand Total 177 43 220 558 118 676 70 612 682 1578 Apprch% 80.5 19.5 82.5 17.5 10.3 89.7 Total% 11.2 2.7 13.9 35.4 7.5 42.8 4.4 38.8 43.2 Gateway Drive Gerald Ford Drive Gerald Ford Drive Southbound Westbound Eastbound Start Time Left Right App.Total Thru Right App.Total Left Thru App.Total Int.Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM-Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM 04:15 PM 14 6 20 102 20 122 8 97 105 247 04:30 PM 23 7 30 71 10 81 2 67 69 180 04:45 PM 21 4 25 86 12 98 12 75 87 210 05:00 PM 28 8 36 66 21 87 11 82 93 216 Total Volume 86 25 111 325 63 388 33 321 354 853 %App.Total 77.5 22.5 83.8 16.2 9.3 90.7 P H F .768 .781 .771 .797 .750 .795 .688 .827 .843 .863 3.1-16 Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona,CA 92878 (951)268-6268 City of Palm Desert File Name :01PLD_Gateway_Gerald Ford PM N/S:Gateway Drive Site Code :05_121043 E/W:Gerald Ford Drive Start Date :2/3/2021 Weather:Clear Page No :2 Gateway Drive I Out In Total 96 I I 111 I 2071 I I I 251 861 Right Left Peak Hour Data 15o o,-- AO c Q co� , North ~m m -a M J S W a u_— — — Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 PM — —ca 5 7, v 0. 2 H _ '43. o —M 1� Total Volume ~c W— ao 0 O -,1Q co a w— 1 Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM-Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at: 04:30 PM 04:15 PM 04:45 PM +0 mins. 23 7 30 102 20 122 12 75 87 +15 mins. 21 4 25 71 10 81 11 82 93 +30 mins. 28 8 36 86 12 98 12 91 103 +45 mins. 18 7 25 66 21 87 8 69 77 Total Volume 90 26 116 325 63 388 43 317 360 %App.Total 77.6 22.4 83.8 16.2 11.9 88.1 P H F .804 .813 .806 .797 .750 .795 .896 .871 .874 3.1-17 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 3.1-18 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis APPENDIX 3.2: EXISTING (2021) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 13831-04 TA Report.docx V RBAN CROSSROaoS Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 13831-04 TA Report.docx URBAN CRassRoaos Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing AM Peak Hour 1: Gerald Ford Dr. & Rembrandt Pkwy. 4— Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(vph) 21 410 612 31 59 39 Future Volume(vph) 21 410 612 31 59 39 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 190 110 0 50 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 Link Speed(mph) 55 55 30 Link Distance(ft) 2229 1025 646 Travel Time(s) 27.6 12.7 14.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\01 -Existing AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 3.2-1 HCM 6th TWSC Existing AM Peak Hour 1: Gerald Ford Dr. & Rembrandt Pkwy. Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.7 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 44 ft+ r ' r Traffic Vol,veh/h 21 410 612 31 59 39 Future Vol,veh/h 21 410 612 31 59 39 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 190 - - 110 0 50 Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 23 446 665 34 64 42 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 699 0 - 0 934 333 Stage 1 - - - - 665 - Stage 2 - - - - 269 - Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - - 6.29 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.64 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 - - - 3.67 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 545 - - - 297 566 Stage 1 - - - - 396 - Stage 2 - - - - 725 - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 545 - - - 285 566 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 285 - Stage 1 - - - - 379 - Stage 2 - - - - 725 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0.6 0 17.6 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity(veh/h) 545 - - - 285 566 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.042 - - - 0.225 0.075 HCM Control Delay(s) 11.9 - - - 21.3 11.9 HCM Lane LOS B - - - C B HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.8 0.2 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800\13831\Synchro\01 -Existing AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 3.2-2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing AM Peak Hour 2: Portola Rd. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j '11"i ttt lc '1'j 11t lc vi 11t lc Traffic Volume(vph) 10 305 148 46 434 162 121 304 51 67 221 4 Future Volume(vph) 10 305 148 46 434 162 121 304 51 67 221 4 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 160 0 260 300 245 205 255 200 Storage Lanes 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 50 Link Distance(ft) 550 725 746 450 Travel Time(s) 6.8 9.0 9.2 6.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 14.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 16.0 31.0 16.0 31.0 31.0 17.0 26.0 26.0 17.0 26.0 26.0 Total Split(%) 17.8% 34.4% 17.8% 34.4% 34.4% 18.9% 28.9% 28.9% 18.9% 28.9% 28.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle:75 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 2: Portola Rd.&Gerald Ford Dr. Tiro R2 ' '. 03 T 04 5 06 'R'. 07 O3 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\01 -Existing AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 3.2-3 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing AM Peak Hour 2: Portola Rd. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j 1 ttt lc '1'j 11t lc vi 11t lc Traffic Volume(veh/h) 10 305 148 46 434 162 121 304 51 67 221 4 Future Volume(veh/h) 10 305 148 46 434 162 121 304 51 67 221 4 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 11 321 156 48 457 0 127 320 54 71 233 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 48 881 419 268 2185 368 1292 401 319 1220 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.38 0.38 0.08 0.43 0.00 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.24 0.00 SatFlow,veh/h 1781 2336 1111 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 11 243 234 48 457 0 127 320 54 71 233 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1670 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 0.5 8.9 9.2 1.2 5.1 0.0 3.1 4.5 2.4 1.7 3.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.5 8.9 9.2 1.2 5.1 0.0 3.1 4.5 2.4 1.7 3.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 48 670 630 268 2185 368 1292 401 319 1220 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.36 0.37 0.18 0.21 0.35 0.25 0.13 0.22 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 228 670 630 442 2185 480 1292 401 480 1220 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 42.9 20.2 20.3 38.8 16.2 0.0 37.3 26.8 26.0 37.9 27.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.4 1.5 1.7 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.3 3.5 3.4 0.5 1.8 0.0 1.2 1.7 0.9 0.7 1.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.3 21.7 22.0 39.1 16.4 0.0 37.9 27.2 26.7 38.2 27.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS DCCD B DCCDC Approach Vol,veh/h 488 505 A 501 304 A Approach Delay,s/veh 22.4 18.6 29.9 30.1 Approach LOS C B C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 11.5 38.4 14.1 26.0 6.9 43.0 12.8 27.3 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 11.5 26.5 12.5 21.5 11.5 26.5 12.5 21.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+l1),s 3.2 11.2 5.1 5.3 2.5 7.1 3.7 6.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 2.1 0.2 1.1 0.0 2.5 0.1 1.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[WBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\01 -Existing AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 3.2-4 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing AM Peak Hour 4: Gerald Ford Dr. & Gateway Dr. Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(vph) 23 341 441 79 105 21 Future Volume(vph) 23 341 441 79 105 21 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 200 125 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 Link Distance(ft) 706 2229 633 Travel Time(s) 8.8 27.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Detector Phase 5 2 6 6 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split(s) 14.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 21.0 57.0 36.0 36.0 33.0 33.0 Total Split(%) 23.3% 63.3% 40.0% 40.0% 36.7% 36.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle:60 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Gerald Ford Dr.&Gateway Dr. 02 V. 414411.04 .04 4- 5 06 V. 1 - Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\01 -Existing AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 3.2-5 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing AM Peak Hour 4: Gerald Ford Dr. & Gateway Dr. Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(veh/h) 23 341 441 79 105 21 Future Volume(veh/h) 23 341 441 79 105 21 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 25 371 479 86 114 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 92 2073 2460 764 564 502 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.58 0.48 0.48 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 3647 5274 1585 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 25 371 479 86 114 23 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1702 1585 1781 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 1.2 4.4 4.8 2.7 4.2 0.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.2 4.4 4.8 2.7 4.2 0.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 92 2073 2460 764 564 502 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.18 0.19 0.11 0.20 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 327 2073 2460 764 564 502 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 41.0 8.7 13.3 12.8 22.4 21.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.5 1.4 1.6 0.9 1.7 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.6 8.9 13.5 13.1 23.3 21.5 LnGrp LOS D A B B C C Approach Vol,veh/h 396 565 137 Approach Delay,s/veh 11.0 13.5 23.0 Approach LOS B B C Timer-Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 57.0 33.0 9.1 47.9 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 52.5 28.5 16.5 31.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+I1),s 6.4 6.2 3.2 6.8 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 2.2 0.3 0.0 3.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.8 HCM 6th LOS B Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\01 -Existing AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 3.2-6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing PM Peak Hour 1: Gerald Ford Dr. & Rembrandt Pkwy. 4— Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(vph) 44 543 505 45 35 23 Future Volume(vph) 44 543 505 45 35 23 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 190 110 0 50 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 Link Speed(mph) 55 55 30 Link Distance(ft) 2229 1025 646 Travel Time(s) 27.6 12.7 14.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\01 -Existing PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 3.2-7 HCM 6th TWSC Existing PM Peak Hour 1: Gerald Ford Dr. & Rembrandt Pkwy. Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations 44 ft+ r ' r Traffic Vol,veh/h 44 543 505 45 35 23 Future Vol,veh/h 44 543 505 45 35 23 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 190 - - 110 0 50 Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 48 590 549 49 38 25 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 598 0 - 0 940 275 Stage 1 - - - - 549 - Stage 2 - - - - 391 - Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - - 6.29 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.64 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 - - - 3.67 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 609 - - - 295 616 Stage 1 - - - - 465 - Stage 2 - - - - 631 - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 609 - - - 272 616 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 272 - Stage 1 - - - - 428 - Stage 2 - - - - 631 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0.9 0 16.7 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity(veh/h) 609 - - - 272 616 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.079 - - - 0.14 0.041 HCM Control Delay(s) 11.4 - - - 20.4 11.1 HCM Lane LOS B - - - C B HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - - 0.5 0.1 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800\13831\Synchro\01 -Existing PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 3.2-8 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing PM Peak Hour 2: Portola Rd. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j '11"i ttt lc '1'j 11t lc vi 11t lc Traffic Volume(vph) 10 387 137 46 339 122 136 345 38 136 227 3 Future Volume(vph) 10 387 137 46 339 122 136 345 38 136 227 3 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 160 0 260 300 245 205 255 200 Storage Lanes 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 50 Link Distance(ft) 550 725 746 450 Travel Time(s) 6.8 9.0 9.2 6.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 14.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 15.0 33.0 15.0 33.0 33.0 17.0 25.0 25.0 17.0 25.0 25.0 Total Split(%) 16.7% 36.7% 16.7% 36.7% 36.7% 18.9% 27.8% 27.8% 18.9% 27.8% 27.8% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle:75 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 2: Portola Rd.&Gerald Ford Dr. Tiro t R32 ' '. ilk03 T 04 5 06 'R'. 07 O3 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\01 -Existing PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 3.2-9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM Peak Hour 2: Portola Rd. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j 1 ttt lc '1'j 11t lc vi 11t lc Traffic Volume(veh/h) 10 387 137 46 339 122 136 345 38 136 227 3 Future Volume(veh/h) 10 387 137 46 339 122 136 345 38 136 227 3 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 10 395 140 47 346 0 139 352 39 139 232 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 44 1001 350 265 2247 372 1163 361 372 1163 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.39 0.39 0.08 0.44 0.00 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.11 0.23 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 2581 904 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 10 270 265 47 346 0 139 352 39 139 232 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1708 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 0.5 9.9 10.1 1.1 3.7 0.0 3.4 5.1 1.8 3.4 3.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.5 9.9 10.1 1.1 3.7 0.0 3.4 5.1 1.8 3.4 3.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 44 689 662 265 2247 372 1163 361 372 1163 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.39 0.40 0.18 0.15 0.37 0.30 0.11 0.37 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 208 689 662 403 2247 480 1163 361 480 1163 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 43.1 19.9 20.0 38.9 15.1 0.0 37.3 28.8 27.5 37.3 28.1 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.6 1.7 1.8 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.2 3.9 3.9 0.5 1.3 0.0 1.4 2.0 0.7 1.4 1.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.7 21.6 21.8 39.2 15.3 0.0 38.0 29.5 28.1 38.0 28.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS DCCD B DCCDC Approach Vol,veh/h 545 393 A 530 371 A Approach Delay,s/veh 22.1 18.1 31.6 32.0 Approach LOS C B C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 _ Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 11.4 39.4 14.2 25.0 6.7 44.1 14.2 25.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 10.5 28.5 12.5 20.5 10.5 28.5 12.5 20.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+l1),s 3.1 12.1 5.4 5.3 2.5 5.7 5.4 7.1 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 2.5 0.2 1.1 0.0 1.9 0.2 1.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.0 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[WBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\01 -Existing PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 3.2-10 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing PM Peak Hour 4: Gerald Ford Dr. & Gateway Dr. 4- Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(vph) 43 417 423 82 112 33 Future Volume(vph) 43 417 423 82 112 33 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 200 125 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 Link Distance(ft) 706 2229 633 Travel Time(s) 8.8 27.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Detector Phase 5 2 6 6 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split(s) 14.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 21.0 57.0 36.0 36.0 33.0 33.0 Total Split(%) 23.3% 63.3% 40.0% 40.0% 36.7% 36.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle:60 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Gerald Ford Dr.&Gateway Dr. 02 V. 414411.04 .04 4- 5 06 V. 1 - Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\01 -Existing PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 3.2-11 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM Peak Hour 4: Gerald Ford Dr. & Gateway Dr. Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(veh/h) 43 417 423 82 112 33 Future Volume(veh/h) 43 417 423 82 112 33 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 47 453 460 89 122 36 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 137 2073 2331 724 564 502 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.58 0.46 0.46 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 3647 5274 1585 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 47 453 460 89 122 36 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1702 1585 1781 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 2.3 5.5 4.8 2.9 4.5 1.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.3 5.5 4.8 2.9 4.5 1.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 137 2073 2331 724 564 502 V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.22 0.20 0.12 0.22 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 327 2073 2331 724 564 502 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 39.4 9.0 14.6 14.1 22.6 21.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.0 1.7 1.7 1.0 1.9 1.6 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.9 9.2 14.8 14.4 23.4 21.8 LnGrp LOS D A B B C C Approach Vol,veh/h 500 549 158 Approach Delay,s/veh 12.2 14.7 23.1 Approach LOS B B C Timer-Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 57.0 33.0 11.4 45.6 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 52.5 28.5 16.5 31.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+I1),s 7.5 6.5 4.3 6.8 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 2.7 0.4 0.0 2.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.8 HCM 6th LOS B Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\01 -Existing PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 3.2-12 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis APPENDIX 3.3: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 13831-04 TA Report.docx URBAN cROssROAos Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 13831-04 TA Report.docx URBAN CRassRoaos California MUTCD(FHWA's MUTCD 2012, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-103 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Average Traffic Estimate Form) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS EAP (2023) DIST CO RTE PM CALC JC _ DATE 02/11/21 Jurisdiction: City of Palm Desert CHK DATE Major Street:Gerald Ford Dr. Critical Approach Speed (Major) 55 mph Minor Street: Rembrandt Pkwy. Critical Approach Speed (Minor) 35 mph Major Street Approach Lanes = 3 lane Minor Street Approach Lane: 1 lane Major Street Future ADT= 15,103 vpd Minor Street Future ADT= 942 vpd Speed limit or critical speed on major street traffic> 64 km/h (40 mph); or RURAL (R) In built up area of isolated community of< 10,000 population (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic - See Note) URBAN RURAL Minimum Requirements XX ADT CONDITION A- Minimum Vehicular Volume Vehicles Per Day Satisfied Not Satisfied Vehicles Per Day on on Higher-Volume XX Major Street Minor Street Approach Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach (Total of Both Approaches) (One Direction Only) Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1 8,000 5,600 2,400 1,680 2 + 15,103 1 942 9,600 6,720 * 2,400 1,680 2 + 2 + 9,600 6,720 3,200 2,240 1 2 + 8,000 5,600 3,200 2,240 CONDITION B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic Vehicles Per Day Satisfied Not Satisfied Vehicles Per Day on Higher-Volume XX on Major Street Minor Street Approach Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach (Total of Both Approaches) (One Direction Only) Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1 12,000 8,400 1,200 850 2 + 15,103 1 942 14,400 10,080 * 1,200 850 * 2 + 2 + 14,400 10,080 1,600 1,120 1 2 + 12,000 8,400 1,600 1,120 Combination of CONDITIONS A+ B Satisfied Not Satisfied XX 2 CONDITIONS 2 CONDITIONS No one condition satisfied, but following conditions 80% 80% fulfilled 80% of more A B 56% 100% Note: To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where it is not reasonable to count actual traffic volumes. The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Warrants\Daily.xlsx\EAP_001 3.3-1 California MUTCD(FHWA's MUTCD 2012, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-103 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Average Traffic Estimate Form) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS EAP (2023) DIST CO RTE PM CALC JC _ DATE 02/11/21 Jurisdiction: City of Palm Desert CHK DATE Major Street: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future Ext.) Critical Approach Speed (Major) 30 mph Minor Street: Project Dwy. Critical Approach Speed (Minor) 35 mph Major Street Approach Lanes = 1 lane Minor Street Approach Lane: 1 lane Major Street Future ADT= 988 vpd Minor Street Future ADT= 889 vpd Speed limit or critical speed on major street traffic> 64 km/h (40 mph); or URBAN (U) In built up area of isolated community of< 10,000 population (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic - See Note) URBAN RURAL Minimum Requirements XX ADT CONDITION A- Minimum Vehicular Volume Vehicles Per Day Satisfied Not Satisfied Vehicles Per Day on on Higher-Volume XX Major Street Minor Street Approach Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach (Total of Both Approaches) (One Direction Only) Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 988 1 889 8,000 5,600 2,400 1,680 2 + 1 9,600 6,720 2,400 1,680 2 + 2 + 9,600 6,720 3,200 2,240 1 2 + 8,000 5,600 3,200 2,240 CONDITION B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic Vehicles Per Day Satisfied Not Satisfied Vehicles Per Day on Higher-Volume XX on Major Street Minor Street Approach Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach (Total of Both Approaches) (One Direction Only) Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 988 1 889 12,000 8,400 1,200 850 2 + 1 14,400 10,080 1,200 850 2 + 2 + 14,400 10,080 1,600 1,120 1 2 + 12,000 8,400 1,600 1,120 Combination of CONDITIONS A+ B Satisfied Not Satisfied XX 2 CONDITIONS 2 CONDITIONS No one condition satisfied, but following conditions 80% 80% fulfilled 80% of more A B 12% 8% Note: To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where it is not reasonable to count actual traffic volumes. The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Warrants\Daily.xlsx\EAP_03 3.3-2 California MUTCD(FHWA's MUTCD 2012, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-103 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Average Traffic Estimate Form) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS EAPC (2023) DIST CO RTE PM CALC JC _ DATE 02/11/21 Jurisdiction: City of Palm Desert CHK DATE Major Street:Gerald Ford Dr. _ Critical Approach Speed (Major) 55 mph Minor Street: Rembrandt Pkwy. Critical Approach Speed (Minor) 35 mph Major Street Approach Lanes = 3 lane Minor Street Approach Lane: 1 lane Major Street Future ADT= 17,434 vpd Minor Street Future ADT= 1,274 vpd Speed limit or critical speed on major street traffic> 64 km/h (40 mph); or RURAL (R) In built up area of isolated community of< 10,000 population (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic - See Note) URBAN RURAL Minimum Requirements XX ADT CONDITION A- Minimum Vehicular Volume Vehicles Per Day Satisfied Not Satisfied Vehicles Per Day on on Higher-Volume XX Major Street Minor Street Approach Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach (Total of Both Approaches) (One Direction Only) Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1 8,000 5,600 2,400 1,680 2 + 17,434 1 1,274 9,600 6,720 * 2,400 1,680 2 + 2 + 9,600 6,720 3,200 2,240 1 2 + 8,000 5,600 3,200 2,240 CONDITION B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic Vehicles Per Day Satisfied Not Satisfied Vehicles Per Day on Higher-Volume XX on Major Street Minor Street Approach Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach (Total of Both Approaches) (One Direction Only) Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1 12,000 8,400 1,200 850 2 + 17,434 1 1,274 14,400 10,080 * 1,200 850 * 2 + 2 + 14,400 10,080 1,600 1,120 1 2 + 12,000 8,400 1,600 1,120 Combination of CONDITIONS A+ B Satisfied Not Satisfied XX 2 CONDITIONS 2 CONDITIONS No one condition satisfied, but following conditions 80% 80% fulfilled 80% of more A B 76% 100% Note: To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where it is not reasonable to count actual traffic volumes. The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Warrants\Daily.xlsx\EAPC_001 3.3-3 California MUTCD(FHWA's MUTCD 2012, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-103 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Average Traffic Estimate Form) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS EAPC (2023) DIST CO RTE PM CALC JC _ DATE 02/11/21 Jurisdiction: City of Palm Desert CHK DATE Major Street: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future Ext.) Critical Approach Speed (Major) 30 mph Minor Street: Project Dwy. Critical Approach Speed (Minor) 35 mph Major Street Approach Lanes = 1 lane Minor Street Approach Lane: 1 lane Major Street Future ADT= 1,708 vpd Minor Street Future ADT= 988 vpd Speed limit or critical speed on major street traffic> 64 km/h (40 mph); or URBAN (U) In built up area of isolated community of< 10,000 population (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic - See Note) URBAN RURAL Minimum Requirements XX ADT CONDITION A- Minimum Vehicular Volume Vehicles Per Day Satisfied Not Satisfied Vehicles Per Day on on Higher-Volume XX Major Street Minor Street Approach Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach (Total of Both Approaches) (One Direction Only) Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1,708 1 988 8,000 5,600 2,400 1,680 2 + 1 9,600 6,720 2,400 1,680 2 + 2 + 9,600 6,720 3,200 2,240 1 2 + 8,000 5,600 3,200 2,240 CONDITION B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic Vehicles Per Day Satisfied Not Satisfied Vehicles Per Day on Higher-Volume XX on Major Street Minor Street Approach Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach (Total of Both Approaches) (One Direction Only) Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1,708 1 988 12,000 8,400 1,200 850 2 + 1 14,400 10,080 1,200 850 2 + 2 + 14,400 10,080 1,600 1,120 1 2 + 12,000 8,400 1,600 1,120 Combination of CONDITIONS A+ B Satisfied Not Satisfied XX 2 CONDITIONS 2 CONDITIONS No one condition satisfied, but following conditions 80% 80% fulfilled 80% of more A B 21% 14% Note: To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where it is not reasonable to count actual traffic volumes. The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Warrants\Daily.xlsx\EAPC_03 