Agenda packet — Cathedral City City Council, January 8, 2025 (part 5 of 6)

CATCH BASIN SIZING

3130VeronaAvenue•Buford,GA30518
(866)888-8479/ (770)932-2443• Fax: (770)932-2490
©Nyloplast Inlet CapacityChartsJune2012

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00

30.00 35.00

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Capacity(cfs) Head(ft)
Nyloplast 2' x 3' Steel Bar / MAGGrate Inlet Capacity Chart 1 WQMP WORKSHEETS
Date
Enter the Area Tributary to this Feature AT = 10.48 acres If = 0.63
Use the following equation based on the WEF/ASCE Method C = 0.858If
3 - 0.78If
2 + 0.774If + 0.04 C = 0.43
Vu = 0.17
VBMP (ft3)= VBMP = 6,467 ft3
Whitewater Watershed
BMP Design Volume, VBMP(Rev. 03-2012)
Legend: Required Entries Calculated Cells Company Name Christiansen & Company 10/11/2023 Designed by Keith Christiansen County/City Case No
Company Project Number/Name Date Palm Apartments Drainage Area Number/Name DMA1 Determine the Effective Impervious Fraction
Type of post-development surface cover
(use pull down menu)
Mixed Surface Types
Effective Impervious Fraction
Calculate the composite Runoff Coefficient, C for the BMP Tributary Area Determine Design Storage Volume, VBMP
Calculate VU, the 85% Unit Storage VolumeVU= 0.40 x C (in*ac)/ac Calculate the design storage volume of the BMP, VBMP. VU (in-ac/ac) x AT (ac) x 43,560 (ft2 /ac)
12 (in/ft)
Notes:

Company Name: Date:

ATRIB = 10.48 acres
VBMP= 6,467 ft3
I = 2 in/hr
FS = 3
D1 = D1 = 2.7 ft
1 ft
50 ft
10 ft
D2 = 4.0 ft
DMAX = 2.7 ft
z = 4 :1
dB = 2.5 ft
AS = 2587 ft2
AD = 45000 ft2
Volume = 32 ft3
Depth = 1 ft
Area = 32 ft2

12.0 in
Notes:
a) Tributary Drainage Area (BMP subarea)
Infiltration Basin- Design Procedure (Rev. 06-2014) BMP ID Legend: Required Entries
Ret 1 Calculated Cells
Christiansen & Company
Keith A. Christiansen
Design Volume
b) Enter VBMP determined from Section 4.3 of this Handbook Maximum Depth
a) Infiltration rate
b) Factor of Safety (See Table 1, Appendix B: "Infiltration Testing" from this BMP Handbook)
c) Calculate D1I (in/hr) x48 hrs
12 (in/ft)x FS
d) Enter the depth of freeboard (at least 1 ft)
e) Enter depth to historic high ground water (measured from top of basin) f) Enter depth to top of bedrock or impermeable layer (measured from top of basin) c) Minimum bottom surface area of basin (AS= VBMP/dB) g) D2is the smaller of:

Depth to groundwater - (10 ft + freeboard)and
Depth to impermeable layer - (5 ft + freeboard)
h) DMAX is the smaller value of D1and D2but shall not exceed 5 feet Basin Geometry
a) Basin side slopes (no steeper than 4:1)
b) Proposedbasin depth (excluding freeboard)
d) Proposed Design Surface Area
Forebay
a) Forebay volume (minimum 0.5% VBMP)
b) Forebay depth (height of berm/splashwall. 1 foot min.) c) Forebay surface area (minimum)
d) Full height notch-type weir Width (W) =

INFILTRATION TEST

1 HYDROLOGY MAP

PRE-DEVELOPMENT
N0° 05' 20"E N89° 56' 46"W
K.A.C. C.A.C. K.A.C. LOCATION: BENCH ELEV. DESIGN BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NO. DWG. NO. OF SHEETS SHEET DATE R.C.E. 50083
1 Christiansen & Company Land Development - Design - Engineering Est. 2007 5225 Canyon Crest Drive, Ste 251 Riverside, California 92507 Ph: 951-323-4713 Fax: 951-405-8410 email:[email protected]

APPROVED DATE REVISION
CORRECTED APPROVED "AS BUILT" BY BY DATE DATE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING THE SAFETY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY; THAT THIS REQUIREMENT

SHALL BE MADE TO APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS, AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR FURTHER AGREES TO DEFEND

INDEMNIFY AND HOLD DESIGN PROFESSIONAL HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTING LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE PRIVATE ENGINEERING NOTE: OF DESIGN PROFESSIONAL. UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES & USES: THE ENGINEER PREPARING

THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PREPARER OF THESE PLANS. CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE K.A.C. C.A.C. K.A.C. LOCATION: BENCHMARK: ELEV. PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF: DESIGN BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, FILE NO. DWG. NO. OF SHEETS SHEET KEITH A. CHRISTIANSEN
DATE R.C.E. 50083
1 PRELIMINARY PRE HYDROLOGY MAP APN 670-110-043 Christiansen & Company Land Development - Design - Engineering 1 Est. 2007 5225 Canyon Crest Drive, Ste 251 Riverside, California 92507 Ph: 951-323-4713 Fax: 951-405-8410 email:[email protected] THE WREN

APPROVED DATE REVISION
CORRECTED APPROVED "AS BUILT" BY BY DATE DATE

THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PREPARER OF THESE PLANS. CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE 116 363.23 BRONZE DISC. IN CONCRETE MONUMENT AT THE BENCHMARK: FD. CATHEDRAL CITY NE COR. OF DATE PALM DR. & RAMON RD. APPROX. XXXXX ROSEMOUNT AVENUE DATE PALM/RAMON STATE OF CALIFORNIA 20 FEET FROM EDGES OF PAVEMENT.

IN THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE WREN
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE:

LIQUEFACTION: NO LIQUEFACTION AREA
FEMA FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION: ZONE X (FLOOD HAZARD IS UNDETERMINED, BUT POSSIBLE) PER FIRM MAP NO. 06065C1579G / DATED: AUGUST 28, 2008 NOTE: 1. 2. THIS MAP INCLUDES THE ENTIRE CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND DIVIDER. THERE ARE NO KNOWN WELLS ON PROPERTY OR WITHIN 200 FEET OF PROPERTY. 3. THERE ARE NO EXISTING DWELLINGS, BUILDINGS, OR OTHER STRUCTURES KNOWN ON THIS PROPERTY. 4. SUBDIVISION WILL SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH CITY/COUNTY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PER A SEPARATE WQMP REPORT. REVISIONS: NO. DATE: DESCRIPTION:

CG (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: PCC (PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) R3 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: EXISTING GROSS ACREAGE: PROPOSED NET ACREAGE: BUILDINGS (138724 SF) ASPHALT (111774 SF) CONCRETE (34951 SF) LANDSCAPE (125947 SF) ACREAGE: 10.48 ACRES 10.48 ACRES 3.18 ACRES 2.57 ACRES 0.80 ACRES 2.89 ACRES 1.04 ACRES OWNER / MAINTENANCE ENTITY: PRIVATE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 670-110-043 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE: SCHEDULE "A" SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY: ADDRESS: DATE OF TOPOGRAPHY:

INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS, INC. 7117 ARLINGTON AVENUE, SUITE "A" RIVERSIDE, CA 92503 JULY 11, 2023 TELEPHONE: (951) 687-4252
EXHIBIT PREPARER: ADDRESS: CONTACT: CHRISTIANSEN & COMPANY 5225 CANYON CREST DRIVE, SUITE 251 RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 KEITH CHRISTIANSEN TELEPHONE: (951)323-4713 CONTACT: STEFAN VOGEL TELEPHONE: (626) 277-6782 LAND OWNER: ADDRESS: DESERT CARE, LLC
31190 CALLE CAYUGA CATHEDRAL CITY, CA 92234 APPLICANT: ADDRESS: CONTACT: DATA TABLE COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY DEELOPMENT GROUP, INC 36101 BOB HOPE DRIVE, SUITE E5 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
STEFAN VOGEL TELEPHONE: (626) 277-6782
EXHIBIT DATE: OCTOBER 6, 2023
PRELIMINARY PRE HYDROLOGY MAP ARCHITECT: ADDRESS: CONTACT: HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS, LP 2350 BRISTOL STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 VELY ZAJEC TELEPHONE: (949)955-4500 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: ADDRESS: CONTACT: JSA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 19846 COVENTRY LANE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 JIM SHROPE TELEPHONE: (760)610-9873 GEO/INFILTRATION: ADDRESS: CONTACT: SLADDEN ENGINEERING 45090 GOLF CENTER PARKWAY
INDIO, CA 92201 BRETT ANDERSON TELEPHONE: (760)863-0713 email: [email protected]
email: [email protected]
email: [email protected]
email: [email protected]
email: [email protected]
email: [email protected]
RETENTION BASIN (45113 SF) PRIVATE PRIVATE PRIVATE PRIVATE PRIVATE EXISTING EASEMENT NOTES: 1
2 AREAS: UTILITY PURVEYORS: WATER - COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT PH: 760-398-2651 SEWER - COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT PH: 760-398-2651 ELECTRIC - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON PH: 760-202-4252 GAS - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY PH: 800-427-2200 TELEPHONE - FRONTIER PH: 760-864-1726 CABLE - SPECTRUM PH: 760-346-3714 GEOTECHNICAL: ADDRESS: CONTACT: LANDMARK CONSULTANTS, INC. 77-948 WILDCAT DRIVE PALM DESERT, CA 92211 GREG M. CHANDRA TELEPHONE: (760)360-0665 email: [email protected] AN EASEMENT FOR STREET PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS RECORDED IN BOOK 2825 AT PAGE 265, DATED 1/1/61, REC. OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA. AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC HIGHWAY AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSED IN FAVOR OF THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY AS RECORDED PER INST. NO. 188899 , DATED 6/6/91, REC. OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA.

D
P/L
P/L DATE PALM DRIVE C/L SECTION 15 LINE

VICINITY MAP NTS VISTA CHINO
30TH AVENUE
INTERSTATE 10 LANDAU BLVD McCALLUM WAY
BARISTO RD. SAN ELJAY AVE. CYPRESS RD. ROSEMOUNT AVE. PROJECT SITE ROSEMOUNT AVE.

INDICATES DECORATIVE CONCRETE

INDICATES FLOWLINE

INDICATES TOP OF CURB

INDICATES TOP OF PAVEMENT
FLTC
TP
L.F. INDICATE LINEAR FEET

INDICATES INVERT ELEVATION

INDICATES TOP OF GRATE
INV. TG

P/L INDICATES PROPERTY LINE

FS INDICATES FINISHED HARD SURFACE

TF INDICATES TOP OF FOOTING

TW INDICATES TOP OF WALL P INDICATES PLANTER

FG INDICATES FINISHED DIRT

INDICATES BLOCK WALL BTM INDICATES BOTTOM

PER LANDSCAPE PLAN

INDICATES PROPOSED ASPHALT

INDICATES EXISTING CONTOUR

INDICATES PROPOSED CONTOUR
(50) 50

EG INDICATES EXISTING GRADE
LEGEND

HYDRAULIC DATA
TRIBUTARY AREA (AC.) IMP% Q100 (cfs) V100 (cf) E1 10.48 5.0% 35.61 46544 OFF2 OFF1 Q100= 1.48 cfs V100= 2068 cf Q100= 4.68 cfs V100= 12115 cf OFF1 1.18 90.0% 4.68 12155 OFF2 0.42 25.0% 1.48 2068
E1 Q100=35.61 cfs V100=46544 cf

POST-DEVELOPMENT
1'-6 171/256" TRELLIS

POOL SPA
30 x 75
(TBD) PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
FF=361.17 PE=360.5 TP 360.17 TC 359.64 FL 359.14 TC 359.50 FL 359.00 FF=360.97 PE=360.3
FF=360.97 PE=360.3
FF=360.27 PE=359.6
FF=360.57 PE=359.9
FF=361.17 PE=360.5
FF=361.17 PE=360.5
FF=361.67 PE=361.0
FF=361.57 PE=360.9
FF=361.67 PE=361.0
FF=361.67 PE=361.0
FF=361.37 PE=360.7 FF=361.37 PE=360.7
TP 360.49 TP 360.20 1.56% 2.74% 1.48% 1.50% 3.03% 2.79% 0.50%

0.53%

0.51%

0.50%
HPHP 1.40% 1.50% 1.86% 0.53%
TC 360.54 FL 360.04 TC 359.76 FL 359.26

0.54%
TC 361.17 FL 360.67 HP 0.89%

3.34%

2.73%

1.50%

3.73%
TP 360.28TP 360.61 TP 360.55 HP 0.53%

0.85%

4.71%

2.34%

1.57%

1.25% 0.57%

3.20%

3.01%

1.02%
TC 360.49 TP 359.99TC 360.47 FL 359.97 FL 359.46 TG 359.39 0.50% TC 360.17 FL 359.67 TC 360.59 FL 360.09 TC 360.89 FL 360.39 TC 361.47 TP 360.97 TC 361.08 FL 360.58 TC 360.75 FL 360.25 TC 360.89 TP 360.39 POOL LIP 361.40 POOL L PI 361 4. 0
1% 1%
BOT= 350.0
BOT= 354.0
BOT= 350.0 BASIN

RETENTION
BASIN
RET. BASIN
RET. 2%MIN. 2% PROP. 6" 2%MIN. CURB & GUTTER
PROP. 6' SIDEWALK 60' C/L
(TC 361.54)
(FL 360.88)
(TC 361.46)
(FL 360.78)
(TC 357.52)
(FL 357.02

1.89% (TC 355.53) (1.10%)
(FL 355.04)
(TC 352.24)
(FL 351.78)
(TC 352.33)
(FL 351.85)
(TC 357.65)
(FL 357.15)
(TC 359.75) 20' (FL 359.25) 20' 10' 10'
(TC 361.40)
(FL 360.83)
(FL 360.70)
(FL 360.64)
(TC 361.19)
(FL 360.56)
(TC 362.76)
(FL 362.06)EXIST. 8" CURB & GUTTER
63' 11' 43' 20' 73' FS 361.00
FS 361.00 TC 359.01 FL 358.51 CB2
2% 0.50%

0.50%
TC 359.29 FL 358.79 HP 0.50%

2.25%

0.58% 3.42%

1.0%

1.0%
FS 361.00 1%
FF=361.40 TC 359.21 FL 358.71 TC 358.82 FL 358.32 TC 358.40 FL 357.90 HP TC 360.08 FL 359.58 TC 359.85 FL 359.35 TC 361.00 FL 360.50 TC 360.03 FL 359.53TC 359.78 FL 359.28 TC 359.68 FL 359.18 TC 359.33 FL 358.83 TC 359.26 FL 358.76 FL 358.35 TC 359.81 FL 359.31 GB 4.01% 5.04%

1.54% 4.65%
TC 359.41 FL 358.91 TC 359.66 FL 359.16

3.91%

2.12%

2.00% 1.50% 1.50% 3.37%
TC 360.37 FL 359.87

0.50%

0.50% 0.51% 0.50%

0.47%

3.51%

1.86%

1.20%

0.24%

1.12% 1.50%0.57%4.25%

0.80% 0.80%

3.66%

1.85%

3.46%

1.80%

3.57%

1.80%

0.76% 1.00% 1.50% 1.00%
TP 360.34 HP 0.65% 0.50% 1.00% 1.00%
TC 359.89 FL 359.39 TC 360.19 FL 359.69 TC 360.25 FL 359.75 TC 359.86 FL 359.36 TC 360.20 FL 359.70 TC 360.17 FL 359.67 TC 360.46 FL 359.96 TC 360.54 FL 360.04 TC 360.67 FL 360.17 TC 359.78 FL 359.28 TC 359.83 FL 359.33 TC 360.67 FL 360.17 TC 360.55 FL 360.05 TC 360.50 FL 360.00 TC 359.80 FL 359.30 TC 360.62 FL 360.12 TC 361.03 FL 360.53 FS 359.81

0.5%

0.5%
0 5. %
FL 359.3 GB HP

0.5%

2.3%
FL 360.2 FL 359.0
12%
HP FL 359.2 FL 360.2

0.5%
TG 358.75

0.5%
FL 360.1 GB FL 360.7 HP TG 359.71
TC 361.48 TP 360.98
0 5. % 0 5. %
FL 359.7 FL 360.0 FL 359.9 FL 360.4 HP TC 360.62 TP 360.12 TC 361.86 TP 361.36 TC 361.94 TP 361.44 FL 360.2 HP FL 360.0 FL 359.9 TG 359.08
2% 2%
TC 361.42 TP 360.92 TC 361.42 TP 360.92 TC 361.31 TP 360.81 TC 360.00 TP 359.50 TC 360.00 TP 359.50 TC 360.00 TP 359.50 TC 360.00 TP 359.50 TC 360.78 TP 360.28 TC 361.04 TP 360.54 TC 361.06 TP 360.56 TC 361.14 TP 360.64 TC 361.45 TP 360.95 TC 361.55 TP 361.05 24" HDPE 8" HDPE 8" HDPE
8" HDPE 24" HDPE 3.7%

0.5%
30" HDPE

EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W N0° 05' 20"E N89° 56' 46"W
N. 00°01"43" E 779 3. 7' (PROTECT IN PLACE) EXIST. 6' BLOCK WALL N. 89°56"46" W 571.33' N. 30°54"40" W

29.17' N. 00°05"20" E 754.69' N. 89°54"51" W 585.53' PROP. 6' BLOCK WALL PROP. 6' BLOCK WALL PROP. 6' BLOCK WALL
CB1 CB3 CB4
(TC 356.53)
(FL 356.03) CB5
TC 361.00 TP 360.50 TC 360.98 TP 360.48 TC 361.05 TP 360.55 18" HDPE 3:1 3:1
3:1
3:1
3:1 3:1
3:1
3:1
K.A.C. C.A.C. K.A.C. LOCATION: BENCH ELEV. DESIGN BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NO. DWG. NO. OF SHEETS SHEET DATE R.C.E. 50083
1 Christiansen & Company Land Development - Design - Engineering Est. 2007 5225 Canyon Crest Drive, Ste 251 Riverside, California 92507 Ph: 951-323-4713 Fax: 951-405-8410 email:[email protected]

SHALL BE MADE TO APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS, AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR FURTHER AGREES TO DEFEND

THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PREPARER OF THESE PLANS. CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE K.A.C. C.A.C. K.A.C. LOCATION: BENCHMARK: ELEV. PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF: DESIGN BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, FILE NO. DWG. NO. OF SHEETS SHEET KEITH A. CHRISTIANSEN
DATE R.C.E. 50083
1 PRELIMINARY POST HYDROLOGY MAP APN 670-110-043 Christiansen & Company Land Development - Design - Engineering 1 Est. 2007 5225 Canyon Crest Drive, Ste 251 Riverside, California 92507 Ph: 951-323-4713 Fax: 951-405-8410 email:[email protected] THE WREN

APPROVED DATE REVISION
CORRECTED APPROVED "AS BUILT" BY BY DATE DATE

THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PREPARER OF THESE PLANS. CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE 116 363.23 BRONZE DISC. IN CONCRETE MONUMENT AT THE BENCHMARK: FD. CATHEDRAL CITY NE COR. OF DATE PALM DR. & RAMON RD. APPROX. XXXXX ROSEMOUNT AVENUE DATE PALM/RAMON STATE OF CALIFORNIA 20 FEET FROM EDGES OF PAVEMENT.

IN THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE WREN
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE:

INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS, INC. 7117 ARLINGTON AVENUE, SUITE "A" RIVERSIDE, CA 92503 JULY 11, 2023 TELEPHONE: (951) 687-4252
EXHIBIT PREPARER: ADDRESS: CONTACT: CHRISTIANSEN & COMPANY 5225 CANYON CREST DRIVE, SUITE 251 RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 KEITH CHRISTIANSEN TELEPHONE: (951)323-4713 CONTACT: STEFAN VOGEL TELEPHONE: (626) 277-6782 LAND OWNER: ADDRESS: DESERT CARE, LLC
31190 CALLE CAYUGA CATHEDRAL CITY, CA 92234 APPLICANT: ADDRESS: CONTACT: DATA TABLE COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY DEELOPMENT GROUP, INC 36101 BOB HOPE DRIVE, SUITE E5 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
STEFAN VOGEL TELEPHONE: (626) 277-6782
EXHIBIT DATE: OCTOBER 6, 2023
PRELIMINARY POST HYDROLOGY MAP ARCHITECT: ADDRESS: CONTACT: HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS, LP 2350 BRISTOL STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 VELY ZAJEC TELEPHONE: (949)955-4500 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: ADDRESS: CONTACT: JSA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 19846 COVENTRY LANE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 JIM SHROPE TELEPHONE: (760)610-9873 GEO/INFILTRATION: ADDRESS: CONTACT: SLADDEN ENGINEERING 45090 GOLF CENTER PARKWAY
INDIO, CA 92201 BRETT ANDERSON TELEPHONE: (760)863-0713 email: [email protected]
email: [email protected]
email: [email protected]
email: [email protected]
email: [email protected]
email: [email protected]
RETENTION BASIN (45113 SF) PRIVATE PRIVATE PRIVATE PRIVATE PRIVATE EXISTING EASEMENT NOTES: 1
2 AREAS: UTILITY PURVEYORS: WATER - COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT PH: 760-398-2651 SEWER - COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT PH: 760-398-2651 ELECTRIC - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON PH: 760-202-4252 GAS - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY PH: 800-427-2200 TELEPHONE - FRONTIER PH: 760-864-1726 CABLE - SPECTRUM PH: 760-346-3714 GEOTECHNICAL: ADDRESS: CONTACT: LANDMARK CONSULTANTS, INC. 77-948 WILDCAT DRIVE PALM DESERT, CA 92211 GREG M. CHANDRA TELEPHONE: (760)360-0665 email: [email protected] AN EASEMENT FOR STREET PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS RECORDED IN BOOK 2825 AT PAGE 265, DATED 1/1/61, REC. OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA. AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC HIGHWAY AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSED IN FAVOR OF THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY AS RECORDED PER INST. NO. 188899 , DATED 6/6/91, REC. OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA.

A A
B B
C
C D
D
P/L
P/L DATE PALM DRIVE C/L SECTION 15 LINE

VICINITY MAP NTS
SECTION "A-A" SCALE: HORIZ. 1"=40'

VISTA CHINO
30TH AVENUE
INTERSTATE 10 LANDAU BLVD McCALLUM WAY
BARISTO RD. SAN ELJAY AVE. CYPRESS RD. ROSEMOUNT AVE. PROJECT SITE

C/L DATE PALM DRIVE
43' 20' (TP 363.3)
(TC 363.0)
(FL 362.3) TOW 369.4
TF 362.4
2% 2M
:1AX. FG 363.4 PROP. 6' BLOCK WALL FL SWALE 360.6 BLDG 9 PAD=361.0 3.9% TC 359.55
FL 359.35
TC 360.36
TP 359.86

0.53%
TC 360.72
TP 360.22
TC 360.93
TP 360.43
TP 360.45

0.51%
FL 359.95 TC 360.86
TP 360.36

0.80%
FG 360.7
350.0 RETENTION
BOTTOM
BASIN
TC 360.54
TP 360.14 TC 360.76
TP 360.26
EXIST. R/W
P/L
360
350
3:1
3:1 APN 670-401-016 VERT. 1"=4' PE 357.0
360
370
ROSEMOUNT AVE.

INDICATES DECORATIVE CONCRETE

INDICATES FLOWLINE

INDICATES TOP OF CURB

INDICATES TOP OF PAVEMENT
FLTC
TP
L.F. INDICATE LINEAR FEET

INDICATES INVERT ELEVATION

INDICATES TOP OF GRATE
INV. TG

P/L INDICATES PROPERTY LINE

FS INDICATES FINISHED HARD SURFACE

TF INDICATES TOP OF FOOTING

TW INDICATES TOP OF WALL P INDICATES PLANTER

FG INDICATES FINISHED DIRT

INDICATES BLOCK WALL BTM INDICATES BOTTOM

PER LANDSCAPE PLAN

INDICATES PROPOSED ASPHALT

INDICATES EXISTING CONTOUR

INDICATES PROPOSED CONTOUR
(50) 50

EG INDICATES EXISTING GRADE
LEGEND
BLDG. #4 BLDG. #3 BLDG. #2 BLDG. #1 BLDG. #5 BLDG. #7 BLDG. #12BLDG. #11 BLDG. #10 BLDG. #9 BLDG. #8 BLDG. #7 1 2 T1 T2
T3
T4
T5
T6

HYDRAULIC DATA
TRIBUTARY AREA (AC.) IMP% Q100 (cfs) V100 (cf) T1(CB#1) 1.81 79.4% 7.05 14810 T2(CB#2) 1.68 81.9% 6.58 14531
T3(CB#3) 1.94 90.0% 7.70 19985
T4(CB#4) 3.19 78.4% 12.41 25572
T5(CB#5) 0.60 67.7% 2.29 4015
T6 1.45 5.0% 4.93 6439
ENTIRE PROJECT 10.48 62.5% 39.66 66256 OFF2 OFF1 Q100= 12.41 cfs V100= 25572 cf Q100= 7.05 cfs V100= 14801 cf Q100= 6.58 cfs V100= 14531 cfQ100=7.70 cfs V100= 19985 cf Q100= 2.29 cfs V100= 4015 cf Q100= 0.78 cfs V100= 1227 cf Q100= 4.68 cfs V100= 12115 cf OFF1

0.21 90.0% 4.68 12155 OFF2

1.18 55.5% 0.78 1227
100yr-3hr WS=355.0
2021 Whitewater River Region WQMP
The Wren (APN 670-110-043) – Cathedral City, CA 92234
Appendix D
Educational Materials
Site Design & Landscape Planning SD-10
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 4
New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Description
Each project site possesses unique topographic, hydrologic, and vegetative features, some of which are more suitable for development than others. Integrating and incorporating appropriate landscape planning methodologies into the project design is the most effective action that can be done to minimize surface and groundwater contamination from stormwater. Approach Landscape planning should couple consideration of land suitability for urban uses with consideration of community goals and projected growth. Project plan designs should conserve natural areas to the extent possible, maximize natural water storage and infiltration opportunities, and protect slopes and channels. Suitable Applications Appropriate applications include residential, commercial and industrial areas planned for development or redevelopment. Design Considerations
Design requirements for site design and landscapes planning should conform to applicable standards and specifications of agencies with jurisdiction and be consistent with applicable General Plan and Local Area Plan policies.

Formulate the plan on the basis of clearly articulated community goals. Carefully identify conflicts and choices between retaining and protecting desired resources and community growth. Map and assess land suitability for urban uses. Include the following landscape features in the assessment: wooded land, open unwooded land, steep slopes, erosion-prone soils, foundation suitability, soil suitability for waste disposal, aquifers, aquifer recharge areas, wetlands, floodplains, surface waters, agricultural lands, and various categories of urban land use. When appropriate, the assessment can highlight outstanding local or regional resources that the community determines should be protected (e.g., a scenic area, recreational area, threatened species habitat, farmland, fish run). Mapping and assessment should recognize not only these resources but also additional areas needed for their sustenance. Project plan designs should conserve natural areas to the extent possible, maximize natural water storage and infiltration opportunities, and protect slopes and channels. Conserve Natural Areas during Landscape Planning If applicable, the following items are required and must be implemented in the site layout during the subdivision design and approval process, consistent with applicable General Plan and Local Area Plan policies:

Cluster development on least-sensitive portions of a site while leaving the remaining land in a natural undisturbed condition. Limit clearing and grading of native vegetation at a site to the minimum amount needed to build lots, allow access, and provide fire protection. Maximize trees and other vegetation at each site by planting additional vegetation, clustering tree areas, and promoting the use of native and/or drought tolerant plants. Promote natural vegetation by using parking lot islands and other landscaped areas. Preserve riparian areas and wetlands. Maximize Natural Water Storage and Infiltration Opportunities Within the Landscape Unit Promote the conservation of forest cover. Building on land that is already deforested affects basin hydrology to a lesser extent than converting forested land. Loss of forest cover reduces interception storage, detention in the organic forest floor layer, and water losses by evapotranspiration, resulting in large peak runoff increases and either their negative effects or the expense of countering them with structural solutions. Maintain natural storage reservoirs and drainage corridors, including depressions, areas of permeable soils, swales, and intermittent streams. Develop and implement policies and Site Design & Landscape Planning SD-10
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 4
New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com regulations to discourage the clearing, filling, and channelization of these features. Utilize them in drainage networks in preference to pipes, culverts, and engineered ditches. Evaluating infiltration opportunities by referring to the stormwater management manual for the jurisdiction and pay particular attention to the selection criteria for avoiding groundwater contamination, poor soils, and hydrogeological conditions that cause these facilities to fail. If necessary, locate developments with large amounts of impervious surfaces or a potential to produce relatively contaminated runoff away from groundwater recharge areas. Protection of Slopes and Channels during Landscape Design Convey runoff safely from the tops of slopes. Avoid disturbing steep or unstable slopes. Avoid disturbing natural channels. Stabilize disturbed slopes as quickly as possible. Vegetate slopes with native or drought tolerant vegetation. Control and treat flows in landscaping and/or other controls prior to reaching existing natural drainage systems. Stabilize temporary and permanent channel crossings as quickly as possible, and ensure that increases in run-off velocity and frequency caused by the project do not erode the channel. Install energy dissipaters, such as riprap, at the outlets of new storm drains, culverts, conduits, or channels that enter unlined channels in accordance with applicable specifications to minimize erosion. Energy dissipaters shall be installed in such a way as to minimize impacts to receiving waters. Line on-site conveyance channels where appropriate, to reduce erosion caused by increased flow velocity due to increases in tributary impervious area. The first choice for linings should be grass or some other vegetative surface, since these materials not only reduce runoff velocities, but also provide water quality benefits from filtration and infiltration. If velocities in the channel are high enough to erode grass or other vegetative linings, riprap, concrete, soil cement, or geo-grid stabilization are other alternatives. Consider other design principles that are comparable and equally effective. Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define “redevelopment” in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and/or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or impervious surfaces. The definition of “ redevelopment” must be consulted to determine whether or not the requirements for new development apply to areas intended for redevelopment. If the definition applies, the steps outlined under “designing new installations” above should be followed.

SD-10 Site Design & Landscape Planning
4 of 4 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Redevelopment may present significant opportunity to add features which had not previously been implemented. Examples include incorporation of depressions, areas of permeable soils, and swales in newly redeveloped areas. While some site constraints may exist due to the status of already existing infrastructure, opportunities should not be missed to maximize infiltration, slow runoff, reduce impervious areas, disconnect directly connected impervious areas. Other Resources A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, May 2002. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Washington State Department of Ecology, August 2001. Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for San Diego County, Port of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County, February 14, 2002. Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, Draft February 2003. Ventura Countywide Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, July 2002.

Roof Runoff Controls SD-11
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 3
New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbook.com Description
Various roof runoff controls are available to address stormwater that drains off rooftops. The objective is to reduce the total volume and rate of runoff from individual lots, and retain the pollutants on site that may be picked up from roofing materials and atmospheric deposition. Roof runoff controls consist of directing the roof runoff away from paved areas and mitigating flow to the storm drain system through one of several general approaches: cisterns or rain barrels; dry wells or infiltration trenches; pop-up emitters, and foundation planting. The first three approaches require the roof runoff to be contained in a gutter and downspout system. Foundation planting provides a vegetated strip under the drip line of the roof. Approach
Design of individual lots for single-family homes as well as lots for higher density residential and commercial structures should consider site design provisions for containing and infiltrating roof runoff or directing roof runoff to vegetative swales or buffer areas. Retained water can be reused for watering gardens, lawns, and trees. Benefits to the environment include reduced demand for potable water used for irrigation, improved stormwater quality, increased groundwater recharge, decreased runoff volume and peak flows, and decreased flooding potential. Suitable Applications Appropriate applications include residential, commercial and industrial areas planned for development or redevelopment. Design Considerations
Designing New Installations
Cisterns or Rain Barrels
One method of addressing roof runoff is to direct roof downspouts to cisterns or rain barrels. A cistern is an above ground storage vessel with either a manually operated valve or a permanently open outlet. Roof runoff is temporarily stored and then released for irrigation or infiltration between storms. The number of rain Design Objectives
Maximize Infiltration
Provide Retention
Slow Runoff
Minimize Impervious Land
Coverage
Prohibit Dumping of Improper
Materials
Contain Pollutants
Collect and Convey
Rain Garden
SD-11 Roof Runoff Controls
2 of 3 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbook.com barrels needed is a function of the rooftop area. Some low impact developers recommend that every house have at least 2 rain barrels, with a minimum storage capacity of 1000 liters. Roof barrels serve several purposes including mitigating the first flush from the roof which has a high volume, amount of contaminants, and thermal load. Several types of rain barrels are commercially available. Consideration must be given to selecting rain barrels that are vector proof and childproof. In addition, some barrels are designed with a bypass valve that filters out grit and other contaminants and routes overflow to a soak-away pit or rain garden. If the cistern has an operable valve, the valve can be closed to store stormwater for irrigation or infiltration between storms. This system requires continual monitoring by the resident or grounds crews, but provides greater flexibility in water storage and metering. If a cistern is provided with an operable valve and water is stored inside for long periods, the cistern must be covered to prevent mosquitoes from breeding. A cistern system with a permanently open outlet can also provide for metering stormwater runoff. If the cistern outlet is significantly smaller than the size of the downspout inlet (say ¼ to ½ inch diameter), runoff will build up inside the cistern during storms, and will empty out slowly after peak intensities subside. This is a feasible way to mitigate the peak flow increases caused by rooftop impervious land coverage, especially for the frequent, small storms. Dry wells and Infiltration Trenches Roof downspouts can be directed to dry wells or infiltration trenches. A dry well is constructed by excavating a hole in the ground and filling it with an open graded aggregate, and allowing the water to fill the dry well and infiltrate after the storm event. An underground connection from the downspout conveys water into the dry well, allowing it to be stored in the voids. To minimize sedimentation from lateral soil movement, the sides and top of the stone storage matrix can be wrapped in a permeable filter fabric, though the bottom may remain open. A perforated observation pipe can be inserted vertically into the dry well to allow for inspection and maintenance. In practice, dry wells receiving runoff from single roof downspouts have been successful over long periods because they contain very little sediment. They must be sized according to the amount of rooftop runoff received, but are typically 4 to 5 feet square, and 2 to 3 feet deep, with a minimum of 1-foot soil cover over the top (maximum depth of 10 feet). To protect the foundation, dry wells must be set away from the building at least 10 feet. They must be installed in solids that accommodate infiltration. In poorly drained soils, dry wells have very limited feasibility. Infiltration trenches function in a similar manner and would be particularly effective for larger roof areas. An infiltration trench is a long, narrow, rock-filled trench with no outlet that receives stormwater runoff. These are described under Treatment Controls. Pop-up Drainage Emitter Roof downspouts can be directed to an underground pipe that daylights some distance from the building foundation, releasing the roof runoff through a pop-up emitter. Similar to a pop-up irrigation head, the emitter only opens when there is flow from the roof. The emitter remains flush to the ground during dry periods, for ease of lawn or landscape maintenance.

Roof Runoff Controls SD-11
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 3
New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbook.com Foundation Planting
Landscape planting can be provided around the base to allow increased opportunities for stormwater infiltration and protect the soil from erosion caused by concentrated sheet flow coming off the roof. Foundation plantings can reduce the physical impact of water on the soil and provide a subsurface matrix of roots that encourage infiltration. These plantings must be sturdy enough to tolerate the heavy runoff sheet flows, and periodic soil saturation. Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define “redevelopment” in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and/or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or impervious surfaces. The definition of “ redevelopment” must be consulted to determine whether or not the requirements for new development apply to areas intended for redevelopment. If the definition applies, the steps outlined under “designing new installations” above should be followed. Supplemental Information Examples City of Ottawa’s Water Links Surface –Water Quality Protection Program City of Toronto Downspout Disconnection Program
City of Boston, MA, Rain Barrel Demonstration Program
Other Resources
Hager, Marty Catherine, Stormwater, “Low-Impact Development”, January/February 2003. www.stormh2o.com Low Impact Urban Design Tools, Low Impact Development Design Center, Beltsville, MD. www.lid-stormwater.net Start at the Source, Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association, 1999 Edition Efficient Irrigation SD-12
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 2
New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Description
Irrigation water provided to landscaped areas may result in excess irrigation water being conveyed into stormwater drainage systems. Approach
Project plan designs for development and redevelopment should include application methods of irrigation water that minimize runoff of excess irrigation water into the stormwater conveyance system. Suitable Applications
Appropriate applications include residential, commercial and industrial areas planned for development or redevelopment. (Detached residential single-family homes are typically excluded from this requirement.)
Design Considerations
Designing New Installations
The following methods to reduce excessive irrigation runoff should be considered, and incorporated and implemented where determined applicable and feasible by the Permittee:

Employ rain-triggered shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after precipitation. Design irrigation systems to each landscape area’s specific water requirements. Include design featuring flow reducers or shutoff valves triggered by a pressure drop to control water loss in the event of broken sprinkler heads or lines. Implement landscape plans consistent with County or City water conservation resolutions, which may include provision of water sensors, programmable irrigation times (for short cycles), etc.

Using mulches (such as wood chips or bar) in planter areas without ground cover to minimize sediment in runoff
Installing appropriate plant materials for the location, in accordance with amount of sunlight and climate, and use native plant materials where possible and/or as recommended by the landscape architect
Leaving a vegetative barrier along the property boundary and interior watercourses, to act as a pollutant filter, where appropriate and feasible Choosing plants that minimize or eliminate the use of fertilizer or pesticides to sustain growth
Employ other comparable, equally effective methods to reduce irrigation water runoff. Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define “redevelopment” in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and/or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or impervious surfaces. The definition of “ redevelopment” must be consulted to determine whether or not the requirements for new development apply to areas intended for redevelopment. If the definition applies, the steps outlined under “designing new installations” above should be followed. Other Resources A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, May 2002. Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for San Diego County, Port of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County, February 14, 2002. Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, Draft February 2003. Ventura Countywide Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, July 2002.

Trash Storage Areas SD-32
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 2
New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Description
Trash storage areas are areas where a trash receptacle (s) are located for use as a repository for solid wastes. Stormwater runoff from areas where trash is stored or disposed of can be polluted. In addition, loose trash and debris can be easily transported by water or wind into nearby storm drain inlets, channels, and/or creeks. Waste handling operations that may be sources of stormwater pollution include dumpsters, litter control, and waste piles. Approach This fact sheet contains details on the specific measures required to prevent or reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff associated with trash storage and handling. Preventative measures
including enclosures, containment structures, and impervious pavements to mitigate spills, should be used to reduce the likelihood of contamination. Suitable Applications
Appropriate applications include residential, commercial and industrial areas planned for development or redevelopment. (Detached residential single-family homes are typically excluded from this requirement.)
Design Considerations
Design requirements for waste handling areas are governed by Building and Fire Codes, and by current local agency ordinances and zoning requirements. The design criteria described in this fact sheet are meant to enhance and be consistent with these code and ordinance requirements. Hazardous waste should be handled in accordance with legal requirements established in Title 22, California Code of Regulation. Wastes from commercial and industrial sites are typically hauled by either public or commercial carriers that may have design or access requirements for waste storage areas. The design criteria in this fact sheet are recommendations and are not intended to be in conflict with requirements established by the waste hauler. The waste hauler should be contacted prior to the design of your site trash collection areas. Conflicts or issues should be discussed with the local agency. Designing New Installations
Trash storage areas should be designed to consider the following structural or treatment control BMPs:

Design trash container areas so that drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement is diverted around the area(s) to avoid run-on. This might include berming or grading the waste handling area to prevent run-on of stormwater. Make sure trash container areas are screened or walled to prevent off-site transport of trash.

Design Objectives
Maximize Infiltration
Provide Retention
Slow Runoff
Minimize Impervious Land
Coverage
Prohibit Dumping of Improper
Materials
Contain Pollutants
Collect and Convey
SD-32 Trash Storage Areas
2 of 2 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Use lined bins or dumpsters to reduce leaking of liquid waste. Provide roofs, awnings, or attached lids on all trash containers to minimize direct precipitation and prevent rainfall from entering containers. Pave trash storage areas with an impervious surface to mitigate spills. Do not locate storm drains in immediate vicinity of the trash storage area. Post signs on all dumpsters informing users that hazardous materials are not to be disposed of therein. Redeveloping Existing Installations
Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define “redevelopment” in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and/or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or impervious surfaces. The definition of “ redevelopment” must be consulted to determine whether or not the requirements for new development apply to areas intended for redevelopment. If the definition applies, the steps outlined under “designing new installations” above should be followed. Additional Information Maintenance Considerations
The integrity of structural elements that are subject to damage (i.e., screens, covers, and signs) must be maintained by the owner/operator. Maintenance agreements between the local agency and the owner/operator may be required. Some agencies will require maintenance deed restrictions to be recorded of the property title. If required by the local agency, maintenance agreements or deed restrictions must be executed by the owner/operator before improvement plans are approved. Other Resources
A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, May 2002. Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for San Diego County, Port of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County, February 14, 2002. Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, Draft February 2003. Ventura Countywide Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, July 2002.

Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning SC-21
September 2014 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 6 Industrial and Commercial
www.casqa.org
Description
Wash water from vehicle and equipment
cleaning activities performed outdoors or in
areas where wash water flows onto the ground
can contribute toxic hydrocarbons and other
organic compounds, oils and greases,
nutrients, phosphates, heavy metals, and
suspended solids to stormwater runoff. Use of
the procedures outlined below can prevent or
reduce the discharge of pollutants to
stormwater during vehicle and equipment
cleaning.

Approach
Reduce potential for pollutant discharge
through source control pollution prevention
and BMP implementation. Successful
implementation depends on effective training
of employees on applicable BMPs and general
pollution prevention strategies and objectives
General Pollution Prevention Protocols
 If possible, use properly maintained off-site
commercial washing and steam cleaning
businesses whenever possible. These
businesses are better equipped to handle
and properly dispose of the wash waters.
 Use dry cleaning methods to remove debris
and sweep area; avoid washing with water
when possible.
 Good housekeeping practices can minimize
the risk of contamination from wash water
discharges.
 Use biodegradable, phosphate-free
detergents for washing vehicles as
appropriate
 Emphasize the connection between the
storm drain system and runoff, help
reinforce that vehicle and equipment
washing activities affect local water quality
through storm drain stenciling programs.

Objectives
 Cover
 Contain
 Educate
 Reduce/Minimize
 Product Substitution
Targeted Constituents
Sediment 
Nutrients 
Trash
Metals 
Bacteria
Oil and Grease 
Organics 
Minimum BMPs Addressed
Good Housekeeping 
Preventative
Maintenance 
Spill and Leak
Prevention and Response 
Material Handling &
Waste Management

Erosion and Sediment
Controls
Employee Training
Program 
Quality Assurance
Record Keeping 
Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning SC-21
September 2014 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 2 of 6 Industrial and Commercial
www.casqa.org
 Map on-site storm drain locations to avoid discharges to the storm drain system.  Designate specific wash area with clarifier or place wash areas away from storm drain connections.

Good Housekeeping
 Mark the area clearly as a wash area by:
 Posting signs stating that only washing is allowed in wash area; and  Providing information on how washing is to be done.
 Provide trash containers in wash area.
 Have all vehicle and equipment washing done in areas designed to collect and hold the wash and rinse water or effluent generated. Recycle, collect or treat wash water effluent prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system.  If washing/cleaning must occur on-site, consider washing vehicles and equipment inside the building or on an impervious surface to control the targeted constituents by directing them to the sanitary sewer.
 If washing must occur on-site and outdoor:
 Use designated paved wash areas. This area must be covered or bermed to collect the wash water and graded to direct the wash water to a treatment or disposal facility.
 Do not conduct oil changes and other engine maintenance in the designated washing area. Perform these activities in a place designated for oil change and maintenance activities.
 Cover the wash area when not in use to prevent contact with rain water.  Do not permit steam cleaning wash water to enter the storm drain system.  If possible, conduct pressure and steam cleaning at appropriate off-site areas to avoid generating runoff with high pollutant concentrations.

Preventative Maintenance
 Install sumps or drain lines to collect wash water for treatment.  Use hoses with nozzles that automatically turn off when left unattended.  Perform routine inspections of drain lines, holding tanks, and hoses and repair leaks immediately.

Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning SC-21
September 2014 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 6 Industrial and Commercial
www.casqa.org
 Perform routine inspection and maintenance of wash water recycling and treatment systems.

Spill Response and Prevention Procedures
 Keep the spill prevention and control plan up-to-date.  Have an emergency plan, equipment, and trained personnel ready at all times to deal immediately with major spills.
 Collect all spilled liquids and properly dispose of them.  Store and maintain appropriate spill cleanup materials in a location known to all near the designated wash area.

Material Handling and Waste Management
 Collect all wash water from vehicle and equipment cleaning operations. Consider treating and reusing or discharging wash waters to a sanitary sewer system.  Large quantities of wash waters may require treatment at the facility. Treatment using a process treatment system (e.g., holding tank, filtration system, and related appurtenances) will require engineering and capital expenditures.  Collect and treat small amounts of wash water at the facility and either recycle or discharge to the sanitary sewer system or collect and dispose of as an industrial waste.
 Discharge wash waters into sanitary sewer only after contacting local sewer authority to find out if pretreatment is required.

Employee Training Program
 Train employees on proper cleaning and wash water disposal procedures and conduct “refresher” courses on a regular basis.
 Train staff on proper maintenance measures for the wash area.  Train employees and contractors on proper spill containment and cleanup. The employee should have the tools and knowledge to immediately begin cleaning up a spill should one occur.
 Use a training log or similar method to document training.

Quality Assurance and Record Keeping
 Keep accurate maintenance/inspection logs that document the minimum BMP activities performed for vehicle and equipment cleaning activities and improvement actions.

Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning SC-21
September 2014 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 4 of 6 Industrial and Commercial
www.casqa.org
 Keep accurate logs of spill response actions that document what was spilled, how it was cleaned up, and how the waste was disposed.
 Establish procedures to complete logs and file them in the central office.

Other Facility-Specific Considerations
 Some municipalities may require pretreatment and monitoring of wash water discharges to the sanitary sewer.  Steam cleaning can generate significant pollutant concentrations requiring that careful consideration be given to the environmental impacts and compliance issues related to the condensate wastewater generated.

Potential Limitations and Work-Arounds
Some facilities may have space constraints, limited staffing and time limitations that may preclude implementation of certain BMPs. Provided below are typical limitations and recommended “work-arounds”:
 Most car washing best management practices are inexpensive, and rely more on good housekeeping practices (where vehicles are washed, planning for the collection of wash water) than on expensive technology. However, the construction of a specialized area for vehicle washing can be expensive. Also, for facilities that cannot recycle their wash water, the cost of pre-treating wash water through either structural practices or planning for collection and hauling of contaminated water to sewage treatment plants can be cost-prohibitive.
 A potential work-around is to use properly maintained off-site commercial washing and steam cleaning businesses whenever possible.

Potential Capital Facility Costs and Operation & Maintenance Requirements
Facilities
 Many facilities will already have indoor covered areas where vehicle and equipment cleaning takes place and will require no additional capital expenditures for providing cover.
 Capital investments will be required at some sites if systems to collect and recycle/treat and properly discharge wash water are not in place. The cost associated with these investments will vary depending on the size of the washing facility and local regulations regarding effluent wash water.

Maintenance
 Perform wash and collection system inspections and repair.  Sweep washing areas frequently to remove solid debris.

Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning SC-21
September 2014 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 5 of 6 Industrial and Commercial
www.casqa.org
 Repair berms and dikes as necessary.
 Inspect and maintain sumps, oil/water separators, and on-site treatment/recycling units.

Supplemental Information
Designated Cleaning Areas
 Washing operations outside should be conducted in a designated wash area having the following characteristics:
 Paved with Portland cement concrete
 Covered and bermed to prevent contact with stormwater and contain wash water  Sloped for wash water collections
 Drainage system for wash water to the sanitary or recycle treatment process waste sewer, or to a dead-end sump equipped with an oil/water separator if necessary.

References and Resources
Orange County Stormwater Program, Best Management Practices for Industrial/Commercial Business Activities. Available online at:
http://ocwatersheds.com/documents/bmp/industrialcommercialbusinessesactivities.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2013. Industrial Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual- BMP 8 Vehicle, Pavement and Building Washing. Available online at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/wqpermit/docs/IndBMP021413.pdf.

Sacramento Stormwater Management Program. Best Management Practices for Industrial Storm Water Pollution Control. Available online at:
http://www.msa.saccounty.net/sactostormwater/documents/guides/industrial-BMPmanual.pdf.

Sacramento County Environmental Management Stormwater Program: Best Management Practices –Vehicle Washing. Available online at:
http://www.emd.saccounty.net/EnvHealth/Stormwater/Stormwater-BMPs.html.

Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. http://www.scvurpppw2k.com/.

US EPA. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System – Stormwater Menu of BMPs - Municipal Vehicle and Equipment Washing. Available online at:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=browse&Rbut ton=detail&bmp=132.

Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning SC-21
September 2014 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 6 of 6 Industrial and Commercial
www.casqa.org
Washington State Department of Ecology, 2012 .Vehicle and Equipment Washwater Discharges Best Management Practices Manual. Publication no. WQ-R-95-056.

Available online at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/95056.pdf.

Infiltration Basin TC-11
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 8
New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Description
An infiltration basin is a shallow impoundment that is designed to infiltrate stormwater. Infiltration basins use the natural filtering ability of the soil to remove pollutants in stormwater runoff. Infiltration facilities store runoff until it gradually exfiltrates through the soil and eventually into the water table. This practice has high pollutant removal efficiency and can also help recharge groundwater, thus helping to maintain low flows in stream systems. Infiltration basins can be challenging to apply on many sites, however, because of soils requirements. In addition, some studies have shown relatively high failure rates compared with other management practices. California Experience Infiltration basins have a long history of use in California, especially in the Central Valley. Basins located in Fresno were among those initially evaluated in the National Urban Runoff Program and were found to be effective at reducing the volume of runoff, while posing little long-term threat to groundwater quality (EPA, 1983; Schroeder, 1995). Proper siting of these devices is crucial as underscored by the experience of Caltrans in siting two basins in Southern California. The basin with marginal separation from groundwater and soil permeability failed immediately and could never be rehabilitated. Advantages Provides 100% reduction in the load discharged to surface waters. The principal benefit of infiltration basins is the approximation of pre-development hydrology during which a Design Considerations
Soil for Infiltration
Slope
Aesthetics
Targeted Constituents
Sediment
Nutrients
Trash
Metals
Bacteria
Oil and Grease
Organics
Legend (Removal Effectiveness)
Low High
Medium
TC-11 Infiltration Basin
2 of 8 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com significant portion of the average annual rainfall runoff is infiltrated and evaporated rather than flushed directly to creeks. If the water quality volume is adequately sized, infiltration basins can be useful for providing control of channel forming (erosion) and high frequency (generally less than the 2-year) flood events. Limitations
May not be appropriate for industrial sites or locations where spills may occur. Infiltration basins require a minimum soil infiltration rate of 0.5 inches/hour, not appropriate at sites with Hydrologic Soil Types C and D. If infiltration rates exceed 2.4 inches/hour, then the runoff should be fully treated prior to infiltration to protect groundwater quality. Not suitable on fill sites or steep slopes. Risk of groundwater contamination in very coarse soils. Upstream drainage area must be completely stabilized before construction. Difficult to restore functioning of infiltration basins once clogged. Design and Sizing Guidelines Water quality volume determined by local requirements or sized so that 85% of the annual runoff volume is captured. Basin sized so that the entire water quality volume is infiltrated within 48 hours. Vegetation establishment on the basin floor may help reduce the clogging rate. Construction/Inspection Considerations Before construction begins, stabilize the entire area draining to the facility. If impossible, place a diversion berm around the perimeter of the infiltration site to prevent sediment entrance during construction or remove the top 2 inches of soil after the site is stabililized. Stabilize the entire contributing drainage area, including the side slopes, before allowing any runoff to enter once construction is complete. Place excavated material such that it can not be washed back into the basin if a storm occurs during construction of the facility. Build the basin without driving heavy equipment over the infiltration surface. Any equipment driven on the surface should have extra-wide (“low pressure”) tires. Prior to any construction, rope off the infiltration area to stop entrance by unwanted equipment. After final grading, till the infiltration surface deeply. Use appropriate erosion control seed mix for the specific project and location.

Infiltration Basin TC-11
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 8
New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Performance
As water migrates through porous soil and rock, pollutant attenuation mechanisms include precipitation, sorption, physical filtration, and bacterial degradation. If functioning properly, this approach is presumed to have high removal efficiencies for particulate pollutants and moderate removal of soluble pollutants. Actual pollutant removal in the subsurface would be expected to vary depending upon site-specific soil types. This technology eliminates discharge to surface waters except for the very largest storms; consequently, complete removal of all stormwater constituents can be assumed. There remain some concerns about the potential for groundwater contamination despite the findings of the NURP and Nightingale (1975; 1987a,b,c; 1989). For instance, a report by Pitt et al. (1994) highlighted the potential for groundwater contamination from intentional and unintentional stormwater infiltration. That report recommends that infiltration facilities not be sited in areas where high concentrations are present or where there is a potential for spills of toxic material. Conversely, Schroeder (1995) reported that there was no evidence of groundwater impacts from an infiltration basin serving a large industrial catchment in Fresno, CA. Siting Criteria The key element in siting infiltration basins is identifying sites with appropriate soil and hydrogeologic properties, which is critical for long term performance. In one study conducted in Prince George's County, Maryland (Galli, 1992), all of the infiltration basins investigated clogged within 2 years. It is believed that these failures were for the most part due to allowing infiltration at sites with rates of less than 0.5 in/hr, basing siting on soil type rather than field infiltration tests, and poor construction practices that resulted in soil compaction of the basin invert. A study of 23 infiltration basins in the Pacific Northwest showed better long-term performance in an area with highly permeable soils (Hilding, 1996). In this study, few of the infiltration basins had failed after 10 years. Consequently, the following guidelines for identifying appropriate soil and subsurface conditions should be rigorously adhered to. Determine soil type (consider RCS soil type ‘A, B or C’ only) from mapping and consult USDA soil survey tables to review other parameters such as the amount of silt and clay, presence of a restrictive layer or seasonal high water table, and estimated permeability. The soil should not have more than 30% clay or more than 40% of clay and silt combined. Eliminate sites that are clearly unsuitable for infiltration. Groundwater separation should be at least 3 m from the basin invert to the measured ground water elevation. There is concern at the state and regional levels of the impact on groundwater quality from infiltrated runoff, especially when the separation between groundwater and the surface is small. Location away from buildings, slopes and highway pavement (greater than 6 m) and wells and bridge structures (greater than 30 m). Sites constructed of fill, having a base flow or with a slope greater than 15% should not be considered. Ensure that adequate head is available to operate flow splitter structures (to allow the basin to be offline) without ponding in the splitter structure or creating backwater upstream of the splitter.

TC-11 Infiltration Basin
4 of 8 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Base flow should not be present in the tributary watershed. Secondary Screening Based on Site Geotechnical Investigation At least three in-hole conductivity tests shall be performed using USBR 7300-89 or BouwerRice procedures (the latter if groundwater is encountered within the boring), two tests at different locations within the proposed basin and the third down gradient by no more than approximately 10 m. The tests shall measure permeability in the side slopes and the bed within a depth of 3 m of the invert. The minimum acceptable hydraulic conductivity as measured in any of the three required test holes is 13 mm/hr. If any test hole shows less than the minimum value, the site should be disqualified from further consideration. Exclude from consideration sites constructed in fill or partially in fill unless no silts or clays are present in the soil boring. Fill tends to be compacted, with clays in a dispersed rather than flocculated state, greatly reducing permeability. The geotechnical investigation should be such that a good understanding is gained as to how the stormwater runoff will move in the soil (horizontally or vertically) and if there are any geological conditions that could inhibit the movement of water. Additional Design Guidelines (1) Basin Sizing - The required water quality volume is determined by local regulations or sufficient to capture 85% of the annual runoff. (2) Provide pretreatment if sediment loading is a maintenance concern for the basin. (3) Include energy dissipation in the inlet design for the basins. Avoid designs that include a permanent pool to reduce opportunity for standing water and associated vector problems. (4) Basin invert area should be determined by the equation:
where A = Basin invert area (m2)
WQV = water quality volume (m3)
k = 0.5 times the lowest field-measured hydraulic conductivity (m/hr)
t = drawdown time ( 48 hr)
(5) The use of vertical piping, either for distribution or infiltration enhancement shall not be allowed to avoid device classification as a Class V injection well per 40 CFR146.5(e)(4).
kt
WQV A =
Infiltration Basin TC-11
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 5 of 8
New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Maintenance
Regular maintenance is critical to the successful operation of infiltration basins. Recommended operation and maintenance guidelines include:

Inspections and maintenance to ensure that water infiltrates into the subsurface completely (recommended infiltration rate of 72 hours or less) and that vegetation is carefully managed to prevent creating mosquito and other vector habitats. Observe drain time for the design storm after completion or modification of the facility to confirm that the desired drain time has been obtained. Schedule semiannual inspections for beginning and end of the wet season to identify potential problems such as erosion of the basin side slopes and invert, standing water, trash and debris, and sediment accumulation. Remove accumulated trash and debris in the basin at the start and end of the wet season. Inspect for standing water at the end of the wet season. Trim vegetation at the beginning and end of the wet season to prevent establishment of woody vegetation and for aesthetic and vector reasons. Remove accumulated sediment and regrade when the accumulated sediment volume exceeds 10% of the basin. If erosion is occurring within the basin, revegetate immediately and stabilize with an erosion control mulch or mat until vegetation cover is established. To avoid reversing soil development, scarification or other disturbance should only be performed when there are actual signs of clogging, rather than on a routine basis. Always remove deposited sediments before scarification, and use a hand-guided rotary tiller, if possible, or a disc harrow pulled by a very light tractor. Cost Infiltration basins are relatively cost-effective practices because little infrastructure is needed when constructing them. One study estimated the total construction cost at about $2 per ft (adjusted for inflation) of storage for a 0.25-acre basin (SWRPC, 1991). As with other BMPs, these published cost estimates may deviate greatly from what might be incurred at a specific site. For instance, Caltrans spent about $18/ft3for the two infiltration basins constructed in southern California, each of which had a water quality volume of about 0.34 ac.-ft. Much of the higher cost can be attributed to changes in the storm drain system necessary to route the runoff to the basin locations. Infiltration basins typically consume about 2 to 3% of the site draining to them, which is relatively small. Additional space may be required for buffer, landscaping, access road, and fencing. Maintenance costs are estimated at 5 to 10% of construction costs. One cost concern associated with infiltration practices is the maintenance burden and longevity. If improperly maintained, infiltration basins have a high failure rate. Thus, it may be necessary to replace the basin with a different technology after a relatively short period of time.

TC-11 Infiltration Basin
6 of 8 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com References and Sources of Additional Information
Caltrans, 2002, BMP Retrofit Pilot Program Proposed Final Report, Rpt. CTSW-RT-01-050, California Dept. of Transportation, Sacramento, CA. Galli, J. 1992. Analysis of Urban BMP Performance and Longevity in Prince George's County, Maryland. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC. Hilding, K. 1996. Longevity of infiltration basins assessed in Puget Sound. Watershed Protection Techniques 1(3):124–125. Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2000. Maryland Stormwater Design Manual. http://www.mde.state.md.us/environment/wma/stormwatermanual. Accessed May 22, 2002. Metzger, M. E., D. F. Messer, C. L. Beitia, C. M. Myers, and V. L. Kramer. 2002. The Dark Side Of Stormwater Runoff Management: Disease Vectors Associated With Structural BMPs. Stormwater 3(2): 24-39. Nightingale, H.I., 1975, “Lead, Zinc, and Copper in Soils of Urban Storm-Runoff Retention Basins,” American Water Works Assoc. Journal. Vol. 67, p. 443-446. Nightingale, H.I., 1987a, “Water Quality beneath Urban Runoff Water Management Basins,” Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 23, p. 197-205. Nightingale, H.I., 1987b, “Accumulation of As, Ni, Cu, and Pb in Retention and Recharge Basin Soils from Urban Runoff,” Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 23, p. 663-672. Nightingale, H.I., 1987c, “Organic Pollutants in Soils of Retention/Recharge Basins Receiving Urban Runoff Water,” Soil Science Vol. 148, pp. 39-45. Nightingale, H.I., Harrison, D., and Salo, J.E., 1985, “An Evaluation Technique for Ground- water Quality Beneath Urban Runoff Retention and Percolation Basins,” Ground Water Monitoring Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 43-50. Oberts, G. 1994. Performance of Stormwater Ponds and Wetlands in Winter. Watershed Protection Techniques 1(2): 64–68. Pitt, R., et al. 1994, Potential Groundwater Contamination from Intentional and Nonintentional Stormwater Infiltration, EPA/600/R-94/051, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. Schueler, T. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC. Schroeder, R.A., 1995, Potential For Chemical Transport Beneath a Storm-Runoff Recharge (Retention) Basin for an Industrial Catchment in Fresno, CA, USGS Water-Resource Investigations Report 93-4140.