3.3-4 California MUTCD(FHWA's MUTCD 2012, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-103 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Average Traffic Estimate Form) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 2040NP DIST CO RTE PM CALC JC _ DATE 02/11/21 Jurisdiction: City of Palm Desert CHK DATE Major Street: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future Ext.) Critical Approach Speed (Major) 30 mph Minor Street: Project Dwy. Critical Approach Speed (Minor) 35 mph Major Street Approach Lanes = 1 lane Minor Street Approach Lane: 1 lane Major Street Future ADT= 2,882 vpd Minor Street Future ADT= 0 vpd Speed limit or critical speed on major street traffic> 64 km/h (40 mph); or URBAN (U) In built up area of isolated community of< 10,000 population (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic - See Note) URBAN RURAL Minimum Requirements XX ADT CONDITION A- Minimum Vehicular Volume Vehicles Per Day Satisfied Not Satisfied Vehicles Per Day on on Higher-Volume XX Major Street Minor Street Approach Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach (Total of Both Approaches) (One Direction Only) Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 2,882 1 0 8,000 5,600 2,400 1,680 2 + 1 9,600 6,720 2,400 1,680 2 + 2 + 9,600 6,720 3,200 2,240 1 2 + 8,000 5,600 3,200 2,240 CONDITION B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic Vehicles Per Day Satisfied Not Satisfied Vehicles Per Day on Higher-Volume XX on Major Street Minor Street Approach Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach (Total of Both Approaches) (One Direction Only) Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 2,882 1 0 12,000 8,400 1,200 850 2 + 1 14,400 10,080 1,200 850 2 + 2 + 14,400 10,080 1,600 1,120 1 2 + 12,000 8,400 1,600 1,120 Combination of CONDITIONS A+ B Satisfied Not Satisfied XX 2 CONDITIONS 2 CONDITIONS No one condition satisfied, but following conditions 80% 80% fulfilled 80% of more A B 36% 24% Note: To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where it is not reasonable to count actual traffic volumes. The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Warrants\Daily.xlsx\2040NP_03 3.3-5 California MUTCD(FHWA's MUTCD 2012, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-103 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Average Traffic Estimate Form) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 2040WP DIST CO RTE PM CALC JC _ DATE 02/11/21 Jurisdiction: City of Palm Desert CHK DATE Major Street: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future Ext.) Critical Approach Speed (Major) 30 mph Minor Street: Project Dwy. Critical Approach Speed (Minor) 35 mph Major Street Approach Lanes = 1 lane Minor Street Approach Lane: 1 lane Major Street Future ADT= 3,870 vpd Minor Street Future ADT= 988 vpd Speed limit or critical speed on major street traffic> 64 km/h (40 mph); or URBAN (U) In built up area of isolated community of< 10,000 population (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic - See Note) URBAN RURAL Minimum Requirements XX ADT CONDITION A- Minimum Vehicular Volume Vehicles Per Day Satisfied Not Satisfied Vehicles Per Day on on Higher-Volume XX Major Street Minor Street Approach Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach (Total of Both Approaches) (One Direction Only) Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 3,870 1 988 8,000 5,600 2,400 1,680 2 + 1 9,600 6,720 2,400 1,680 2 + 2 + 9,600 6,720 3,200 2,240 1 2 + 8,000 5,600 3,200 2,240 CONDITION B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic Vehicles Per Day Satisfied Not Satisfied Vehicles Per Day on Higher-Volume XX on Major Street Minor Street Approach Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach (Total of Both Approaches) (One Direction Only) Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 3,870 1 988 12,000 8,400 1,200 850 2 + 1 14,400 10,080 1,200 850 2 + 2 + 14,400 10,080 1,600 1,120 1 2 + 12,000 8,400 1,600 1,120 Combination of CONDITIONS A+ B Satisfied Not Satisfied XX 2 CONDITIONS 2 CONDITIONS No one condition satisfied, but following conditions 80% 80% fulfilled 80% of more A B 41% 32% Note: To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where it is not reasonable to count actual traffic volumes. The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Warrants\Dai ly.xlsx\2040 W P_03 3.3-6 California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) Traffic Conditions = EXISTING (2021)AM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name = Gerald Ford Dr. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 1,074 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street= 3 Minor Street Name = Rembrandt Pkwy. High Volume Approach (VPH) = 98 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street= 1 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED 500 2 • a > 400 to 2 0. d 300 • E � • L 200 � L O v C � C 0 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) -1 Lane(Major)&1 Lane(Minor) 2+Lanes(Major)&1 Lane(Minor)OR 1 Lane(Major)&2+Lanes(Minor) 2+Lanes(Major)&2+Lanes(Minor) -Major Street Approaches -->«--Minor Street Approaches *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane Intersection ID:#1 C:1UXRjobs113600-140001138001138311Warrants101-Existing_01R_AM.xlslFig 4C-4(Rural Peak) 3.3-7 California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) Traffic Conditions = EXISTING (2021) PM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name = Gerald Ford Dr. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 1,137 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street= 3 Minor Street Name = Rembrandt Pkwy. High Volume Approach (VPH) = 58 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street= 1 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED 500 2 � a > 400 • A o 0 • Qd 300 = . • L 200 d • 1-1 100 C �j 0 X 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) -1 Lane(Major)&1 Lane(Minor) -2+Lanes(Major)&1 Lane(Minor)OR 1 Lane(Major)&2+Lanes(Minor) -2+Lanes(Major)&2+Lanes(Minor) -Major Street Approaches --7M--Minor Street Approaches *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane Intersection ID:#1 C:1UXRjobs113600-140001138001138311Warrants101-Existing_01R_PM.xls)Fig 4C-4(Rural Peak) 3.3-8 California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) Traffic Conditions = EAP (2023)AM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name = Gerald Ford Dr. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 1,158 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street= 3 Minor Street Name = Rembrandt Pkwy. High Volume Approach (VPH) = 104 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street= 1 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED 500 • a > 400 to 2 a a d 300 �\ L � L 200 c d I. o � 0 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) -1 Lane(Major)&1 Lane(Minor) 2+Lanes(Major)&1 Lane(Minor)OR 1 Lane(Major)&2+Lanes(Minor) 2+Lanes(Major)&2+Lanes(Minor) -Major Street Approaches -->«--Minor Street Approaches *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane Intersection ID:#1 C:1UXRjobs113600-140001138001138311Warrants103-Opening Year101-EAP 01R_AM.xlslFig 4C-4(Rural Peak) 3.3-9 California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) Traffic Conditions = EAP (2023) PM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name = Gerald Ford Dr. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 1,287 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street= 3 Minor Street Name = Rembrandt Pkwy. High Volume Approach (VPH) = 62 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street= 1 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED 500 2 • a > 400 • o 0 • d 300 \ o a L 200 d 1-1 100-1 o v) ---- L co C � 0 X' 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) -1 Lane(Major)&1 Lane(Minor) 2+Lanes(Major)&1 Lane(Minor)OR 1 Lane(Major)&2+Lanes(Minor) 2+Lanes(Major)&2+Lanes(Minor) --x-Major Street Approaches -->«--Minor Street Approaches *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane Intersection ID:#1 C:1UXRjobs113600-140001138001138311Warrants103-Opening Year101-EAP 01R_PM.xls)Fig 4C-4(Rural Peak) 3.3-10 California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) Traffic Conditions = EAPC (2023)AM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name = Gerald Ford Dr. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 1,288 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street= 3 Minor Street Name = Rembrandt Pkwy. High Volume Approach (VPH) = 128 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street= 1 WARRANTED FOR A SIGNAL 500 • a > 400 • o 0 • d 300 • L � L 200 ' y 128 —a 1-1 100 -1 0 e — 00 eN C eN C � 0 x 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) -1 Lane(Major)&1 Lane(Minor) 2+Lanes(Major)&1 Lane(Minor)OR 1 Lane(Major)&2+Lanes(Minor) 2+Lanes(Major)&2+Lanes(Minor) -Major Street Approaches -->«--Minor Street Approaches *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane Intersection ID:#1 C:1UXRjobs113600-140001138001138311Warrants103-Opening Year102-EAPC_01R_AM.xlslFig 4C-4(Rural Peak) 3.3-11 California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) Traffic Conditions = EAPC (2023) PM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name = Gerald Ford Dr. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 1,516 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street= 3 Minor Street Name = Rembrandt Pkwy. High Volume Approach (VPH) = 79 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street= 1 WARRANTED FOR A SIGNAL 500 2 • a > 400 t co A 2 0- a d 300 E o • -c 200 1100 --------- _ O o C O C �0 x 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) -1 Lane(Major)&1 Lane(Minor) 2+Lanes(Major)&1 Lane(Minor)OR 1 Lane(Major)&2+Lanes(Minor) 2+Lanes(Major)&2+Lanes(Minor) --m-Major Street Approaches --711--Minor Street Approaches *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane Intersection ID:#1 C:1UXRjobs113600-140001138001138311Warrants103-Opening Year102-EAPC_01R_PM.xlslFig 4C-4(Rural Peak) 3.3-12 California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) Traffic Conditions = 2040NP AM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name = Gerald Ford Dr. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 1,947 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street= 3 Minor Street Name = Rembrandt Pkwy. High Volume Approach (VPH) = 163 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street= 1 WARRANTED FOR A SIGNAL 500 • a > 400 • A • o 0 Qd 300A t 200 a3 • 163 r � _ C � 0 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) -1 Lane(Major)&1 Lane(Minor) 2+Lanes(Major)&1 Lane(Minor)OR 1 Lane(Major)&2+Lanes(Minor) 2+Lanes(Major)&2+Lanes(Minor) -Major Street Approaches -->«--Minor Street Approaches *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane Intersection ID:#1 C:1UXRjobs113600-140001138001138311Warrants104-GPBO(2040)101-2040NP 01R_AM.xls\Fig 4C-4(Rural Peak) 3.3-13 California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) Traffic Conditions = 2040NP PM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name = Gerald Ford Dr. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 2,553 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street= 3 Minor Street Name = Rembrandt Pkwy. High Volume Approach (VPH) = 108 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street= 1 WARRANTED FOR A SIGNAL 500 • a > 400 • A o 0 • Qd 300 = • t 200 A t33 1E - •• 2 108 ■ — s 1-1 100 i 51 C o 0 aC 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) -1 Lane(Major)&1 Lane(Minor) -2+Lanes(Major)&1 Lane(Minor)OR 1 Lane(Major)&2+Lanes(Minor) -2+Lanes(Major)&2+Lanes(Minor) --A-Major Street Approaches --7M--Minor Street Approaches *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane Intersection ID:#1 C:IUXRjobs113600-140001138001138311Warrants104-GPBO(2040)101-2040NP 01R_PM.xls)Fig 4C-4(Rural Peak) 3.3-14 California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) Traffic Conditions = 2040WP AM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name = Gerald Ford Dr. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 1,974 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street= 3 Minor Street Name = Rembrandt Pkwy. High Volume Approach (VPH) = 249 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street= 1 WARRANTED FOR A SIGNAL 500 2 � a > 400 • o 0 A • a) 300 3 ■ • 249 -C 200 a� 1E • ■ 1-1 100 _f --------- 0 O 0 X 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) -1 Lane(Major)&1 Lane(Minor) -2+Lanes(Major)&1 Lane(Minor)OR 1 Lane(Major)&2+Lanes(Minor) -2+Lanes(Major)&2+Lanes(Minor) II Major Street Approaches -->«--Minor Street Approaches *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane Intersection ID:#1 C:1UXRjobs113600-140001138001138311Warrants104-GPBO(2040)102-2040WP 01R_AM.xlslFig 4C-4(Rural Peak) 3.3-15 California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) Traffic Conditions = 2040WP PM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name = Gerald Ford Dr. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 2,639 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street= 3 Minor Street Name = Rembrandt Pkwy. High Volume Approach (VPH) = 160 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street= 1 WARRANTED FOR A SIGNAL 500 2 � a > 400 • A o 0 • Qd 300 = • _c 200 • 160 1-1 fA 100 ♦ ---------- L C O 0 C � 0 M 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) -1 Lane(Major)&1 Lane(Minor) -2+Lanes(Major)&1 Lane(Minor)OR 1 Lane(Major)&2+Lanes(Minor) -2+Lanes(Major)&2+Lanes(Minor) -Major Street Approaches --7M--Minor Street Approaches *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane Intersection ID:#1 C:1UXRjobs113600-140001138001138311Warrants104-GPBO(2040)102-2040WP 01R_PM.xls)Fig 4C-4(Rural Peak) 3.3-16 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis APPENDIX 5.1: EAP (2023) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 13831-04 TA Report.docx V RBAN CROSSROaoS Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 13831-04 TA Report.docx URBAN CRassRoaos Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2023) AM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili tt Ili ttt lc 4 fir 4 fir Traffic Volume(vph) 22 440 12 15 637 32 38 2 48 61 2 41 Future Volume(vph) 22 440 12 15 637 32 38 2 48 61 2 41 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 190 0 150 110 150 150 0 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Link Speed(mph) 55 55 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 2229 1025 655 646 Travel Time(s) 27.6 12.7 14.9 14.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\02-EAP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 5.1-1 HCM 6th TWSC EAP (2023) AM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 3.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft+ r r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 22 440 12 15 637 32 38 2 48 61 2 41 Future Vol,veh/h 22 440 12 15 637 32 38 2 48 61 2 41 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 190 - - 150 - 110 - - 150 - - 50 Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 24 478 13 16 692 35 41 2 52 66 2 45 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 727 0 0 491 0 0 843 1292 246 1012 1263 346 Stage 1 - - - - - - 533 533 - 724 724 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 310 759 - 288 539 - Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - 4.14 - - 6.99 6.54 6.94 6.99 6.54 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 7.34 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.74 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 - - 2.22 - - 3.67 4.02 3.32 3.67 4.02 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 529 - - 1069 - - 285 162 754 220 168 555 Stage 1 - - - - - - 483 523 - 317 429 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 640 413 - 671 520 - Platoon blocked,% - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 529 - - 1069 - - 248 152 754 193 158 555 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 248 152 - 193 158 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 461 499 - 303 423 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 577 407 - 594 497 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0.6 0.2 16.1 25.2 HCM LOS C D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity(veh/h) 240 754 529 - - 1069 - - 192 555 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.181 0.069 0.045 - - 0.015 - - 0.357 0.08 HCM Control Delay(s) 23.3 10.1 12.1 - - 8.4 - - 33.8 12.1 HCM Lane LOS C B B - - A - - D B HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.6 0.2 0.1 - - 0 - - 1.5 0.3 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800\13831\Synchro\02-EAP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 5.1-2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2023) AM Peak Hour 2: Portola Rd. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j '11"i ttt lc '1'j 11t lc vi 11t lc Traffic Volume(vph) 18 357 170 48 463 170 129 334 53 70 250 8 Future Volume(vph) 18 357 170 48 463 170 129 334 53 70 250 8 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 160 0 260 300 245 205 255 200 Storage Lanes 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 50 Link Distance(ft) 550 725 746 450 Travel Time(s) 6.8 9.0 9.2 6.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 14.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 15.0 34.0 15.0 34.0 34.0 17.0 25.0 25.0 16.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split(%) 16.7% 37.8% 16.7% 37.8% 37.8% 18.9% 27.8% 27.8% 17.8% 26.7% 26.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle:75 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 2: Portola Rd.&Gerald Ford Dr. co l tR32 ' '. ill03 T 04 5 06 'R'. 07 O3 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\02-EAP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 5.1-3 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAP (2023) AM Peak Hour 2: Portola Rd. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j 1 ttt lc '1'j 11t lc vi 11t lc Traffic Volume(veh/h) 18 357 170 48 463 170 129 334 53 70 250 8 Future Volume(veh/h) 18 357 170 48 463 170 129 334 53 70 250 8 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 19 376 179 51 487 0 136 352 56 74 263 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 75 929 436 277 2216 371 1177 365 324 1106 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.40 0.40 0.08 0.43 0.00 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.09 0.22 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 2348 1101 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 19 283 272 51 487 0 136 352 56 74 263 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1672 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 0.9 10.3 10.6 1.2 5.4 0.0 3.3 5.1 2.5 1.8 3.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.9 10.3 10.6 1.2 5.4 0.0 3.3 5.1 2.5 1.8 3.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 75 703 662 277 2216 371 1177 365 324 1106 V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.40 0.41 0.18 0.22 0.37 0.30 0.15 0.23 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 208 703 662 403 2216 480 1177 365 442 1106 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 41.7 19.5 19.6 38.7 15.9 0.0 37.3 28.6 27.6 37.8 29.1 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.8 1.7 1.9 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.4 4.1 3.9 0.5 1.9 0.0 1.3 2.0 1.0 0.7 1.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.5 21.3 21.5 39.0 16.2 0.0 37.9 29.3 28.5 38.1 29.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS DCCD B DCCDC Approach Vol,veh/h 574 538 A 544 337 A Approach Delay,s/veh 22.1 18.3 31.4 31.5 Approach LOS C B C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 _ Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 11.7 40.1 14.2 24.0 8.3 43.6 12.9 25.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 10.5 29.5 12.5 19.5 10.5 29.5 11.5 20.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+l1),s 3.2 12.6 5.3 5.8 2.9 7.4 3.8 7.1 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 2.6 0.2 1.2 0.0 2.8 0.1 1.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[WBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\02-EAP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 5.1-4 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2023) AM Peak Hour 3: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future) & Project Dwy. II Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(vph) 86 10 3 2 2 27 Future Volume(vph) 86 10 3 2 2 27 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 298 437 655 Travel Time(s) 6.8 9.9 14.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\02-EAP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 5.1-5 HCM 6th TWSC EAP (2023) AM Peak Hour 3: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future) & Project Dwy. Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 6.8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 Traffic Vol,veh/h 86 10 3 2 2 27 Future Vol,veh/h 86 10 3 2 2 27 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 93 11 3 2 2 29 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 25 17 31 0 - 0 Stage 1 17 - - - - - Stage 2 8 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 991 1062 1582 - - - Stage 1 1006 - - - - - Stage 2 1015 - - - - - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 989 1062 1582 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 989 - - - - - Stage 1 1004 - - - - - Stage 2 1015 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 9 4.4 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 1582 - 996 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.105 - - HCM Control Delay(s) 7.3 0 9 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 - - Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800\13831\Synchro\02-EAP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 5.1-6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2023) AM Peak Hour 4: Gerald Ford Dr. & Gateway Dr. 4- Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(vph) 24 381 492 87 111 22 Future Volume(vph) 24 381 492 87 111 22 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 200 125 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 Link Distance(ft) 706 2229 633 Travel Time(s) 8.8 27.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Detector Phase 5 2 6 6 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split(s) 14.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 20.0 57.0 37.0 37.0 33.0 33.0 Total Split(%) 22.2% 63.3% 41.1% 41.1% 36.7% 36.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle:60 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Gerald Ford Dr.&Gateway Dr. 02 V. 414411.04 .04 4- 5 06 V. 1 - Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\02-EAP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 5.1-7 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAP (2023) AM Peak Hour 4: Gerald Ford Dr. & Gateway Dr. Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(veh/h) 24 381 492 87 111 22 Future Volume(veh/h) 24 381 492 87 111 22 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 26 414 535 95 121 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 95 2073 2452 761 564 502 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.58 0.48 0.48 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 3647 5274 1585 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 26 414 535 95 121 24 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1702 1585 1781 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 1.3 4.9 5.5 3.0 4.5 0.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.3 4.9 5.5 3.0 4.5 0.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 95 2073 2452 761 564 502 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.20 0.22 0.12 0.21 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 307 2073 2452 761 564 502 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 40.9 8.8 13.6 12.9 22.5 21.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.6 1.6 1.8 1.0 1.9 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.5 9.1 13.8 13.3 23.4 21.5 LnGrp LOS D A B B C C Approach Vol,veh/h 440 630 145 Approach Delay,s/veh 11.0 13.7 23.1 Approach LOS B B C Timer-Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 57.0 33.0 9.3 47.7 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 52.5 28.5 15.5 32.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+I1),s 6.9 6.5 3.3 7.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 2.5 0.3 0.0 3.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.9 HCM 6th LOS B Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\02-EAP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 5.1-8 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2023) PM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili tt Ili ttt lc 4 lc 4 lc Traffic Volume(vph) 46 565 38 48 543 47 23 2 29 36 2 24 Future Volume(vph) 46 565 38 48 543 47 23 2 29 36 2 24 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 190 0 150 110 150 150 0 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Link Speed(mph) 55 55 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 2229 1025 655 646 Travel Time(s) 27.6 12.7 14.9 14.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\02-EAP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 5.1-9 HCM 6th TWSC EAP (2023) PM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft+ r r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 46 565 38 48 543 47 23 2 29 36 2 24 Future Vol,veh/h 46 565 38 48 543 47 23 2 29 36 2 24 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 190 - - 150 - 110 - - 150 - - 50 Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 50 614 41 52 590 51 25 2 32 39 2 26 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 641 0 0 655 0 0 1076 1480 328 1102 1449 295 Stage 1 - - - - - - 735 735 - 694 694 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 341 745 - 408 755 - Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - 4.14 - - 6.9 6.54 6.94 6.9 6.54 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 7.34 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.74 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 - - 2.22 - - 3.67 4.02 3.32 3.67 4.02 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 581 - - 928 - - 205 124 668 198 130 598 Stage 1 - - - - - - 367 424 - 332 442 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 613 419 - 571 415 - Platoon blocked,% - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 581 - - 928 - - 173 107 668 166 112 598 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 173 107 - 166 112 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 335 388 - 303 417 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 551 396 - 494 379 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0.8 0.7 20.1 25.6 HCM LOS C D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity(veh/h) 165 668 581 - - 928 - - 162 598 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.165 0.047 0.086 - - 0.056 - - 0.255 0.044 HCM Control Delay(s) 31.1 10.7 11.8 - - 9.1 - - 34.7 11.3 HCM Lane LOS D B B - - A - - D B HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0.6 0.1 0.3 - - 0.2 - - 1 0.1 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800\13831\Synchro\02-EAP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 5.1-10 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2023) PM Peak Hour 2: Portola Rd. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j '11"i ttt lc '1'j 11t lc vi 11t lc Traffic Volume(vph) 17 423 149 48 403 127 156 379 43 141 246 10 Future Volume(vph) 17 423 149 48 403 127 156 379 43 141 246 10 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 160 0 260 300 245 205 255 200 Storage Lanes 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 50 Link Distance(ft) 550 725 746 450 Travel Time(s) 6.8 9.0 9.2 6.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 14.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 15.0 34.0 15.0 34.0 34.0 17.0 25.0 25.0 16.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split(%) 16.7% 37.8% 16.7% 37.8% 37.8% 18.9% 27.8% 27.8% 17.8% 26.7% 26.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle:75 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 2: Portola Rd.&Gerald Ford Dr. co l tR32 ' '. ill03 T 04 5 06 'R'. 07 O3 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\02-EAP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 5.1-11 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAP (2023) PM Peak Hour 2: Portola Rd. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j 1 ttt lc '1'j 11t lc vi 11t lc Traffic Volume(veh/h) 17 423 149 48 403 127 156 379 43 141 246 10 Future Volume(veh/h) 17 423 149 48 403 127 156 379 43 141 246 10 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 17 432 152 49 411 0 159 387 44 144 251 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 69 997 347 271 2174 377 1163 361 373 1158 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.39 0.39 0.08 0.43 0.00 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.11 0.23 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 2584 901 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 17 296 288 49 411 0 159 387 44 144 251 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1708 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 0.8 11.0 11.2 1.2 4.5 0.0 3.9 5.7 2.0 3.5 3.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.8 11.0 11.2 1.2 4.5 0.0 3.9 5.7 2.0 3.5 3.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 69 685 659 271 2174 377 1163 361 373 1158 V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.43 0.44 0.18 0.19 0.42 0.33 0.12 0.39 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 208 685 659 403 2174 480 1163 361 442 1158 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 42.0 20.4 20.4 38.8 16.1 0.0 37.4 29.0 27.6 37.4 28.3 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.9 2.0 2.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.4 4.4 4.3 0.5 1.6 0.0 1.6 2.2 0.8 1.4 1.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.9 22.4 22.5 39.1 16.3 0.0 38.2 29.8 28.3 38.0 28.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS DCCD B DCCDC Approach Vol,veh/h 601 460 A 590 395 A Approach Delay,s/veh 23.1 18.8 32.0 32.1 Approach LOS C B C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 _ Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 11.6 39.2 14.3 24.9 8.0 42.8 14.2 25.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 10.5 29.5 12.5 19.5 10.5 29.5 11.5 20.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+l1),s 3.2 13.2 5.9 5.6 2.8 6.5 5.5 7.7 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 2.7 0.2 1.1 0.0 2.3 0.2 1.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.4 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[WBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\02-EAP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 5.1-12 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2023) PM Peak Hour 3: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future) & Project Dwy. II Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(vph) 51 6 10 2 2 86 Future Volume(vph) 51 6 10 2 2 86 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 298 437 655 Travel Time(s) 6.8 9.9 14.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\02-EAP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 5.1-13 HCM 6th TWSC EAP (2023) PM Peak Hour 3: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future) & Project Dwy. Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 3.8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 Traffic Vol,veh/h 51 6 10 2 2 86 Future Vol,veh/h 51 6 10 2 2 86 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 55 7 11 2 2 93 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 73 49 95 0 - 0 Stage 1 49 - - - - - Stage 2 24 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 931 1020 1499 - - - Stage 1 973 - - - - - Stage 2 999 - - - - - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 924 1020 1499 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 924 - - - - - Stage 1 966 - - - - - Stage 2 999 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 9.1 6.2 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 1499 - 933 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - 0.066 - - HCM Control Delay(s) 7.4 0 9.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - - Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800\13831\Synchro\02-EAP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 5.1-14 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2023) PM Peak Hour 4: Gerald Ford Dr. & Gateway Dr. 4- Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(vph) 45 468 479 88 122 34 Future Volume(vph) 45 468 479 88 122 34 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 200 125 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 Link Distance(ft) 706 2229 633 Travel Time(s) 8.8 27.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Detector Phase 5 2 6 6 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split(s) 14.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 21.0 57.0 36.0 36.0 33.0 33.0 Total Split(%) 23.3% 63.3% 40.0% 40.0% 36.7% 36.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle:60 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Gerald Ford Dr.&Gateway Dr. 02 V. 414411.04 .04 4- 5 06 V. 1 - Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\02-EAP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 5.1-15 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAP (2023) PM Peak Hour 4: Gerald Ford Dr. & Gateway Dr. Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(veh/h) 45 468 479 88 122 34 Future Volume(veh/h) 45 468 479 88 122 34 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 49 509 521 96 133 37 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 140 2073 2323 721 564 502 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.58 0.45 0.45 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 3647 5274 1585 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 49 509 521 96 133 37 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1702 1585 1781 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 2.3 6.3 5.6 3.2 5.0 1.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.3 6.3 5.6 3.2 5.0 1.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 140 2073 2323 721 564 502 V/C Ratio(X) 0.35 0.25 0.22 0.13 0.24 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 327 2073 2323 721 564 502 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 39.3 9.1 14.9 14.2 22.7 21.5 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 1.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.0 2.0 1.9 1.1 2.1 1.6 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.8 9.4 15.1 14.6 23.7 21.8 LnGrp LOS D A B B C C Approach Vol,veh/h 558 617 170 Approach Delay,s/veh 12.2 15.0 23.3 Approach LOS B B C Timer-Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 57.0 33.0 11.6 45.4 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 52.5 28.5 16.5 31.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+I1),s 8.3 7.0 4.3 7.6 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 3.1 0.4 0.1 3.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.9 HCM 6th LOS B Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\02-EAP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 5.1-16 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis APPENDIX 6.1: EAPC (2023) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 13831-04 TA Report.docx V RBAN CROSSROaoS Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 13831-04 TA Report.docx URBAN CRassRoaos Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2023) AM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili tt Ili ttt lc 4 fir 4 fir Traffic Volume(vph) 22 496 23 18 697 32 70 2 56 61 2 41 Future Volume(vph) 22 496 23 18 697 32 70 2 56 61 2 41 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 190 0 150 110 150 150 0 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Link Speed(mph) 55 55 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 2229 1025 655 646 Travel Time(s) 27.6 12.7 14.9 14.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\03-EAPC AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6.1-1 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2023) AM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 4.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft+ r r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 22 496 23 18 697 32 70 2 56 61 2 41 Future Vol,veh/h 22 496 23 18 697 32 70 2 56 61 2 41 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 190 - - 150 - 110 - - 150 - - 50 Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 24 539 25 20 758 35 76 2 61 66 2 45 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 793 0 0 564 0 0 944 1433 282 1117 1410 379 Stage 1 - - - - - - 600 600 - 798 798 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 344 833 - 319 612 - Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - 4.14 - - 6.99 6.54 6.94 6.99 6.54 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 7.34 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.74 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 - - 2.22 - - 3.67 4.02 3.32 3.67 4.02 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 492 - - 1004 - - 244 133 715 188 137 529 Stage 1 - - - - - - 441 488 - 282 396 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 611 382 - 644 482 - Platoon blocked,% - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 492 - - 1004 - - 209 124 715 161 128 529 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 209 124 - 161 128 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 419 464 - 268 388 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 545 374 - 558 458 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0.5 0.2 23.2 31.2 HCM LOS C D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity(veh/h) 205 715 492 - - 1004 - - 160 529 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.382 0.085 0.049 - - 0.019 - - 0.428 0.084 HCM Control Delay(s) 33 10.5 12.7 - - 8.7 - - 43.4 12.4 HCM Lane LOS D B B - - A - - E B HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.7 0.3 0.2 - - 0.1 - - 1.9 0.3 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800\13831\Synchro\03-EAPC AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6.1-2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2023) AM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. WITH IMPROVEMENTS Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili tt Ili ttt lc 4 fir 4 fir Traffic Volume(vph) 22 496 23 18 697 32 70 2 56 61 2 41 Future Volume(vph) 22 496 23 18 697 32 70 2 56 61 2 41 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 190 0 150 110 150 150 0 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 2229 1025 655 646 Travel Time(s) 27.6 12.7 14.9 14.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 8 4 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 8 8 8 4 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 16.0 45.0 15.0 44.0 44.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split(%) 17.8% 50.0% 16.7% 48.9% 48.9% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle:55 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy.&Gerald Ford Dr. o 1 432 4R;) 11' 04 5 06 'R' os Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\103-EAPC AM-IMP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6.1-3 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2023) AM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. WITH IMPROVEMENTS Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili tt Ili ttt lc 4 fir 4 fir Traffic Volume(veh/h) 22 496 23 18 697 32 70 2 56 61 2 41 Future Volume(veh/h) 22 496 23 18 697 32 70 2 56 61 2 41 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 24 539 25 20 758 35 76 2 61 66 2 45 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 45 1884 87 39 2765 858 79 1 449 79 1 449 Arrive On Green 0.05 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.54 0.54 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 3458 160 1781 5106 1585 0 4 1585 0 4 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 24 277 287 20 758 35 78 0 61 68 0 45 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1842 1781 1702 1585 4 0 1585 4 0 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 7.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 7.2 0.9 25.5 0.0 2.6 25.5 0.0 1.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 45 968 1003 39 2765 858 80 0 449 80 0 449 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.29 0.29 0.51 0.27 0.04 0.97 0.00 0.14 0.85 0.00 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 228 968 1003 208 2765 858 80 0 449 80 0 449 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 42.2 0.0 0.0 43.5 11.1 9.7 44.6 0.0 24.0 44.5 0.0 23.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 9.5 0.7 0.7 10.1 0.2 0.1 93.6 0.0 0.6 64.7 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.5 2.3 0.3 3.8 0.0 1.0 2.9 0.0 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.7 0.7 0.7 53.6 11.3 9.8 138.3 0.0 24.7 109.3 0.0 24.2 LnGrp LOS D A A D B A F A C F A C Approach Vol,veh/h 588 813 139 113 Approach Delay,s/veh 2.8 12.3 88.4 75.4 Approach LOS A B F E Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.5 53.5 30.0 6.8 53.2 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 10.5 40.5 25.5 11.5 39.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+l1),s 3.0 2.0 27.5 3.2 9.2 27.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.6 HCM 6th LOS B Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\103-EAPC AM-IMP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6.1-4 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2023) AM Peak Hour 2: Portola Rd. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j '11"i ttt lc '1'j 11t lc vi 11t lc Traffic Volume(vph) 27 419 178 56 519 199 132 386 60 113 307 9 Future Volume(vph) 27 419 178 56 519 199 132 386 60 113 307 9 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 160 0 260 300 245 205 255 200 Storage Lanes 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 50 Link Distance(ft) 550 725 746 450 Travel Time(s) 6.8 9.0 9.2 6.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 14.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 15.0 34.0 15.0 34.0 34.0 16.0 25.0 25.0 16.0 25.0 25.0 Total Split(%) 16.7% 37.8% 16.7% 37.8% 37.8% 17.8% 27.8% 27.8% 17.8% 27.8% 27.8% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle:75 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 2: Portola Rd.&Gerald Ford Dr. co l tR32 ' '. ill03 T 04 5 .,6 ' '. 07 O3 = 34s Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\03-EAPC AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6.1-5 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2023) AM Peak Hour 2: Portola Rd. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j 1 ttt lc '1'j 11t lc vi 11t lc Traffic Volume(veh/h) 27 419 178 56 519 199 132 386 60 113 307 9 Future Volume(veh/h) 27 419 178 56 519 199 132 386 60 113 307 9 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 28 441 187 59 546 0 139 406 63 119 323 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 100 924 388 296 2086 372 1174 365 364 1163 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.38 0.38 0.09 0.41 0.00 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.11 0.23 0.00 SatFlow,veh/h 1781 2438 1025 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 28 320 308 59 546 0 139 406 63 119 323 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1686 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 1.4 12.3 12.5 1.4 6.4 0.0 3.4 6.0 2.9 2.9 4.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.4 12.3 12.5 1.4 6.4 0.0 3.4 6.0 2.9 2.9 4.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 100 673 639 296 2086 372 1174 365 364 1163 V/C Ratio(X) 0.28 0.48 0.48 0.20 0.26 0.37 0.35 0.17 0.33 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 208 673 639 403 2086 442 1174 365 442 1163 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 40.7 21.2 21.2 38.3 17.6 0.0 37.3 29.0 27.8 37.3 28.6 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.5 2.4 2.6 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.6 5.0 4.8 0.6 2.3 0.0 1.4 2.3 1.1 1.2 1.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.3 23.6 23.8 38.6 17.9 0.0 38.0 29.8 28.8 37.8 29.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS DCCD B DCCDC Approach Vol,veh/h 656 605 A 608 442 A Approach Delay,s/veh 24.5 19.9 31.6 31.5 Approach LOS C B C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 _ Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 12.2 38.6 14.2 25.0 9.5 41.3 14.0 25.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 10.5 29.5 11.5 20.5 10.5 29.5 11.5 20.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+l1),s 3.4 14.5 5.4 6.7 3.4 8.4 4.9 8.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 2.9 0.2 1.5 0.0 3.1 0.2 2.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[WBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800113831\Synchro\03-EAPC AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6.1-6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2023) AM Peak Hour 3: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future) & Project Dwy. II Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(vph) 86 10 3 40 14 27 Future Volume(vph) 86 10 3 40 14 27 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 298 437 655 Travel Time(s) 6.8 9.9 14.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\03-EAPC AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6.1-7 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2023) AM Peak Hour 3: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future) & Project Dwy. Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 5.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 Traffic Vol,veh/h 86 10 3 40 14 27 Future Vol,veh/h 86 10 3 40 14 27 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 93 11 3 43 15 29 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 79 30 44 0 - 0 Stage 1 30 - - - - - Stage 2 49 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 924 1044 1564 - - - Stage 1 993 - - - - - Stage 2 973 - - - - - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 922 1044 1564 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 922 - - - - - Stage 1 991 - - - - - Stage 2 973 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 9.3 0.5 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 1564 - 933 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.112 - - HCM Control Delay(s) 7.3 0 9.3 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.4 - - Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800\13831\Synchro\03-EAPC AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6.1-8 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2023) AM Peak Hour 4: Gerald Ford Dr. & Gateway Dr. 4- Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(vph) 39 416 568 102 143 67 Future Volume(vph) 39 416 568 102 143 67 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 200 125 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 Link Distance(ft) 706 2229 633 Travel Time(s) 8.8 27.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Detector Phase 5 2 6 6 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split(s) 14.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 20.0 56.0 36.0 36.0 34.0 34.0 Total Split(%) 22.2% 62.2% 40.0% 40.0% 37.8% 37.8% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle:60 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Gerald Ford Dr.&Gateway Dr. 0 2 V. O4 .04 4- 0 5 06 'R) Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800\13831\Synchro\03-EAPC AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6.1-9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2023) AM Peak Hour 4: Gerald Ford Dr. & Gateway Dr. Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(veh/h) 39 416 568 102 143 67 Future Volume(veh/h) 39 416 568 102 143 67 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 42 452 617 111 155 73 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 129 2033 2298 713 584 520 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.57 0.45 0.45 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 3647 5274 1585 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 42 452 617 111 155 73 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1702 1585 1781 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 2.0 5.6 6.8 3.7 5.8 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.0 5.6 6.8 3.7 5.8 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 129 2033 2298 713 584 520 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.22 0.27 0.16 0.27 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 307 2033 2298 713 584 520 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 39.7 9.4 15.5 14.6 22.3 21.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 1.1 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.9 1.8 2.3 1.3 2.4 3.1 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.1 9.7 15.8 15.1 23.4 21.9 LnGrp LOS D A B B C C Approach Vol,veh/h 494 728 228 Approach Delay,s/veh 12.4 15.7 22.9 Approach LOS B B C Timer-Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 56.0 34.0 11.0 45.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 51.5 29.5 15.5 31.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+I1),s 7.6 7.8 4.0 8.8 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 2.7 0.6 0.0 4.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.7 HCM 6th LOS B Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800\13831\Synchro\03-EAPC AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6.1-10 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2023) PM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili tt Ili ttt lc 4 lc 4 lc Traffic Volume(vph) 46 659 72 57 635 47 43 2 34 36 2 24 Future Volume(vph) 46 659 72 57 635 47 43 2 34 36 2 24 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 190 0 150 110 150 150 0 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Link Speed(mph) 55 55 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 2229 1025 655 646 Travel Time(s) 27.6 12.7 14.9 14.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\03-EAPC PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6.1-11 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2023) PM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 3.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft+ r r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 46 659 72 57 635 47 43 2 34 36 2 24 Future Vol,veh/h 46 659 72 57 635 47 43 2 34 36 2 24 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 190 - - 150 - 110 - - 150 - - 50 Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 50 716 78 62 690 51 47 2 37 39 2 26 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 741 0 0 794 0 0 1256 1720 397 1273 1708 345 Stage 1 - - - - - - 855 855 - 814 814 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 401 865 - 459 894 - Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - 4.14 - - 6.99 6.54 6.94 6.99 6.54 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 7.34 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.74 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 - - 2.22 - - 3.67 4.02 3.32 3.67 4.02 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 521 - - 823 - - 152 89 602 148 90 556 Stage 1 - - - - - - 311 373 - 275 390 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 564 369 - 534 358 - Platoon blocked,% - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 521 - - 823 - - 124 74 602 119 75 556 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 124 74 - 119 75 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 281 337 - 249 361 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 494 341 - 450 324 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0.7 0.8 35.8 37 HCM LOS E E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity(veh/h) 120 602 521 - - 823 - - 115 556 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.408 0.061 0.096 - - 0.075 - - 0.359 0.047 HCM Control Delay(s) 54.3 11.4 12.6 - - 9.7 - - 52.9 11.8 HCM Lane LOS F B B - - A - - F B HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 1.7 0.2 0.3 - - 0.2 - - 1.5 0.1 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800\13831\Synchro\03-EAPC PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6.1-12 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2023) PM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. WITH IMPROVEMENTS Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili tt Ili ttt lc 4 lc 4 lc Traffic Volume(vph) 46 659 72 57 635 47 43 2 34 36 2 24 Future Volume(vph) 46 659 72 57 635 47 43 2 34 36 2 24 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 190 0 150 110 150 150 0 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 2229 1025 655 646 Travel Time(s) 27.6 12.7 14.9 14.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 8 4 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 8 8 8 4 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 15.0 47.0 18.0 50.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Total Split(%) 16.7% 52.2% 20.0% 55.6% 55.6% 27.8% 27.8% 27.8% 27.8% 27.8% 27.8% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle:55 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy.&Gerald Ford Dr. of r32 'R'. T 04 35 06 'R' 11'33 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\103-EAPC PM-IMP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6.1-13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2023) PM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. WITH IMPROVEMENTS Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili tt Ili ttt lc 4 fir 4 fir Traffic Volume(veh/h) 46 659 72 57 635 47 43 2 34 36 2 24 Future Volume(veh/h) 46 659 72 57 635 47 43 2 34 36 2 24 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 50 716 78 62 690 51 47 2 37 39 2 26 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 71 1865 203 80 2975 923 78 2 361 78 2 361 Arrive On Green 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.58 0.58 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 3232 352 1781 5106 1585 0 8 1585 0 9 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 50 393 401 62 690 51 49 0 37 41 0 26 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1807 1781 1702 1585 8 0 1585 9 0 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 2.5 0.0 0.0 3.1 5.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.5 0.0 0.0 3.1 5.9 1.2 20.5 0.0 1.7 20.5 0.0 1.