Infiltration Basin TC-11
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 7 of 8
New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SWRPC). 1991. Costs of Urban Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Measures. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Waukesha, WI. U.S. EPA, 1983, Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program: Volume 1 – Final Report, WH-554, Water Planning Division, Washington, DC. Watershed Management Institute (WMI). 1997. Operation, Maintenance, and Management of Stormwater Management Systems. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC. Information Resources
Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 1997. Stormwater BMP Design Supplement for Cold Climates. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Washington, DC. Ferguson, B.K., 1994. Stormwater Infiltration. CRC Press, Ann Arbor, MI. USEPA. 1993. Guidance to Specify Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA-840-B-92-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

TC-11 Infiltration Basin
8 of 8 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com BG-30 Food Service Facilities
September 2014 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 8 Industrial and Commercial
www.casqa.org
Description
This category includes:
 Restaurants
 Food truck commissaries
 Institutional cafeterias
 Grocery stores, bakeries, and delicatessens
 Any facility requiring a Health Department permit for food preparation Pollutant Sources
The following are sources of pollutants:
 Cleaning of equipment
 Grease handling and disposal
 Spills
 Surface cleaning
 Cooling and refrigeration equipment maintenance
 Landscaping and grounds maintenance
 Dumpster and loading dock area
 Parking lots
 Illicit connections to storm drain system
Pollutants can include:
 Organic materials (food wastes)
Photo Credit: Geoff Brosseau
BG-30 Food Service Facilities
September 2014 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 2 of 8 Industrial and Commercial
www.casqa.org
 Oil and grease
 Toxic chemicals in cleaning products, disinfectants, and pesticides Approach
Minimize exposure of rain and runoff to outdoor cleaning and storage areas by using cover and containment. In and around these areas, use good housekeeping to minimize the generation of pollutants. Make stormwater pollution prevention BMPs a part of standard operating procedures and the employee training program. Provide employee education materials in the first language of employees.

Source Control BMPs
The best management practices are listed by activity or area in the following table.

Dumpster
and
Loading
Dock Areas
 Store and transfer all solid and liquid wastes, such as tallow, in watertight covered containers.
 Keep litter from accumulating around loading docks by providing trash receptacles and encouraging employees to use them.
 Bag and seal food waste before putting it in the dumpster. Do not place uncontained liquids, or leaking containers or garbage bags into a dumpster.
 Keep dumpster lids closed to keep out rainwater and to prevent trash from spilling out.
 If the dumpster regularly overflows, get a bigger one or arrange for more frequent collection. If the dumpster is shared with other tenants, speak with the property/lease manager about scheduling more frequent trash pickups or a larger dumpster.
 Don’t hose out dumpsters. Apply absorbent over any fluids spilled in dumpster. Absorbent will usually be knocked out when the dumpster is emptied.
 Have the dumpster leasing company repair or replace leaky dumpsters and compactors, and have them clean out dirty dumpsters.  Install a spill cleanup kit near the dumpster and loading dock areas.  Post employee reminder signs such as “Keep lid closed” near tallow bins and dumpsters.
 Consider enclosing the dumpster in a roofed and bermed area to prevent exposure to rainwater, and draining the area to the sanitary sewer.

Contact the local wastewater treatment plant or the county environmental health department for guidance.
 Keep dumpsters or the dumpster enclosure locked to prevent illegal dumping.
 For more information on cleaning dumpster areas see the Mobile Cleaning - Food Service Business-related business guide sheet in this series.

BG-30 Food Service Facilities
September 2014 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 8 Industrial and Commercial
www.casqa.org
Equipment
and
Outdoor
Cleaning
 Make sure all discharges from cooling equipment go to the sanitary sewer and not the street, gutter, or storm drain.
 Clean floor mats, filters, and garbage cans in a mop sink, floor drain, or proper outside area connected to the sanitary sewer with an oil and water separator. Don’t wash them in a parking lot, alley, sidewalk, or street.  Consider installing anti-slip floors when you remodel.  Consider cleaning filters in the dishwasher. Contact the local wastewater treatment plant or the county environmental health department for guidance.
 Pour wash water into a janitorial or mop sink. Don’t pour it out onto a parking lot, alley, sidewalk, or street.
 For outdoor cleaning, have employees or contractors follow the instructions in the following business guide sheet in this series:
 Mobile Cleaning - Food Service Business-related
 Mobile Cleaning – Surface cleaning
 For more information in general on cleaning floor mats, equipment, exhaust filters, and outdoor surfaces see the Mobile Cleaning - Food Service Business-related business guide sheet in this series.

Spill
Cleanup
 Prepare a spill cleanup plan that includes:
 Procedures for different types of spills
 Schedule for initial and annual training of employees  Cleanup kits in well-marked, accessible areas
 Designation of key employee who monitors cleanup
 Posting the plan in the work area
 If a spill occurs, immediately stop the spill at its source.  Keep the spill from entering the street, gutter, or storm drain.  Use dry methods for spill cleanup (sweeping, cat litter, etc.). Don’t hose down spills.
 If wet cleaning (including high-temperature or high pressure washing) is required, dry clean first and then mop (or if it is absolutely necessary, wash) and collect the water. Dispose of water in sink or other indoor drain, not in the street, gutter, or storm drain.
 If a final rinse is necessary for health reasons, collect the rinsewater and dispose it to the sink or indoor floor drain. If outdoors, block the storm drain before applying water. Mop up or wet-vacuum water, and dispose it to a sink or indoor drain.
 Do not use bleach or disinfectants if there is a possibility that rinsewater could flow to a street, gutter, or storm drain.

BG-30 Food Service Facilities
September 2014 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 4 of 8 Industrial and Commercial
www.casqa.org
 For more information on cleaning outdoor surfaces see the Mobile Cleaning - Surface Cleaning business guide sheet in this series.

Recycling
and
Disposal
 Separate wastes. Keep your recyclable wastes in separate containers according to the type of material. They are easier to recycle if separated.  Recycle the following materials:
 Food waste (non-greasy, non-animal food waste can be
composted). Donate leftover, edible food whenever possible to local food banks.
 Paper and cardboard
 Container glass, aluminum, and tin
 Pallets and drums
 Dispose of toxic waste properly. Toxic waste includes used cleaners, and rags (soaked with solvents, floor cleaners, and detergents).

Grease
Handling
and
Disposal
 Never pour oil, grease, or large quantities of oily liquids such as sauces or salad dressings or waste grease down a sink, floor drain, storm drain, or into a dumpster.
 Install screens and solid traps in sink and floor drains to catch larger solids. Clean these screens and traps frequently.
 Don’t try to “dissolve” grease by adding hot water or emulsifying chemicals – it will only move the grease further down the building‘s sewer line and make it harder to remove later.
 Recycle grease and oil. Don’t pour it into sinks, floor drains, or onto a parking lot or street. Look in the phone book for “Renderers” or call the local recycling or household hazardous waste information line.  Use tallow bins or sealed containers with tamper-proof lids. Keep the exterior of the container clean. Check for leaks. Ask the recycler for a leak-free tallow bin and replace any leaky grease containers. If grease is stored outside, keep it under a roof, if possible.
 Do not contaminate the recyclable oils and grease in the tallow bin with the waste grease from the grease trap or grease interceptor.  Inspect and clean all waste grease removal devices (grease trap or grease interceptor) often enough to keep them functioning properly and efficiently.
 For disposal of waste grease from the grease trap or grease interceptor, see “Grease Traps” or “Septic Tanks” in the phone book.

BG-30 Food Service Facilities
September 2014 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 5 of 8 Industrial and Commercial
www.casqa.org
Land- scaping
and
Grounds
Maintenance
 Never dispose of leftover pesticides in the gutter, street, or storm drain.

Leftover pesticides must be either used up or disposed of as hazardous waste.
 Do not blow or rake leaves, grass, or garden clippings into the street, gutter, or storm drain.
 If pesticides are used, do not over apply or apply when rain is forecast.  Do not use copper-based algaecides in pools or fountains. Control algae with chlorine or other alternatives to copper-based products.

Pest
Control
Food Sources
 Keep the kitchen free of food scraps.
 Take out garbage each night in a closed container.
 Refrigerate all food or store in pest-proof containers each night.  Keep ventilation system working properly to keep greasy residue off walls.

Appliances
 Keep dishwasher area clean. Check the trap nightly.
 Where possible, elevate appliances at least 6 inches off the floor.  Clean under appliances nightly.
 Steam clean or wash appliances weekly.
 Remember to clean under the counter, under the sink, and the refrigerator vent.

Drains and Trash Cans
 Steam clean or scrub floor drains with a brush to help eliminate fruit flies.
 Keep dumpster area clean – inside and out.
 Wash garbage cans regularly.

Supplies and Entry Points
 Check for pests before bringing supplies in to the kitchen. Roaches like corrugated boxes.
 Don’t store boxes in the kitchen – take boxes away or store in a refrigerated area.
 Seal any gaps below doors.

Reduce Habitat
 Inspect the entire establishment – inside and out.
 Suggest physical modifications that may help to eliminate pest behavior.

BG-30 Food Service Facilities
September 2014 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 6 of 8 Industrial and Commercial
www.casqa.org
 Suggest changes in food storage or cleanup practices to eliminate food sources for pests.
 Place boric acid powder in wall voids.
 Seal cracks and crevices.

Monitor for Pests
 Use sticky traps to monitor how well the pest control program is working. Pests caught in the traps warn of a possible problem.  When hiring a pest control service, look for a company that provides Integrated Pest Management (IPM) services.

Use Baits First
 Use baits for controlling pests. Remove bait when pests are gone, or else the bait may attract more pests.
 Use chemicals only as a last resort. If absolutely necessary, choose lesstoxic chemicals, and ask the pest service to provide label information.  Apply pesticides only if necessary, not on a regular schedule. Follow label directions. Do not apply pesticides around floor drains, sinks, or food.

Purchasing
 Use non-disposable products. Serve food on ceramic dishware rather than paper, plastic or Styrofoam, and use cloth napkins rather than paper ones. If you must use disposable products, use paper instead of Styrofoam.
 Buy the least toxic products available:
 Look for “non-toxic,” “non-petroleum based,” “free of ammonia, phosphates, dye, or perfume,” or “readily biodegradable” on the label. Don’t assume biodegradable products are safe.

Biodegradable means the product will eventually break down, but it may harm the environment in the meantime.
 Avoid chlorinated compounds, petroleum distillates, phenols, formaldehyde, and caustic or acidic products.
 Use water-based products.
 Look for and purchase “recycled” and “recyclable” containers. By doing so, you help ensure a use for the recyclable materials that people collect and recycle.

Education
and
Training
 Employees can help prevent pollution when urban runoff training is included in employee orientations and reviews.
 Train all employees upon hiring and annually thereafter.  Use a training log to document employee training.

BG-30 Food Service Facilities
September 2014 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 7 of 8 Industrial and Commercial
www.casqa.org
 Post information about or labels for BMPs where employees and customers can see them.
 Remember the facility is liable for the behavior of contractors. Be sure all contractors hired to clean inside or outside are aware of and implement these BMPs.
 Explain BMPs to other food businesses through your business associations or chambers of commerce.

Treatment Control BMPs
If treatment controls are installed at the facility, see Section 4 of this Handbook for information on inspecting and maintaining the BMPs.

For information on designing treatment controls, see Section 5 of the Development and Redevelopment Handbook.

References
Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group, 2010. Gravity Grease Interceptor (GGI) Fact Sheet.

Available on-line at http://bacwa.org/Portals/0/GGI%20Fact%20Sheet-Final.pdf Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group, 2010. Hydromechanical Grease Interceptor (HGI) Fact Sheet. Available on-line at http://bacwa.org/Portals/0/HGI%20Fact%20Sheet%20- %20Final.pdf
Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group, 2010. Grease Removal Device (GRD) Fact Sheet.

Available on-line at: http://bacwa.org/Portals/0/GRD%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Final.pdf Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group, 2007. Avoid Fines and Health Risks from Grease Overflows. Available on-line at:
http://bacwa.org/Portals/0/Committees/BAPPG/Archive/bappgfs.pdf City of Pleasanton. BMPs for Restaurants. Available on-line at:
http://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/pdf/bmprest.pdf
Contra Costa County Public Works Department. Municipal Stormwater NPDES Compliance.

Food Service Facilities. Available on-line at: http://www.co.contracosta.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/6979 Food and Beverage Association of San Diego. What’s Cookin’, Eating and Drinking Establishments Stormwater Best Management Practices. Available on-line at:
http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dpw/watersheds/watershedpdf/whats_cookin05-03.pdf Orange County Public Works, OC Watersheds. Industrial/Commercial Business Activities Best Management Practices. Available on-line at:
http://ocwatersheds.com/documents/bmp/industrialcommercialbusinessesactivities Sacramento Stormwater Management Program. Waste Disposal Guidelines for FoodHandling Facilities. Available on-line at:
http://www.sacstormwater.org/StormwaterDocuments/StormwaterBrochures/WasteDispos alforFoodHandlingFacilities.pdf
San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program. Stormwater Best Management Practices for Restaurants and Food Facilities. Training Presentation. Available on-line at: www.calfog.org/docs/SanMateoBMP071405.ppt.

BG-30 Food Service Facilities
September 2014 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 8 of 8 Industrial and Commercial
www.casqa.org
Santa Cruz County Department of Public Works, Environmental Compliance Unit. Best Environmental Management Practices. Restaurant Wastewater. Available on-line at:
http://www.dpw.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Pretreatment/BMPs%20Restaurants.pdf 2021 Whitewater River Region WQMP
The Wren (APN 670-110-043) – Cathedral City, CA 92234
Appendix E
Soils Report

October 12, 2016
Mr. Skip Goodell
Desert Care, LLC
31-190 Calle Cayuga
Cathedral City, CA 92234
Geotechnical Report
Living Care Assisted Living
Cathedral City, California
LCI Report No. LP17122
Dear Mr. Goodell:

This geotechnical report is provided for design and construction of the proposed commercial complex located at 30260 Date Palm Drive in Cathedral City, California. Our geotechnical investigation was conducted in response to your request for our services. The enclosed report describes our soil engineering investigation and presents our professional opinions regarding geotechnical conditions at the site to be considered in the design and construction of the project.

The findings of this study indicate the site is underlain by sands to maximum depth penetrated. The near surface soils at the project site are expected to be non-expansive. The subsurface soils are medium dense to dense in nature. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings during the time of field exploration. Historic groundwater levels ranged from 130 to 170 feet within the past 65 years in the vicinity of the project site.

Elevated sulfate and chloride levels were not encountered in the soil samples tested for this study.

The soil is low corrosive to metal. We recommend a minimum of 2,500 psi concrete of Type II Portland Cement with a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.60 (by weight) should be used for concrete placed in contact with native soils of this project.

We did not encounter soil conditions that would preclude implementation of the proposed project provided the professional opinions contained in this report are implemented in the design and construction of this project. Our findings, professional opinions, and application options are related only through reading the full report, and are best evaluated with the active participation of the engineer of record who developed them.
780 N. 4th Street
El Centro, CA 92243
(760) 370-3000
(760) 337-8900 fax
77-948 Wildcat Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92211
(760) 360-0665
(760) 360-0521 fax
a MBE Company

Loving Care Assisted Living – Cathedral City, CA LCI Report No. LP17122

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Section 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work ............................................................................................. 1

1.3 Authorization ................................................................................................................... 2 Section 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 3 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................... 3

2.1 Field Exploration ............................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Laboratory Testing ........................................................................................................... 4 Section 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 5 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................. 5

3.1 Site Conditions ................................................................................................................. 5

3.2 Geologic Setting ............................................................................................................... 5

3.3 Faulting ............................................................................................................................ 6

3.4 General Ground Motion Analysis .................................................................................... 6

3.5 Seismic and Other Hazards .............................................................................................. 7

3.6 Subsurface Soil ................................................................................................................ 8

3.7 Groundwater .................................................................................................................... 8

3.9 Hydro-consolidation ........................................................................................................ 9

3.9 Regional Subsidence ........................................................................................................ 9 Section 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 10 DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................................ 10

4.1 Site Preparation .............................................................................................................. 10

4.2 Foundations and Settlements ......................................................................................... 12

4.3 Slabs-On-Grade .............................................................................................................. 13

4.4 Concrete Mixes and Corrosivity .................................................................................... 14

4.5 Excavations .................................................................................................................... 15

4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures .................................................................................................. 15

4.7 Seismic Design ............................................................................................................... 15

4.7 Permanent Slopes ........................................................................................................... 16

4.8 Pavements ...................................................................................................................... 16 Section 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 18 LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES ................................................................. 18

5.1 Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 18

5.2 Additional Services ........................................................................................................ 19 APPENDIX A: Vicinity and Site Maps
APPENDIX B: Subsurface Soil Logs and Soil Key
APPENDIX C: Laboratory Test Results
APPENDIX D: References
Loving Care Assisted Living – Cathedral City, CA LCI Report No. LP17122 LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 1
Section 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Description
This report presents the findings of our geotechnical exploration for the proposed commercial and residential complex located at 30260 Date Palm Drive in the city of Cathedral City, California (See Vicinity Map, Plate A-1). The proposed development will consist of urgent care, senior housing, hotel, restaurant, and administration building on 11 acres of vacant desert land. A site plan for the proposed development was provided by Self Reliance, Inc., dated May 3, 2017.

The structures are planned to consist of continuous wall and column concrete footings, concrete slabs-on-grade and wood-frame construction. Footing loads at exterior bearing walls are estimated at 1 to 10 kips per lineal foot. Column loads are estimated to range from 5 to 80 kips. If structural loads exceed those stated above, we should be notified so we may evaluate their impact on foundation settlement and bearing capacity. Site development will include building pad preparation, underground utilities installation, on-site and off-site street construction, concrete driveway and sidewalk placement.

1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work
The purpose of this geotechnical study was to investigate the upper 51.5 feet of subsurface soil at selected locations within the site for evaluation of physical/engineering properties. From the subsequent field and laboratory data, professional opinions were developed and are provided in this report regarding geotechnical conditions at this site and the effect on design and construction. The scope of our services consisted of the following:
 Field exploration and in-situ testing of the site soils at selected locations and depths.  Laboratory testing for physical and/or chemical properties of selected samples.  Review of the available literature and publications pertaining to local geology, faulting, and seismicity.
 Engineering analysis and evaluation of the data collected.  Preparation of this report presenting our findings and, professional opinions, regarding the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction.

Loving Care Assisted Living – Cathedral City, CA LCI Report No. LP17122 LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 2
This report addresses the following geotechnical parameters:
 Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions
 Site geology, regional faulting and seismicity, near source factors, and site seismic accelerations
 Liquefaction potential and its mitigation
 Expansive soil and methods of mitigation
 Aggressive soil conditions to metals and concrete
Professional opinions with regard to the above parameters are presented for the following:
 Site grading and earthwork
 Building pad and foundation subgrade preparation
 Allowable soil bearing pressures and expected settlements  Concrete slabs-on-grade
 Lateral earth pressures
 Excavation conditions and buried utility installations  Mitigation of the potential effects of salt concentrations in native soil to concrete mixes and steel reinforcement
 Seismic design parameters
 Preliminary Pavement structural sections
Our scope of work for this report did not include an evaluation of the site for the presence of environmentally hazardous materials or conditions.

1.3 Authorization
Ms. Geri Doodell of Desert Care, LLC provided authorization by written agreement to proceed with our work on August 15, 2017. We conducted our work according to our written proposal dated August 11, 2017.

Loving Care Assisted Living – Cathedral City, CA LCI Report No. LP17122 LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 3
Section 2

METHODS OF INVESTIGATION

2.1 Field Exploration
Subsurface exploration was performed on August 31, 2017 using 2R Drilling of Ontario California to advance five (5) borings to depths of 21.5 to 51.5 feet below existing ground surface. The borings were advanced with a truck-mounted, CME 75 drill rig using 8-inch diameter, hollow-stem, continuous-flight augers. The approximate boring locations were established in the field and plotted on the site map by sighting to discernable site features. The boring locations are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan (Plate A-2).