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 71 1025 1043 80 2975 923 80 0 361 80 0 361 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.38 0.38 0.77 0.23 0.06 0.61 0.00 0.10 0.51 0.00 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 208 1025 1043 267 2975 923 80 0 361 80 0 361 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 40.9 0.0 0.0 42.5 9.1 8.1 44.3 0.0 27.5 43.9 0.0 27.3 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 11.9 1.1 1.0 14.3 0.2 0.1 30.1 0.0 0.6 21.4 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.2 0.3 0.3 1.6 1.8 0.4 1.8 0.0 0.7 1.4 0.0 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.8 1.1 1.0 56.8 9.2 8.2 74.4 0.0 28.0 65.3 0.0 27.7 LnGrp LOS D A A E A A E A C E A C Approach Vol,veh/h 844 803 86 67 Approach Delay,s/veh 4.1 12.9 54.5 50.7 Approach LOS A B D D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 8.6 56.4 25.0 8.1 56.9 25.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 13.5 42.5 20.5 10.5 45.5 20.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+l1),s 5.1 2.0 22.5 4.5 7.9 22.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 4.6 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.2 HCM 6th LOS B Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\103-EAPC PM-IMP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6.1-14 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2023) PM Peak Hour 2: Portola Rd. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j '11"i ttt lc '1'j 11t lc vi 11t lc Traffic Volume(vph) 23 515 154 66 499 189 164 484 61 199 346 13 Future Volume(vph) 23 515 154 66 499 189 164 484 61 199 346 13 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 160 0 260 300 245 205 255 200 Storage Lanes 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 50 Link Distance(ft) 550 725 746 450 Travel Time(s) 6.8 9.0 9.2 6.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 14.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 15.0 35.0 15.0 35.0 35.0 16.0 24.0 24.0 16.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split(%) 16.7% 38.9% 16.7% 38.9% 38.9% 17.8% 26.7% 26.7% 17.8% 26.7% 26.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle:75 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 2: Portola Rd.&Gerald Ford Dr. Tiro t R32 ' '. ilk03 T 04 5 06 'R'. 07 O3 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\03-EAPC PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6.1-15 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2023) PM Peak Hour 2: Portola Rd. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j 1 ttt lc '1'j 11t lc vi 11t lc Traffic Volume(veh/h) 23 515 154 66 499 189 164 484 61 199 346 13 Future Volume(veh/h) 23 515 154 66 499 189 164 484 61 199 346 13 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 23 526 157 67 509 0 167 494 62 203 353 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 87 1033 307 312 2167 378 1106 343 382 1111 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.38 0.38 0.09 0.42 0.00 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.22 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 2700 802 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 23 345 338 67 509 0 167 494 62 203 353 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1726 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 1.1 13.4 13.5 1.6 5.7 0.0 4.1 7.6 2.9 5.0 5.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.1 13.4 13.5 1.6 5.7 0.0 4.1 7.6 2.9 5.0 5.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 87 680 660 312 2167 378 1106 343 382 1111 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.51 0.51 0.21 0.23 0.44 0.45 0.18 0.53 0.32 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 208 680 660 403 2167 442 1106 343 442 1111 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 41.3 21.3 21.3 38.0 16.6 0.0 37.5 30.6 28.7 37.8 29.6 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.6 2.7 2.8 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.8 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.5 5.4 5.3 0.7 2.0 0.0 1.6 3.0 1.1 2.1 2.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.9 24.0 24.1 38.3 16.8 0.0 38.3 31.9 29.9 39.0 30.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C C D B D C C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 706 576 A 723 556 A Approach Delay,s/veh 24.7 19.3 33.2 33.5 Approach LOS C B C C Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 12.6 38.9 14.3 24.1 8.9 42.7 14.4 24.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 10.5 30.5 11.5 19.5 10.5 30.5 11.5 19.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+l1),s 3.6 15.5 6.1 7.2 3.1 7.7 7.0 9.6 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 3.2 0.2 1.6 0.0 2.9 0.2 2.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.8 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[WBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\03-EAPC PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6.1-16 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2023) PM Peak Hour 3: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future) & Project Dwy. II Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(vph) 51 6 10 26 43 86 Future Volume(vph) 51 6 10 26 43 86 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 298 437 655 Travel Time(s) 6.8 9.9 14.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\03-EAPC PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6.1-17 HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2023) PM Peak Hour 3: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future) & Project Dwy. Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 2.8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 Traffic Vol,veh/h 51 6 10 26 43 86 Future Vol,veh/h 51 6 10 26 43 86 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 55 7 11 28 47 93 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 144 94 140 0 - 0 Stage 1 94 - - - - - Stage 2 50 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 849 963 1443 - - - Stage 1 930 - - - - - Stage 2 972 - - - - - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 842 963 1443 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 842 - - - - - Stage 1 923 - - - - - Stage 2 972 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 9.6 2.1 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 1443 - 853 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - 0.073 - - HCM Control Delay(s) 7.5 0 9.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - - Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800\13831\Synchro\03-EAPC PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6.1-18 Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2023) PM Peak Hour 4: Gerald Ford Dr. & Gateway Dr. 4- Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(vph) 96 571 554 126 148 64 Future Volume(vph) 96 571 554 126 148 64 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 200 125 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 Link Distance(ft) 706 2229 633 Travel Time(s) 8.8 27.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Detector Phase 5 2 6 6 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split(s) 14.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 24.0 58.0 34.0 34.0 32.0 32.0 Total Split(%) 26.7% 64.4% 37.8% 37.8% 35.6% 35.6% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle:60 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Gerald Ford Dr.&Gateway Dr. 5 06 1 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\03-EAPC PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6.1-19 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2023) PM Peak Hour 4: Gerald Ford Dr. & Gateway Dr. Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(veh/h) 96 571 554 126 148 64 Future Volume(veh/h) 96 571 554 126 148 64 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 104 621 602 137 161 70 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 183 2112 2255 700 544 484 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.59 0.44 0.44 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 3647 5274 1585 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 104 621 602 137 161 70 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1702 1585 1781 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 5.0 7.7 6.7 4.8 6.2 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.0 7.7 6.7 4.8 6.2 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 183 2112 2255 700 544 484 V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.29 0.27 0.20 0.30 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 386 2112 2255 700 544 484 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 38.5 9.0 15.9 15.4 23.9 22.7 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.7 0.4 0.3 0.6 1.4 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.2 2.4 2.3 1.6 2.6 3.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.2 9.3 16.2 16.0 25.2 23.3 LnGrp LOS D A B B C C Approach Vol,veh/h 725 739 231 Approach Delay,s/veh 13.9 16.2 24.7 Approach LOS B B C Timer-Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 58.0 32.0 13.8 44.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 53.5 27.5 19.5 29.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+I1),s 9.7 8.2 7.0 8.7 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 3.9 0.6 0.2 3.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.4 HCM 6th LOS B Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\03-EAPC PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 6.1-20 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis APPENDIX 7.1: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 13831-04 TA Report.docx V RBAN CROSSROaoS Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 13831-04 TA Report.docx URBAN CRassRoaos Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040NP AM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili tt Ili ttt lc 4 fir 4 fir Traffic Volume(vph) 23 920 42 11 917 34 126 5 32 65 5 43 Future Volume(vph) 23 920 42 11 917 34 126 5 32 65 5 43 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 190 0 150 110 150 150 0 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Link Speed(mph) 55 55 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 2229 1025 655 646 Travel Time(s) 27.6 12.7 14.9 14.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\04-2040NP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.1-1 HCM 6th TWSC 2040NP AM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 38.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft+ r r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 23 920 42 11 917 34 126 5 32 65 5 43 Future Vol,veh/h 23 920 42 11 917 34 126 5 32 65 5 43 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 190 - - 150 - 110 - - 150 - - 50 Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 25 1000 46 12 997 37 137 5 35 71 5 47 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1034 0 0 1046 0 0 1498 2131 523 1574 2117 499 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1073 1073 - 1021 1021 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 425 1058 - 553 1096 - Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - 4.14 - - 6.99 6.54 6.94 6.99 6.54 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 7.34 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.74 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 - - 2.22 - - 3.67 4.02 3.32 3.67 4.02 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 377 - - 661 - - -104 49 499 93 50 442 Stage 1 - - - - - - 230 295 - 197 312 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 545 300 - 470 287 - Platoon blocked,% - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 377 - - 661 - - -79 45 499 74 46 442 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - -79 45 - 74 46 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 215 276 - 184 306 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 470 295 - 400 268 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0.4 0.1 $418.4 147.2 HCM LOS F F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity(veh/h) 77 499 377 - - 661 - - 71 442 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.849 0.07 0.066 - - 0.018 - - 1.072 0.106 HCM Control Delay(s) $517.5 12.8 15.2 - - 10.5 - - 229 14.1 HCM Lane LOS F B C - - B - - F B HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 12.5 0.2 0.2 - - 0.1 - - 5.7 0.4 Notes -:Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800\13831\Synchro\04-2040N P AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.1-2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040NP AM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. WITH IMPROVEMENTS Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili tt Ili ttt lc 4 fir 4 lc Traffic Volume(vph) 23 920 42 11 917 34 126 5 32 65 5 43 Future Volume(vph) 23 920 42 11 917 34 126 5 32 65 5 43 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 190 0 150 110 150 150 0 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 2229 1025 655 646 Travel Time(s) 27.6 12.7 14.9 14.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 8 4 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 8 8 8 4 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 12.0 51.0 10.0 49.0 49.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Total Split(%) 13.3% 56.7% 11.1% 54.4% 54.4% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% 32.2% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle:60 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy.&Gerald Ford Dr. ■I 1 0 i 02 R) 04 05 06 'R' 03 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\104-2040NP AM-IMP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.1-3 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040NP AM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. WITH IMPROVEMENTS Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili tt Ili ttt lc 4 fir 4 fir Traffic Volume(veh/h) 23 920 42 11 917 34 126 5 32 65 5 43 Future Volume(veh/h) 23 920 42 11 917 34 126 5 32 65 5 43 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 25 1000 46 12 997 37 137 5 35 71 5 47 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 46 1949 90 26 2818 875 79 2 431 77 3 431 Arrive On Green 0.05 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.55 0.55 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 3459 159 1781 5106 1585 0 6 1585 0 11 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 25 514 532 12 997 37 142 0 35 76 0 47 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1842 1781 1702 1585 6 0 1585 11 0 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 9.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 9.8 1.0 24.5 0.0 1.5 24.5 0.0 2.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.93 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 46 1001 1038 26 2818 875 80 0 431 80 0 431 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.51 0.51 0.47 0.35 0.04 1.77 0.00 0.08 0.95 0.00 0.11 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 148 1001 1038 109 2818 875 80 0 431 80 0 431 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 42.2 0.0 0.0 44.0 11.2 9.2 44.5 0.0 24.4 44.1 0.0 24.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 8.7 1.7 1.6 12.7 0.3 0.1 393.2 0.0 0.4 86.4 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 3.1 0.3 10.5 0.0 0.6 3.6 0.0 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.9 1.7 1.6 56.7 11.6 9.3 437.8 0.0 24.7 130.5 0.0 25.1 LnGrp LOS D A A E B A F A C F A C Approach Vol,veh/h 1071 1046 177 123 Approach Delay,s/veh 2.8 12.0 356.1 90.2 Approach LOS A B F F Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 5.8 55.2 29.0 6.8 54.2 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.5 46.5 24.5 7.5 44.5 24.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+l1),s 2.6 2.0 26.5 3.2 11.8 26.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.1 HCM 6th LOS D Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\104-2040NP AM-IMP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.1-4 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040NP AM Peak Hour 2: Portola Rd. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j '11"i ttt lc '1'j 11t lc vi 11t lc Traffic Volume(vph) 104 633 320 100 745 340 129 856 100 194 791 97 Future Volume(vph) 104 633 320 100 745 340 129 856 100 194 791 97 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 160 0 260 300 245 205 255 200 Storage Lanes 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 50 Link Distance(ft) 550 725 746 450 Travel Time(s) 6.8 9.0 9.2 6.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 14.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 16.7 36.8 14.6 34.7 34.7 14.6 24.0 24.0 14.6 24.0 24.0 Total Split(%) 18.6% 40.9% 16.2% 38.6% 38.6% 16.2% 26.7% 26.7% 16.2% 26.7% 26.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle:80 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 2: Portola Rd.&Gerald Ford Dr. Tiro R02 ' '. 03 T 04 5 06 'R'. 07 O3 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\04-2040NP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.1-5 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040NP AM Peak Hour 2: Portola Rd. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j 1 ttt lc '1'j 11t lc vi 11t lc Traffic Volume(veh/h) 104 633 320 100 745 340 129 856 100 194 791 97 Future Volume(veh/h) 104 633 320 100 745 340 129 856 100 194 791 97 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 109 666 337 105 784 0 136 901 105 204 833 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 185 845 427 356 1885 371 1106 343 382 1122 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.37 0.00 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.22 0.00 SatFlow,veh/h 1781 2284 1155 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 109 518 485 105 784 0 136 901 105 204 833 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1662 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 5.3 23.3 23.4 2.5 10.3 0.0 3.3 15.1 5.0 5.0 13.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.3 23.3 23.4 2.5 10.3 0.0 3.3 15.1 5.0 5.0 13.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 185 657 615 356 1885 371 1106 343 382 1122 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.79 0.79 0.29 0.42 0.37 0.81 0.31 0.53 0.74 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 241 657 615 388 1885 388 1106 343 388 1122 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 38.5 25.2 25.2 37.3 21.2 0.0 37.3 33.5 29.6 37.8 32.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 3.0 9.3 9.9 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.6 6.6 2.3 1.4 4.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.3 10.3 9.7 1.0 3.7 0.0 1.3 6.4 2.0 2.1 5.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.5 34.5 35.1 37.8 21.8 0.0 37.9 40.1 31.9 39.2 37.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS DCDDC D D CD D Approach Vol,veh/h 1112 889 A 1142 1037 A Approach Delay,s/veh 35.5 23.7 39.1 37.6 Approach LOS D C D D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 13.8 37.8 14.2 24.3 13.8 37.7 14.4 24.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 10.1 32.3 10.1 19.5 12.2 30.2 10.1 19.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+l1),s 4.5 25.4 5.3 15.7 7.3 12.3 7.0 17.1 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 3.2 0.1 1.8 0.1 4.4 0.2 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for[WBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\04-2040NP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.1-6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040NP AM Peak Hour 4: Gerald Ford Dr. & Gateway Dr. 4- Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(vph) 40 858 845 114 152 68 Future Volume(vph) 40 858 845 114 152 68 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 200 125 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 Link Distance(ft) 706 2229 633 Travel Time(s) 8.8 27.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Detector Phase 5 2 6 6 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split(s) 14.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 18.0 55.0 37.0 37.0 35.0 35.0 Total Split(%) 20.0% 61.1% 41.1% 41.1% 38.9% 38.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle:60 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Gerald Ford Dr.&Gateway Dr. 0 2 V. 41%11.04 .04 4- 5 06 V. Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\04-2040NP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.1-7 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040NP AM Peak Hour 4: Gerald Ford Dr. & Gateway Dr. Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(veh/h) 40 858 845 114 152 68 Future Volume(veh/h) 40 858 845 114 152 68 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 43 933 918 124 165 74 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 130 1994 2236 694 604 537 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.56 0.44 0.44 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 3647 5274 1585 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 43 933 918 124 165 74 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1702 1585 1781 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 2.1 14.1 11.1 4.3 6.1 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.1 14.1 11.1 4.3 6.1 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 130 1994 2236 694 604 537 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.47 0.41 0.18 0.27 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 267 1994 2236 694 604 537 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 39.6 11.8 17.3 15.4 21.7 20.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.5 0.8 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.9 4.6 3.9 1.5 2.5 3.2 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.1 12.5 17.9 16.0 22.8 21.2 LnGrp LOS D B B B C C Approach Vol,veh/h 976 1042 239 Approach Delay,s/veh 13.8 17.7 22.3 Approach LOS B B C Timer-Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 55.0 35.0 11.1 43.9 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 50.5 30.5 13.5 32.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+I1),s 16.1 8.1 4.1 13.1 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 6.5 0.6 0.0 5.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.5 HCM 6th LOS B Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\04-2040NP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.1-8 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040NP PM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili tt Ili ttt lc 4 fir 4 fir Traffic Volume(vph) 48 1035 137 35 1248 50 82 5 21 39 5 25 Future Volume(vph) 48 1035 137 35 1248 50 82 5 21 39 5 25 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 190 0 150 110 150 150 0 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Link Speed(mph) 55 55 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 2229 1025 655 646 Travel Time(s) 27.6 12.7 14.9 14.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\04-2040NP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.1-9 HCM 6th TWSC 2040NP PM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 67.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft+ r r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 48 1035 137 35 1248 50 82 5 21 39 5 25 Future Vol,veh/h 48 1035 137 35 1248 50 82 5 21 39 5 25 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 190 - - 150 - 110 - - 150 - - 50 Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 52 1125 149 38 1357 54 89 5 23 42 5 27 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1411 0 0 1274 0 0 1925 2791 637 2102 2811 679 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1304 1304 - 1433 1433 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 621 1487 - 669 1378 - Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - 4.14 - - 6.99 6.54 6.94 6.99 6.54 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 7.34 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.74 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 - - 2.22 - - 3.67 4.02 3.32 3.67 4.02 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 247 - - 541 - - -53 18 420 -40 18 338 Stage 1 - - - - - - 166 229 - 100 198 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 414 186 - 401 210 - Platoon blocked,% - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 247 - - 541 - - -27 13 420 -21 13 338 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - -27 13 - -21 13 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 131 181 - 79 184 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 344 173 - 290 166 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0.9 0.3 $ 1270.1 $668 HCM LOS F F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity(veh/h) 25 420 247 - - 541 - - 20 338 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 3.783 0.054 0.211 - - 0.07 - - 2.391 0.08 HCM Control Delay(s) $1573.3 14.1 23.4 - - 12.2 - $-1038.1 16.6 HCM Lane LOS F BC - - B - - F C HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 11.7 0.2 0.8 - - 0.2 - - 6.3 0.3 Notes -:Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800\13831\Synchro\04-2040N P PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.1-10 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040NP PM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. WITH IMPROVEMENTS Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili tt Ili ttt lc 4 fir 4 lc Traffic Volume(vph) 48 1035 137 35 1248 50 82 5 21 39 5 25 Future Volume(vph) 48 1035 137 35 1248 50 82 5 21 39 5 25 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 190 0 150 110 150 150 0 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 2229 1025 655 646 Travel Time(s) 27.6 12.7 14.9 14.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 8 4 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 8 8 8 4 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 12.0 54.0 12.0 54.0 54.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split(%) 13.3% 60.0% 13.3% 60.0% 60.0% 26.7% 26.7% 26.7% 26.7% 26.7% 26.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle:60 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy.&Gerald Ford Dr. Tiro 1 432 T.'. T 04 5 06 W. 11'03 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\104-2040NP PM-IMP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.1-11 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040NP PM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. WITH IMPROVEMENTS Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili tt Ili ttt lc 4 fir 4 fir Traffic Volume(veh/h) 48 1035 137 35 1248 50 82 5 21 39 5 25 Future Volume(veh/h) 48 1035 137 35 1248 50 82 5 21 39 5 25 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 52 1125 149 38 1357 54 89 5 23 42 5 27 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 72 1891 250 61 3027 940 78 2 343 76 5 343 Arrive On Green 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.59 0.59 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 3155 417 1781 5106 1585 0 11 1585 0 23 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 52 632 642 38 1357 54 94 0 23 47 0 27 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1795 1781 1702 1585 11 0 1585 23 0 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.9 13.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.9 13.3 1.3 19.5 0.0 1.0 19.5 0.0 1.