Additional subsurface exploration was performed on September 14, 2017 by using a backhoe to excavate six (6) test pits to an approximate depth of 15 feet below the existing ground surface. The test pit locations are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan (Plate A-2). Bulk samples driven into undisturbed soil were obtained at selected depths in the test pits. A nuclear densometer (ASTM D6938) was used to evaluate in-situ densities and natural moisture content at selected depths in the upper 5 feet of the backhoe pits. The test pits were located by taped or paced measurements and should be considered approximate.

After logging and sampling the soil, the exploratory boring and test pits were backfilled with the excavated material. The backfill was loosely placed and was not compacted to the requirements specified for engineered fill. The backhoe pits shall be located during rough grading of the site to properly re-compact the backfill.

Our senior engineer maintained logs of the borings and test pits during exploration. The logs were edited in final form after a review of retrieved samples and the field and laboratory data. The boring and test pit logs are presented on Plates B-1 through B-11 in Appendix B. Soils encountered have been classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. A key to the boring and test pit logs is presented on Plate B-12. The stratification lines shown on the subsurface logs represent the approximate boundaries between the various strata. However, the transition from one stratum to another may be gradual over some range of depth.

Loving Care Assisted Living – Cathedral City, CA LCI Report No. LP17122 LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 4

2.2 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were conducted on selected bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples to aid in classification and evaluation of selected engineering properties of the site soils. The tests were conducted in general conformance to the procedures of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other standardized methods as referenced below. The laboratory testing program consisted of the following tests:
 Particle Size Analyses (ASTM D422) – used for soil classification and liquefaction evaluation.
 Collapse Potential (ASTM D5333) – used for hydro-consolidation potential evaluation.  Unit Dry Densities (ASTM D2937) – used for insitu soil parameters  Moisture Contents (ASTM D2216) – used for insitu soil parameters  Moisture-Density Relationship (ASTM D1557) – used for soil compaction determinations.  Chemical Analyses (soluble sulfates & chlorides, pH, and resistivity) (Caltrans Methods) – used for concrete mix evaluations and corrosion protection requirements.

The laboratory test results are presented on the subsurface logs and on Plates C-1 through C-7 in Appendix C.

Engineering parameters of soil strength, compressibility and relative density utilized for developing design criteria provided within this report were either extrapolated from correlations with the data obtained from the field and laboratory testing program.

Loving Care Assisted Living – Cathedral City, CA LCI Report No. LP17122 LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 5
Section 3

DISCUSSION

3.1 Site Conditions
The project site is rectangular shaped in plain view, is relatively flat-lying and consists of approximately 11 acres of vacant land. The site is bounded by Rosemount Road to the south and Date Palm Drive to the west, residential homes to the east, and the Northgate Community Church to the north. Adjacent properties are flat-lying and are approximately at the same elevation with this site.

The project site lies at an elevation of approximately 360 to 370 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the Coachella Valley region of the California low desert. Annual rainfall in this arid region is less than 4 inches per year with four months of average summertime temperatures above 100 oF. Winter temperatures are mild, seldom reaching freezing.

3.2 Geologic Setting
The project site is located in the Coachella Valley portion of the Salton Trough physiographic province. The Salton Trough is a geologic structural depression resulting from large scale regional faulting. The trough is bounded on the northeast by the San Andreas Fault and Chocolate Mountains and the southwest by the Peninsular Range and faults of the San Jacinto Fault Zone. The Salton Trough represents the northward extension of the Gulf of California, containing both marine and non-marine sediments since the Miocene Epoch. Tectonic activity that formed the trough continues at a high rate as evidenced by deformed young sedimentary deposits and high levels of seismicity.

Figure 1 shows the location of the site in relation to regional faults and physiographic features.

The surrounding regional geology includes the Peninsular Ranges (Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains) to the south and west, the Salton Basin to the southeast, and the Transverse Ranges (Little San Bernardino and Orocopia Mountains) to the north and east. Hundreds of feet to several thousand feet of Quaternary fluvial, lacustrine, and aeolian soil deposits underlie the Coachella Valley.

Loving Care Assisted Living – Cathedral City, CA LCI Report No. LP17122 LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 6
The southeastern part of the Coachella Valley lies below sea level. In the geologic past, the ancient Lake Cahuilla submerged the area. Calcareous tufa deposits may be observed along the ancient shoreline as high as elevation 45 to 50 feet MSL along the Santa Rosa Mountains from La Quinta southward. Lacustrine (lake bed) deposits comprise the subsurface soils over much of the eastern Coachella Valley with alluvial outwash along the flanks of the valley.

3.3 Faulting
The project site is located in the seismically active Coachella Valley of southern California with numerous mapped faults of the San Andreas Fault System traversing the region. We have performed a computer-aided search of known faults or seismic zones that lie within a 62-mile (100 kilometer) radius of the project site (Table 1).

A fault map illustrating known active faults relative to the site is presented on Figure 1, Regional Fault Map. Figure 2 shows the project site in relation to local faults. The criterion for fault classification adopted by the California Geological Survey defines Earthquake Fault Zones along active or potentially active faults. An active fault is one that has ruptured during Holocene time (roughly within the last 11,000 years). A fault that has ruptured during the last 1.8 million years (Quaternary time), but has not been proven by direct evidence to have not moved within Holocene time is considered to be potentially active. A fault that has not moved during Quaternary time is considered to be inactive.

Review of the current Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone maps (CGS, 2000a) indicates that the nearest mapped Earthquake Fault Zone is the San Andreas Fault located approximately 3.7 miles northeast of the project site. 3.4 General Ground Motion Analysis The project site is considered likely to be subjected to moderate to strong ground motion from earthquakes in the region. Ground motions are dependent primarily on the earthquake magnitude and distance to the seismogenic (rupture) zone.

Loving Care Assisted Living - Cathedral City, CA LCI Project No. LP17122 Table 1
Fault Name
Approximate
Distance
(miles)
Approximate
Distance (km)
Maximum
Moment
Magnitude
(Mw)
Fault Length
(km)
Slip Rate
(mm/yr)
Garnet Hill * 1.0 1.6
San Andreas - San Bernardino (South) 3.7 6.0 7.4 103 ± 10 30 ± 7 San Andreas - San Bernardino (North) 5.6 9.0 7.5 103 ± 10 24 ± 6 Eureka Peak 12.0 19.2 6.4 19 ± 2 0.6 ± 0.4
Indio Hills * 12.7 20.3
Blue Cut * 12.9 20.6
San Andreas - Coachella 13.3 21.2 7.2 96 ± 10 25 ± 5
Burnt Mtn. 16.0 25.6 6.5 21 ± 2 0.6 ± 0.4
Morongo * 16.3 26.1
Pinto Mtn. 18.6 29.8 7.2 74 ± 7 2.5 ± 2
San Jacinto - Anza 20.8 33.3 7.2 91 ± 9 12 ± 6
Landers 23.3 37.2 7.3 83 ± 8 0.6 ± 0.4
San Jacinto - Coyote Creek 25.6 41.0 6.8 41 ± 4 4 ± 2
San Jacinto - San Jacinto Valley 27.7 44.3 6.9 43 ± 4 12 ± 6 Johnson Valley (northern) 32.5 52.0 6.7 35 ± 4 0.6 ± 0.4 Pisgah Mtn. - Mesquite Lake 33.0 52.8 7.3 89 ± 9 0.6 ± 0.4 North Frontal Fault Zone - Eastern 33.2 53.2 6.7 27 ± 3 0.5 ± 0.3 S. Emerson - Copper Mtn. 33.6 53.8 7 54 ± 5 0.6 ± 0.4
Lenwood - Lockhart - Old Woman Springs 37.5 60.1 7.5 145 ± 15 0.6 ± 0.4 North Frontal Fault Zone - Western 40.0 63.9 7.2 51 ± 5 1 ± 0.5 Calico-Hidalgo 40.1 64.2 7.3 95 ± 10 0.6 ± 0.4
Helendale - S. Lockhart 44.0 70.3 7.3 97 ± 10 0.6 ± 0.4 *Note:Faults not included in CGS database.

Summary of Characteristics of Closest Known Active Faults Project No.: 17122 LP Regional Fault Map Figure 1 Source: California Geological Survey 2010 Fault Activity Map of California http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ /faultactivitymap.html# FAM N 100 km
Project No.: 17122 LP Map of Local Faults Figure 2 Source: California Geological Survey 2010 Fault Activity Map of California http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ /faultactivitymap.html# FAM Project Site N
Project No.: LP17122
Fault Map Legend Figure
3a
Project No.: 17122 LP
Fault Map Legend Figure
3b
Loving Care Assisted Living – Cathedral City, CA LCI Report No. LP17122 LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 7
Acceleration magnitudes also are dependent upon attenuation by rock and soil deposits, direction of rupture and type of fault; therefore, ground motions may vary considerably in the same general area.

CBC General Ground Motion Parameters: The 2016 CBC general ground motion parameters are based on the Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER). The U.S. Geological Survey “U.S. Seismic Design Maps Web Application” (USGS, 2017) was used to obtain the site coefficients and adjusted maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration parameters. The site soils have been classified as Site Class D (stiff soil profile). Design spectral response acceleration parameters are defined as the earthquake ground motions that are two-thirds (2/3) of the corresponding MCER ground motions. Design earthquake ground motion parameters are provided in Table 2. A Risk Category II was determined using Table 1604.5 and the Seismic Design Category is E since S1 is greater than 0.75.

The Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) peak ground acceleration (PGAM) value was determined from the “U.S. Seismic Design Maps Web Application” (USGS, 2017) for liquefaction and seismic settlement analysis in accordance with 2016 CBC Section 1803.5.12 and CGS Note 48 (PGAM = FPGA*PGA). A PGAM value of 0.85g is used for liquefaction settlement analysis.

3.5 Seismic and Other Hazards
► Groundshaking. The primary seismic hazard at the project site is the potential for strong groundshaking during earthquakes along the San Andreas Fault. A further discussion of groundshaking follows in Section 3.4.
► Surface Rupture. The project site does not lie within a State of California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Surface fault rupture is considered to be unlikely at the project site because of the well-delineated fault lines through the Coachella Valley as shown on USGS and CDMG maps.

However, because of the high tectonic activity and deep alluvium of the region, we cannot preclude the potential for surface rupture on undiscovered or new faults that may underlie the site. ► Liquefaction. Liquefaction is unlikely to be a potential hazard at the site, since the groundwater is believed to be deeper than 50 feet (the maximum depth that liquefaction is known to occur).

Loving Care Assisted Living - Cathedral City, CA LCI Project No. LP17122 CBC Reference
Soil Site Class: D Table 20.3-1
Latitude: 33.8283 N
Longitude: -116.4569 W
Risk Category: II
Seismic Design Category: E
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Ground Motion
Mapped MCER Short Period Spectral Response Ss 2.191 g Figure 1613.3.1(1) Mapped MCER 1 second Spectral Response S1 1.072 g Figure 1613.3.1(2) Short Period (0.2 s) Site Coefficient Fa 1.00 Table 1613.3.3(1) Long Period (1.0 s) Site Coefficient Fv 1.50 Table 1613.3.3(2) MCER Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter (0.2 s) SMS 2.191 g = Fa * Ss MCER Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter (1.0 s) SM1 1.608 g = Fv * S1 Design Earthquake Ground Motion
Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter (0.2 s) SDS 1.461 g = 2/3*SMS Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter (1.0 s) SD1 1.072 g = 2/3*SM1 Risk Coefficient at Short Periods (less than 0.2 s) CRS 0.963 Risk Coefficient at Long Periods (greater than 1.0 s) CR1 0.914 TL 8.00 sec
TO 0.15 sec =0.2*SD1/SDS
TS 0.73 sec =SD1/SDS
Peak Ground Acceleration PGAM 0.85 g
Period Sa MCER Sa
T (sec) (g) (g)

0.00 0.58 0.88

0.15 1.46 2.19

0.73 1.46 2.19

1.05 1.02 1.53

1.06 1.01 1.52

1.07 1.00 1.50

1.08 0.99 1.49

1.10 0.97 1.46

1.20 0.89 1.34

1.40 0.77 1.15

1.50 0.71 1.07

1.75 0.61 0.92

2.00 0.54 0.80

2.20 0.49 0.73

2.40 0.45 0.67

2.60 0.41 0.62

2.80 0.38 0.57

3.00 0.36 0.54

3.50 0.31 0.46

4.00 0.27 0.40
ASCE Equation 11.8-1
Equation 16-40
ASCE Figure 22-12
Table 2
2016 California Building Code (CBC) and ASCE 7-10 Seismic Parameters Equation 16-37
Equation 16-38
Equation 16-39
ASCE Figure 22-17
ASCE Figure 22-18

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g) Period (sec)
Generalized Design Response Spectrum
(ASCE 7-5 Section 11.4.5)

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g) Period (sec)
MCER Response Spectra Design Response Spectra
Loving Care Assisted Living – Cathedral City, CA LCI Report No. LP17122 LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 8
Other Potential Geologic Hazards.
► Landsliding. The hazard of landsliding is unlikely due to the regional planar topography. No ancient landslides are shown on geologic maps of the region and no indications of landslides were observed during our site investigation.
► Volcanic hazards. The site is not located in proximity to any known volcanically active area and the risk of volcanic hazards is considered very low.
► Tsunamis, sieches, and flooding. The site does not lie near any large bodies of water, so the threat of tsunami, sieches, or other seismically-induced flooding is unlikely. The project site is located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Other Flood Areas Zone X (as shown on Plate A-6).
► Expansive soil. The near surface soils at the project site consist of sands which are non-expansive in nature.

3.6 Subsurface Soil
Subsurface soils encountered during the field exploration conducted on August 31 and September 14, 2017 consist of medium dense to dense sands to maximum depth penetrated. The near surface soils are non-expansive in nature. The subsurface logs (Plates B-1 through B-11) depict the stratigraphic relationships of the various soil types.

3.7 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in the test pits during the time of exploration. According to Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) readings of groundwater levels from nearby wells, groundwater is located at a depth of approximately 230 feet below the ground surface in the vicinity of the project site.

There is uncertainty in the accuracy of short-term water level measurements, particularly in finegrained soil. Groundwater levels may fluctuate with precipitation, irrigation of adjacent properties, drainage, and site grading. The groundwater level noted should not be interpreted to represent an accurate or permanent condition.

Loving Care Assisted Living – Cathedral City, CA LCI Report No. LP17122 LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 9
Based on the general topography, groundwater flow directions are estimated to be toward the southeast within the subject site area. Flow directions may also vary locally in the vicinity of the site.

Historic groundwater records in the vicinity of the project site indicate that groundwater has fluctuated between 130 to 170 feet below the ground surface over the last 65 years according to the Coachella Valley Water District and to a report "Coachella Valley Investigation" conducted by the Department of Water Resources, published July 1964.

3.8 Hydro-consolidation
In arid climatic regions, granular soils have a potential to collapse upon wetting. This collapse (hydro-consolidation) phenomena is the result of the lubrication of soluble cements (carbonates) in the soil matrix causing the soil to densify from its loose configuration during deposition.

Collapse potential tests (Plates C-7) performed on a remolded sample from the site indicated a slight risk of collapse upon saturation. Therefore, development of building foundation is not required to include provisions for mitigating the hydro-consolidation caused by soil saturation from landscape irrigation or broken utility lines.

3.9 Regional Subsidence
The project is located in the Coachella Valley which has experienced up to 12 inches of regional subsidence between 1996 and 2005 (USGS, 2007). The risk of regional subsidence at the project site is considered low.

Loving Care Assisted Living – Cathedral City, CA LCI Report No. LP17122 LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 10
Section 4

DESIGN CRITERIA

4.1 Site Preparation
Pre-grade Meeting: Prior to site preparation, a meeting should be held at the site with as a minimum, the owner’s representative, grading contractor and geotechnical engineer in attendance.

Clearing and Grubbing: All surface improvements, debris and/or vegetation including grass, trees, and weeds on the site at the time of construction should be removed from the construction area.

Root balls should be completely excavated. Organic stripping should be hauled from the site and not used as fill. Any trash, construction debris, concrete slabs, old pavement, and buried obstructions such as old foundations and utility lines exposed during rough grading should be traced to the limits of the foreign materials and removed. Any excavations resulting from site clearing and grubbing should be dish-shaped to the lowest depth of disturbance and backfilled with engineered fill.

Building Pad Preparation: The existing surface soil within the building pad areas should be removed to 24 inches below the lowest foundation grade or 48 inches below the original grade (whichever is deeper), extending five feet beyond all exterior wall/column lines (including adjacent concreted areas). The exposed sub-grade should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, uniformly moisture conditioned to at least 2% over optimum moisture, and re-compacted to at least 90% of ASTM D1557 maximum density
The on-site soils are suitable for use as compacted fill and utility trench backfill. Imported fill soil (if required) should similar to onsite soil or non-expansive, granular soil meeting the USCS classifications of SM, SP-SM, or SW-SM with a maximum rock size of 3 inches. The geotechnical engineer should approve imported fill soil sources before hauling material to the site. Native, stock pile and imported materials should be placed in lifts no greater than 8 inches in loose thickness, uniformly moisture conditioned to at least 2% over optimum moisture, and re-compacted to at least 90% of ASTM D1557 maximum density.

Loving Care Assisted Living – Cathedral City, CA LCI Report No. LP17122 LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 11
In areas other than the building pad which are to receive concrete slabs and asphalt concrete pavement, the ground surface should be over-excavated to a depth of 12 inches, uniformly moisture conditioned to at least 2% over optimum moisture, and re-compacted to at least 90% of ASTM D1557 maximum density.

Trench Backfill: On-site soil free of debris, vegetation, and other deleterious matter may be suitable for use as utility trench backfill. Backfill within roadways should be placed in layers not more that 6 inches in thickness, uniformly moisture conditioned to at least 2% over optimum moisture and mechanically compacted to a minimum of 90% of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density except for the top 12 inches of the trench which shall be compacted to at least 95%. Native backfill should only be placed and compacted after encapsulating buried pipes with suitable bedding and pipe envelope material.

Pipe envelope/bedding should either be clean sand (Sand Equivalent SE>30) or crushed rock when encountering groundwater. A geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent) should be used to encapsulate the crushed rock to reduce the potential for in-washing of fines into the gravel void space. Precautions should be taken in the compaction of the backfill to avoid damage to the pipes and structures.

Moisture Control and Drainage: The moisture condition of the building pad should be maintained during trenching and utility installation until concrete is placed or should be rewetted before initiating delayed construction. If soil drying is noted, a 2 to 3 inches depth of water may be used in the bottom of footings to restore footing subgrade moisture and reduce potential edge lift.

Adequate site drainage is essential to future performance of the project. Infiltration of excess irrigation water and stormwaters can adversely affect the performance of the subsurface soil at the site. Positive drainage should be maintained away from all structures (5% for 5 feet minimum across unpaved areas) to prevent ponding and subsequent saturation of the native soil. Gutters and downspouts may be considered as a means to convey water away from foundations. If landscape irrigation is allowed next to the building, drip irrigation systems or lined planter boxes should be used. The subgrade soil should be maintained in a moist, but not saturated state, and not allowed to dry out. Drainage should be maintained without ponding.

Loving Care Assisted Living – Cathedral City, CA LCI Report No. LP17122 LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 12
Observation and Density Testing: All site preparation and fill placement should be continuously observed and tested by a representative of a qualified geotechnical engineering firm. Full-time observation services during the excavation and scarification process is necessary to detect undesirable materials or conditions and soft areas that may be encountered in the construction area.

The geotechnical firm that provides observation and testing during construction shall assume the responsibility of "geotechnical engineer of record" and, as such, shall perform additional tests and investigation as necessary to satisfy themselves as to the site conditions and the recommendations for site development.

Auxiliary Structures Foundation Preparation: Auxiliary structures such as free standing or retaining walls should have the existing soil beneath the structure foundation prepared in the manner recommended for the building pad except the preparation needed only to extend 18 inches below and beyond the footing.

4.2 Foundations and Settlements
Shallow column footings and continuous wall footings are suitable to support the structures provided they are founded on a layer of properly prepared and compacted soil as described in Section 4.1.

The foundations may be designed using an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,800 psf. The allowable soil pressure may be increased by 20% for each foot of embedment depth in excess of 18 inches and by one-third for short term loads induced by winds or seismic events. The maximum allowable soil pressure at increased embedment depths shall not exceed 2,800 psf.

All exterior and interior foundations should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below the building support pad or lowest adjacent final grade, whichever is deeper. Continuous wall footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches. Column footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches and should not be structurally isolated. Recommended concrete reinforcement and sizing for all footings should be provided by the structural engineer.

Resistance to horizontal loads will be developed by passive earth pressure on the sides of footings and frictional resistance developed along the bases of footings and concrete slabs. Passive resistance to lateral earth pressure may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf to resist lateral loadings.

Loving Care Assisted Living – Cathedral City, CA LCI Report No. LP17122 LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 13
The top one foot of embedment should not be considered in computing passive resistance unless the adjacent area is confined by a slab or pavement. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.4 may also be used at the base of the footings to resist lateral loading.

Foundation movement under the estimated static (non-seismic) loadings and static site conditions are estimated to not exceed ¾ inch with differential movement of about two-thirds of total movement for the loading assumptions stated above when the subgrade preparation guidelines given above are followed.

4.3 Slabs-On-Grade
Concrete slabs and flatwork should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. Concrete slabs and flatworks should be determined by the design engineer. Concrete floor slabs may either be monolithically placed with the foundation or dowelled after footing placement. The concrete slabs may be placed on granular subgrade that has been compacted at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D1557).

American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines (ACI 302.1R-04 Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3) provide recommendations regarding the use of moisture barriers beneath concrete slabs. The concrete floor slabs should be underlain by a 10-mil polyethylene vapor retarder that works as a capillary break to reduce moisture migration into the slab section. All laps and seams should be overlapped 6-inches or as recommended by the manufacturer. The vapor retarder should be protected from puncture.

The joints and penetrations should be sealed with the manufacturer’s recommended adhesive, pressure-sensitive tape, or both. The vapor retarder should extend a minimum of 12 inches into the footing excavations. The vapor retarder should be covered by 4 inches of clean sand (Sand Equivalent SE>30) unless placed on 2.5 feet of granular fill, in which case, the vapor retarder may lie directly on the granular fill with 2 inches of clean sand cover.

Placing sand over the vapor retarder may increase moisture transmission through the slab, because it provides a reservoir for bleed water from the concrete to collect. The sand placed over the vapor retarder may also move and mound prior to concrete placement, resulting in an irregular slab thickness.

Loving Care Assisted Living – Cathedral City, CA LCI Report No. LP17122 LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 14
For areas with moisture sensitive flooring materials, ACI recommends that concrete slabs be placed without a sand cover directly over the vapor retarder, provided that the concrete mix uses a lowwater cement ratio and concrete curing methods are employed to compensate for release of bleed water through the top of the slab. The vapor retarder should have a minimum thickness of 15-mil (Stego-Wrap or equivalent).

Control joints should be provided in all concrete slabs-on-grade at a maximum spacing (in feet) of 2 to 3 times the slab thickness (in inches) as recommended by American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. All joints should form approximately square patterns to reduce randomly oriented contraction cracks. Contraction joints in the slabs should be tooled at the time of the pour or sawcut (¼ of slab depth) within 6 to 8 hours of concrete placement. Construction (cold) joints in foundations and area flatwork should either be thickened butt-joints with dowels or a thickened keyed-joint designed to resist vertical deflection at the joint. All joints in flatwork should be sealed to prevent moisture, vermin, or foreign material intrusion. Precautions should be taken to prevent curling of slabs in this arid desert region (refer to ACI guidelines).

All independent concrete flatworks should be underlain by 12 inches of moisture conditioned and compacted soils. All flatwork should be jointed in square patterns and at irregularities in shape at a maximum spacing of 10 feet or the least width of the sidewalk.

4.4 Concrete Mixes and Corrosivity
Selected chemical analyses for corrosivity were conducted on bulk samples of the near surface soil from the project site (Plate C-5). The native soils tested were shown to have low levels of sulfate and chloride ion concentrations. Resistivity determinations on the soil indicate low potential for metal loss because of electrochemical corrosion processes.

A minimum of 2,500 psi concrete of Type II Portland Cement with a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.60 (by weight) should be used for concrete placed in contact with native soil on this project (sitework including streets, sidewalks, driveways, patios, and foundations).

Loving Care Assisted Living – Cathedral City, CA LCI Report No. LP17122 LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 15
A minimum concrete cover of three (3) inches is recommended around steel reinforcing or embedded components (anchor bolts, hold-downs, etc.) exposed to native soil or landscape water (to 18 inches above grade). The concrete should also be thoroughly vibrated during placement.

Landmark does not practice corrosion engineering. We recommend that a qualified corrosion engineer evaluate the corrosion potential on metal construction materials and concrete at the site.

4.5 Excavations
All trench excavations should conform to CalOSHA requirements for Type C soil. The contractor is solely responsible for the safety of workers entering trenches. Temporary excavations with depths of 4 feet or less may be cut nearly vertical for short duration. Temporary slopes should be no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical). Sandy soil slopes should be kept moist, but not saturated, to reduce the potential of raveling or sloughing.

Trench excavations deeper than 4 feet will require shoring or slope inclinations in conformance to CAL/OSHA regulations for Type C soil. Surcharge loads of stockpiled soil or construction materials should be set back from the top of the slope a minimum distance equal to the height of the slope. All permanent slopes should not be steeper than 3:1 to reduce wind and rain erosion.

Protected slopes with ground cover may be as steep as 2:1. However, maintenance with motorized equipment may not be possible at this inclination.

4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures
Earth retaining structures, such as retaining walls, should be designed to resist the soil pressure imposed by the retained soil mass. Walls with granular drained backfill may be designed for an assumed static earth pressure equivalent to that exerted by a fluid weighing 35 pcf for unrestrained (active) conditions (able to rotate 0.1% of wall height), and 50 pcf for restrained (at-rest) conditions.

These values should be verified at the actual wall locations during construction.

4.7 Seismic Design
Loving Care Assisted Living – Cathedral City, CA LCI Report No. LP17122 LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 16
This site is located in the seismically active southern California area and the site structures are subject to strong ground shaking due to potential fault movements along the San Andreas fault.

Engineered design and earthquake-resistant construction are the common solutions to increase safety and development of seismic areas. Designs should comply with the latest edition of the CBC for Site Class D using the seismic coefficients given in Section 3.4 of this report.

4.8 Permanent Slopes
Cut and Fill slopes should be constructed generally no steeper than 3 (H):1(V) to permit easy landscape maintenance and provide erosional stability form wind or rain while unprotected without landscape cover. Slope with a 2(H):1(V) gradient are permitted provided, it is recognized that such slopes are more prone to erosion and so not permit landscape maintenance by motorized riding equipment, and require landscape cover to retard erosion.

4.9 Pavements
Pavements should be designed according to CALTRANS or other acceptable methods. Traffic indices were not provided by the project engineer or owner; therefore, we have provided structural sections for several traffic indices for comparative evaluation. The public agency or design engineer should decide the appropriate traffic index for the site. Maintenance of proper drainage is necessary to prolong the service life of the pavements.

Based on the current State of California CALTRANS method, an estimated R-value of 60 for the subgrade soil and assumed traffic indices, the following table provides our estimates for asphaltic concrete (AC) pavement sections.

Loving Care Assisted Living – Cathedral City, CA LCI Report No. LP17122 LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 17

RECOMMENDED PAVEMENTS SECTIONS
R-Value of Subgrade Soil - 60 (estimated) Design Method - CALTRANS 2012 Flexible Pavements
Traffic
Index
(assumed)
Asphaltic
Concrete
Thickness
(in.)
Aggregate
Base
Thickness
(in.)

5.0 3.0 4.0

6.0 3.5 4.0

7.0 4.5 4.0

8.0 5.0 5.5
Notes:
1) Asphaltic concrete shall be Caltrans, Type B, ¾ inch maximum medium grading, (½ inch for parking areas) compacted to a minimum of 95% of the 50-blow Marshall density (ASTM D1559).
2) Aggregate base shall conform to Caltrans Class 2 (¾ in. maximum), compacted to a minimum of 95% of ASTM D1557 maximum dry density.
3) Place pavements on 8 inches of moisture conditioned (at least 2% of over optimum) native soil compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D1557, or the governing agency requirements.

Final recommended pavement sections may need to be based on sampling and R-Value testing during grading operations when actual subgrade soils will be exposed.

Loving Care Assisted Living – Cathedral City, CA LCI Report No. LP17122 LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 18
Section 5

LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES

5.1 Limitations
The findings and professional opinions within this report are based on current information regarding the proposed commercial complex, located at 30260 Date Palm Drive in the city of Cathedral City, California. The conclusions and professional opinions of this report are invalid if:
 Proposed building(s) location and size are changed from those shown in this report < Structural loads change from those stated or the structures are relocated.  The Additional Services section of this report is not followed.  This report is used for adjacent or other property.
 Changes of grade or groundwater occur between the issuance of this report and construction other than those anticipated in this report.  Any other change that materially alters the project from that proposed at the time this report was prepared.

Findings and professional opinions in this report are based on selected points of field exploration, geologic literature, laboratory testing, and our understanding of the proposed project. Our analysis of data and professional opinions presented herein are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary significantly from those found at specific exploratory locations. Variations in soil conditions can exist between and beyond the exploration points or groundwater elevations may change. If detected, these conditions may require additional studies, consultation, and possible design revisions.

This report contains information that may be useful in the preparation of contract specifications.

However, the report is not worded is such a manner that we recommend its use as a construction specification document without proper modification. The use of information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the contractor’s option and risk.

This report was prepared according to the generally accepted geotechnical engineering standards of practice that existed in Riverside County at the time the report was prepared. No express or implied warranties are made in connection with our services.

Loving Care Assisted Living – Cathedral City, CA LCI Report No. LP17122 LandMark Consultants, Inc. Page 19
This report should be considered invalid for periods after two years from the report date without a review of the validity of the findings and professional opinions by our firm, because of potential changes in the Geotechnical Engineering Standards of Practice.

The client has responsibility to see that all parties to the project including, designer, contractor, and subcontractor are made aware of this entire report. The use of information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the contractor's option and risk.

5.2 Additional Services
We recommend that a qualified geotechnical consultant be retained to provide the tests and observations services during construction. The geotechnical engineering firm providing such tests and observations shall become the geotechnical engineer of record and assume responsibility for the project.

The professional opinions presented in this report are based on the assumption that:
 Consultation during development of design and construction documents to check that the geotechnical professional opinions are appropriate for the proposed project and that the geotechnical professional opinions are properly interpreted and incorporated into the documents.
 LandMark Consultants, Inc. will have the opportunity to review and comment on the plans and specifications for the project prior to the issuance of such for bidding.  Continuous observation, inspection, and testing by the geotechnical consultant of record during site clearing, grading, excavation, placement of fills, building pad and subgrade preparation, and backfilling of utility trenches.
 Observation of foundation excavations and reinforcing steel before concrete placement.  Other consultation as necessary during design and construction.

We emphasize our review of the project plans and specifications to check for compatibility with our professional opinions and conclusions. Additional information concerning the scope and cost of these services can be obtained from our office.

APPENDIX A
Project No.: LP17122 Vicinity Map
Plate
A-1
Project Site
N

L M AND ARK
Geo-Engineers and Geologists
Project No.: LP17122
Plate
A-2
Approximate Boring Location
Approximate Test Pit Location
Legend N

L M AND ARK
Geo-Engineers and Geologists
Site and Exploration Plan
B-2
B-1
T-1
T-2
T-3
T-4
T-5
T-6
B-3
B-4
B-5
Project No.: LP17122
USDA Soil Conservation
Soil Service Map
Plate
A-3

L M AND ARK
Geo-Engineers and Geologists
N
Project Site
Map Unit Legend
Riverside County, Coachella Valley Area, California (CA680) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI MaB Myoma fine sand, 0 to 5
percent slopes

88.6 100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 88.6 100.0%
Soil Map—Riverside County, Coachella Valley Area, California Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/27/2017

Page 3 of 3 ends

Project No.: LP17122 Topographic Map
Plate
A-4
N

L M AND ARK
Geo-Engineers and Geologists
Project Site
Project No.: LP17122
Riverside County
Geographic Information System (GIS)
Fault Map
Plate
A-5
Project Site

L M AND ARK
Geo-Engineers and Geologists
Project No.: LP17122
FEMA Flood Zones Plate
AProject Site

L M AND ARK
Geo-Engineers and Geologists

APPENDIX B
DATE DRILLED:

LOGGED BY:

TOTAL DEPTH:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

TYPE OF BIT: DIAMETER:

HAMMER WT.: DROP:

DEPTH TO WATER:

LOG OF BORING No. B-1 SAMPLE
PROJECT NO. LP1 L 7122
60 10
5 20
30 25
30 18
31 41
50/6”
44 19
27 18
21 35
45 55
15 40
50 DRY DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE CONTENT (% dry wt.) OTHER TESTS BLOW COUNTSHEET OF 1 1 8/31/17
G. Chandra
Approximately 370'
Hollow Stem Auger
140 lbs.
8 in.
30 in.

51.5 Feet NA
Total Depth = 51.5'
Groundwater not encountered at time of drilling
Backfilled with excavated soil
SAND M (SP-S ): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained,
medium dense to dense
SAND M (SP-S ): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained, very dense, some gravel
SILTY SAND M (S ): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained, very dense 107.3

0.3 1.9
115.0 1.0

0.6 0.3

1.4 1.4

3.0 0.6 USCS
. CLASS POCKET . (tsf) PEN
Passing #200 = 7.1%
Passing #200 = 9.2%
Passing #200 = 7.2%
Passing #200 = 8.1%
Passing #200 = 18.1%
Passing #200 = 5.6%
DATE DRILLED:

LOGGED BY:

TOTAL DEPTH:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

TYPE OF BIT: DIAMETER:

HAMMER WT.: DROP:

DEPTH TO WATER:

LOG OF BORING No. B-2 SAMPLE
PROJECT NO. LP17122
60 10
5 20
30 25
26 33
42 12
24 35
45 55
15 40
50 DRY DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE CONTENT (% dry wt.) OTHER TESTS BLOW COUNTSHEET OF 1 1 8/31/17
G. Chandra
Approximately 370'
Hollow Stem Auger
140 lbs.
8 in.
30 in.

26.5 Feet NA
Total Depth = 26.5'
Groundwater not encountered at time of drilling
Backfilled with excavated soil
SAND M (SP-S ): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained,
medium dense to dense
SAND M (SP-S ): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained,
medium dense to dense
SILTY SAND M (S ): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained, dense 107.8

1.7 0.6
106.0 8.5

0.9 USCS
. CLASS POCKET . (tsf) PEN
Passing #200 = 10.3%
Passing #200 = 15.5%
DATE DRILLED:

LOGGED BY:

TOTAL DEPTH:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

TYPE OF BIT: DIAMETER:

HAMMER WT.: DROP:

DEPTH TO WATER:

LOG OF BORING No. B-3 SAMPLE
PROJECT NO. LP17122
60 10
5 20
30 25
18 22
19 64
22 26
9 22
35 45
55 15
40 50 DRY DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE CONTENT (% dry wt.) OTHER TESTS BLOW COUNTSHEET OF 1 1 8/31/17
G. Chandra
Approximately 370'
Hollow Stem Auger
140 lbs.
8 in.
30 in.

41.5 Feet NA
Total Depth = 41.5'
Groundwater not encountered at time of drilling
Backfilled with excavated soil
SAND M (SP-S ): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained,
medium dense
SAND M (SP-S ): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained,
medium dense to dense
SILTY SAND M (S ): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained, loose trace gravel

96.5 2.1

1.5 85.5 0.6

0.7 0.5

0.4 0.8

0.2 USCS
. CLASS POCKET . (tsf) PEN
Passing #200 = 15.3%
Passing #200 = 7.1%
Passing #200 = 4.1%
Passing #200 = 7.0%
DATE DRILLED:

LOGGED BY:

TOTAL DEPTH:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

TYPE OF BIT: DIAMETER:

HAMMER WT.: DROP:

DEPTH TO WATER:

LOG OF BORING No. B-4 SAMPLE
PROJECT NO. LP1 L 7122
60 10
5 20
30 25
25 32
10 22
35 45
55 15
40 50 DRY DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE CONTENT (% dry wt.) OTHER TESTS BLOW COUNTSHEET OF 1 1 8/31/17
G. Chandra
Approximately 370'
Hollow Stem Auger
140 lbs.
8 in.
30 in.

21.5 Feet NA
Total Depth = 21.5'
Groundwater not encountered at time of drilling
Backfilled with excavated soil
SAND M (SP-S ): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained,
medium dense
SAND M (SP-S ): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained,
medium dense
SILTY SAND M (S ): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained, dense 114.8

1.9 0.6
111.1 3.8

0.6 USCS
. CLASS POCKET . (tsf) PEN
Passing #200 = 7.5%
Passing #200 = 26.0%
DATE DRILLED:

LOGGED BY:

TOTAL DEPTH:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

TYPE OF BIT: DIAMETER:

HAMMER WT.: DROP:

DEPTH TO WATER:

LOG OF BORING No. B-5 SAMPLE
PROJECT NO. LP17122
60 10
5 20
30 25
29 27
13 22
35 45
55 15
40 50 DRY DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE CONTENT (% dry wt.) OTHER TESTS BLOW COUNTSHEET OF 1 1 8/31/17
G. Chandra
Approximately 370'
Hollow Stem Auger
140 lbs.
8 in.
30 in.

21.5 Feet NA
Total Depth = 21.5'
Groundwater not encountered at time of drilling
Backfilled with excavated soil
SAND M (SP-S ): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained,
medium dense to dense
SAND M (SP-S ): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained,
medium dense to dense
SILTY SAND M (S ): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained, dense 104.7

4.2 2.2
105.5 1.1

0.4 USCS
. CLASS POCKET . (tsf) PEN
Passing #200 = 32.0%
Passing #200 = 6.9%
DATE EXCAVATED:

LOGGED BY:

TOTAL DEPTH:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

TYPE OF BIT: DIAMETER:

HAMMER WT.: DROP:

DEPTH TO WATER:

LOG OF TEST PIT NO. T-1 SAMPLE
30 5
10 15
20 25 DRY DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE CONTENT (% dry wt.) OTHER TESTS BLOW COUNTSHEET 1 OF 1 5/14/17
J. Lorenzana
Approximately 370’
N/A
N/A
Backhoe N/A
N/A
15 Feet USCS CLASS. POCKET PEN. (tsf)
SAND (SP-SM): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained
increase in silt content
104.4 1.8
Total Depth = 15.0’
Moisture and density values by Nuclear Densometer (ASTM 6938) Backfilled with excavated soil
DATE EXCAVATED:

LOGGED BY:

TOTAL DEPTH:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

TYPE OF BIT: DIAMETER:

HAMMER WT.: DROP:

DEPTH TO WATER:

LOG OF TEST PIT NO. T-2 SAMPLE
30 5
10 15
20 25 DRY DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE CONTENT (% dry wt.) OTHER TESTS BLOW COUNTSHEET 1 OF 1 5/14/17
J. Lorenzana
Approximately 370’
N/A
N/A
Backhoe N/A
N/A
15 Feet USCS CLASS. POCKET PEN. (tsf)
SAND (SP-SM): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained
increase in silt content
105.4
104.0

2.5 2.8
Total Depth = 15.0’
Moisture and density values by Nuclear Densometer (ASTM 6938) Backfilled with excavated soil
DATE EXCAVATED:

LOGGED BY:

TOTAL DEPTH:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

TYPE OF BIT: DIAMETER:

HAMMER WT.: DROP:

DEPTH TO WATER:

LOG OF TEST PIT NO. T-3 SAMPLE
30 5
10 15
20 25 DRY DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE CONTENT (% dry wt.) OTHER TESTS BLOW COUNTSHEET 1 OF 1 5/14/17
J. Lorenzana
Approximately 370’
N/A
N/A
Backhoe N/A
N/A
15 Feet USCS CLASS. POCKET PEN. (tsf)
SAND (SP-SM): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained
increase in silt content
105.3
105.1

2.3 3.0
Total Depth = 15.0’
Moisture and density values by Nuclear Densometer (ASTM 6938) Backfilled with excavated soil
DATE EXCAVATED:

LOGGED BY:

TOTAL DEPTH:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

TYPE OF BIT: DIAMETER:

HAMMER WT.: DROP:

DEPTH TO WATER:

LOG OF TEST PIT NO. T-4 SAMPLE
30 5
10 15
20 25 DRY DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE CONTENT (% dry wt.) OTHER TESTS BLOW COUNTSHEET 1 OF 1 5/14/17
J. Lorenzana
Approximately 370’
N/A
N/A
Backhoe N/A
N/A
15 Feet USCS CLASS. POCKET PEN. (tsf)
SAND (SP-SM): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained
increase in silt content

98.9 100.0

2.0 2.6
Total Depth = 15.0’
Moisture and density values by Nuclear Densometer (ASTM 6938) Backfilled with excavated soil
DATE EXCAVATED:

LOGGED BY:

TOTAL DEPTH:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

TYPE OF BIT: DIAMETER:

HAMMER WT.: DROP:

DEPTH TO WATER:

LOG OF TEST PIT NO. T-5 SAMPLE
30 5
10 15
20 25 DRY DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE CONTENT (% dry wt.) OTHER TESTS BLOW COUNTSHEET 1 OF 1 5/14/17
J. Lorenzana
Approximately 370’
N/A
N/A
Backhoe N/A
N/A
15 Feet USCS CLASS. POCKET PEN. (tsf)
SAND (SP-SM): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained
increase in silt content
109.0
103.0

1.6 2.3
Total Depth = 15.0’
Moisture and density values by Nuclear Densometer (ASTM 6938) Backfilled with excavated soil
DATE EXCAVATED:

LOGGED BY:

TOTAL DEPTH:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

TYPE OF BIT: DIAMETER:

HAMMER WT.: DROP:

DEPTH TO WATER:

LOG OF TEST PIT NO. T-6 SAMPLE
30 5
10 15
20 25 DRY DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE CONTENT (% dry wt.) OTHER TESTS BLOW COUNTSHEET 1 OF 1 5/14/17
J. Lorenzana
Approximately 370’
N/A
N/A
Backhoe N/A
N/A
15 Feet USCS CLASS. POCKET PEN. (tsf)
SAND (SP-SM): Grayish brown, dry, fine grained
increase in silt content
104.0
105.9

1.8 1.9
Total Depth = 15.0’
Moisture and density values by Nuclear Densometer (ASTM 6938) Backfilled with excavated soil

DEFINITION OF TERMS

PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS
Gravels GW
GP
GM
GC
Sands SW
SP
SM
SC
Silts and clays ML
CL
OL
Silts and clays MH
CH
OH
Highly organic soils PT
FineMediumCoarse FineCoarse US Standard Series Sieve Clear Square Openings
Clays & Plastic Silts Strength ** Blows/ft. * Sands, Gravels, etc. Blows/ft. * Very Soft 0-0.25 0-2 Very Loose 0-4 Soft 0.25-0.5 2-4 Loose 4-10 Firm 0.5-1.0 4-8 Medium Dense 10-30 Stiff 1.0-2.0 8-16 Dense 30-50 Very Stiff 2.0-4.0 16-32 Very Dense Over 50 Hard Over 4.0 Over 32 *Number of blows of 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2 inch O.D. (1 3/8 in. I.D.) split spoon (ASTM D1586). ** Unconfined compressive strength in tons/s.f. as determined by laboratory testing or approximated by the Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D1586), Pocket Penetrometer, Torvane, or visual observation.