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.89 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 72 1065 1076 61 3027 940 80 0 343 81 0 343 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.59 0.60 0.63 0.45 0.06 1.17 0.00 0.07 0.58 0.00 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 148 1065 1076 148 3027 940 80 0 343 81 0 343 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.87 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 40.9 0.0 0.0 42.9 10.2 7.7 44.4 0.0 28.0 43.0 0.0 28.1 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 11.2 2.1 2.1 10.1 0.5 0.1 154.2 0.0 0.4 27.2 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.2 0.6 0.6 1.0 3.9 0.4 5.2 0.0 0.4 1.6 0.0 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.1 2.1 2.1 53.0 10.6 7.8 198.6 0.0 28.4 70.1 0.0 28.5 LnGrp LOS D A A D B A F A C E A C Approach Vol,veh/h 1326 1449 117 74 Approach Delay,s/veh 4.1 11.6 165.1 55.0 Approach LOS A B F D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 7.6 58.4 24.0 8.1 57.9 24.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 7.5 49.5 19.5 7.5 49.5 19.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+l1),s 3.9 2.0 21.5 4.6 15.3 21.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.4 HCM 6th LOS B Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\104-2040NP PM-IMP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.1-12 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040NP PM Peak Hour 2: Portola Rd. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j '11"i ttt lc '1'j 11t lc vi 11t lc Traffic Volume(vph) 185 696 148 113 692 340 280 1011 180 300 668 388 Future Volume(vph) 185 696 148 113 692 340 280 1011 180 300 668 388 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 160 0 260 300 245 205 255 200 Storage Lanes 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 50 Link Distance(ft) 550 725 746 450 Travel Time(s) 6.8 9.0 9.2 6.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 14.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 19.0 34.1 14.5 29.6 29.6 15.0 26.0 26.0 15.4 26.4 26.4 Total Split(%) 21.1% 37.9% 16.1% 32.9% 32.9% 16.7% 28.9% 28.9% 17.1% 29.3% 29.3% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle:80 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 2: Portola Rd.&Gerald Ford Dr. I col 02 'R') 03 ■ 04 05 06 'R'. 07 03 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\04-2040NP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.1-13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040NP PM Peak Hour 2: Portola Rd. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j 1 t41 lc vi 141 lc vi 141 lc Traffic Volume(veh/h) 185 696 148 113 692 340 280 1011 180 300 668 388 Future Volume(veh/h) 185 696 148 113 692 340 280 1011 180 300 668 388 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 189 710 151 115 706 0 286 1032 184 306 682 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 225 994 211 362 1630 384 1242 386 384 1242 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.34 0.34 0.10 0.32 0.00 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.11 0.24 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 2916 620 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 189 433 428 115 706 0 286 1032 184 306 682 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1759 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 9.3 19.1 19.1 2.8 9.8 0.0 7.2 17.3 8.9 7.8 10.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 9.3 19.1 19.1 2.8 9.8 0.0 7.2 17.3 8.9 7.8 10.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.35 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 225 606 599 362 1630 384 1242 386 384 1242 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.71 0.71 0.32 0.43 0.75 0.83 0.48 0.80 0.55 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 287 606 599 384 1630 403 1242 386 419 1242 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 38.4 25.8 25.9 37.3 24.2 0.0 38.8 32.3 29.2 39.0 29.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 16.0 7.0 7.1 0.5 0.8 0.0 7.0 6.5 4.2 9.7 1.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.8 8.3 8.2 1.1 3.7 0.0 3.2 7.2 3.6 3.6 4.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.4 32.9 33.0 37.8 25.0 0.0 45.8 38.8 33.3 48.7 31.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C C D C D D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 1050 821 A 1502 988 A Approach Delay,s/veh 36.8 26.8 39.5 36.8 Approach LOS D C D D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 13.9 35.2 14.5 26.4 15.9 33.2 14.5 26.4 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 10.0 29.6 10.5 21.9 14.5 25.1 10.9 21.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+l1),s 4.8 21.1 9.2 12.5 11.3 11.8 9.8 19.3 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 3.0 0.1 2.8 0.1 3.4 0.1 1.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.9 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[WBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\04-2040NP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.1-14 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040NP PM Peak Hour 4: Gerald Ford Dr. & Gateway Dr. 4- Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(vph) 98 1008 1203 135 162 66 Future Volume(vph) 98 1008 1203 135 162 66 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 200 125 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 Link Distance(ft) 706 2229 633 Travel Time(s) 8.8 27.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Detector Phase 5 2 6 6 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split(s) 14.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 19.0 60.0 41.0 41.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split(%) 21.1% 66.7% 45.6% 45.6% 33.3% 33.3% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Max Max Max Intersection Summary 11 Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle:60 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Gerald Ford Dr.&Gateway Dr. 02 V. 41".*E14 04- 5 06 'R'. 1- Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\04-2040NP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.1-15 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040NP PM Peak Hour 4: Gerald Ford Dr. & Gateway Dr. Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(veh/h) 98 1008 1203 135 162 66 Future Volume(veh/h) 98 1008 1203 135 162 66 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 107 1096 1308 147 176 72 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 184 2191 2365 734 505 449 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.62 0.46 0.46 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 3647 5274 1585 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 107 1096 1308 147 176 72 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1702 1585 1781 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 5.2 15.4 16.6 4.9 7.1 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.2 15.4 16.6 4.9 7.1 3.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 184 2191 2365 734 505 449 V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.50 0.55 0.20 0.35 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 287 2191 2365 734 505 449 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 38.5 9.6 17.4 14.3 25.6 24.2 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.9 0.8 0.9 0.6 1.9 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.2 4.7 5.7 1.7 3.0 3.2 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.4 10.4 18.4 14.9 27.5 25.0 LnGrp LOS D B B B C C Approach Vol,veh/h 1203 1455 248 Approach Delay,s/veh 13.1 18.0 26.8 Approach LOS B B C Timer-Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 60.0 30.0 13.8 46.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 55.5 25.5 14.5 36.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+I1),s 17.4 9.1 7.2 18.6 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 8.2 0.6 0.1 8.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.7 HCM 6th LOS B Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\04-2040NP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.1-16 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis APPENDIX 7.2: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 13831-04 TA Report.docx V RBAN CROSSROaoS Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis This Page Intentionally Left Blank 13831-04 TA Report.docx URBAN CRassRoaos Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040WP AM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili tt Ili ttt lc 4 fir 4 fir Traffic Volume(vph) 23 920 54 26 917 34 164 5 80 65 5 43 Future Volume(vph) 23 920 54 26 917 34 164 5 80 65 5 43 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 190 0 150 110 150 150 0 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Link Speed(mph) 55 55 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 2229 1025 655 646 Travel Time(s) 27.6 12.7 14.9 14.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\05-2040WP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.2-1 HCM 6th TWSC 2040WP AM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 72.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft+ r r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 23 920 54 26 917 34 164 5 80 65 5 43 Future Vol,veh/h 23 920 54 26 917 34 164 5 80 65 5 43 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 190 - - 150 - 110 - - 150 - - 50 Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 25 1000 59 28 997 37 178 5 87 71 5 47 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1034 0 0 1059 0 0 1537 2170 530 1606 2162 499 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1080 1080 - 1053 1053 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 457 1090 - 553 1109 - Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - 4.14 - - 6.99 6.54 6.94 6.99 6.54 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 7.34 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.74 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 - - 2.22 - - 3.67 4.02 3.32 3.67 4.02 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 377 - - 653 - - -98 46 493 88 47 442 Stage 1 - - - - - - 227 293 - 187 301 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 522 289 - 470 283 - Platoon blocked,% - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 377 - - 653 - - -73 41 493 -60 42 442 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - -73 41 - -60 42 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 212 274 - 175 288 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 438 277 - 354 264 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0.4 0.3 $577.8 216.7 HCM LOS F F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity(veh/h) 71 493 377 - - 653 - - 58 442 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 2.587 0.176 0.066 - - 0.043 - - 1.312 0.106 HCM Control Delay(s) $844.8 13.9 15.2 - - 10.8 - $341.1 14.1 HCM Lane LOS F B C - - B - - F B HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 17.9 0.6 0.2 - - 0.1 - - 6.6 0.4 Notes -:Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800\13831\Synchro\05-2040WP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.2-2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040WP AM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. WITH IMPROVEMENTS Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili tt Ili ttt lc 4 fir 4 fir Traffic Volume(vph) 23 920 54 26 917 34 164 5 80 65 5 43 Future Volume(vph) 23 920 54 26 917 34 164 5 80 65 5 43 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 190 0 150 110 150 150 0 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 2229 1025 655 646 Travel Time(s) 27.6 12.7 14.9 14.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 8 4 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 8 8 8 4 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 10.0 27.0 10.0 27.0 27.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Total Split(%) 16.7% 45.0% 16.7% 45.0% 45.0% 38.3% 38.3% 38.3% 38.3% 38.3% 38.3% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:60 Actuated Cycle Length:60 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle:60 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy.&Gerald Ford Dr. o 1 R2 ' '. T 04 5 06 'R' 11'03 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\105-2040WP AM-IMP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.2-3 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040WP AM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. WITH IMPROVEMENTS Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili tt Ili ttt lc 4 fir 4 fir Traffic Volume(veh/h) 23 920 54 26 917 34 164 5 80 65 5 43 Future Volume(veh/h) 23 920 54 26 917 34 164 5 80 65 5 43 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 25 1000 59 28 997 37 178 5 87 71 5 47 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 51 1485 88 55 2238 695 118 2 489 116 4 489 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.44 0.44 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 3410 201 1781 5106 1585 0 6 1585 0 14 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 25 521 538 28 997 37 183 0 87 76 0 47 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1834 1781 1702 1585 6 0 1585 14 0 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 0.8 14.1 14.1 0.9 8.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 0.8 14.1 14.1 0.9 8.2 0.8 18.5 0.0 2.4 18.5 0.0 1.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.93 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 51 774 799 55 2238 695 120 0 489 120 0 489 V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.67 0.67 0.51 0.45 0.05 1.52 0.00 0.18 0.63 0.00 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 163 774 799 163 2238 695 120 0 489 120 0 489 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 28.7 13.5 13.5 28.6 11.8 9.7 29.7 0.0 15.2 28.9 0.0 14.8 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 6.6 4.2 4.1 7.0 0.6 0.1 273.2 0.0 0.8 22.5 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.4 4.9 5.0 0.5 2.4 0.2 10.8 0.0 0.9 1.8 0.0 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.3 17.7 17.6 35.6 12.4 9.8 302.9 0.0 16.0 51.4 0.0 15.2 LnGrp LOS D B B D B A F A B D A B Approach Vol,veh/h 1084 1062 270 123 Approach Delay,s/veh 18.1 12.9 210.5 37.6 Approach LOS B B F D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 6.4 30.6 23.0 6.2 30.8 23.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 5.5 22.5 18.5 5.5 22.5 18.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+l1),s 2.9 16.1 20.5 2.8 10.2 20.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.3 HCM 6th LOS D Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\105-2040WP AM-IMP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.2-4 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040WP AM Peak Hour 2: Portola Rd. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j '11"i ttt lc '1'j 11t lc vi 11t lc Traffic Volume(vph) 109 666 330 100 756 340 132 856 100 194 791 99 Future Volume(vph) 109 666 330 100 756 340 132 856 100 194 791 99 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 160 0 260 300 245 205 255 200 Storage Lanes 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 50 Link Distance(ft) 550 725 746 450 Travel Time(s) 6.8 9.0 9.2 6.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 14.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 17.0 36.8 14.6 34.4 34.4 14.6 24.0 24.0 14.6 24.0 24.0 Total Split(%) 18.9% 40.9% 16.2% 38.2% 38.2% 16.2% 26.7% 26.7% 16.2% 26.7% 26.7% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle:80 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 2: Portola Rd.&Gerald Ford Dr. Tiro 02 'R'. 03 T 04 5 06 'R'. 07 O3 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\05-2040WP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.2-5 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040WP AM Peak Hour 2: Portola Rd. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j 1 ttt lc '1'j 11t lc vi 11t lc Traffic Volume(veh/h) 109 666 330 100 756 340 132 856 100 194 791 99 Future Volume(veh/h) 109 666 330 100 756 340 132 856 100 194 791 99 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 115 701 347 105 796 0 139 901 105 204 833 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 187 852 421 356 1879 372 1106 343 382 1120 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.37 0.00 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.22 0.00 SatFlow,veh/h 1781 2303 1139 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 115 541 507 105 796 0 139 901 105 204 833 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1665 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 5.6 24.8 24.8 2.5 10.5 0.0 3.4 15.1 5.0 5.0 13.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.6 24.8 24.8 2.5 10.5 0.0 3.4 15.1 5.0 5.0 13.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 187 657 616 356 1879 372 1106 343 382 1120 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.82 0.82 0.29 0.42 0.37 0.81 0.31 0.53 0.74 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 247 657 616 388 1879 388 1106 343 388 1120 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 38.5 25.7 25.7 37.3 21.3 0.0 37.3 33.5 29.6 37.8 32.8 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 3.3 11.2 11.9 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.6 6.6 2.3 1.4 4.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.4 11.2 10.6 1.0 3.8 0.0 1.4 6.4 2.0 2.1 5.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.8 36.9 37.6 37.8 22.0 0.0 38.0 40.1 31.9 39.2 37.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS DDDDC D D CD D Approach Vol,veh/h 1163 901 A 1145 1037 A Approach Delay,s/veh 37.7 23.8 39.1 37.6 Approach LOS D C D D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 13.8 37.8 14.2 24.2 13.9 37.6 14.4 24.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 10.1 32.3 10.1 19.5 12.5 29.9 10.1 19.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+l1),s 4.5 26.8 5.4 15.7 7.6 12.5 7.0 17.1 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 2.8 0.1 1.8 0.1 4.4 0.2 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.1 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[WBR, SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800113831\Synchro\05-2040WP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.2-6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040WP AM Peak Hour 3: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future) & Project Dwy. II Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(vph) 86 10 3 158 53 27 Future Volume(vph) 86 10 3 158 53 27 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 298 437 655 Travel Time(s) 6.8 9.9 14.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\05-2040WP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.2-7 HCM 6th TWSC 2040WP AM Peak Hour 3: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future) & Project Dwy. Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 Traffic Vol,veh/h 86 10 3 158 53 27 Future Vol,veh/h 86 10 3 158 53 27 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 93 11 3 172 58 29 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 251 73 87 0 - 0 Stage 1 73 - - - - - Stage 2 178 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 738 989 1509 - - - Stage 1 950 - - - - - Stage 2 853 - - - - - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 737 989 1509 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 737 - - - - - Stage 1 948 - - - - - Stage 2 853 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 10.5 0.1 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 1509 - 757 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.138 - - HCM Control Delay(s) 7.4 0 10.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A A B - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.5 - - Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800\13831\Synchro\05-2040WP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.2-8 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040WP AM Peak Hour 4: Gerald Ford Dr. & Gateway Dr. 4- Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(vph) 40 869 878 119 154 68 Future Volume(vph) 40 869 878 119 154 68 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 200 125 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 Link Distance(ft) 706 2229 633 Travel Time(s) 8.8 27.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Detector Phase 5 2 6 6 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split(s) 14.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 18.0 55.0 37.0 37.0 35.0 35.0 Total Split(%) 20.0% 61.1% 41.1% 41.1% 38.9% 38.9% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle:60 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Gerald Ford Dr.&Gateway Dr. 0 2 V. 41%11.04 .04 4- 5 06 V. Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800\13831\Synchro\05-2040WP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.2-9 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040WP AM Peak Hour 4: Gerald Ford Dr. & Gateway Dr. Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(veh/h) 40 869 878 119 154 68 Future Volume(veh/h) 40 869 878 119 154 68 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 43 945 954 129 167 74 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 130 1994 2236 694 604 537 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.56 0.44 0.44 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 3647 5274 1585 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 43 945 954 129 167 74 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1702 1585 1781 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 2.1 14.3 11.6 4.5 6.2 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.1 14.3 11.6 4.5 6.2 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 130 1994 2236 694 604 537 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.47 0.43 0.19 0.28 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 267 1994 2236 694 604 537 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 39.6 11.8 17.5 15.5 21.7 20.6 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 1.5 0.8 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 0.9 4.7 4.1 1.5 2.5 3.2 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.1 12.6 18.1 16.1 22.8 21.2 LnGrp LOS D B B B C C Approach Vol,veh/h 988 1083 241 Approach Delay,s/veh 13.9 17.8 22.3 Approach LOS B B C Timer-Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 55.0 35.0 11.1 43.9 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 50.5 30.5 13.5 32.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+I1),s 16.3 8.2 4.1 13.6 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 6.6 0.6 0.0 6.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.6 HCM 6th LOS B Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800\13831\Synchro\05-2040WP AM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.2-10 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040WP PM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili tt Ili ttt lc 4 lc 4 lc Traffic Volume(vph) 48 1035 175 83 1248 50 105 5 50 39 5 25 Future Volume(vph) 48 1035 175 83 1248 50 105 5 50 39 5 25 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 190 0 150 110 150 150 0 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Link Speed(mph) 55 55 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 2229 1025 655 646 Travel Time(s) 27.6 12.7 14.9 14.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\05-2040WP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.2-11 HCM 6th TWSC 2040WP PM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 161.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft+ r r r Traffic Vol,veh/h 48 1035 175 83 1248 50 105 5 50 39 5 25 Future Vol,veh/h 48 1035 175 83 1248 50 105 5 50 39 5 25 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 190 - - 150 - 110 - - 150 - - 50 Veh in Median Storage,# - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 52 1125 190 90 1357 54 114 5 54 42 5 27 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1411 0 0 1315 0 0 2049 2915 658 2206 2956 679 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1324 1324 - 1537 1537 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 725 1591 - 669 1419 - Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - 4.14 - - 6.99 6.54 6.94 6.99 6.54 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 7.34 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.74 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 - - 2.22 - - 3.67 4.02 3.32 3.67 4.02 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 247 - - 522 - - -44 15 407 -34 14 338 Stage 1 - - - - - - 161 224 - 85 176 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 357 166 - 401 201 - Platoon blocked,% - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 247 - - 522 - - -16 10 407 - 13 9 338 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - 16 10 - - 13 9 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 127 177 - 67 146 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 262 137 - 266 159 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 0.9 0.8 $2330.4 $1263.1 HCM LOS F F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2 Capacity(veh/h) 16 407 247 - - 522 - - 12 338 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 7.473 0.134 0.211 - - 0.173 - - 3.986 0.08 HCM Control Delay(s) $3382.8 15.2 23.4 - - 13.3 - $-1971.4 16.6 HCM Lane LOS F C C - - B - - F C HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 15.8 0.5 0.8 - - 0.6 - - 7 0.3 Notes -:Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +:Computation Not Defined *:All major volume in platoon Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800\13831\Synchro\05-2040WP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.2-12 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040WP PM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. WITH IMPROVEMENTS Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili tt Ili ttt lc 4 lc 4 lc Traffic Volume(vph) 48 1035 175 83 1248 50 105 5 50 39 5 25 Future Volume(vph) 48 1035 175 83 1248 50 105 5 50 39 5 25 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 190 0 150 110 150 150 0 50 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 2229 1025 655 646 Travel Time(s) 27.6 12.7 14.9 14.7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 8 4 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 8 8 8 4 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 11.7 52.0 15.0 55.3 55.3 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Total Split(%) 13.0% 57.8% 16.7% 61.4% 61.4% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% 25.6% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle:65 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy.&Gerald Ford Dr. I o i 2 'R') ■ 04 05 06 'R' 03 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\105-2040WP PM-IMP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.2-13 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040WP PM Peak Hour 1: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future)/Rembrandt Pkwy. & Gerald Ford Dr. WITH IMPROVEMENTS Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili tt Ili ttt lc 4 fir 4 fir Traffic Volume(veh/h) 48 1035 175 83 1248 50 105 5 50 39 5 25 Future Volume(veh/h) 48 1035 175 83 1248 50 105 5 50 39 5 25 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 52 1125 190 90 1357 54 114 5 54 42 5 27 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 72 1763 297 116 3084 957 78 2 326 76 5 326 Arrive On Green 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.06 0.60 0.60 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 3043 512 1781 5106 1585 0 9 1585 0 24 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 52 655 660 90 1357 54 119 0 54 47 0 27 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1778 1781 1702 1585 9 0 1585 24 0 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 2.6 0.0 0.0 4.5 12.9 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 2.6 0.0 0.0 4.5 12.9 1.3 18.5 0.0 2.5 18.5 0.0 1.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.89 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 72 1030 1030 116 3084 957 80 0 326 81 0 326 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.64 0.64 0.78 0.44 0.06 1.48 0.00 0.17 0.58 0.00 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 143 1030 1030 208 3084 957 80 0 326 81 0 326 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 40.9 0.0 0.0 41.4 9.6 7.3 44.6 0.0 29.4 43.1 0.0 28.9 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 11.1 2.6 2.6 10.7 0.5 0.1 273.1 0.0 1.1 27.2 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.2 0.7 0.8 2.2 3.8 0.4 7.9 0.0 1.0 1.6 0.0 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.0 2.6 2.6 52.1 10.1 7.4 317.7 0.0 30.5 70.2 0.0 29.4 LnGrp LOS D A A D B A F A C E A C Approach Vol,veh/h 1367 1501 173 74 Approach Delay,s/veh 4.5 12.5 228.1 55.3 Approach LOS A B F E Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 10.3 56.7 23.0 8.1 58.9 23.0 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 10.5 47.5 18.5 7.2 50.8 18.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+l1),s 6.5 2.0 20.5 4.6 14.9 20.5 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 10.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.0 HCM 6th LOS C Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\105-2040WP PM-IMP.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.2-14 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040WP PM Peak Hour 2: Portola Rd. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j '11"i ttt lc '1'j 11t lc vi 11t lc Traffic Volume(vph) 188 716 154 113 725 340 290 1011 180 300 668 393 Future Volume(vph) 188 716 154 113 725 340 290 1011 180 300 668 393 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 160 0 260 300 245 205 255 200 Storage Lanes 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 55 50 Link Distance(ft) 550 725 746 450 Travel Time(s) 6.8 9.0 9.2 6.1 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 8 4 Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 6 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split(s) 14.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 19.0 34.1 14.5 29.6 29.6 15.0 26.0 26.0 15.4 26.4 26.4 Total Split(%) 21.1% 37.9% 16.1% 32.9% 32.9% 16.7% 28.9% 28.9% 17.1% 29.3% 29.3% Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max None Max Max None Max Max Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle:80 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 2: Portola Rd.&Gerald Ford Dr. I col 02 'R') 03 ■ 04 05 06 'R'. 07 03 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\05-2040WP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.2-15 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040WP PM Peak Hour 2: Portola Rd. & Gerald Ford Dr. II Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "j 1 ttt lc '1'j 11t lc vi 11t lc Traffic Volume(veh/h) 188 716 154 113 725 340 290 1011 180 300 668 393 Future Volume(veh/h) 188 716 154 113 725 340 290 1011 180 300 668 393 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 192 731 157 115 740 0 296 1032 184 306 682 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 228 992 213 362 1622 384 1242 386 384 1242 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.34 0.34 0.10 0.32 0.00 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.11 0.24 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 2910 625 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 192 446 442 115 740 0 296 1032 184 306 682 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1758 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 9.5 19.9 19.9 2.8 10.4 0.0 7.5 17.3 8.9 7.8 10.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 9.5 19.9 19.9 2.8 10.4 0.0 7.5 17.3 8.9 7.8 10.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 228 606 599 362 1622 384 1242 386 384 1242 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.74 0.74 0.32 0.46 0.77 0.83 0.48 0.80 0.55 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 287 606 599 384 1622 403 1242 386 419 1242 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 38.3 26.1 26.1 37.3 24.5 0.0 38.9 32.3 29.1 39.0 29.7 0.0 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 16.4 7.8 7.9 0.5 0.9 0.0 8.5 6.5 4.2 9.7 1.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.9 8.8 8.7 1.1 3.9 0.0 3.4 7.2 3.6 3.6 4.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.8 33.9 34.0 37.8 25.4 0.0 47.4 38.8 33.3 48.7 31.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS D C C D C D D C D C Approach Vol,veh/h 1080 855 A 1512 988 A Approach Delay,s/veh 37.7 27.1 39.8 36.8 Approach LOS D C D D Timer-Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 13.9 35.2 14.5 26.4 16.0 33.1 14.5 26.4 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 10.0 29.6 10.5 21.9 14.5 25.1 10.9 21.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+l1),s 4.8 21.9 9.5 12.5 11.5 12.4 9.8 19.3 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 2.9 0.1 2.8 0.1 3.5 0.1 1.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.2 HCM 6th LOS D Notes Unsignalized Delay for[WBR,SBR]is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\05-2040WP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.2-16 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040WP PM Peak Hour 3: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future) & Project Dwy. II Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume(vph) 51 6 10 103 172 86 Future Volume(vph) 51 6 10 103 172 86 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance(ft) 298 437 655 Travel Time(s) 6.8 9.9 14.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Sign Control Stop Free Free Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\05-2040WP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.2-17 HCM 6th TWSC 2040WP PM Peak Hour 3: Rembrandt Pkwy. (Future) & Project Dwy. Intersection Int Delay,s/veh 1.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 Traffic Vol,veh/h 51 6 10 103 172 86 Future Vol,veh/h 51 6 10 103 172 86 Conflicting Peds,#/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 55 7 11 112 187 93 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 368 234 280 0 - 0 Stage 1 234 - - - - - Stage 2 134 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 632 805 1283 - - - Stage 1 805 - - - - - Stage 2 892 - - - - - Platoon blocked,% - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 626 805 1283 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 626 - - - - - Stage 1 798 - - - - - Stage 2 892 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay,s 11.2 0.7 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity(veh/h) 1283 - 641 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - 0.097 - - HCM Control Delay(s) 7.8 0 11.2 - - HCM Lane LOS A A B - - HCM 95th%tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 - - Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-140001_13800\13831\Synchro\05-2040WP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.2-18 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040WP PM Peak Hour 4: Gerald Ford Dr. & Gateway Dr. 4- Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(vph) 98 1041 1223 138 167 66 Future Volume(vph) 98 1041 1223 138 167 66 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length(ft) 200 125 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 Taper Length(ft) 90 90 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50 Link Distance(ft) 706 2229 633 Travel Time(s) 8.8 27.6 8.6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 Detector Phase 5 2 6 6 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split(s) 14.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split(s) 19.0 60.0 41.0 41.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split(%) 21.1% 66.7% 45.6% 45.6% 33.3% 33.3% _ Yellow Time(s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time(s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Max Max Max Intersection Summary 11 Area Type: Other Cycle Length:90 Actuated Cycle Length:90 Offset:0(0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT,Start of Yellow Natural Cycle:60 Control Type:Actuated-Coordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Gerald Ford Dr.&Gateway Dr. 0 2 V. 41".*E14 .04 4- 5 06 'R'. 1- Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\05-2040WP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.2-19 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040WP PM Peak Hour 4: Gerald Ford Dr. & Gateway Dr. Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations tt ttt lc Traffic Volume(veh/h) 98 1041 1223 138 167 66 Future Volume(veh/h) 98 1041 1223 138 167 66 Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 107 1132 1329 150 182 72 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,veh/h 184 2191 2365 734 505 449 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.62 0.46 0.46 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow,veh/h 1781 3647 5274 1585 1781 1585 Grp Volume(v),veh/h 107 1132 1329 150 182 72 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1781 1777 1702 1585 1781 1585 Q Serve(g s),s 5.2 16.1 17.0 5.0 7.3 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 5.2 16.1 17.0 5.0 7.3 3.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 184 2191 2365 734 505 449 V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.52 0.56 0.20 0.36 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 287 2191 2365 734 505 449 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 38.5 9.7 17.5 14.3 25.7 24.2 Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 2.9 0.9 1.0 0.6 2.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 2.2 4.9 5.8 1.7 3.1 3.2 Unsig. Movement Delay,s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.4 10.6 18.5 15.0 27.7 25.0 LnGrp LOS D B B B C C Approach Vol,veh/h 1239 1479 254 Approach Delay,s/veh 13.2 18.1 27.0 Approach LOS B B C Timer-Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 60.0 30.0 13.8 46.2 Change Period (Y+Rc),s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 55.5 25.5 14.5 36.5 Max Q Clear Time(gc+I1),s 18.1 9.3 7.2 19.0 Green Ext Time(p_c),s 8.6 0.6 0.1 8.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.8 HCM 6th LOS B Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis Synchro 10 Report C:\UXRjobs\_13600-14000\_13800\13831\Synchro\05-2040WP PM.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc. 7.2-20 7.2-21 Appendix F VMT Analysis F URBAN CROSSROADS February 11, 2021 Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 SUBJECT: PACIFIC WEST APARTMENTS VMT SCREENING ANALYSIS Dear Ms. Nicole Criste: The following vehicle miles traveled (VMT)screening analysis has been prepared for the proposed Pacific West Apartments development (Project), which is located west of Rembrandt Parkway and south of Gerald Ford Drive in the City of Palm Desert. Traffic conditions with Project land use changes are evaluated in the Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis (February 17, 2021). PROJECT OVERVIEW The Project is proposed to consist of 270 multifamily housing units. Based upon the separate traffic analysis, trips generated by the Project's proposed land uses have been estimated using trip generation rates collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. (1) The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 1,976 vehicle trip-ends per day (see Attachment A). The site is currently designated as a Town Center Neighborhood in the City's General Plan, which would allow for the Project's multifamily residential land use. BACKGROUND Changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020. To aid in this transition, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December of 2018) (Technical Advisory). (1) Based on OPR's Technical Advisory, the City of La Quinta has prepared their Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service Vehicle Miles Traveled (County Guidelines). (3) This analysis has been prepared based on the adopted County Guidelines. 13831-03 VMT.docx Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. February 11, 2021 Page 2 of 5 PROJECT SCREENING Consistent with County Guidelines, projects should be evaluated via available screening criteria based on the location / project type to determine if a presumption of a less than significant transportation impact can be made.The following project screening thresholds were selected for review based on their applicability for the proposed Project: • Small Projects • Projects Near High Quality Transit • Map-Based Screening A land use project need only meet one of the above screening thresholds to result in a less than significant impact. SMALL PROJECTS SCREENING County Guidelines identify various small projects criteria, such as projects with trip generation less than 110 trips per day per the ITE Manual. For Multi Family Residential Housing projects, low rise projects less than or equal to 147 Dwelling Units are considered small projects.' The Project includes 270 Multi Family dwelling units, which is more than indicated in the small project criteria and small project screening is not applicable. The Small Project screening criteria is not met. PROJECTS NEAR HIGH QUALITY TRANSIT SCREENING Consistent with guidance identified in the Technical Advisory, projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e., within 1/2 mile of an existing"major transit stop"2 or an existing stop along a "high-quality transit corridor') may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The study area is currently served by the SunLine Transit Agency, but bus service is outside the immediate Project vicinity. Based on the current transit in the study area, the Project site is not located within % mile of an existing major transit stop, nor along a high-quality transit corridor. The Projects Near High Quality Transit screening criteria is not met. County Guidelines page 19. 2 Pub. Resources Code,§21064.3("`Major transit stop' means a site containing an existing rail transit station,a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service,or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods."). 3 Pub. Resources Code,§21155 ("For purposes of this section,a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours."). 13831-03 VMT.docx ('�1 URBAN CROSSROADS 2 Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. February 11, 2021 Page 3 of 5 MAP-BASED SCREENING The Technical Advisory notes that "residential and office projects that locate in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility), will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT."4 Map-based screening is performed for residential and office developments, per the County Guidelines. A Project is presumed to have a less-than-significant impact if the area of development is under the threshold as shown on the screening map. This map-based screening eliminates the need for complex analyses by allowing existing VMT data to serve as a basis for the screening of smaller residential and office developments. Map-based screening is performed using the map titled: RIVTAM Model (2012) Daily Residential Home Based VMT per Capita Comparison to Riverside County Average, which indicates it is based upon the County average. The map utilizes the sub-regional Riverside Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM)to measure current VMT performance within individual TAZ's and compares them to the applicable impact threshold (e.g., VMT per employee for office or industrial land uses and VMT per capita for residential land uses).The County Guidelines define VMT per Capita as the sum of VMT for personal motorized trips made by all residents of a development project, divided by the total number of residents of the project. The County Guidelines document the procedures for VMT calculations in Appendix E, where residential VMT is based upon combining the production VMT for all the Home-Based trip purposes. These home- based trip calculations involve extracting peak and off-peak person trip matrices after the mode choice step of the RIVTAM. Trip purposes include Home Based Work Direct (HBWD), Home Based Work Strategic (HBWS), Home Based Other All (HBOALL), Home Based Shopping (HBSH), Home Based Serve Passenger(HBSP), Home Based School (HBSC),and Home Based College University(HBCU). These person trip purposes include Drive Alone trips, Carpool 2, and Carpool 3+ person trips, which are factored by vehicle occupancy and multiplied by their respective skim lengths to determine VMT for internal trips. Exhibit A shows the Project area on the County's VMT map combined with an overlay of the RIVTAM Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs). The Project is located within RIVTAM TAZ 4672, which experiences less than the County average VMT/ Capita. For projects that are found to reside in a low VMT generating TAZ, the analyst is also required to verify that the underlying land use assumptions contained in the low VMT generating TAZ are consistent with the proposed development project. Urban Crossroads reviewed the land use assumptions contained within the Project TAZ (TAZ 4672), which were found to be consistent with the Project's residential land use.The Project located within a low VMT-generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact. The Project is eligible to be screened out based on map-based screening criteria. The Map-Based screening threshold is met. 4 Technical Advisory: page 12. 13831-03 VMT.docx ('�1 URBAN CROSSROADS 3 Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. February 11, 2021 Page 4 of 5 CONCLUSION Based on our review of applicable VMT screening thresholds, the Project was found to meet the Map- Based screening criteria as described in the County Guidelines. As such, additional VMT analysis is not required. If you have any questions, please contact us at (949) 375-2435 for John or (714) 585-0574 for Marlie. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. /.4.,. k'...._.' L-164,E1A--e /04=-,,,-) John Kain, AICP Marlie Whiteman, PE Principal Senior Associate 13831-03 VMT.docx ('�1 URBAN CROSSROADS 4 Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. February 11, 2021 Page 5 of 5 REFERENCES 1. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. 10th Edition. 2017. 2. Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. State of California : s.n., December 2018. 3. County of Riverside. Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service Vehicle Miles Traveled. County of Riverside : s.n., December 2020. 13831-03 VMT.docx L1P URBAN CROSSROADS 5 Palm Desert Apartments Focused Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMT)Analysis EXHIBIT A: DAILY RESIDENTIAL HOME BASED VMT PER CAPITA COMPARISON TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVERAGE r////://-'1,7/ • 46607 /!i k 4674 1164.1 10 oti q 4648 t y's90 4694 W \ 4661 a \ w o� e z �QP J GERALD FORD DR SI E 4672 > 0 4682 cc 0 4651 Source: Esri, Maxar,Geckye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS,AerorlD, IGN,and the GIS User Community LEGEND VMT L___I PALM DESERT APARTMENTS LESS THAN COUNTY AVERAGE RIVTAM TAZ ENCOMPASSING 0 TO 15%OVER THE COUNTY AVERAGE PALM DESERT APARTMENTS PROJECT RIVTAM TAZ //� NO DATA AVAILABLE 13831-01-TAZ VMT.mxd i _'URBAN iL ..rrr CROSSRQADS 6 ATTACHMENT A 13831-03 VMT.docx Palm Desert Apartments Focused Traffic Analysis TABLE 1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Trip Generation Rates' ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Code Quantity2 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Multifamily Housing(Low-Rise) 220 270 DU 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32 Trip Generation Results ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Code Quantity2 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Multifamily Housing(Low-Rise) 220 270 DU 30 ' 95 125 95 57 152 1,976 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE),Trip Generation Manual,10th Edition(2017). 2 DU=Dwelling Unit C:i UXRjobsL13600-14000L13800i13831\Exceli(13831-TG.xlsx]Trip Gen URBAN CROSSROADS A-1 .r .. • CITY Of POEM DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE beP� PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-25]R `:�� TEL: 760 346-0611 info C5lcityofpalmdesert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP/CUP 21-0004 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY PACIFIC WEST COMMUNITIES, INC, FOR THE APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND A PRECISE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 269 APARTMENT UNITS, INCLUDING CLUBHOUSE FACILITY AND RECREATIONAL AMENITIES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF GERALD FORD DRIVE AND REMBRANDT PARKWAY. The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has reviewed and considered the proposed project and has determined that any potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level and a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared for this project. Project Location/Description: Project Location: The south side of Gerald Ford Drive west of Rembrandt Parkway and immediately east of the Riverside County Sheriffs Station. Project Description: The proposed project will result in the development of 269 dwelling units on an undeveloped 12-acre site, located at the southwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Rembrandt Parkway. The project will provide 100 percent affordable multi-family apartment units for lower-income households. The project consists consist of 14 two- and three-story buildings. A community clubhouse and fitness center are proposed as part of a two-story apartment building in the east-central portion of the site. Vehicular access to the site is provided along Rembrandt Parkway. Street improvements include the construction of half-street improvements plus a 12- foot travel lane for Rembrandt Parkway along the project frontage and fair share contributions for the signalization of the intersection of Gerald Ford Drive and Rembrandt Parkway. Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of the project to the City Council. Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on June 15, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. via Zoom. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with the City's emergency protocols for social distancing. Options for remote participation will be listed on the Posted Agenda for the meeting at: https://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/committees-and- commissions/planning-commission-information-center. Comment Period: The public comment period for this project is from June 4, 2021, to June 15, 2021. Public Review: The plans and related documents are available for public review Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. by contacting the project planner, Mr. Nick Melloni. Please submit written comments to the Land Development (Planning/Engineering) Division. If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to the Planning Commission hearing. All comments and any questions should be directed to: Nick Melloni, Associate Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 346-0611, Extension 479 nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org PUBLISH: DESERT SUN ERIC CEJA, SECRETARY June 4, 2021 Palm Desert Planning Commission CITY OF PALM DESERT N. 43�-� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION � MINUTES v i h I TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2021 — 12:30 P.M. ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Van Vliet called the meeting to order at 12:33 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Chris Van Vliet, Chair X 5 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 4 1 Allan Levin X 5 Michael McAuliffe X 5 Jim McIntosh X 4 1 John Vuksic X 4 1 Also Present: Eric Ceja, Deputy Director of Development Services Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Nick Melloni, Associate Planner Christina Canales, Land Development Technician Melinda Gonzalez, Management Specialist I III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Deputy Director of Development Services, Eric Ceja, advised the Commission there were no comments or inquiries received by email or voicemail prior to the meeting. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES of the Architectural Review Commission meeting of April 27, 2021. Rec: Approve as presented. MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 11, 2021 Upon a motion by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe, and a 5-0 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, the minutes were approved with corrections. (AYES: Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Van Vliet; NOES: None; ABSENT: Vuksic). V. CASES It should be noted, discussion on the following item can be viewed through audio or video by visiting the Architectural Review Commission Information Center website at, https://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/committees-and-commissions/architectural_ review-commission-information-center. A. FINAL DRAWINGS None B. PRELIMINARY PLANS 1. CASE NO: PP 21-0004 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval of PP 21-0004 for a 269 unit apartment project. APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: Pacific West Communities, Inc., Eagle, ID. LOCATION: APN 694-310-006, Southwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Rembrandt Parkway ZONE: PR-20 Associate Planner, Nick Melloni, presented the item. Mr. Melloni noted this item was brought before the Commission at the Architectural Review Commission meeting held April 27, 2021. He stated staff recommends approval of the project with comments from the Commission being added as conditions of approval. Mr. Melloni introduced the applicant who provided a detailed presentation on the revisions to the project. Discussion on the item ensued with Commissioners providing comments and concerns for the project. Upon a motion by Commissioner McAuliffe, seconded by Commissioner Levin, and a 3-2 vote of the Architectural Review Commission, Case No. PP 21-0004, was approved subject to the following: 1) The building entrance elements for all two and three-story buildings should be differentiated from the balcony elements; 2) The hours of operation for the dog park should be restricted to prevent adverse impacts to adjacent apartment units; 3) Colors A (SW 7138 "Lavender Wisp") and E (SW 6479 "Drizzle") of the color palette shall be revisited to better align with the desert color palette; 4) Applicant should be attentive as to how the color patterns are distributed throughout the project site; 5) All downspouts for roof element drainage shall be concealed within the building and not exposed; 6) The detail of the drip edge at the apartment 2 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 11, 2021 balconies shall be carefully considered to prevent drainage overrun over the building's vertical surfaces; 7) The final location of all fire risers and utility connections shall be coordinated so that it is concealed from direct view and conform to Fire Department requirements. Conceal all fire risers indicated to be located within the stairwells. (AYES: Levin, McAuliffe, Van Vliet; NOES: Lambell, McIntosh; ABSENT; Vuksic). C. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS None VI. COMMENTS Associate Planner, Kevin Swartz, advised the Commission as of the current meeting and moving forward, minutes will be completed in action minute format, noting this change was approved by City Council in November 2020. VII. ADJOURNMENT With the Architectural Review Commission concurrence, Chair Van Vliet adjourned the meeting at 1:55 p.m. Eric Ceja, Secretary Melinda Gonzalez, Recording Secretary 3 I ,i I I 11' I I ILL IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA I I I lI 6$4-E10-007 AL R _ 80a-340-0438r TECHNICAL SITE PLAN VACANT VACANT EX. �PeF4�lu0. RSA EX. GENERAL RAL. PLUM' EX.PROJECT BOUNDARY&LOT LINE(TYP.) I I TOWN CENTER TOWN CENTER 4 F' 0(1EV411F'ilOo0010,00 NEIOINSON00®OD / I 6T IN FUTURE SIDEWALK(BYOTHERSJ(TYP.) Ex L tJ�J4�, fit. �o& EXHIBIT DATE: JUNE 30, 2021 (r r FUTURE ROW r co v c CPA./ EID ®L �'C8.tL .rya ( \ --- / (BY OTHERS) (gYpMERsI�(ryPGURER FUTURE SIDEWALK OTHERSJ(TYP.J GUTTER REVISIONS , _ 3 j- , �__ L - _ - - � _ ---- ----- - -----_-- ------ -- - - - - - - -- -- - -------- -- -- ------ - - -- - - -- -- -- -- ---- - NO. DATE DESCRIPTION r FUTURE ROW FUTURE CURB&GU �— — � — _ _ • )\ - -- - -- 1 fBY GTHERSJ BY OTHERS1fTYP.I T. L 1 04/13/2021 ADDED PARKING TO SOUTH HALF OF MAIN ENTRY & UPDATED DATA TABLE REMBRANDT PARKWAY I I I )7I�__ ~'-- - _ 2 05/06/2021 REVISED BUILDING LAYOUT & UPDATED DATA TABLE _ \- EX.PROJECT BOUNDARY&LOT LINE(TYP.J �� _ ;' PROP.f/P t �J PROP,E/P - - �' I - _ - - - - _ - - - - - - - 3 06/30/2021 REVISED FEW AREAS OF HARDSCAPE. ADDED WALLS & UPDATED DATA TABLE �I I PROP.CIL � N G' VITALIA WAY — — — — —o. Z PROP.C/1 - - - - ai PROP.CURB d PROP.SECONDARY GATED PROP.MASONRY WALL(TYP.) M N �—M— - — III GUTTER rTyP.r 1 ( r PROP.an a GUTTER(TIP.) DATA TABLE _ _ _ fr, .., j.w I ,. . _ °', -i.� �� APPLICANT/ PACIFIC WEST COMMUNITIES. INC. N °o3�a"E vaz.a4' LAND OWNER: N 4r2323" Q - - - - - - i. ..I'~ I ; N 3d.01' r / // I ~♦4 +/ - I I ell 1 RnOK.�HIRI� r \ / I ADDRESS: 430 EAST STATE STREET,SURE 100 1 I' ' /`' \ / I I I .N10 EAGLE, IDAHO 83616 III,. v r _ \ I f 1Milr—L I l / j I # r^' I _ 1 f CONTACT: DARREN BERBERIAN TELEPHONE (208) 461-0022 fl • J,,. - I PROP. 1\ I I Z f II I I ( I I /' I Ll 1 2 - I _ �) 1.' 1 _ -- _ __ '',e -24' 't is I I' 1, I O I I RETENTION CHILDCARE FITNESS - • h 1 1. t ,� III / )- I( ,- I I I I I I i EXHIBIT PREPARER: MSA CONSULTING, INC. L I PROP. 1$ t1LZ aD� ▪ , I 1 1 • 1 u I i 1i ISF7r I Z BUILDINGO. 6 ` pE Lj?i U Oar I I ADDRESS:PROP 1 !I I rvPE'B I O ! RANCHOMIRAGE. CALIFORNIA 92370 , I @®-U ( BUILDNO14Y :( I I a 1 (2 STOR ) BUILGNO. 9 CtusHOIISE � �9�al v TYPE c' —k. ��'� I (2 STORY) I1 _ILO a5�ln I^I I_ I q (2 STORY) \ti..v� j • I CONTACT: PAUL DEPALATIS. AICP TELEPHONE {760) 320-9811 I I I I / I I O0/t�U U00ta, fT G4. ) I. .17. ,t Q,: . # I I I I I I PROP. 11 1 I -_. I I VACANT / I ; IA ;' '} o i : . BUILDING ' ' ' 1' " ' � ° °� H i 1\ SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY: INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS, INC. • 1 I • I VO39 69Tt P& I z o J i ! c 1 NO. / t^I ` +Ii,P0100➢T1$EA�MO+>'�Br' Li �! 1 ♦ / - l ( ADDRESS: 7117 ARLINGTON AVENUE,SUITE"A" IIII (ZSTORv) l — - J -- \1 . f `��� I EYsi COL Ir • r� - - -- _I ( 1 RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92503 _ I ( I ( -- -"s -J �� " '01) alL � ___----/ i - - t - - ` 1___D f1DATE OF TOPOGRAPHY: OCTOBER 26, 2016 TELEPHONE: (951j 687-4252 I� II II 'i L..L ov1 .s.',11, :c-iol : �_�� �, : ' Xf 1ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 694-s10-006 • a f I ^y •1 r 1. � I • I1IL �� I ;ROT. TRASH ENCLOSURE "' I I I II I f I� .L. ill -1 / ( Jo ` f SrDE1n�dLK _ mil` .PROP.CARPORT LEGAL DESCRIPTION: p� ` _ _ ,, _ _gm.... I' i_t -- / p _ I PLAYGROUND / �' • L. I ITYP.I II ' ' I I I IIII 7 "`' Y. I -"' - I -I t ' �- a 1 PARCEL I OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 88-1 RECORDED JUNE 1, 1988 AS INSTRUMENT u+ I J r t �� I �I _I we. )T 30' C '19' 1 - • 1 1 ~ io _I \ f NO. 1988-146461 LOCATED IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, t I II I�;I la + ` . I I r '1 _ I \ f SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN. Iil pC I I PROP.MPSONRY ,1 III I � t- hZ' I O• -I T i O' w POOL 1 • S. I P i,. OUGH -� I I I 1 - 0 I (TYP.) PROP. 1 PROP. - +R CE(TIP.) I-— LAND USE DESCRIPTION: SF ACREAGE PERCENTAGE p I ( ► I: / I I M BUILDING NO. 5 -1 BUILDING NO.8 PROP.ELECTRICAL A I 0 I I PROP. I Y___.I'11, }�y1 )_ �\ / ,I I TYPE'AI TYPE'A' • I, `i Li •TPANt'ORMER(TYP.J I-11 EXISTING GROSS ACREAGE 1.109,710 SF 25.48 AC. - III J • (35TORY) _ `I (35TORY) I I III - - I ) F >1 rI f \ a \ '! � ) 1/f PROPOSED NET ACREAGE 520,257 SF 11.94 AC. 100% _ LANDSCAPE a 'I O �- eJ� } I I I EASEMENT I I\ 61A' j'� f / V I I f \ TOTAL BUILDING AREA (GROUND FLOOR AREA) 109.379 SF 2.51 AC. 21% I I4 I II PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 1-14 101.795 SF 2.34 AC. Ui 43' 20' i \ ! I I I 1 I t �__ _ •. _ o ,A PROPOSED LEASING /CLUBHOUSE ( J 3.906 SF 0.09 AC. O I I ___I I4 7' 24( I i8' 69. ' I 70' ` r39 18' 2 q' I I d I. o - s" 1~� _--� ---r2a+ .� p • k' I (4'' ) N PROPOSED FITNESS 1,197 SF 0.03 AC. I I I 55' / t I �� 1 / \ 11 , 0 5' ; I I ('i cl / -PROPOSEDCHILDCARE 2,481 SF 0.05AC. - - p I I I I' // I r \ `—' I :.N 737IRLDING Illic fIACCESS ROADS. HARDSCAPE& PARKING 222.650 SF 5.1I AC. 43% '(I EX.ROW& - - - I F--r ( O. 13 �� • LANDSCAPE & RETENTION AREAS 188.228 SF 4.32 AC. 36% PROP. �'` STOA .III _ - - + DOG BUILDING NO. 10 ) �,I RY 1- I EX.C/L ' PROP.CURB I III 1 LH _I1{ PROP. _ �1 QII+ - �1 BUILDING DESCRIPTION: TYPE STORY • ' &GUTTER I II 1, UILDING cII �� -��`- L - -- '> S(0 "P is . 3 �. 3 STORY) .. `• 4 ` ` II : I -f ' N NO 2 ` — — �/ (3 sroaY) j 1 N RESIDENTIAL BUILDING A' 3 STORY 1 NII TYPE B Ij , (BUILDING NO{Sj.4, 5. 6. 8, 11, 12, 13) I I I (2 STORY) _ PRGR TRASH ENCLOSURE rTYP.I IO.r' -'18+ JI 2S J 18 _ B I •J. I .. (__ • I E. N PRdP CARPORT PROP. Ltzrxrcnl- h I $ RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (BUILDING NO(SJ. 1, 2, 3, 7, 14) B' 2 STORY 1 , PROP.8' I - (TYP.) TRANSFORTdfFrTYP:1- f) 9' i 1• - ` t II ` II - {1 SIDEWALK I I - -L.• T= -_- - - . - ---� ^- I I �I 1 1 ! 2 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (BUILDING NO.9) 2 STORY I I \ I, I IIII r��-- 1. -, I - F. a,Th z \ -- / ! n za. LEASING ! CLUBHOUSE AREA (BUILDING NO. 9) ,I I c I Ili I I i� - - - ! ter,r -_�� ` -- - a.' PROP.BOUNDARY d -. - - - -- - -� r~� '�� .a; s ~�) _ FITNESS AREA (BUILDING NO. 9) w I i I IC _ I-_ .I _ / n - - T LOT LINE CHILDCARE (BUILDING NO. 9) -- ' •°' F III IL `i `-PRQP.S'SIDEWALK I I r - - -- MI ( _ ONSITE PARKING DATA: UNIT PARKING RATIO PARKING% COUNT r I •7. a I' i 1 , I I III J r l- I i� i I %�I i / Ir l °� ) 1- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS - - PROP. I -- 6; / L w _ t / I -I I I. 0 :t �?` - ONE BEDROOM 131 UNITS 1.1 STALLS PER UNIT 49% 145 STALLS 1 PEDESTRIAN I �' -• I I t I a I I 1 I -Hill ( I �1 a j -- TWO BEDROOM 70 UNITS l.i STALLS PER UNI7 26% 77 STALLS 11 GATE(TYP J I I- _J I / 1 I I J aI I 1 ( I o L T - -. II_ �� ��q 0 {��` -THREE BEDROOM 68 UNITS 1.1 STALLS PER UNIT 25% 75 STALLS I III I� hZ PROP. I n I �1 11 f 1 !Iaa PROP. \�\� k -I �" I PROP. '`� 7 l TOTAL 269UNITS 100% 297STALLS BUILDING PROP. i I �3lrja BUILDING I I ,t I BUILDING MLw fi 1 (� I N0. 4 BUILDING NO. 7 —�.�' w i NO. 11 _ ( ) NO. 12 �T TYPE A' TYPE'A' -mil . • ME'A' 1YPE'A' - - III (3 STORY) (a stoRY) _ Od J TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 297 STALLS r I I ( _ I'et et. (3 STORY) I ( ^I (3 STORY) TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 100% 420 STALLS I III 1 1 !f 1vf \Jr I i j t-�i EXISTING ZONING: PLANNED COMMERCIAL (P.R.) )415' v/ I I t / 1 -1", --- la - I )+ l - ] A r1' I I I 1 1 PROPOSED ZONING: PLANNED COMMERCIAL (P.R.) I. III 22.i' J 'U_ 21 S' I8 1 4' rll3"\ 1 LI I _L7a I ILL: a.I' !8' 8' /8'• 24! J 18 ... !0. ' -I I ''#� _�1 J 11 I I I IIII / I I J 1t -1- -1' 17- R , 4 ,, EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORFOOD I ; I I I , PROP. = 1 _- - - - I f }) f \I iii ,�I I\ - - /I _ /, / PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: TOWN CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD I I 1 UIIDING - II ,1 t 11 k0. 1 F Ia J 1 ) 1 o- �1� j �' 1YPE'B' l I J'' L1 Y_ PUBLIC UTILITY PURVEYORS: Q I II I,I (2 STORY] j �, j ' J r� > = r� _` I �t 1 ! t ELECTRIC: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON {760) 324-4991 . a �J �. \ , tt) \ I �(- 1 " GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY 877 238-0092 o, PROP.7'SIDEWALK ( I 1 I I I III PROP,•CARPORT - - - _ - -- P1tOP...CARP�RT - I _ a (TYP.) ti. u w -Rat--,__ r TELEPHONE: FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS (800) 921-$101 II - 7_,-.1.-5- _ - - - -- -- __ - - WATER: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 760 398-2651 I ''- - - - - -- r r-- - -- - - :7- -7 -"Frc - -- "T '- .- �� - ( ) ,J ( I I I i ' I I 17 := 1 i �. +? r / CABLE: SPECTRUM (877) 719-3278 ( I - _I J — ' 1� `�� ` 1 1 _ ' SEWER: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (760) 398-2651 W I r" I - - PROP.RETAINING WAit II I� 1 PROP. RETAINING WALL �- v�^'oa'3a"E vo4av' Ni = USA: UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT _ (800) 227-2600 r - - -- - - -- - -- --- -- _- -- -- -. . - -- _ _ -1.'--- - • _- -- I I I w _WALL It?) Rv— - - - - JFEMA FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION: in 's WALL MT.) —EXT PROJECT"80UNDRT2Y 8"LOT'LfNE= - T - -EX:PROWel BOUNDARY atontr E_ .. III - - - - - - - - - - _- - -_ - - _ - - - - - - - -- -' I -I - - ZONE"X":AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD I I. I I I AS SHOWN ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS, J I I 8108 00-0021 COMMUNITY PANEL MAP NUMBER:06065C 1595G V ilaO TrrJT I I I IIII i - - i - -- - -- -- - - _ _ c_ 46�@=R90�D0a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I EFFECTIVE DATE: AUGUST 28. 2008 _ OBE U2EE/�9 IEX. LOB PI6v�i01, /' 03e 112 p,SyT4�PIJ TOWN CENTER _ •;C \ (' -I I ( 1 1 I 1 I ) / EX. OIEPdEMO. 0,�AMA _ - j -1- , ' _ -) I r _ I B!®4',00L�Qy0BG O®® LIQUEFACTION: MODERATE LIQUEFACTION ZONE ROAM FACILITY tl4°/ / I€1% r2L000000G. : I• ft? 1 WBftlORJwls K IC]D COMPR�d (per) SCHOOL DISTRICT: PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED Au 'Q1 , I EX. ZS�.IIOi+JITT, o I I I I I I I I NOTES: 1. THIS MAP DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ENTIRE CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP OF THE Iw I LAND DIVIDER. I Ili t I , I s ' I L Y J' I- Y I (_ - -f I� I -I I I 2. THERE ARE NO EXISTING DWELLINGS, BUILDINGS. OR OTHER STRUCTURES KNOWN ON I I i I iI THIS PROPERTY. • I EX. SHERIFF STATION I IIIII _ I I I I Ill I9 ) ! I I 4C)R 0' 40' 80' 120' 160' = = a a la = = = a a a SCALE 1 "=40' GERALD FORD DRIVE (- - - - / , , , BLDG. f 5 • I BLDG-;--1 BLDG.3 EX.PROJECT \ L1 , iU 11 I -L IIr J r n_ _ BOUNDARY .,: \ N. I,EX. Iz t Jt Il I II II ), i L� - • - R/W a EX. PROJECT • i rJ(11.1! I 1 . !` I \\ R/W 110'(EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS) BOUNDARY 20' I' _ ! - I _ - ' II PROP.LANDSCAPE EASEMENT IT. 1I I, - \ _ 12' _ 43' 435 12' I / 1I SLOG.IJ .' 1 I N. \ L^9 ►� �I - =tJ.�u-��� - -�-� TetraZIMED \N. �'1'4� BLDG._ 1 w ♦ •P5 ♦ ORO EX. 20' 1J1' 18' 1J1' 20' PROP. ;^I II I IIII _ f a ]. I �41a`9UOa0®8 C \MEANDERING .}. }. ���}}},,,... ..I•• MEANDERING I I ,�I. GIs r �G•1 w r I ' \SIDEWALK I ^I EX. RAISED MEDIAN I I SIDEWALK s, _�, I J-I'11 I I ,., a I1, . I 1-i n - n I u1 1lu u � BLDG. Li.tl;1Z1 wr l \ III M _ I _ .- I IIi 11 Ij I I 11i s _ J 1 ! I II.L : - - =I JII IIILLL11. L I1.L..I ' \__ - - ! I - 11ill 'll�'71.'"111-III III ' 11 TIT-III' II• �_ — I.; j 2 N ------ I 1-1:11 1I1 IBLDG. 1 L EX.CURB a GUTTER EX.BARRIER CURB- EX.BARRIER CURB E CURS a GUTt ER - %,-- it SECTION A-A F. a N. Tn�.tl17' (�LI.I 1 1, - tN. GERALD FORD DRIVE II I - N. J [�±ate ♦ • (BALANCED ARTERIAL/PUBLIC ROAD) L . - I GERALD \ v N.T.S. Cl I I-I. 't I I � --'1 BLDG. FORD DRIVE I N 0 t t: :: I ( BLDG. • SITE • I ♦ N. EX.PROJECT , , BLDG. �,� IO loll � ' BOUNDARY I \ * I II -- Ir+ Z INDEX MAP . i;Tzgiltt: .=�-�Ctiifr . HIM I I U1l.LtLCW1 1I --�-- j'1nun o (� N.T.S. hJ _ . . ��� _ _ --___ T 1 c : : - 51 Until C: - ) I c ' - ' - Ai' O GTYOF �. W J +' I 1 VICINITY MAP d PALM DESERT \ \ Lu I U BLDG. , , eLJ pG. �� L� I N.T.S. : t Y a 12 L ,. 13 I J -.LL, BLOG.IJ / O c LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS Ex.PROJECT BOUNDARY I o M - -- EXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONS t T 1J 1_,_ � _ _.I FRANK SlNATRA DRIVE U LEI EAST _ EXISTING CONTOURS (Ni NORTH -- _.• _ - 2 (s) SOUTH c / \ EXISTING EASEMENT DELTA (WI WEST 6 X A.C. ASPHALT CONCRETE `PROP. PROJECT BOUNDARY EXISTING CABLE AC ACREAGE o, APN ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER EXISTING IRRIGATION DRAIN LINE BNDRY BOUNDARY - - EXISTING EASEMENT C/L CENTERLINE lgPKI w EXISTING ELECTRIC C&G CURB AND GUTTER 6�4-�U0-®0� E/P EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING GAS ESMT, EASEMENT SITE PLAN CREATED BY: iti al .., EXISTING IRRIGATION EX. EXISTING AO ACHITECTS MAX. MAXIMUM EXISTING 101 LINE M.B, MAP BOOK A EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT MIN. MINIMUM EXISTING TELEPHONE N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE TO BE ADJUSTED WITH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BEFORE NO. NUMBER FINAL CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ARE PULLED Q' EXISTING OVERHEAD TELEPHONE OS/H OVERHEADNSPACE _ _ 4 OS/PP OPEN /PARK$ „ EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY PG. PAGE P/L PROPERTY LINE :z EXISTING SEWER PROP, PROPOSED I AO u EXISTING SEWER FORCE MAIN P.U.E PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT EXISTING WATER R RADIUS u Architecture. EXISTING PROJECT BOUNDARY R/W RIGHT OF R-L LOW WAY a APEI Design. o SF SQUARE FEET PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY I 8041-31O-002 Relationships. `V — - - — PROPOSED AND EXISTING CENTER LINE STD. STANDARD TYP. TYPICAL O PROPOSED CURB UG UNDERGROUND a m — — — — — — PROPOSED EASEMENT PROPOSED LOT LINE I IN COLLABORATION WITH: a c PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY 0PROPOSED PARKING$TAUS I MSA CONSULTING, INC. a D > PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING> LAND SURVEYING c © Copyright 2021 g 34200 Bob Hope Drive. Rancho Mirage. CA 92270 MSA Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 760320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com TS ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL 1 ' � ' F' �4 I ' .' :1 y *• _ . 411 ;..r ;s: ' S'F ; �' -1 , ' P. .� PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA • ' F f ; +,'L . • �' .{F k. ( ', . I� • • 11 AP R I L 15, 2021 • I •II 11111 J , # 'I I• . i - • i : tI' \� r k1' • S • I• r+ ` - .,00...i. elk T I, - 4 WI k � '' • . )1111 SHEET INDEX :°IL--..AIV V-X '. 41: . AL .- •"•,/..,,_ •11%. ' im,---..'-'5--4- 4..1.111t l' ' ...1.• tr. 11,, . . ' { ,# •;'j' „„•,: . '.' + + - 41.. r '' .fir 1104" I ' 4111k%7514...„.4.4 4IPN. 1 . i . . +• ' I r :11111,1, illi , . I... •• G1.0 COVER SHEET/INDEX • -4.4P LA:-;. r i" •• 4 .1,... ri•'116. I: I 4' .. ...,,k.‘, A1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION + _•• }# ._ `yJ•r •- I I I .' I , ' �+• , A1.1 BUILDING PLANS- BLDG TYPE A �, r L. : w ,'�, � ., *Iti A1.2 BUILDING PLANS - BLDG TYPE B I A1.3 BUILDING PLANS-CLUBHOUSE - 'r ' .F 4 k.;y, ‘r ., +.'' • .. •. - - _ A1.4 SITE SECTION 4 I'' y I:r •: J - - ' . - t , •t 'y I + S #��f k� - . A1.5 UNIT PLANS • •• ,• • . I,- � 11 A #� ' r k �1 A1.6 CONCEPTUAL CARPORT DETAILS }' # L A2.0 ELEVATIONS- BLDG TYPE A ni _ *: A2.1 ELEVATIONS - BLDG TYPE B • x i -r - A2.2 ELEVATIONS -CLUBHOUSE - •• lia ' A • •ll J A2.3 COLOR& MATERIAL BOARD ' +•• . .• ' • A2.4 COLOR SCHEME DISTRIBUTION PLAN .• 1... ;.1. .' A3.0 PERSPECTIVE VIEW 1 " - ' „1 r- , . i-7.0- 1 -ti4: ::� A3.1 PERSPECTIVE VIEW 2 • . • _ _r• " • . • _76 •• •r.,„. i•4!.•.-:.:....k `•_ �'`r r: -- „, i ri,•ti r # K. A3.2 PERSPECTIVE VIEW 3 •. LL • +?' 'ti • - - i -, .+ m . A1 .4 I ,r. .• .:• :•.- 1A"111i i• i. . M'' ' ' {Y +I~ • r tiry' '.'t: �. r= A3.3 PERSPECTIVE VIEW 4 L' - - -I.16....1•11•1 .WVAirri. .:Sli; • .. IN II iii i1i:i OI fir•:aIV 4,•a'••• .r.ae.-.• .. - ' • . . 0• %•;E:.t%•l11_1 •1:... • •1. . . , . • •...1.,I.' � ' ' '-- �' .h' � y L + 4+ ATTACHMENT WITH ADDITIONAL RENDERINGS =`' 3 : '' - I 1- • r. � '-te r_ .tea• ! L`, . -• gl 1.1'• N. _ n ' '.) J - a• J .,..,:,-,,, ,,e, • ,. *441, ~ ,!rl 5 L , 111111 ' ill {� -1 L v• 17. AS... WI I r r 7 r . ID.: -1 .111 } r is _ I- {• ' ter--- - �+ • r' ` 1 l • yam,(.+ O i II' ,^ 1' - A r• 1 ti r Irt • ''''. . . Ai: . k •11;t4....11 ..i.....111....ligla:11..13.. 1 IIF 'Pr 11- - Ili • • P . , ._ • _ i� r r fi ..- ` = • I • . Lill - - - r• • ' r•1 ' r i AI .•` ; is 1 ,• .4 3. or T { - .J !' M1 Lii- c. • j• _•i• �• � , - •' .1 ' ram • • ' 11 • +.* ' ' '.. - • 11111. • i. • . ' a Fy y'y� 'LF ' } r: 'i• 1u++ 4• l • I I y '}• ' +' Y, ,'* A.:4.5:4 , 5. - # • Jr ' % `� ,•� 4 r, . awl • . . r ....4.,. . \ , • r • • •� j t•1 {., 7 M1tf•:y '_': ,*'..`•�rt + 4 � 11 r ;7 +�ti.: yy I r • • v ' _.I - - •}• r ,• , `_ • I' • tr , .1�,.-• � ., rr +{ •}. rti , " •}" S'7�"ds•' R �y 5 + 4 r , ti i 5 7 t t9,. .s T J + ,� :��.}:' �'{...kV;' T�1 r::' I. {i • L �1 - • -1 ti `�' �r 4 L a L F ,Y��'',y .:'r': ' 'J .kF J • !` _ •�1'r 'i I• '�+a .k• - di. 1, •• 1' 10 { '' •�� L.T'-•fr 5 '� �,� •' ' V. .'I* - -_'_ x., ..f`• L �, f I 1 k �• Ir 4. `. Y� ..I_� x 1 { L..�U ' , i:' 4 .r- I. F ' y p ` • • L•�r r r • �L•`JI 1 5 J •. . - I I 'S - 'L l ' ' ,' 1 V- , !, ,y _ • ,YF _ • ..i J •- 5{- _. - ' y. • .- •C Fa''f r ! • - _ J, T• k,I` ..:��.hhh t +r• I. • • f~ m. ! 17 II, C - !�r"r• ' _-•- y .'! `tom 5 �F -� 3r ''. a ti. - - 1 • 1 *'' L 'k,:' ' _ :+tf � t 1, _ i • • ; S' %. ,, aw , 1-,- 11104 . • .. -;Rn.- ••• - • • • • • ilif ' :- - • • -.•-• � 'ti ] r' �C r� "� y ' .. r- L:. •.; :- � R f' '• r * • r • l-'^` �1r! _j,� - . 11111 AV .....lat .7 4 . If 1 • -• S••-.•'r' ti +' • - ' filo -- , li, `• '' • , • ` Ali�+ 5 i: •L ]`•'� 'i ' Of il J�. y _S� F _ • - • • yr; a "• _ • �+ :ti' LyyL• I. I •i'• f *+ �� + ti • • r i�� r % _ ..7%4- .' ; #• i'. i' .' - • • 'I i'' A. 4 '.I i ' 'I 'Fy rl { 1 '.• '•1 , �Il � �.. - _ _ + -__ • . - • - 1 11. _ r �•• r • '' ,F J+ + r 1 + II I•. + ti ' •f,' • l 1 -- _ • '• IMi4‘ - • _ Q rt t• ..• . 4fli : ' i �• { •••� ' + .. - _ - T• -`- � - •f I r. • • • wL r r.•. �'• # ,.�- r iy f' +, .v - lc , �.f kI • r• .{+ • *� I'I� • Y�.1'' 1 1}' ,�.. r,. • '-• 74 • ,x - l '•r • .r k I {. t L �� 1 4 1 • I + •i •- +M1, t'• • • • .� � '' �' - "*r #r _ ,r r t r r �'''' •,y, -i' x, •� ' r. yf - • yi,,-4' If.. rt • 41111 ' .. - •"'.'�`' ' '� _ ,d •• .''; r•' ilf .'.� * - • + lit`I� ref - •'; •'t ` •' +• I '. .� , ' • • a �' _ y.F J ir N. • • ii • •r' r•- R_ - r .. 1., i'.+�i •• • - „Fr.�_ .1� aF . J .' • t �''1 ' y 'I F ' _. ail� F •' • M1 { '� ••y 5.,. - _ •}tir_•.." - - - 'T - "�_ '�� '. �{ I I • • • • } • 1+ • :%. `-Y.- ' �- 'f. 2 _ -r .• 'y 2 s - ,1F '}? ��� '� '" '� I , I x I }1 I� Sf•''� • \ �� y '�' � }�++.2,t {_�• i ~ .11111:-. _ em s, 41 • • • ' r} if f•' ''l L• �yy.. -��r �.f? yr i• ,�Ls-t+•� M1 r - .■ rL � .� F ice i '' y y '�;y 1 - +{' lr 1k•• 3 * r S _r `} ..r •�r. '� F y r - I. - • - • .• + , _ • r �"'- `5J _� -11 1 I L1117. i 'InivE-� • • f=- �J � ' _ . . .. • - '- 4 5 ` 1 _ .r. _ ' -tier•_• _ • • . tip . I'* tir4a ': Viki- . -..ite{ . '' -'y .'YK -'rI.~ -�r -1 ti . '.tip • '� �' t _ r'.. ',: . 7 • •7 - R '� •t Jr- _ + + - ' 'y 6 _1'� }i r_+'�; Y. e. _ k • • • ' `# - ',Ix= + ,�1F _ + _ '� .1 * ' r ' i ' ' • ' s 1'�i ti• *� •ti �'+ �• M1 r'v ; ti y -' i r'� l r+� .•'�v - : + - _ • r • - �' J _.•} _ 7 '� ': `�` { �', - '� I F 1 { i 'k .•�+;; � y` � `` ~.s• • , ti I • NA ' '-r ' •-'f Y . , 1 F , .r i T • jb .Yc- ti'.• ct *b.,.' ' • , • • • • - s s _ _ - _ } �_' L '. *+_ _•�'Jv. _ ,.:� ;tt. •r' y, L �A '' L r f ., +t. ' Stiff .+* '•R - }' L �'=-rt 't 1 i _, - + • - �.. - • .-1_ I. ra_'--. 14•• • •.' - . • ter. .'� �{ __ti_ ' r l k 1 4 , • 3� .� Sri• ••• _ice• #t.• _ ,.� 1.- ' •-la r + ' • _ 7 .1; r `r' - r • ;may ' y _ ,�•' _ ..Ik�� � • 1� M • i . r � .. -'•}Ste' fi �+�'s•.-� +a:r '• _ . . r .., _ ,� r .•-� i'` ,r_ ' •. Ir 0 Sri •=� A .R kifizr : � r : 1 _ ' I '• r fs.:'S,afyV :tom, :.. ' .i { = -��. [ ; rstr K •s k q ti ti + ' �'r. Ty Y` _rc 7. - 1 _ • • •• -- 'L' r - 17'•�' � r_.' rl . r� 0 I l' .� �`, +' k •fz+ti .;,. `,r _i, ,`� 5 k.l' 3 ___ a _ CI - sr rf �' _r �. �' r f '' ;- .-rt,* oe. v1.:k'' .r'1.ti i t �4'. i r ti '1�kk`sue .-- • r: � �,. . .r' Llilec r+• � f ' +4� _ 1 ti.. 3 , 'ri , +rr � r r •'rr-5� -� . ' IZy _ • Illi ` ram`�'? �� a # _� it +l' r 35�1# r .r ":s ►`+tom +J ` +'` :' 5 ' 7 .'kI!ti ' ' ram4. `" ti':23'=ram•tea: `..c .,.•..Tt r *tiy' ` : 4.•_ 4, _ -am x T y _ ... L ; }� -11711. F` 4. Project Team DEVELOPER: ARCHIECT: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: CIVIL ENGINEER: THE PACIFIC COMPANIES AO ARCHITECTS CANYON PARK STUDIO MSA CONSULTING INC. 430 EAST STATE ST., SUITE 100 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. 910 DOGWOOD ST. 34200 BOB HOPE DR. EAGLE, ID 83616 ORANGE, CA 92866 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 (208) 461-0022 (714) 639-9860 (949) 612-5191 (760) 320-9811 Contact: DARREN BERBERIAN Contact: ALAN DARPINI Contact: PAUL MAKSY Contact: MIKE ROWE COVER SHEET / INDEXG . 1 . 0 V ITA LI A DATE: 04- 15-21 PALM DESERT, CA JOB NO.: 2020-383 THE EAST PACIFIC COMPANIES AO ARCHITECTS Am° Architecture. 1,4 4.:1%4 4 4,,,.. 430 STATE ST. , SUITE 100, EAGLE, I D 83616 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866 Design. Relationships. (208) 461 -0022 ( 714) 639-9860 PALM DESERT APARTMENTS BUILDING SUMMARY - TYPE A PARKING SUMMARY PALM DESERTS CA. INCLUDES BUILDING NO. 4,5,6,8, 10,11 , 12, 13 UNIT TYPE UNIT LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 UNIT UNIT % UNIT TYPE UNIT TOTALS CLIENT PARKING STALLS REQUIRED TOTALS RATIO 1 BED 126 1 .00 126 1 BED Al 4 4 4 12 50% A 269 UNIT PROJECT CONSISTING OF FOURTEEN 2gED Bl 2 2 2 6 25% 2BED 72 2.00 144 3 BED Cl 2 2 2 6 25% 3 BED 72 2.00 144 2- AND 3-STORY TYPE V-A RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TOTALS 8 8 8 24 100% _ RESIDENTIAL STALLS REQUIRED 414 WITH ON-GRADE PARKING. NON-RESIDENTIAL SF 1 STALL / 1000S.F. 1 LEASING 744 0J44 GROSS LAND AREA: 11 .94 ACRES BUILDING SUMMARY - TYPE B ,REQUIRED STALLS (INC. GUEST, ACCESSIBLE, EVCS) 415 TOTAL UNITS: 269 UNITS INCLUDES BUILDING NO. 1 ,2,3,7, 14 DENSITY: 22.5 DU/AC UNIT TYPE UNIT LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 UNIT UNIT % PROVIDED STALLS (INC. GUEST, ACCESSIBLE, EVCS) 420 TOTALS BIKE PARKING PROVIDED (5% OF VEHICLE PARKING) 21 EXISTING/ PROPOSED ZONING 1 BED 26ED Al Bl 4 3 0 7 47% 2»0 EXISTING: PLANNED RESIDENTIAL ZONE (PR) 3BED Cl 2 2 0 4 27% OPEN SPACE SUMMARY TOTALS 8 7 0 15 100% PROPOSED: PLANNED RESIDENTIAL ZONE (PR) TOTAL SQ. LOCATIONS BUILDING SUMMARY - TYPE C FT. CRITERIA ALLOWED PROPOSED INCLUDES BUILDING NO. 9 LEASING LOBBY/CLUB HOUSE 2,744 UNIT FITNESS 1 ,348 DENSITY 4 - 40 DU/AC 22.6 DU/AC UNIT TYPE UNIT LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 TOTALS UNIT % POOL DECK 9,175 LOT COVERAGE 50% 22% TOT LOT 1 ,475 MAX. BLDG. HGT. 40' 37' 1 BED Al 0 0 0 0 0% LANDSCAPE & RETENTION AREAS 188,292 MAX. STORIES 3 3 2 BED Bl * 0 2 0 2 100% TOTAL COMMON OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 203,034 3 BED Cl 0 0 0 0 0% TOTAL PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 19,102 TOTALS 0 2 0 2 100% TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 222,136 SITE U N IT SUMMARY *THESE UNITS RESERVED FOR PROPERTY MANAGERS. TOTAL OPEN SPACE PER UNIT 823 UNIT TOTALS FOR ENTIRE SITE* UNIT TYPE UNIT UNIT NET UNIT NET SQ. FT. UNIT TYPE UNIT TYPE SQ. FT. TOTALS TOTALS TOTALS 1 BED Al 577 131 75,587 131 49% 2 BED Bl 755 70 52,850 70 26% 3 BED Cl 1 ,034 68 70,312 68 25% TOTALS 198,749 269 100% *INCLUDES 2 UNITS RESERVED FOR PROPERTY MANAGERS. GENERAL PROJECT NOTES: 1 . ALL DOWNSPOUTS FOR ROOF ELEMENT DRAINAGE SHALL BE CONCEALED WITHIN THE BUILDINGS AND NOT EXPOSED (TYP.) 2. THE DRIP EDGE DETAIL AT APARTMENT BALCONIES SHALL BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED TO PREVENT DRAINAGE OVERRUN OVER THE BUILDINGS VERTICAL SURFACES (TYP.) 3. THE FINAL LOCATION OF ALL FIRE RISERS AND UTILITY CONNECTIONS SHALL BE CONCEALED FROM DIRECT VIEW AND CONFORM TO FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS. CONCEAL ALL FIRE RISERS INDICATED TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE STAIRWELLS (TYP.) PROJECT INFORMATION A- I . O V I TA L I A PALM DESERT, CA JOB ENO AT 04-15-21 E•2020-383 I THE PACIFIC COMPANIES AO ARCHITECTS AO Architecture.I. 430 EAST STATE ST., SUITE 100, EAGLE, ID 83616 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866 Design. (208) 461 -0022 (714) 639-9860 Relationships. ' 28 ' 8 " / 20 ' 0 " V \ . 5 ' 0 " 20 ' 0 " ✓ \ 2 ' 0 " ' 2 ' 0 " 19 ' 6 " ' L' 0 " 23 ' 2 " 47 ' 0 " SE—BACK -RO ✓ -QL P . SE—BACK -ROV / / ' / / / PARAP -- , AREA / PARAP -- , 100 ' -0' / d'=I I=LL I=IL) C 0 '--I� -\ -o \ - - _ , oz >\ . „._ __) i i — - __, - 1=1 — C -1 f — i --Ln >\ - Al ,, 11 o UNIT 2 C. UNIT 2 o n ® 1r: B1 Al r ii or i - C un, (1 I CD o In � 1 �° ;IIIIit.�- 7 j i -0- , :_) _ CN - F._ II r — — . — _o_ r •• -0* 1 UNIT 1 C. UNIT 1 J J STOR._I0 0 0��� �O r, � it i, � iI i � ,P Pi, � -CD � 0 o UNIT 1 C. UNIT 1 6'-0" TALL 1 OBSERVER - i 1 O' DISTANCE e, LI L \ iiii M E7 .� � STOR �-6- ,___ili � � II _ , r I I 1 ii 1 ■ �� 7� I J �- I 1 o I �, )Unl pNI 1 1 , 1 O I III I' 11 ° ❑ j i I I -I r ,� L Jdll nI N LINE OF SIGHT DIAGRAM N - Al B1i t - : Al - GENERAL PLAN NOTES: Cl I__ , „ r- -- 1 . ALL DOWNSPOUTS FOR ROOF ELEMENT DRAINAGE SHALL BE CONCEALED WITHIN THE BUILDINGS AND NOT u o \ EXPOSED (TYP.) LI n E �o �ol lo� EI I \ 2. THE DRIP EDGE DETAIL AT APARTMENT BALCONIES SHALL BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED TO PREVENT DRAINAGE L7 ' 0 " 23 ' 2 " 1 L' 099 ' 9 ' 6 " 1 2 ' 099 1 2 ' 0 ' OVERRUN OVER THE BUILDINGS VERTICAL SURFACES (TYP.) 3. THE FINAL LOCATION OF ALL FIRE RISERS AND UTILITY CONNECTIONS SHALL BE CONCEALED FROM DIRECT LEVELS 2 & 3 VIEW AND CONFORM TO FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS. CONCEAL ALL FIRE RISERS INDICATED TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE STAIRWELLS (TYP.) ' 28 ' 8 " ' 28 ' 8 " / / / , 2 ' 0 " , 2 ' 0 " 19 ' 6 99 ' L' 09 23 ' 2 99 47 ' 0 " , 5 ' 0 " 9 ' 6 99 , , ' 0 99 ' 0 ' 0' ' 5 ' 0 " 20 ' r- 9^ 48 ' — O ' ] iL=I I I� I I� C L. L. \ \ \ L L J 1 \ 10 +20'-6" +20'_6" +20'-6" C 1 2 —' \ r `=- o / �� +25' +26' V u._ B1 Al r - -0- ] O A r' o u._ '�� +25' +25' o o mum Prom �w J I� I , — �� C 5'-0" +26' o +26' H rn ��omm ( - '� Ihn \,,, -- - ,TYP., HVAC UNITS BOILER UNIT SCREENED SCREENED N I , — - __ - - — 3J- J ' - JJ - N Y BUILDING BY BUILDING ' _ IPARAPET PARAPET LAUNDRY \ rl _ - " U ■ I = 0 I� L i ril 0 0 [11 V \ o ��// 0 0 0 I r I Z Z X X X X o 0 e' L L La` * XXX XXX I ] IX X X XXX c �� 1 , rf Ajj nr-1 1 _J- = — EP -1 _ 1° LAUNDRY 1 �� \ \, E III— / 5,_O9) ,iI �- _�_ ,I, _� ME _o_ -r LADDER 00- L_r II ' NE II ACCESS TO i i i w\o ROOF 1 ,TYP. �o (� ..ii 10 JJ1�q i r i ®�� r o +26' Z +26' .. l� Ti- IQ= ...— L� C Al B1 fli lI N o +25' +25' cN N - -� N \ - . 0= +26 +25'C 1 I 1— —I _ \ 20 6 +20'-6" +20-6 I it I, C -00 �I-, CIo Rio I I o� \ 1 r l l 4 7 ' 0 " 23 ' 2 " 14' 0 99 J 9 9 6 99 1 2 ' 0 " 1 2 ' 0 " 4 8 ' 0 99 2 0 ' 2 99 1 5 ' 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 99 1 ' 9 - 0 99 9 ' - 6 99 1 5 9 - 0 99 / 2 8 9 8 99 / 2 8 ' 8 ' / �• x / GROUND FLOOR ROOF BUILDING PLANS - TYPE A A- I 0 5' 10' 20' 30' VITALIA 1"=10'-0" � DATE: 04-15-21 PALM DESERT, CA JOB NO.: 2020-383 11,0 THE PACIFIC COMPANIES AO ARCHITECTS AO 430 EAST STATE ST., SUITE 100, EAGLE, ID 83616 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. , ORANGE, CA 92866 Architecture.Design. (208) 461 -0022 ( 714) 639-9860 Relationships. 