Type of Samples:
Ring SampleStandard Penetration TestShelby TubeBulk (Bag) Sample Drilling Notes:

1.Sampling and Blow Counts
Ring Sampler - Number of blows per foot of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches.

Standard Penetration Test - Number of blows per foot.

Shelby Tube - Three (3) inch nominal diameter tube hydraulically pushed.

2.P. P. = Pocket Penetrometer (tons/s.f.).

3.NR = No recovery.

4.GWT= Ground Water Table observed @ specified time.

Project No. LP17122
Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines
Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines More than half of coarse fraction is larger than No. 4
sieve
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines Peat and other highly organic soils
Inorganic silts, clayey silts with slight plasticity
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravely, sandy, or lean clays Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous silty soils, elastic silts Coarse grained soils More
than half of material is larger
that No. 200 sieve More than half of coarse fraction is smaller than No. 4
sieve
Silts and Clays
Clean gravels (less
than 5% fines) Gravel with fines Clean sands (less
than 5% fines) Sands with fines Fine grained soils More than half of material is smaller
than No. 200 sieve
Liquid limit is more than 50%
Liquid limit is less than 50%

GRAIN SIZES
Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Poorly graded gravels, or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Plate
Key to Logs B-12
Sand Gravel
Cobbles Boulders
200401043/4"3" 12"

APPENDIX C
Project No.:

SIEVE ANALYSIS
LP17122 Grain Size Analysis
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
Plate
C-1
Cobbles and Boulders Gravel Sand Silt and Clay
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Percent Passing by Weight
Particle Size (mm) B-1 @ 0-3 ft.

L M AND ARK
Geo-Enginee rs and Geologists
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 Percent Passing by Weight Particle Size (mm) B-1 @ 0-3 ft.

Project No.:

SIEVE ANALYSIS
LP17122 Grain Size Analysis
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
Plate
C-2
Cobbles and Boulders Gravel Sand Silt and Clay
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Percent Passing by Weight
Particle Size (mm) B-1 @ 23 ft.

L M AND ARK
Geo-Enginee rs and Geologists
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 Percent Passing by Weight Particle Size (mm) B-1 @ 23 ft.

Project No.:

Plate
C-3
Cobbles and Boulders Gravel Sand Silt and Clay

SIEVE ANALYSIS
LP17122 Grain Size Analysis
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Percent Passing by Weight
Particle Size (mm) T-2 @ 0-3 ft.

L M AND ARK
Geo-Enginee rs and Geologists
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 Percent Passing by Weight Particle Size (mm) T-2 @ 0-3 ft.

Project No.:

Plate
C-4
Cobbles and Boulders Gravel Sand Silt and Clay

SIEVE ANALYSIS
LP17122 Grain Size Analysis
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Percent Passing by Weight
Particle Size (mm) T-4 @ 0-3 ft.

L M AND ARK
Geo-Enginee rs and Geologists
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 Percent Passing by Weight Particle Size (mm) T-4 @ 0-3 ft.

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

JOB No.:

DATE:

Boring: B-1 Caltrans
Sample Depth, ft: 0-3 Method
pH: 8.7 643
Electrical Conductivity (mmhos): -- 424
Resistivity (ohm-cm): 11,000 643
Chloride (Cl), ppm: 40 422
Sulfate (SO4), ppm: 0 417
Material Chemical Range Degree of
Affected Agent of Values Corrosivity
Concrete Soluble 0 - 1,000 Low
Sulfates 1,000 - 2,000 Moderate
(ppm) 2,000 - 20,000 Severe
> 20,000 Very Severe
Normal Soluble 0 - 200 Low
Grade Chlorides 200 - 700 Moderate
Steel (ppm) 700 - 1,500 Severe
> 1,500 Very Severe
Normal Resistivity 1 - 1,000 Very Severe
Grade (ohm-cm) 1,000 - 2,000 Severe
Steel 2,000 - 10,000 Moderate
> 10,000 Low
Project No.: LP17122
General Guidelines for Soil Corrosivity
Selected Chemical
Test Results C-5
Plate
LANDMARK CONSULTANTS, INC.

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Desert Care LLC
Living Care Assisted Living
LP17122
10/09/17
Client: Soil Description:

Project: Sample Location:

Project No.: Test Method:

Date: Maximum Dry Density (pcf):

Lab. No.: Optimum Moisture Content (%):

Plate
C-6 Project No.: LP17122
Moisture Density Relationship
N/A
Gray Find Sand
B-1 @ 0-3'
ASTM D-1557 A
113.0
Desert Care LLC
LP17122
9/5/2017

7.2 Living Care Assisted Living
100
110
120
130
140
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Curves of 100%
saturation for
specific gravity
equal to:

2.75 2.70

2.65 APPENDIX D

REFERENCES
Arango I., 1996, Magnitude Scaling Factors for Soil Liquefaction Evaluations: ASCE Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 122, No. 11.

Bartlett, Steven F. and Youd, T. Leslie, 1995, Empirical Prediction of LiquefactionInduced Lateral Spread: ASCE Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 121, No. 4.

Blake, T. F., 2000, FRISKSP - A computer program for the probabilistic estimation of seismic hazard using faults as earthquake sources.

Bolt, B. A., 1974, Duration of Strong Motion: Proceedings 5th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy, June 1974.

Boore, D. M., Joyner, W. B., and Fumal, T. E., 1994, Estimation of response spectra and peak accelerations from western North American earthquakes: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Reports 94-127 and 93-509.

Boore, D. M., Joyner, W. B., and Fumal, T. E., 1997, Empirical Near-Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra: Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, p. 154-179.

Bray, J. D., Sancio, R. B., Riemer, M. F. and Durgunoglu, T., (2004) Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils: Proc. 11th Inter. Conf. in Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering and 3rd Inter. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering., Doolin, Kammerer, Nogami, Seed, and Towhata, Eds., Berkeley, CA, Jan. 7-9, V.1, pp. 655-662.

Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), 1991, NEHRP recommended provisions for the development of seismic regulations of new buildings, Parts 1, 2 and Maps:

FEMA 222, January 1992
California Building Standards Commission, 2007, 2007 California Building Code.

California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Vol. 2 of 2.

California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1996, California Fault Parameters:
available at http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dmg/shezp/fltindex.html California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1962, Geologic Map of California – Santa Ana Quadrangle Sheet: California Division of Mines and Geology, Scale 1:250,000.

Cao, T., Bryant, W. A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Wills, C. J., 2003, The revised 2002 California probabilistic seismic hazards maps: California Geological Survey: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha.

Department of Water Resources (DWR), 1964, Coachella Valley Investigation:

Department of Water Resources, Bulletin No. 108.

Ellsworth, W. L., 1990, Earthquake History, 1769-1989 in: The San Andreas Fault System, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1515, 283 p.

International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1994, Uniform Building Code, 1994 Edition.

International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1997, Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition.

Ishihara, K. (1985), Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes, Proc. 11th Int. Conf.

On Soil Mech. And Found. Engrg., Vol. 1, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 321-376.

Jennings, C. W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Geologic Map No. 6.

Jones, L. and Hauksson, E., 1994, Review of potential earthquake sources in Southern California: Applied Technology Council, Proceedings of ATC 35-1.

Joyner, W. B. and Boore, D. M., 1988, Measurements, characterization, and prediction of strong ground motion: ASCE Geotechnical Special Pub. No. 20.

Mualchin, L. and Jones, A. L., 1992, Peak acceleration from maximum credible earthquakes in California (Rock and Stiff Soil Sites): California Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open File Report 92-01.

Naeim, F. and Anderson, J. C., 1993, Classification and evaluation of earthquake records for design: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, NEHRP Report.

National Research Council, Committee of Earthquake Engineering, 1985, Liquefaction of Soils during Earthquakes: National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Norris, Robert M., Robert W. Webb, 1976, Geology of California: University of California, Santa Barbara.

Porcella, R. L., Matthiesen, R. B., and Maley, R. P., 1982, Strong-motion data recorded in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1254, p. 289- 318.

Robertson, P. K., 1996, Soil Liquefaction and its evaluation based on SPT and CPT: in unpublished paper presented at 1996 NCEER Liquefaction Workshop Seed, Harry B., Idriss, I. M., and Arango I., 1983, Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data: ASCE Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 109, No. 3.

Seed, Harry B., et al, 1985, Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations: ASCE Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 113, No. 8.

Sharp, R. V., 1989, Personal communication, USGS, Menlo Park, CA.

Stringer, S. L., 1996, EQFAULT.WK4, A computer program for the estimation of deterministic site acceleration.

Stringer, S. L. 1996, LIQUEFY.WK4, A computer program for the Empirical Prediction of Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction Potential.

Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), 1990, Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary.

Tokimatsu, K. and Seed H. B., 1987, Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking: ASCE Geotechnical Journal, v. 113, no. 8.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 1990, The San Andreas Fault System, California, Professional Paper 1515.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 1996, National Seismic Hazard Maps: available at http://gldage.cr.usgs.gov
Wallace, R. E., 1990, The San Andreas Fault System, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1515, 283 p.

Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), 1988, Probabilities of large earthquakes occurring in California on the San Andreas Fault: U.S.

Geological Survey Open-File Report 88-398.

Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), 1992, Future seismic hazards in southern California, Phase I Report: California Division of Mines and Geology.

Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), 1995, Seismic hazards in southern California, Probable Earthquakes, 1994-2014, Phase II Report:

Southern California Earthquake Center.

Youd, T. Leslie and Garris, C. T., 1995, Liquefaction induced ground surface disruption:

ASCE Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 121, No. 11.

2021 Whitewater River Region WQMP
The Wren (APN 670-110-043) – Cathedral City, CA 92234
Appendix F
Structural BMP and/or Retention Facility Sizing Calculations and Design Details
Date
Enter the Area Tributary to this Feature AT = 10.48 acres If = 0.63
Use the following equation based on the WEF/ASCE Method C = 0.858If
3 - 0.78If
2 + 0.774If + 0.04 C = 0.43
Vu = 0.17
VBMP (ft3)= VBMP = 6,467 ft3
Whitewater Watershed
BMP Design Volume, VBMP(Rev. 03-2012)
Legend: Required Entries Calculated Cells Company Name Christiansen & Company 10/11/2023 Designed by Keith Christiansen County/City Case No
Company Project Number/Name Date Palm Apartments Drainage Area Number/Name DMA1 Determine the Effective Impervious Fraction
Type of post-development surface cover
(use pull down menu)
Mixed Surface Types
Effective Impervious Fraction
Calculate the composite Runoff Coefficient, C for the BMP Tributary Area Determine Design Storage Volume, VBMP
Calculate VU, the 85% Unit Storage VolumeVU= 0.40 x C (in*ac)/ac Calculate the design storage volume of the BMP, VBMP. VU (in-ac/ac) x AT (ac) x 43,560 (ft2 /ac)
12 (in/ft)
Notes:
2021 Whitewater River Region WQMP
The Wren (APN 670-110-043) – Cathedral City, CA 92234
Appendix G
AGREEMENTS – CC&RS, COVENANT AND AGREEMENTS, BMP

MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS AND/OR OTHER

MECHANISMS FOR ENSURING ONGOING OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, FUNDING AND TRANSFER OF

REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT-SPECIFIC WQMP
January 2015 4-1
Covenant and Agreement
Water Quality Management Plan and Urban Runoff BMP
Transfer, Access and Maintenance Agreement
(Adapted from documents from the Ventura County Stormwater Management Program) Recorded at the request of:

City of Cathedral City
p
After recording, return to:

City of Cathedral City
City Clerk Water Quality Management Plan and Urban Runoff BMP Transfer, Access and Maintenance Agreement
OWNER: Francis Chu
PROPERTY ADDRESS: SWC Palm Canyon Drive & Date Palm Drive APN: 687-207-003-1, 687-207-005, 687-050-019, 687-050-020, 687-500-008, 687-500-009, 687-500-010, 687-500-014, 687-490-007-1 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in Cathedral City, California, this 1/30/2020 day of
, by and between
, herein after
Stefan Vogel
Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Avenue
670-110-043
October 2023
January 2015 4-2
referred to as "Owner" and the CITY OF Cathedral City, a municipal corporation, located in the County of Riverside, State of California hereinafter referred to as "CITY"; WHEREAS, the Owner owns real property ("Property") in the City of Cathedral City, County of Riverside, State of California, more specifically described in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit "B", each of which exhibits is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference;
WHEREAS, at the time of initial approval of development project known as Cathedral Cove Center within the Property described herein, the City required the project to employ Best Management Practices, hereinafter referred to as "BMPs", to minimize pollutants in urban runoff; WHEREAS, the Owner has chosen to install and/or implement BMPs as described in the Water Quality Management Plan, on file with the City, hereinafter referred to as "WQMP", to minimize pollutants in urban runoff and to minimize other adverse impacts of urban runoff; WHEREAS, said WQMP has been certified by the Owner and reviewed and approved by the City; WHEREAS, said BMPs, with installation and/or implementation on private property and draining only private property, are part of a private facility with all maintenance or replacement, therefore, the sole responsibility of the Owner in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; WHEREAS, the Owner is aware that periodic and continuous maintenance, including, but not necessarily limited to, filter material replacement and sediment removal, is required to assure peak performance of all BMPs in the WQMP and that, furthermore, such maintenance activity will require compliance with all Local, State, or Federal laws and regulations, including those pertaining to confined space and waste disposal methods, in effect at the time such maintenance occurs; NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually stipulated and agreed as follows:

1. Owner hereby provides the City of City's designee complete access, of any duration, to the BMPs and their immediate vicinity at any time, upon reasonable notice, or in the event of emergency, as determined by City's Director of Public Works no advance notice, for the purpose of inspection, sampling, testing of the Device, and in case of emergency, to undertake all necessary repairs or other preventative measures at owner's expense as provided in paragraph 3 below. City shall make every effort at all times to minimize or avoid interference with Owner's use of the Property.

2. Owner shall use its best efforts diligently to maintain all BMPs in a manner assuring peak performance at all times. All reasonable precautions shall be exercised by Owner and Owner's representative or contractor in the removal and extraction of any material(s) from the BMPs and the ultimate disposal of the material(s) in a manner consistent with all relevant laws and regulations in effect at the time. As may be requested from time to time by the City, the Owner shall provide the City with documentation identifying the material(s) removed, the quantity, and disposal destination.

3. In the event Owner, or its successors or assigns, fails to accomplish the necessary maintenance contemplated by this Agreement, within five (5) days of being given written notice by the City, the City is hereby authorized to cause any maintenance necessary to be done and charge the entire cost and expense to the Owner or Owner's successors or assigns, including administrative costs, October 2023
January 2015 4-3
attorney's fees and interest thereon at the maximum rate authorized by the Civil Code from the date of the notice of expense until paid in full.

4. The City may require the owner to post security in form and for a time period satisfactory to the city to guarantee the performance of the obligations state herein. Should the Owner fail to perform the obligations under the Agreement, the City may, in the case of a cash bond, act for the Owner using the proceeds from it, or in the case of a surety bond, require the sureties to perform the obligations of the Agreement. As an additional remedy, the Director may withdraw any previous Urban Runoff-related approval with respect to the property on which BMPs have been installed and/or implemented until such time as Owner repays to City its reasonable costs incurred in accordance with paragraph 3 above.

5. This agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Riverside County, California, at the expense of the Owner and shall constitute notice to all successors and assigns of the title to said Property of the obligation herein set forth, and also a lien in such amount as will fully reimburse the City, including interest as herein above set forth, subject to foreclosure in event of default in payment.

6. In event of legal action occasioned by any default or action of the Owner, or its successors or assigns, then the Owner and its successors or assigns agree(s) to pay all costs incurred by the City in enforcing the terms of this Agreement, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and that the same shall become a part of the lien against said Property.

7. It is the intent of the parties hereto that burdens and benefits herein undertaken shall constitute covenants that run with said Property and constitute a lien there against.

8. The obligations herein undertaken shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the parties hereto. The term "Owner" shall include not only the present Owner, but also its heirs, successors, executors, administrators, and assigns. Owner shall notify any successor to title of all or part of the Property about the existence of this Agreement.

Owner shall provide such notice prior to such successor obtaining an interest in all or part of the Property. Owner shall provide a copy of such notice to the City at the same time such notice is provided to the successor.

9. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

10. Any notice to a party required or called for in this Agreement shall be served in person, or by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, to the address set forth below. Notice(s) shall be deemed effective upon receipt, or seventy-two (72) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, whichever is earlier. A party may change a notice address only by providing written notice thereof to the other party.

October 2023
January 2015 4-4
IF TO CITY: IF TO OWNER:

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have affixed their signatures as of the date first written above.

APPROVED AS TO FORM: OWNER:

Name of City Attorny Francis Chu
City Attorney Name
Cathedral City Manager
CITY OF Title
OWNER:

Name
Name
Title
ATTEST: Title
City Clerk Date

NOTARIES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
Stefan Vogel
October 2023
January 2015 4-5

EXHIBIT A
(Legal Description)

THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT IS SITUATED IN THECITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

PARCEL A:

LOT 132 OF CATHEDRAL CITY, IN THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 13, PAGES 24, 25, AND 26 INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE WESTERLY 54.80 FEET, MEASURED ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE.

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL WATER AND ALL RIGHTS TO DEVELOP WATER IN OR ON SAID LAND.

APN: 687-207-003
PARCEL B:

LOTS 134 AND 135 OF CATHEDRAL CITY, IN THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 13, PAGES 24, 25 AND 26 INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BY DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 10, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 329943 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
APN: 687-207-006
PARCEL C:

LOT 166, CATHEDRAL CITY, IN THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 13, PAGES 24, 25, AND 26 INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

EXCEPTING THE NORTH 75 FEET THEREOF.