12 8 ' 8 " / / 35 ' 0 " / ' 1 ' 6 " , 14' 0 " 21 ' 2 " / 47 ' 0 " / IL�I o o ♦ ♦ 20 ' 0 " Ml \ . 15 ' 0 " 20 ' 0 " Ml \ J SETBACK FROM IQ SETBACK FROM 4---- ,_1 _ / 'ABACI— / AREA / ARAP2— / ' 00 —0 C = CCc1 1 _ P-: _ _ _ 1 [ -°- -- B1 __ Al r i i-g= i 1 -. , N r'�`�� � � 1 � L y � 1 � L = p� I I p� i / u J � hrD «l PPP 0 TII' = 1 16_0 91 [ 0,0 = _ =, _ L 1 — — , u L-°-) - UNIT 2 C. UNIT 2 — — _ 7 -) '-v- J �� Ell 7 STOR. M O f pm - ♦ N - O O CDN UNIT 1 C. UNIT 1 OBSERVER - �, 1 - � - \ i 100' DISTANCE ) Lf -biz = j l_l mici-n_ji_7, ,i Lii -101 j-I [ � 17E STOR. EP p \ [ : - _ ,( -0- i' ( \ -0- r .4, i.' - - . i i . - - , _r i,J, -CD 1 \-' a L 0 1 j 1 ,1-(‘ , —, - - li \ [ LLL j [ \ LINE OF SIGHT DIAGRAM Al® II - Al _. ,, . , ._, __ Al GENERAL PLAN NOTES: I -- _ _ 0. 10 5 1.1 r 'L J ' o ♦ 1 . ALL DOWNSPOUTS FOR ROOF ELEMENT DRAINAGE SHALL BE CONCEALED WITHIN THE BUILDINGS AND NOT 0� 0� a \ EXPOSED (TYP.) 1 1 CO E ro T=I ro E T=I T=I E q7=I °\ ♦ 2. THE DRIP EDGE DETAIL AT APARTMENT BALCONIES SHALL BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED TO PREVENT DRAINAGE 13 ' 0 " jr, 20 ' 6 " 12 ' 0' 14' 0 " jr, 99 899 14' 0 " jr, ' 09 699 jr, 12 ' 09 / ' 29 2 " / OVERRUN OVER THE BUILDINGS VERTICAL SURFACES (TYP.) 3. THE FINAL LOCATION OF ALL FIRE RISERS AND UTILITY CONNECTIONS SHALL BE CONCEALED FROM DIRECT LEVEL 2 VIEW AND CONFORM TO FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS. CONCEAL ALL FIRE RISERS INDICATED TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE STAIRWELLS (TYP.) 128 ' 8 " , ' 28 ' 8 " / 35 ' 099 ' 1 ' 6 " 1 4' 0 " 21 ' 299 47 ' 0 " 36 ' 099 9 ' 6 " 15 ' 0 " 20 ' 48 ' — O ' — -— C LI.1 J LI 1-1r ♦ ♦ ♦ I J I ♦ ♦ - +20'-6" r C1 I ' ,,, i =__LJ C C +26, +25' cD +25' +26' Al r _ � 1 [ -°- B1 V c i �-0= i 1 25 In N L 1 �L \ i 1 �L ` +26' +26' N hn I IJ - - H I CD 1 HVAC UNITS N BOILER UNI CD - 1 � - SCREENED SCREENED [ ai � �o_ t, a�` *I - - \L :f 'J BY BUILDING BY BUILDING LAUNDRY PARAPET ♦ PARAPET [ i Fli _PJ i'r -i-_,Q 1 11-1 r- IL 1 .i _toJz Li r _ aii i Li 1 O O CD -CDX z xi r , ) XX XX -CD O - e' ! 10\ — 1_0\ X X X X 1 [ ] X X X X ID\ — M 'o — \ � BIKE ��III_ _ i o r ,f, - 0� I 1 C I ] CD / m f \I7 f \\ E \ ,L. STOR. ., _rci_o_ � v_ _o_ _o_ 5'_0„ LADDER 5'-0" O /� ° � Q — )' — �\0 LO /TYP./ ACCESS TO /TYP'/ Lo 1 as w 1 = 1 0 \w ��11 J— ' 1 v [ 1; Ln +26' +26' + 6' ''- - EN I __ ' . . I„, c\I +25' +25cN ' +25' +25' = cN / Al . .. __ .. Al B1 Al i- - I j'—'-F=T I 1 _ _ • ♦ ♦ \ 1 II o 0- 10 5 tl 1.1 1 ' o ♦ _ ♦ J - - J +20'-6" +20'-6" L° 0 0 +20'-6" +20'-6" +20'-6" +20'-6" 1 1 39 0 " jr 20 ' 6 " 1 29 0 " 1 49 0 " jr, 9 ' 899 1 49 0 " j ' ^ 9 6 " jr, 1 29 0 " ' 2 ' 2 " 0 " 109 699 ' ' 9 0 " /10 ' 99 1 09 099 1 59 0 " 89 899 15 ' 0 " 8 ' 699 1 29 - 099 1 09 - 099 / 59 GROUND FLOOR ROOF BUILDING PLANS - TYPE B A- I 0 5' 10' 20' 30' VITALIA 1"=10'-0" DATE: 04-15-21 PALM DESERT, CA JOB NO.: 2020-383 om THE PACIFIC COMPANIES AO ARCHITECTS AO Architecture. ILIINJ 430 EAST STATE ST., SUITE 100, EAGLE, ID 83616 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. , ORANGE, CA 92866 Design. 116.7411- (208) 461 -0022 ( 714) 639-9860 Relationships. GENERAL PLAN NOTES: 1 . ALL DOWNSPOUTS FOR ROOF ELEMENT DRAINAGE SHALL BE CONCEALED WITHIN THE BUILDINGS AND NOT EXPOSED (TYP.) 2. THE DRIP EDGE DETAIL AT APARTMENT BALCONIES SHALL BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED TO PREVENT DRAINAGE OVERRUN OVER THE BUILDINGS VERTICAL SURFACES (TYP.) 3. THE FINAL LOCATION OF ALL FIRE RISERS AND UTILITY CONNECTIONS SHALL BE CONCEALED FROM DIRECT VIEW AND CONFORM TO FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS. CONCEAL ALL FIRE RISERS INDICATED TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE STAIRWELLS (TYP.) 1 ^ 9 — 0 " j / 9 — O ➢9)r / / / _N„ _ , 1-1 -rn —n—i ITh 1-1 1-1 COMPUTER L ROOM_ ' +15' BOILER UNIT HVAC UNITS SCREENED SCREENED CHILDCARE BY BUILDING BY �UILDING PARAPET FITNESS OFFICE2 PARAPET CENTER = 65Q FT . ►-�2403 S . FT . STORAG . -- LEASING & CLUB1 DOUBLE-VOLUME SPACE X X 'I'A'' Z M DOUBLE-VOLUME SPACE r ROOM 5'-o" +18' -� 1 �j OFFICE 1 � /TYP./ RR RR 3053 SQ . FT . r 8 ' r DOUBLE-VOLUME SPACEi _ r-L r. _ L _ U U , ,___ 166 E X X X X -1 J =I L Li LA M* I I ' '' I r ,, } . - _,, _ . U HI 0— r L I- t- I -* IC r� . , CO +13-6, +18, LU 1 1 LL MANAGERS MANAGERS UNIT (B1) UNIT (B1) - I II 1p7 I 1--i �L 1 I I I I I I + 1 11 + 1 11 10-6 10-6 E4. . E 1 1 GROUND FLOOR ROOF BUILDING PLANS - CLUBHOUSE A- I 0 5' 10' 20' 30' 1" 10'-0"VITALIA DATE: 04-15-21 PALM DESERT, CA JOB NO.: 2020-383 4.m THE PACIFIC COMPANIES AO ARCHITECTS AO Architecture. ,,4444.4 430 EAST STATE ST., SUITE 100, EAGLE, ID 83616 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. , ORANGE, CA 92866 Design. 116.7411- (208) 461 -0022 ( 714) 639-9860 Relationships. PL PL 530'-0" 86'-1" , 92'-3" I ,29'-6" BUILDING 4 ,I , 29 -0 BUILDING 5 UNIT3 UNIT3 UNIT3 UNIT3 L UNIT2 UNIT2 BUILDING6 UNIT 2 UNIT 2 REMBRANDT PKWY UNIT1 UNIT1 UNIT2 UNIT2 EXTENSION UNIT1 UNIT1 NIT 1 UNIT1 56'-0" , SITE SECTION A- 1 . 4 1"=20'-0"0 10' 20' 40' 60' VITALIA DATE: 04-15-21 PALM DESERT, CA JOB NO.: 2020-383 0, THE PACIFIC COMPANIES AO ARCHITECTS Architecture. L14446 430 EAST STATE ST., SUITE 100, EAGLE, ID 83616 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. , ORANGE, CA 92866 Design. (208) 461 -0022 ( 714) 639-9860 Relationships. 23 ' 8 " 35 ' 0 " 359 - 0 " / / / / / / I I I I I 1 PATIO/BALCONY PATIO/BALCONY PATIO/BALCONY �,11'-2" X 6'-6" 11'-0" X 6'-6" 10'-10" X 6'-6" BEDROOM 1 11'-a" X 9'-0" L�� L_ - = ` - - _I L I L��J I I I Z.: ` LIVING / DINING 11'-6" X 17'-0" I -- W.I.C. 11 IVING BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 IVING BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 3 -.11 � 11 1 . 111 . -6 11'-0" X 11'-0" 11'-a" X 11'-0" 11 6 11'-0" X 11'-0" 11'-0" X 11'-0" _ -.11 �- 11 -CD T BATH C\ -CD -CD I- — r-r-D Ll jj ° L I I I I i I I 1 ��o- S. = � I DWW.I.C. In W.I.C. ter- W.I.C. W.I.C. roi C\ o DW _ C\ rol DW - S. a Imo1_ • KITCHEN 4-10 0r I I 1 ' I 0 {;'„} c, I I '1� I I "T C KITCHEN , ._� C KITCHEN ,-, I "IT" BATH BATH BATH BEDROOM 2 - - LAUNDRY OR METER ROOM 11'-0" X 9'-0" I, \ rl 0 M 0 :- -_ , _ L M 0 , - - L P. L. P. L. STOR. P. \ \ \ UNITA1 UNITB1 UNITC1 AFFORDABLE 1 BED - 1 BATH AFFORDABLE 2 BED - 1 BATH AFFORDABLE 3 BED - 2 BATH UNIT AREA: 577 SQ. FT. UNIT AREA: 755 SQ. FT. UNIT AREA: 1034 SQ. FT. PATIO/BALCONY: 73 SQ. FT. PATIO/BALCONY: 71 SQ. FT. PATIO/BALCONY: 70 SQ. FT. UNIT FLOOR PLANS _ 1 . 5 0 2' 4' 8' 12' 1/4" 1'-0"VITALIA DATE: 04-15-21 PALM DESERT, CA JOB NO.: 2020-383 THE PACIFIC COMPANIES AO ARCHITECTS Aw0 Architecture. ,,....0 430 EAST STATE ST., SUITE 100, EAGLE, ID 83616 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. , ORANGE, CA 92866 Design. (208) 461 -0022 ( 714) 639-9860 Relationships. STEEL POST- PAINTED STEEL POST- PAINTED TYPICAL STANDARD CAR PROFILE CARPORT WITH SWING DOORS COLUMN UNIMPEDED BY CARPORT COLUMNS \ \ I 1 / I '� C I I I I J I - / `a d PARKING 't.` - . , * PARKING PARKING _ _ PARKING PARKING _ PARKING PARKING PARKING PARKING o / o STALL TAL \ STALL STALL STALL __STALL STALL STALL STALL STALL oN oN — _ _ y \ / J \ 9'-0" ,1, 9'-0" , 9'-0" ,1, 9'-0" / 9'-0" ,1, 27'-0" 1 ' ", 9 -0 1, 9'-0" / 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 90'-0" DRIVE DRIVE / WAY WAY STEEL POST- PAINTED CARPORT ACCESSIBLE TYPICAL S AH DARDNG DOOR CAR PROFILE CARPORT COLUMN UNIMPEDED BY CARPORT COLUMNS --i-\_ r C I I I I ❑ ❑ _,_ 1 ,,J , _ PARKING Ii4 - . ii PARKING' PARKING PARKING_ - PARKING PARKING PARKING FASCIA - PAINTED o STALL �I i STALL STALL, \ _STALL STALL STALL STALL 10% SLOPE / MAX 20'-0" �_OZ XyW / 3dOlS ��� 1 I�STAL v 0 z - ` 1- wog wog STEEL POST ¢ min z z PAINTED z / i \ \ �� N Z N Z - I Q U 1 CURB CC oo o CIIRR �� F V °O - - -�� - - - 1 11-1 I I-1 I I-III-f�, 1��-�� ��� ���-���-���_ ��� ��� ���-�� �-1'I 1-1 1 1-1 I I-1 I I�� �1 1-�� ��_�.- - -� =1 =1 =1 =1 =1 =1 1 I-III-III=_• IIII 1I 1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=.. , 1=1 I- -1 I1 II 4�I=III=I 1-I 1= 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" =111E1T1E1 E 111E 1E1� ., -1 1-1 1-1 1-1 I: 1-1 1-1 1-1 ITI=1T_I=1T_I=1T_I=1T_I=1 r -1 1-1 11TI-1T_I a�1; I-1 1-1TI • L1=1 1=1T1-1T1-1 1-1 1 - - - 11E1T1-1�1E1�1-1�1E1�1-,_ • 72 -0 / DRIVE 1I,i11Ti,1�1 -1I,i11Ii�,��1--- s'-o" • s'-o" s'-o" WAY / 1 s'-0" CARPORT ELEVATION STEEL POST- PAINTED TYPICAL STANDARD CAR PROFILE CARPORT WITH SWING DOORS COLUMN UNIMPEDED BY CARPORT COLUMNS • o a PARKING '� :: /' PARKING PARKING' PARKING PARKING o STALL , II TALI STALL STALL STALL STALL o II II_ , / I /� 3II \ / MC - i n� II 9'-0" 1, 9'-0" / 9'-0" 1, 9'-0" ,I, 9'-0" 1, 9'-0" 54'-0" DRIVE WAY TYPICAL STANDARD CAR PROFILE CARPORT WITH SWING DOORS COLUMN UNIMPEDED BY CARPORT COLUMNS • 3 ❑ PARKING PARKING PARKING o STALL , _STAL �� / STALL STALL Io li 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 1, 9'-0" / 36'-0" DRIVE WAY CARPORT TYPICAL CONCEPTUAL CARPORT DETAILS A- I 0 5' 10' 20' 30' viTALI A 1"=10'-0" - DATE: 04- 15-21 PALM DESERT, CA JOB No.: 2020-383ill THE PACIFIC COMPANIES AO ARCHITECTS Ammmillill Architecture. :141444,,,.'\) 430 EAST STATE ST. , SUITE 100, EAGLE, ID 83616 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866 Design. (208) 461 -0022 ( 714) 639-9860 Relationships. +3 PARAFSI r35f ' ' +36' PPET —+ PAPI— —+35' PA' ' "Er 1 CI' •0 1 ' 49'-O" I 24'-Q' 14'-0" 32'-0" I L2'-0" . _ -- - -•-- —1 32,�" 5' 0„ 25 -0„ 7 -0" UI ...II.. ,� I ff ±u _I _I I * )1 - . - IIIM immil I jr - 5. — ., E=1771. . _L. 1 _.___. _____ ...__,.._ _ ._ _ __i 7__ _ 7_ _. ___ Ft , immirilii - .: I ,..,1 7 r -.44 77-_-- . - 7 .10! .., L IL-2TF i iii ' ' _ I , . i ,__,1H , _ _ IEr 1 _ - 1111114P ,[I4 7- 1E1 1- g _r--- 1P-,,, 10/ 0 11 „'zi ill - 1, 1LL __1 . i ,_ _____. . .. _ mi I [-.1 I _ I 1 4 ■.. . __ ,_ - - --- - - ■1 1 . _ .. ■■■ ..... . . 0 1,_E., h_. j , i IL HIII7 i I I 1 � FRONT RIGHT t +35' PARAPET • +36' DARAG� + 6' PAfiAP T- 36' ARA A` ' .� t3 ' PA P r—t 35 PARAPET t 5' P P -- a5' '�AR . — •, 2A ET 1410,-0' 7 -Q" , 12'-0" 32'-0" 14`-0" 14'-$'' 47'-6" 7' 0' 2-'-0- 5' 0'' 21.0N • f , • o I v Pri._ i 7 .1 1.7. - -LI �� - 7 IT J • I -- _�i g;1 - - _ 1 + - --_ . . .. . pp.„_ ..-,--.--m—Er_- __A-- . rel.-,—L.1 .—_11.[ ; 1, LEI.: ;____. . - 110_ MI I . i . .1 . V . ttli'Ll H-: . . _ r : _ _: ' • rr_ L . II 1 0 _ I 1 FT LH 7 _ ii _ Tij ;- -1 .-T tL --r-li I 1_1 ( T ' 1 . , .. , 1 . . l'illi '-'al-7t4 I -1 ria7P9 F ; 1,-.. i- -- '.-' _ :4. 11 niTi moms 7- _ ____ 1 I _ i — ._ - —. i . r i . 1 _,._ _ ",_ .,_ __ , __ /—_ .1. in__T" iil • :• • _ _ __ _ rilri ... ...i __,___ni _irtl „ [EtQ -- , E[1. . _ _ - _ L. REAR LEFT ELEVATIONS - BUILDI G TYPE AA-2 . 0 0 4' 8' 16' 24' VITALIA 1I8°=1 '-o° mm DATA: 04-15-21 PALM DESERT, CA JOB NO.: 2020-383 4.1141 THE PACIF C COlvd7PANIS AqAiRCHITECTS Archite I Icture. 1 430 EAST STATE ST., SUITE 100, EAGL-, ID 83616 144 N • RTH RANGE STRANGE, CA 92866 Design. ST (208) 461 -0022 (714) 639-9860 Relationships. I -+26° PARAPET -+2&' PARAPET -+26' P.'R4PZ -- +26' PAF?APET -+26' BAR_ ET •-+26' PARAPET -+25' PARAPET -I-25' PARAPET -#25' PARAPET -. +2S' PARAPET +25' PARAPET 15 '-0" 71' On I 48'-13" 24'-V 14'-U' 101,0"I 1 1 7 136'-0' i_ _L6'-O" 25' G'-0`' 1 1 : 32'-I '' . . _ 1 1 f i r, . :—T-1 __1 i _17— _ _,..1_ . 43 kn _ . ,_._. .....,____._, : ___... ..L _ _TT . i i , ii.— - F. . 1 Fri . H IS -144 1 - 1 I ___.__. I [II] - + TI;LII In t• •i ] [gi L_ • :,,,,,, , ., , _.,, ,,,,, ill . _- _ Ed . _ PN -. . " - ' 1 h6 M 111 I I i - - - � I ---E] ['FT] I 11 m • -r 1 r, OO ^ice L. •. [Lj � IT7. il _. • I I ham cc, o+ illi I FRONT RIGHT - +26' PARAPET -+26) PARAPET -+25' PARAPET „tii..cIiffiiIIIiiiii-+26 PARAPET +25' PARAPET +25 PARAPET - --+25' PAWET • 425' PARAPET # 5' PARAPET - +25' PA.I APET 1 1-25' PARAP ET L I 1341_I) 7l'-'" I . 32'-0' 14'-0" 10'-o' 14'-cr a '-CI" 1#' - i_o32'-D' S'•0 25'-0" a'-c„ S yl _- - -- Li 1 - - I-- . _ - �� - 1 • i I ' L 1 =&•-•1111Li I 1 I -1.- .. I I._ I 1:.11:. iE:if l'- iFt] I I L E 14,7; [; H4L:.11 P;1 . 7 _F E - _-- II P - i ;1 • 1 , _. , „_, I 4- !IF • 1 ] 1 i --1111$ i ' , i . _. 1 __ . 1 in -� - �• _ —I Lifi .I1 Ej] 1 _, [ 1 LI 1 di Iiii_UI :i. REAR LEFT ELEVATIONS - BUILDING TYPE BA-2 0 4' 8' 16' 24' V ITALIA 118"= '-o° MM DATA: 04-15-21 PALM DESERT, CA JOB NO.: 2020-383 THE PACIFIC COMPANIES AO ARC H ITECTS Architecture. 4.4%4 .\ 430 EAST STATE ST., SUITE 100, EAGLE, ID 83616 144 NORTH RANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866 Design. ST (208) 461 -0022 (714) 639-9860 Relationships. 7:'-011 14' -0" S'-• 1'-0' ' 1'-0 3 '-0' 1 d'-0" S1'-0 • -Q" c m .. • - - • --- r' • II ! . _____ T . _ , Fri ' - : _ _, 1 ___E _ !il '! i - .1. • w I : . . N , I !. .' Ilio,1 ,. _ A t- — - - - - - ._ — E _ —-- _ 'I : E— , _. L 1 11 m . _ . . . NI ! !111 � I �� _ III 1I7 !I Oil I SOUTH ( O T) EMT (RIG ) 701 +11 1 4. 1-0" F . ,I 1 ILM1 y 1 ip . 11 I ,r-_ - .R -.1, . 10' , ri ! 7. _ - - . _ _ _ .. ._ , pp._ I _ . ___ IMMEiNIMM ====MINI 1 r = - I 1 C i - rr— IA II :=L 4E1 . : [1] . - III I NOR H ( ' EAR) W : S ( EF ) ELEVATIO '4 GLU HOUS : A- P . 2 0 4' 6' '4' V T 1i8°=1 '-° ' • ' . DATA: 04-15-I1 A LIA PALM DESERT, C JOB NO.: 2020-3:3 THE P I I F I C e 0 ' • i S AO C H ITEC S AiI rchtecture. 4 C E • ST ► T • TE ST., ► IT OS , E L L -, ID 81 al l 6 1 A 4 NO " TH 'RANGE ST., O ANGE, CA 92866 Design. ST ( 20 ) 461 0i122 (714) 639-98 0 Relationships. I 11— 1 000 000 eeee 0000 o e 3 4 0 A B Ae A0 D A A D0 - - _ _ . _ _ _ 2 1 1,--- - — _ Al : - - - - _ _ - _ i_ _ _ _. • _ r _ _ __ �. � - - . ___ 1 1± _ _ _ _ __________ • - ___ _ —___ d 41 ' illi _c___._ . . _ . ._ _ _ _.__ . . Thi.iiiii2e, ..__ _. . . _ ____. --.;-7----- — —_--. --- ---- --- - - LI - I ..,_ _____ _ -r-. . .-12 — - 1 _ii ___ 1 "341e. I 1 ' .-_z- . . —7 .r,_._--. - . -_-_- _— _-_ - :_1 - 1 __ I I . i ili ,,,.. , II i *, g . . • _• _ ,_ 1 114 • 2; 1, i, • . • - ,-., , --. _ ,. , • ,„, : 1 . 1 lir , w ___ li--, r- ,... �� I 1 ___ .may--� - I� - �J i11! .t+■ ., ....._ , • . ____ ___ , ..._ _ . .,,, . i 1: i kill _ . 1 , i - --- .• ill , i 1 1717 7 .11 r • - -- ,_ . I I IT-EI .. la IIIII . l I — — _ I. - -' - .ITAL wnpri : . • — d . ; ;: 7 _ LIP —0—r—m—dir; .==7---- - -- J — —I L - • • , — , .- • • , , ...._ — • • i_ ..., T • 1 • I !I!! I .Ej • • e - • II LTTI 1 1I! Ili I III SW 7647 SW 9093 SW 9158 SW 7652 SW 6415 SW 7669 ACrushed Ice B Nearly Brown Coquina D Avenue Tan 0Mineral Deposit 0Hearts of Palm Summit Gray is _Mil— _, ._._...:__a__A__ _ 1 Illir '' y+4T TTLi • • fir T, i ^-4. }' i 2. .A..t.r..„, :A.ice 11111./s.vv..7. 1d7...54. ,3 i '. ,ti %ti , ::::1,1 *:+');- 1 1 e : ‘ I • 1 7. 1:4:0S2ta . •0:14-j • ,,,,e.-171,./Irg-oegrAo..m. .1-� 1'� _ '.rl'�l' ,-w � r.� a ¢¢' i,tit. Y;}�Yy tY•a} }.ti, y`�' •.�� 14 .) ; 1. , , T.M1JYiv�•` '�� i#� Y �t�' � 1>iiiiit • y*3+iy�rr }* •4}}�'f. *'.} IF fir II . 01--- • .I‘ii gii.. --,.. „ „ •-' •-• • • • •,-pr.FrAd.,, . , _-_• ••••%. •-:'-,,2v •-•••.•,. .,'..i....:,,•7:k•!2.r. .0. • I krgill i,._. tiAr ' ..:-.L .. .._. ... RIM PP 011 III r 1 Athil . ,.,_., ,. - - . . - • '2„,..„,,,,„.•._ __.. . .‘ ,. .. ,. _ . .. _i _v • • ...k,„,1,.,.;,, ,,• -----_____.. , „,„„.....„_•-•:,,,, , •••. 3.,.. r ..-• ,...,..-,:,..4„,. ...-ii,,i,..„,,,...„,,_., • ,,,. p :., I.ra._,___ aI'l al :', ` • 1,..,•Fr '`''�r ' "`-' 'tf 'opo 1 111Ti 11 _ ,•y�I�tip'4n •ti r ''� _r. .�r �. •, .�*. '= ,�F+�74 C. ` +I I „et •.• ' JIB " T m .1t§ er'17rIVA g. ,, .. .. n •• .:y f ;, �'' w.. 3 .y •� yr +f lu,i+k i'�a�. I � Agam.111.1 t IITA .-,•447.... _.._ 1.:C skf r yr * T r Aid! *� k • �'_‘" mot_ rt .# } �ra is+kr ;,, ' bib • • i :rf' Jc ... vs.• •% % J4k !' Y:' I4� - T y - tilE r . Stucco - 16/20 finish Windows - Vinyl Railing - Metal Screen Awnings - Aluminum Storefront - Aluminum 0 Iron Ore (or similar) Iron Ore (or similar) 4 Brushed finish Iron Ore (or similar) (on Building 9 only) COLOR & MATERIAL BOARD A_2 , 3 V ITALIA DATE: 04-15-21 PALM DESERT, CA JOB NO.: 2020-383 THE PACIFIC COMPANIES AO ARCHITECTS Aw0 Architecture. 16...<6 430 EAST STATE ST., SUITE 100, EAGLE, ID 83616 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. , ORANGE, CA 92866 Design. (208) 461 -0022 ( 714) 639-9860 Relationships. . , I'4_• ..1._.. m , ._... .._ .1 • .... ••• - . _.. ...- _\- -IIIIP- . . 111)1 .. mi. . .-- - it • _ - . 1 -.E • i :,.. ,. 11 . ,-., • .. '• rit '1!,, 4 f, 4k . .. .11 - . _mm711M115-111.1.1111111=111=11.1111.17- _ _ _ _ - - --Mimm - - '-,• 4. i m NI' .li . 15- i• - 4,o. , _ \ ' ‘. --../: 44: - .-141%. . . 1, - .. ,. allit: , .... .. . g • • • 1. ic -') -er . . - - .... .. L•tio, r .- I IPIP:11:riP I .;%6. ‘1\‘--- -''' '%I .6. • v., 4.. _ -.,„, - • , •it ' -• T il- / 6 i's.._ tt:4-,- j1/10' y• ••• , 4, ....• lb' 40 , t -A• s -- 0, ''-` itillfril - 41s... •t ' - I 14% 4076 _ it l411. '4 -I..1•110. . f. • •'":„. ,• 4.110 iiiit. r-E-. ._ . -%. *-, . .r.' 1 . I 1. .. rl , 'rt. ;.?. V i 1111F: • 11 , A I.'. ..! 1. 4. - - 0.- \Nic,.: 0 , _..... 4,, - .7 ..:‘ ty ' ....r. 7--3 • 4 ' 4 t 41I '.- p,-.. ..... - ".• ''.• L•tt ' 7. r N 1 . ••.---- 0. •••v• i - ., •• le , , vt,.- '..;, '''• - ..., I, '4, •,. . ip, i t.o. it .. s4 . , r .44 ,.-. i - , . , _..- • ,, -Fir _ TI! •1 , • k. 1-81) IL''.' .110 1,4" 1-,-.41414k. ,• . , , , 4,..... ..e. ,. .. A 1 -, ,. - it le 'I.' . li, , _ _ . - .41:1" . •1/4.- .); - l' wi __ - T - shr • , , /. ,.! o• - . !.. - ..,- - r "1:, vigi . . Ak. '•- ;• ' 'IN • 411.0 - ..... . ._ . _ _ Ni -4'.••••7....'"il Ill. j i Ilrelk 10. ' J•'L' ... , . , .P 21.1. m i , 4;.N.. ii._ h< V ,.• r-6- .'14.1r 1'' • - - _ - - )1'1 • )- ell/ imi K No it F.L. A „:„. • ..... 11 .•Nn i 0 . iliaL -_. ',..Y 1 T • Nit,. , •41 40...iiips. .. s- al. v.k , ' .. .;A. •I. ' All., 11 -••• Nr i, ' ... .•ii:- . A jr 10 let - - •. :kr 'it. Iliqr . 4 • • _, - al. 441 4 ...• ...liklif A frSiplit.. ....• 4 ilk, Pr .4-.kir• ' --..'r - • - /11„.• ..sfk . - 1 . . ,. _,.. r'k.4, • , _ , t . - ; , - s. , - 141 4 - , , . ' .so-‘,10, 4 k . 41° ., 1 • . , t drilikfikho . .., . „. .,, ... . . ,. ... ,,.. . . v. 7 • , .. . •-, - _ • .0 . , - - • - -f ; _, 4 -..„.!' i ..--. k I •-•A`. - - -• -• -....- .- • -- $N ... ... •• - ,k .1. •e•IN -. _-.. ,•_. , .,... ,..etiNIP c ... ‘ lit • .. •. .7 * LI..•1•..• , -.-.-i.,,..Q.1,. . .L'ATY,' ' ,. . - ' -r .....'' '' I. ' P A ' A . * ..... ,...;:„...r,•`' __J., ,.. 4••.• ' : .._ ... . r . ..,.• '''' .7.P/:r..:' 1'1.-.".1....::. ''';.i' 'r. P. ,„I. ' . .... . ,'or 411" * • . . , ., - .. . • , . 1 ' '`A, 4% al L Ine - - ',..-...- • .. ri,. • - _•• . - -----•=-E•ot;-• '-.•-,.., l' ,- . t ". - ,.' - .. r. - • . ..... ,k.. 01.,‘11 Alb< r I IP ' '' -t4 ' • _ 7a qdr- .i." . '-,d v je•.i'L'I.:., :1.'" . .4. ..r ' . `''.. 'f• . r - qf „.7.- AN. • ', NI!.: 1 . 4. .f i / r--,, -• ....= L. ' - - - .• 4. t... 44,. ,ire. ‘,.. -4 44....-!, IS ..... al•6 .., a- ...Tr r,• r 44t 167':--,--_ - . . ' " - ' •r7,-,:+:11•-t44C:e.'IT.: ',T.)+1' ....4. .;-':' .:,,,:-.. ''p--• --'. ' - 4 1,,, •I'Y . r.• .'-'t,:.- • .."'. ' . , --/'_`•.,_,'f.4- ......1_,I... . .. ' • .4, - . - • 47 •• ,4...t.... ,.,.! ,,I.,41*..:,,,-.:,...:- .,.._r_Ar...1 -144: '.1,_......... '-,. 2 :';'",-.71.1.,-...--44 .., ---;'-_..7-2.- -::!.4...._ .1-1,.. - ...__. ,-_ -•,-,, - .. ., .. ,• - . • . 1 . : N••W:P.•• ' ' '1.1.M ' 4. .-,-...- - . ••?ii, s. _ ..- ---- .., ,,,,,... _..-z:"-- . - 4 • ., - ... „ . . , .. =, -.r.... •• :-.....----,.., • . .....ii.. LI.,. -;••-• ;.. ,,,,-:,4::,,..11..:,..........,,,.••,,,, . .,...-,..s. 7a .,,, .- _ it ' . •1-' _ - ..'- , ... l'• . N. 4.. . 4" e•0774,-• ... ". -.- t fulithif- - ' . ' ' - k'• ' • - - - ,.•r - '' _.L , i , ,j.l. i.. 0.4. •Y y ' 'h, • I 4,0%••• , ..*Vs1' • • ., --- .* -- I'M L - 4.1.44,' • . . ... .... ..1 • '"1;;IN't, '-•,,:‘ „ - - ' ..-",* mi.-...'-4-4-:-''.'!- -51-, _ Ar,,,,___ ...a....--st ..- : ----, -- - , . . J ...• ,. `- , .4.• ,. i •5 '-'.4•.' ''.•- ,-- ----- ••!•••:•„,.•.... _ --, ..--4....--:- ,. • ••• ... -•ii,ok. - - ...i - :4_,:rx,::'- •-go - -.,•..........e !P.::.171.-iiteAri Li_f_,,-17-_4-,......i--:.i,.,.._.--• .-.4:,.;,..._., ....__- • AiX, d. * -r - • . • . 4. ., -..- -, ,,,. •• - . . , • , N. 4 . ' '' f ' . .. ' 1 •• ' ..• • . IL G v •. '. -Z.01. 1 .''' r.4.7-4* • 4- . , __-_-..----. - - .,__z_ . .r.,,,.a..,_, ...._,..... . t.- .., ., .. __ -.,... . , .., ....,, ... .._ . ,.... , 10 V„... ../ ... ? , . - , . . • -s -- ... . , Th. , _ ,•,-- ..- ....40.t.4-r '-'''': . '.' 1-',...r.` '. ...r ...., .... .. , . , :941' ,- • ,-, . , _ .,_„ . • . . - - :,-_,- -. . - -- . I liVr.lk IP"..1 1' - - . - r.. .. _ • 7 . •._ ' . . _ . - • ,_ _ • - - .6,7." . • ',.1". ' '.6 Nr ..-•) -. ..... . . . . _ _ t, - . - .4'.1!.-N,--...-r_ - • . , . - , -.....,7 ' .... .."-dar,... _ • • .F- _.- f 4111111P al-;.2%,_ -"IMIIL-"Palg-W4,-sm - --- ., --, --ms • ' - r 1 r--- _, ..........__...., _ ........ ..._, .. i la - .... 4. ,-' •- -. - • ''''.• -," . .' ,._ ' . . . •5.',11 r.. c-•.-e---,..• - -- -• . 1 .-"- --.1 ., ii,_ • - , ... • . . . . . ,. • , P ••• • i . • I . • ' , • "T•e'',. - ' 4- ' ' • - -, _ .. • - -"wer 6 1 L I 11._ _,,1 , • p ......„ . ,. . .. _.),..__ .. .,.. 4, le -. „.•••, _. t• - , . • . , r./ . r .... , . , .. ' " ' -., - _ . r • • •--, ..., .., _,...- •% .,.....- -.... • L ..-°--'4 iarr-t' . , .,_, -..... . . - -t- , I- . ' • ._ • x•-",N 5 i L. .,. . . , _ - . .-. ,..,,,...,.-_. ,., ,. • r , . ,4i r-PJ ... . _r , ' .4 : r - ' •, _ • .:.4.1 -6 ... ••-•-"141114 4 0 r ;' 0 'C.,' i ' •#,I , .. 2,- ..-7. ... _. -.. .. .. - 1 .1 ri 4•..- i '.-11W I, I ' • ',.. • 1.- • \ 'l. 'S 1% ii, MON ,,. II' I '''%.... -'.e :. .. 'm • - ' --A%.. . .....1.. .A • '. r.', I -.' . L. . - i - .,... . I '' . Fj, Ir . , . f-_---- - . , 9 , ... , _ ,. . -, - . _ .. , \ 11 . . •. , `.. . • • . , • , • t' * rilliffit .i L....._G fr-.--" 1*.M1 ;Ill - , •- •- _. ' ,. • - , 2 J . ... 114 ...N. - 1 ... a .a, " - - . , ielm.' . , , ., .. i.:' - •-... ... L . . 4",. ''. 40-.4 ,.. • I -lS , . l, " 4gr' . -- , • - 7--: ...,- • -.. .... • r'rt "li ' 4• ... , ' s .. , - _ I e - -. i I ri ' IMILmaWl=If ...., - - ,...... 0, I . ._ .' -. •• 14'".' _ '- - lit 11. '• ., , . illf ils- , 0, . ••I ...- .. II __,,_ afr 11111111111111111111111111111 „....141011)1111K- 1.17r .„ a - • -- .• ....* .17"Oli 11 " tlik TOP V - -'. .... - - t _ • •,'..kir,,..: - - An, •--.•• - ... , , - , P- • . .,..-- . . .-... - • ,_ ••,,, . -rd.. f ,-, ,jr. •$ __1:., : ,,,..i:"./..,.:7011. '4,' 4.€(.)..,: . I '4:- , 1 • - -.. jpi,710' ._ r-4.4-r.::• Pk"; s. _. r. , , • . .• •- - -... ..;,..nr • ...,... , 4 • ii...4.7 ... 'NIA.- -- _ .__ _ _ _ - P••• - • .1, _". ,ir , ' •• $tir,r , . ..i. e - ..1.. ..,. - : • ._ . ..--- . _ . , . ..,.....• ....„., .., . „ . .: ,.. r I • ,„az .- • • IL , , , „ ,. . ,, . • . ,, , - . .. _ 11$• y 51,•••,,. • J.. • _ • ...- •• r ._,. -- . . . • , . _.. , .... • .• , . _ __ -.- '. . , .. - 1 i 4: ' i , ,i. ' '4' • ,,.L.,,,, L, iit , • 1 ; ..110.,L. ...„ (11": , • .. .. .! , , ,, ,,,,, •rkrZ. ., • • rk ... ' ..--, • 'i• ....ir , . '. •; - -",- - - 1 , , ..._, - , ./: i _ II ! • ; : .• .. , . ,. .‘........, lir' '. ; : . , . ,...: ... .., ' 'r: . . . ..... .._. ..` .. L :.. 0 . ......._ _._ . • „. --- ' .7 ' _.1 ':=_-:,1'.:7'. -i'. ... .- Z.- -- - ce !.. --•-.-- _,..- I 7,.._ ...........,.:. , _ .._, _ . „.. .4A Tt '..i1;.....,' : ,,, p0, N to%, L' . .t 1-'4r,:. r: if.._ I 11. .._r er::..,...- „i#Itzi.:..... ''''' ...-1,rki;•. ' 4 r ,.2 f ,L ..„".4,:.1 1. 7 i 4:4' ,t!..,, ,14#.•:,,t.? ric , -:-•••ar • ,„ ti: • ...v3.,•„,„___ ... , •slft:, ,, I.' „;,"-:,...4...h.:- ,. ,. - N ii _„ , % e .,. r 7 r x.. 7,4 - NIr Ill. I .r. ''''' ...-'-4.7: -...t,....-' '..; ::-,:::::-.-::: .-_. i : ---... •.... :;-- , . 0 .. ' '•, 7 . All•'.1 '11 . . ',.,41 A ' ' v.. ..- A.S4 ,,.. •k ,.. 'Y.' 4 t•-.1 Ar : ..2.411117:5-m4: ''. 4 AO ' ''''..% ;•i:b1, 4 .,.., • , i" :-: - •.,a_l_ r•-- ,,e. ' • / • - i:.' , ." r -:',L 0 i 4-1 N • .1 1..: ill 11'4 ,.•. 1. IMP/011q...' .:•:.;..''' .111R . .r..i'r7.. 1 _ •• , ...'-W • .. +.1. ....' ... ?, .- 1 • ''' t- A r, ,,,,, 6. , ...dos- .4. ' c‘ ••f', -..ti • . •.1..,-..._ ' I ilb, ' . 'If .. -, ."...r.'1,..n. co:'5,,./:•,,r‘„„?. .. glit A - .- -TW/14e%..„,-1 .,„ .-?"4,-;---'10.7.„-...k,--e-•_.-,'-,- - IV P .. "a' - ..-Ar" ' or .C. . .., ' • - i ` -,,,p.,- ,,,vr %, ILA ... , , - . , 4. .4. . Re.r yr' •A' ., I II. r :" -V .- j• .., %I,. i '* #`1.• 4.: rql. ••• . ••• r - - - •• .. Alr'1, ve i _ .4 A .......1.-ft ,.:„.„. -.7-- - --&- ....-7.vi- . - 6 r'.0, ' ,.-''..u Au., • le A . • ':-L-4 . T.. .4, ki? 1 :•-t.%' - r ,• • v!);%,* - -I ,,,4_4a.... '. 1, 01110. ,,griV ..„ ...-4,fr-i• 0. .r ',•,. 1 E ii,. ..... jig , , . .. . Nik .' . t i Ilk' "4•"°11.- IL .• ."...11P.- g.,, •, __ _ . .._.. ... .._ ..... .___... ._ . . . __ _ _ _ _. . , ,,/,,, , .._,: i eN-Nt. . 170 •-." .b. * V ' t -.El 7..4 , .v.,-..;_f _-...:-=T---,.--. . • ..•=r -_-.44.,.. ....---- - , • ...,....,V., - 4 *04.01"..1A4 ' : . .' •ifir.r..., , _ '‘..V-•-.- Llt--_-.A.4.1.54" ---,,--4 ,:.----,p---i,-.---.K,-tf-4w-.--7.'tzv• .-- .-- .1 _ .ro...." Irlt k • ,. ._,._,-, _o__ .... - , -1,;.-t,:_.,"- - _.. .-.--gc*i-r..i-_--. __-,--_-_ -__ - ,_ = - ' ,516.1iirkrii." ... ''''' • r 'L---r-.?,--•;-.,-.:::,.a..r.;:ec _ ,, c..-- c '3, -------04r-4-,.., .- - ,,-- . - - - ....r. , ----71-c....3 - -7- + ''' ....ligre. .1.A A ' .P. .'.40...: ".e.J.Z.''<.•,..,47' ,,..7".4. '-..r-.45.... .-.0 ....... .t..., „4. , .7_ .:,..,. ki. ... - .. ..::-...,.. -. '--' - ... A or.-- , -i& _.,---Lf--- ....',.,-;,;._:,L',---h....-• ` -. 11--.05". ef ,..? i- i A .,- - - ,-.: .010. 14%.111;1411.144r• _.. ;r-7.7"" i'.....t- -.-k",i;. .---_ -.Er--..-4.--. ..-•,-.. ; ••••=--.v._;0.,., - e• . - ... ...-.0.. . , o• 1,- .,.•• - • . ' -, -1.... . - 2"" - V-°`- •..4-7. -- -.;`.-+-- '-'11T44.'t•'-''''--1'4.,§77..1,''-it--7.* -7-;..:,_,;:z. _ ,,„--,,- .....:"4 ,__ra i,It .' ''' , _it , , '' ‘ -',JA '- ' '..-• '-,.---.{:,., ';'''' c'`Vt7-'-'1.- .'S.,•W'-i.'-':_;Z•j",:- .-4i(:".2-',46-1. 1.-•rI-L''.--- --' :-:';'.... , • 14...4512 -. • ... ..•.1., • . .. .411EIE:L ...".1. , -' T,- '." ' ' -11r.-' ''' :41'. . ' ' .2' ;•.'n .4.7791. ....77.'A5 ...__.,..._;..w... , ,..---.-__,...a._M" -_.,,,.-4.-,:„....;. -.4....A,,,,-...e.: ',-iipa - . --..-e-leg•, 4„,12t41.:,-2-S - - - --.-t-1.,..-451= ' -•?*, *- ' -__r_.:7-'-- •`_........1:"`„..,--1.4,_' ' __„_h ---g-,..--F.--..r:' .-.... : _ - __1...e.y4-g,5"*:,-- • - - .pir ., _.„,...x.--.r.„ ...„ _..-:- - ,- ,..,____-1---_›-_7.,___, ... ..7 -_--7-. -._ :3,,,-...-or,--; --.. g-,4-._ __.E.X .--- 7-•.4_s... 4r Ar04 2', . .A.--:10,- *. - . , -_, s,„ -'- , - '-._- _-S..-77 ' .- 0-l'2. -!,•" 7, -_- .....--''--.-..-- -‘0‘,...1"p7r,r,-.1' _-l'I-4-7.1.!'-'4,e,...y.,-...„--.;-•----.47s...a;_.„.7.„ ._-_,-4--.67._,.., _1--,--- li.r-..- -371.-•-•= . ... - .. -.•:--','77....1k '7:4.w,• -....,-.7,,.---'' --'_,F " .27-7.-...-:I- ."'Xz•','''''_ •;c1Ma-'""2,'S _ -,4ger-r-r--,,,er ".-- - " •"0,..- ,,- _.,.... ---.--5-'2,_.- 7--' Ilr•-•,-.1." .0.-,.. ."•..z---..•..- •-• 4.-,. '-.- s 7,-. ,_ r-r,, _••••• - . --re;•••-::--":. •„2,..--;. ...r.."._ • _-• -2.....fir:•.. -- -- --- --„c.''" --14.7„::_,-.-.,. - ::_4- ''''?••'---- -'-"` -5, 7'.:-ctrp.'--.4.. - T:. ..." 1., - - -,...- -.--41.:k%. ' - :-" - ..- ' -7-....7-,:' -464. . " . , ;"- .--..2,VT.'1-,•.-_,;,2111!" _- •-. - ' - , __ __ •. -•_+ ••_.• - _. i_ .1 - r• + a a-. ''' ---7-1111n --".: • W 4i-4,j111.4' - - - - • - • -•'..- • - • ._.-c-Ar4Y- .,_ . -- VIEW OF RESIDENCES - LOOKING SW A_ 3 . 0 DATE: 04-15-21 V I TA L I A PALM DESERT, CA JOB NO.: 2020-383 THE PACIFIC COMPANIES AO ARCHITECTS 4wN.14•1110 Architecture. Design. 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. , ORANGE, CA 92866 iiil, 430 EAST STATE ST., SUITE 100, EAGLE, ID 8361 6 Relationships. Sii. ( 714) 639-9860 (208) 461 _0022