APN: 687-500-020
PARCEL D:

THE NORTH 75 FEET OF LOT 166 OF CATHEDRAL CITY, IN THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 13, PAGES 24, 25, AND 26 INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

APN: 687-500-019
PARCEL E:

October 2023
PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 27302, IN THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON FILE IN BOOK 174, PAGES 95 AND 96 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION WHICH LIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF PARCEL MAP NO. 34063 IN BOOK 218, PAGES 43-44, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. SAID LAND BEING SHOWN AS DESIGNATED REMAINDER ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 34063.
670-110-043
2021 Whitewater River Region WQMP
The Wren (APN 670-110-043) – Cathedral City, CA 92234
Appendix H
PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT – SUMMARY OF SITE

REMEDIATION CONDUCTED AND USE RESTRICTIONS
N/A
2021 Whitewater River Region WQMP
The Wren (APN 670-110-043) – Cathedral City, CA 92234
Appendix I

PROJECT-SPECIFIC WQMP SUMMARY DATA FORM
Project-Specific WQMP Summary Data Form
Applicant Information
Name and Title Stefan Vogel
Company Coachella Valley Community Development Group, Inc.

Phone 626-277-6782
Email
Project Information
Project Name
(as shown on project application/project-specific WQMP) The Wren
Street Address
Nearest Cross Streets Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Avenue Municipality
(City or Unincorporated County)
City of Cathedral City
Zip Code 92234
Tract Number(s) and/or Assessor Parcel Number(s) APN 670-110-043 Other
(other information to help identify location of project) Indicate type of project. Priority Development Projects (Use an "X" in cell preceding project type):

SF hillside residence; impervious area ≥ 10,000 sq. ft.; Slope ≥ 25% SF hillside residence; impervious area ≥ 10,000 sq. ft.; Slope ≥ 10% & erosive soils Commercial or Industrial ≥ 100,000 sq. ft.

Automotive repair shop
Retail Gasoline Outlet disturbing > 5,000 sq. ft.

Restaurant disturbing > 5,000 sq. ft.

X Home subdivision ≥ 10 housing units
Parking lot ≥ 5,000 sq. ft. or ≥ 25 parking spaces
Date Project-Specific WQMP Submitted October, 2023
Size of Project Area (nearest 0.1 acre) 10.48 acres
Will the project replace more than 50% of the
impervious surfaces on an existing developed site?
No
Project Area managed with LID/Site Design BMPs
(nearest 0.1 acre)

10.5 acres
Are Treatment Control BMPs required? No
Is the project subject to onsite retention by
ordinance or policy?
Yes
Did the project meet the 100% LID/Site Design
Measurable Goal?
Yes
Name of the entity that will implement, operate, and
maintain the post-construction BMPs
Coachella Valley Community Development Group, Inc.

Contact Name
Street or Mailing Address 36101 Bob Hope Drive, Ste. E5 City Rancho Mirage, CA
Zip Code 92270
Phone 626-277-6782
Space Below for Use by City/County Staff Only
Preceding Information Verified by
(consistent with information in project-specific WQMP)
Name:

Date:

Date Project-Specific WQMP Approved:

Data Entered by Name:

Date:

Other Comments
The Wren Multiple-Family Development Project
Appendix F
Date Palm Apartments
Noise Impact Study
MD Acoustics
October 17, 2023
Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA
Prepared for:

Ms. Julie Gilbert
Compass Consulting Enterprises, Inc.

PO Box 2627
Avalon, CA 90704
Prepared by:

MD Acoustics, LLC
Francisco Irarrazabal
1197 Los Angeles Ave, Ste C-256
Simi Valley, CA 93065
Date: 10/17/2023
Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Table of Contents
MD Acoustics, LLC ii
JN: 08052307_Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives 1

1.2 Site Location and Study Area 1

1.3 Proposed Project Description 1

2.0 Fundamentals of Noise ................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Sound, Noise and Acoustics 4

2.2 Frequency and Hertz 4

2.3 Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels 4

2.4 Addition of Decibels 4

2.5 Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels 5

2.6 Noise Descriptors 5

2.7 Traffic Noise Prediction 6

2.8 Sound Propagation 7

3.0 Ground-Borne Vibration Fundamentals......................................................................................... 8

3.1 Vibration Descriptors 8

3.2 Vibration Perception 8

3.3 Vibration Perception 8

4.0 Regulatory Setting......................................................................................................................... 10

4.1 Federal Regulations 10

4.2 State Regulations 10

4.3 City of Cathedral City Noise Regulations 11

5.0 Study Method and Procedure....................................................................................................... 17

5.1 Noise Measurement Procedure and Criteria 17

5.2 Noise Measurement Locations 17

5.3 Stationary Noise Modeling 17

5.3 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model 18

5.4 FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model 19

6.0 Existing Noise Environment.......................................................................................................... 21

6.1 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results 21

7.0 Future Noise Environment Impacts.............................................................................................. 22

7.1 Future Exterior Noise 22

7.1.1 Noise Impacts to Off-Site Receptors Due to Stationary Sources 22

7.1.2 Noise Impacts to Off-Site Receptors Due to Project Generated Traffic 24

7.1.3 Noise Impacts to On-Site Receptors Due to Traffic 25

7.1.4 Interior Noise Levels 27

7.2 Summary of Recommendations 27

8.0 Construction Noise Impact ........................................................................................................... 28 Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Table of Contents
MD Acoustics, LLC iii
JN: 08052307_Report

8.1 Construction Noise 28

8.2 Construction Vibration 29

8.3 Construction Noise Reduction Measures 30

9.0 References .................................................................................................................................... 31

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Field Measurement Data ................................................................................................... 1 Appendix B: Traffic FHWA Worksheets.................................................................................................. 2 Appendix C: Construction Noise Modeling Output................................................................................ 3 Appendix D: SoundPLAN Noise Modeling Inputs/Outputs and Noise Reference Levels....................... 4

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A: Location Map ..................................................................................................................... 2 Exhibit B: Site Plan.............................................................................................................................. 3 Exhibit C: Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels....................................................................................... 4 Exhibit D: Land Use Compatibility Guidelines.................................................................................. 12 Exhibit E: Measurement Locations.................................................................................................. 20 Exhibit F: Operational Noise Levels Leq(h)...................................................................................... 23 Exhibit G: Traffic Noise Levels Contours CNEL ................................................................................. 26

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Change in Noise Level Characteristics1......................................................................................... 5 Table 2: Cathedral City’s Exterior Noise Limits......................................................................................... 15 Table 3: Roadway Parameters and Vehicle Distribution .......................................................................... 18 Table 4: Short-Term Noise Measurement Data (dBA)1............................................................................ 21 Table 5: Worst-case Predicted Operational Noise Level1......................................................................... 24 Table 6: Existing Scenario - Noise Levels Along Roadways (dBA CNEL).................................................... 25 Table 7: Future Interior Noise Levels (dBA CNEL)..................................................................................... 27 Table 8: Typical Construction Noise Levels1............................................................................................. 28 Table 9: Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria ......................................................... 29 Table 10: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment1............................................................. 30 Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Introduction
1 1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives
This noise assessment was prepared to evaluate the potential noise impacts for the project study area and to recommend noise mitigation measures, if necessary, to minimize the potential noise impacts. The assessment was conducted and compared to the noise standards set forth by the Federal, State and Local agencies. Consistent with the City’s Noise Guidelines, the project must demonstrate compliance to the applicable noise criterion as outlined within the City’s Noise Element and Municipal Code.

The following is provided in this report:
• A description of the study area and the proposed project • Information regarding the fundamentals of noise
• A description of the local noise guidelines and standards • An analysis of traffic noise impacts to and from the project site • An analysis of construction noise impacts

1.2 Site Location and Study Area
The project site is located at the east side of Date Palm Drive between 30th Avenue and Mccallum Way in Cathedral City, California, as shown in Exhibit A. The site is currently zoned as general commercial and is proposed to be used as medium density residential use. The site is currently vacant and is surrounded by a vacant general commercial use to the south, existing low density residential to the north and east, and general commercial to the west across Date Palm Drive.

1.3 Proposed Project Description
The Project proposes a medium residential-use development consisting of 204 units, on 10.8 acres. As a worst-case scenario, this assessment assumes the project is built-out in one (1) complete phase.

Construction activities within the Project area will consist of on-site grading, building, paving, and architectural coating.

This study assesses both the traffic and short-term stationary noise to and from the project site and compares the results to the applicable City noise limits. The primary source of traffic noise propagates from Date Palm Drive. The primary source of short-term stationary noise propagates from construction equipment to be deployed in the area for construction activities. The site plan used for this is illustrated in Exhibit B.

Exhibit A
Location Map
2 Introduction
SITE
Mccallum Way
Date Palm Dr
Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA
30th Avenue
Exhibit B
Site Plan
3 Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Introduction
Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Fundamentals of Noise
4 2.0 Fundamentals of Noise
This section of the report provides basic information about noise and presents some of the terms used within the report.

2.1 Sound, Noise and Acoustics
Sound is a disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source and is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a moving object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to a human ear. For traffic, or stationary noise, the medium of concern is air. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or unwanted.

2.2 Frequency and Hertz
A continuous sound is described by its frequency
(pitch) and its amplitude (loudness). Frequency
relates to the number of pressure oscillations per
second. Low-frequency sounds are low in pitch (bass
sounding) and high-frequency sounds are high in
pitch (squeak). These oscillations per second (cycles)
are commonly referred to as Hertz (Hz). The human
ear can hear from the bass pitch starting out at 20 Hz
all the way to the high pitch of 20,000 Hz.

2.3 Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels
The amplitude of a sound determines it loudness.

The loudness of sound increases or decreases as the
amplitude increases or decreases. Sound pressure
amplitude is measure in units of micro-Newton per
square inch meter (N/m2), also called micro-Pascal
(µPa). One µPa is approximately one hundred
billionths (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric
pressure. Sound pressure level (SPL or Lp) is used to
describe in logarithmic units the ratio of actual
sound pressures to a reference pressure squared.

These units are called decibels abbreviated dB. Exhibit C illustrates references sound levels for different noise sources.

2.4 Addition of Decibels
Because decibels are on a logarithmic scale, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by simple plus or minus addition. When two sounds or equal SPL are combined, they will produce an SPL 3 dB greater than the original single SPL. In other words, sound energy must be doubled to produce a 3 dB increase. If two sounds differ by approximately 10 dB, the higher sound level is the predominant sound.

Exhibit C: Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels
Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Fundamentals of Noise
5 2.5 Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels
In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hz and 5,000 Hz, (Aweighted scale) and it perceives a sound within that range as being more intense than a sound with a higher or lower frequency with the same magnitude. For purposes of this report as well as with most environmental documents, the A-scale weighting is typically reported in terms of A-weighted decibel (dBA). Typically, the human ear can barely perceive the change in noise level of 3 dB. A change in 5 dB is readily perceptible, and a change in 10 dB is perceived as being twice or half as loud. As previously discussed, a doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound energy (e.g. doubling the volume of traffic on a highway) would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level.

Table 1: Change in Noise Level Characteristics1
Changes in Intensity Level,
dBA
Changes in Apparent
Loudness
1 Not perceptible
3 Just perceptible
5 Clearly noticeable
10 Twice (or half) as loud
1 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm

2.6 Noise Descriptors
Noise in our daily environment fluctuates over time. Some noise levels occur in regular patterns, others are random. Some noise levels are constant while others are sporadic. Noise descriptors were created to describe the different time-varying noise levels.

A-Weighted Sound Level: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighted filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. A numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness.

Ambient Noise Level: The composite of noise from all sources, near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24- hour day, obtained after addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 PM and after addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 AM and after 10:00 PM.

Decibel (dB): A unit for measuring the amplitude of a sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micro-pascals. dB(A): A-weighted sound level (see definition above).

Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Fundamentals of Noise
6 Equivalent Sound Level (LEQ): The sound level corresponding to a steady noise level over a given sample period with the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time varying noise level. The energy average noise level during the sample period.

Habitable Room: Any room meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code or other applicable regulations which is intended to be used for sleeping, living, cooking or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed spaces as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms and similar spaces.

L(n): The A-weighted sound level exceeded during a certain percentage of the sample time. For example, L10 in the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the sample time. Similarly L50, L90 and L99, etc.

Noise: Any unwanted sound or sound which is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing, or is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. The State Noise Control Act defines noise as "...excessive undesirable sound...".

Outdoor Living Area: Outdoor spaces that are associated with residential land uses typically used for passive recreational activities or other noise-sensitive uses. Such spaces include patio areas, barbecue areas, jacuzzi areas, etc. associated with residential uses; outdoor patient recovery or resting areas associated with hospitals, convalescent hospitals, or rest homes; outdoor areas associated with places of worship which have a significant role in services or other noise-sensitive activities; and outdoor school facilities routinely used for educational purposes which may be adversely impacted by noise. Outdoor areas usually not included in this definition are: front yard areas, driveways, greenbelts, maintenance areas and storage areas associated with residential land uses; exterior areas at hospitals that are not used for patient activities; outdoor areas associated with places of worship and principally used for short-term social gatherings; and, outdoor areas associated with school facilities that are not typically associated with educational uses prone to adverse noise impacts (for example, school play yard areas).

Percent Noise Levels: See L(n).

Sound Level (Noise Level): The weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level meter having a standard frequency-filter for attenuating part of the sound spectrum.

Sound Level Meter: An instrument, including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency weighting networks for the measurement and determination of noise and sound levels.

Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL): The dB(A) level which, if it lasted for one second, would produce the same A-weighted sound energy as the actual event.

2.7 Traffic Noise Prediction
Noise levels associated with traffic depends on a variety of factors: (1) volume of traffic, (2) speed of traffic, (3) auto, medium truck (2–3 axle) and heavy truck percentage (4 axle and greater), and sound propagation. The greater the volume of traffic, higher speeds and truck percentages equate to a louder Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Fundamentals of Noise
7 volume in noise. A doubling of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along a roadway will increase noise levels by approximately 3 dB; reasons for this are discussed in the sections above.

2.8 Sound Propagation
As sound propagates from a source it spreads geometrically. Sound from a small, localized source (i.e., a point source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. The movement of vehicles down a roadway makes the source of the sound appear to propagate from a line (i.e., line source) rather than a point source. This line source results in the noise propagating from a roadway in a cylindrical spreading versus a spherical spreading that results from a point source. The sound level attenuates for a line source at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance.

As noise propagates from the source, it is affected by the ground and atmosphere. Noise models use hard site (reflective surfaces) and soft site (absorptive surfaces) to help calculate predicted noise levels.

Hard site conditions assume no excessive ground absorption between the noise source and the receiver.

Soft site conditions such as grass, soft dirt or landscaping attenuate noise at a rate of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance. When added to the geometric spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall noise attenuation of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance for a line source and 7.5 dB per doubling of distance for a point source.

Research has demonstrated that atmospheric conditions can have a significant effect on noise levels when noise receivers are located 200 feet from a noise source. Wind, temperature, air humidity and turbulence can further impact have far sound can travel.

Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Ground-Borne Vibration Fundamentals 8 3.0 Ground-Borne Vibration Fundamentals

3.1 Vibration Descriptors
Ground-borne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. The effects of ground-borne vibrations typically only cause a nuisance to people, but at extreme vibration levels, damage to buildings may occur. Although ground-borne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable. Ground-borne noise is an effect of ground-borne vibration and only exists indoors, since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and may also consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves.

Several different methods are used to quantify vibration amplitude.

PPV – Known as the peak particle velocity (PPV) which is the maximum instantaneous peak in vibration velocity, typically given in inches per second.

RMS – Known as root mean squared (RMS) can be used to denote vibration amplitude VdB – A commonly used abbreviation to describe the vibration level (VdB) for a vibration source.

3.2 Vibration Perception
Typically, developed areas are continuously affected by vibration velocities of 50 VdB or lower. These continuous vibrations are not noticeable to humans whose threshold of perception is around 65 VdB.

Outdoor sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are usually caused by construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads, while smooth roads rarely produce perceptible groundborne noise or vibration. To counter the effects of ground-borne vibration, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published guidance relative to vibration impacts. According to the FTA, fragile buildings can be exposed to ground-borne vibration levels of 0.3 inches per second without experiencing structural damage.

3.3 Vibration Perception
There are three main types of vibration propagation: surface, compression, and shear waves. Surface waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the ground’s surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wave front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. P-waves, or compression waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a “push-pull” fashion).

P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. S-waves, or shear waves, are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wave front. However, unlike P-waves, the particle motion is transverse, or side-to-side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation.

Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Ground-Borne Vibration Fundamentals 9 As vibration waves propagate from a source, the vibration energy decreases in a logarithmic nature and the vibration levels typically decrease by 6 VdB per doubling of the distance from the vibration source.

As stated above, this drop-off rate can vary greatly depending on the soil but has been shown to be effective enough for screening purposes, in order to identify potential vibration impacts that may need to be studied through actual field tests.

Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Setting
10 4.0 Regulatory Setting
The proposed project is located in the City of Cathedral City, California, and noise regulations are addressed through the efforts of various federal, state and local government agencies. The agencies responsible for regulating noise are discussed below.

4.1 Federal Regulations
The adverse impact of noise was officially recognized by the federal government in the Noise Control Act of 1972, which serves three purposes:
• Publicize noise emission standards for interstate commerce • Assist state and local abatement efforts
• Promote noise education and research
The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) originally was tasked with implementing the Noise Control Act. However, it was eventually eliminated leaving other federal agencies and committees to develop noise policies and programs. Some examples of these agencies are as follows: The Department of Transportation (DOT) assumed a significant role in noise control through its various agencies. The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) is responsible to regulate noise from aircraft and airports.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible to regulate noise from the interstate highway system. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for the prohibition of excessive noise exposure to workers.

The federal government advocates that local jurisdiction use their land use regulatory authority to arrange new development in such a way that “noise sensitive” uses are either prohibited from being constructed adjacent to a highway or, or alternatively that the developments are planned and constructed in such a manner that potential noise impacts are minimized.

Since the federal government has preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be emitted by the transportation source, the City is restricted to regulating the noise generated by the transportation system through nuisance abatement ordinances and land use planning.

4.2 State Regulations
Established in 1973, the California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control (ONC) was instrumental in developing regularity tools to control and abate noise for use by local agencies. One significant model is the “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Matrix.” The matrix allows the local jurisdiction to clearly delineate compatibility of sensitive uses with various incremental levels of noise.

The State of California has established noise insulation standards as outlined in Title 24 and the Uniform Building Code (UBC) which in some cases requires acoustical analyses to outline exterior noise levels and to ensure interior noise levels do not exceed the interior threshold. The State mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan.

Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Setting
11 4.3 City of Cathedral City Noise Regulations
The City of Cathedral City outlines their noise regulations and standards within the Municipal Code and the Noise Element of the City of Cathedral City General Chapter V Section C.

City of Cathedral City General Plan
The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines published by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable as illustrated in Exhibit D. (Table IV-3 and Exhibit III-12 of the City’s GP, EIR).

The Noise Element outlined in Chapter V Environmental Hazards coordinates the community’s land uses with the existing and future noise environment and designs measures intended to minimize or avoid community exposure to excessive noise levels. The implementation of the policies and programs contained in the Noise Element is meant to reduce or avoid current and future noise impacts.

The Noise Element identifies the major source of continuous, excessive noise in the City. Those sources are traffic noise propagating from main roadways and also freight rail service along the Southern Pacific Railroad, parallel to the I-10 highway. Airport noise can impact occasionally the noise environment.

Sensitive receptors are identified as schools, libraries, and medical facilities. The City of Cathedral City has adopted their ordinance to address the State requirement outlined by the California Government Code Section 65032, subsection (f) and section 21083.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Applicable noise ordinance for the City of Cathedral City is in place through Chapter 11.96 of the City Municipal Code.

The Noise Element also describes the noise contours projected for major roadways, and the data is presented in Table V-3.

In addition to the noise standards, the City has outlined goals, policies, and programs to reduce potential noise impacts and are presented below:

Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures
Policies, goals and implementation program measures from the Noise Element that would mitigate potential impacts on noise include the following.

Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Setting
12 Exhibit D: Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Setting
13 Goal: A noise environment that complements the City’ low density residential character and its various land uses.

Policy 1: Protect noise sensitive land uses, including residential neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, libraries, churches, resorts and community open space, as well as land uses proposed in the vicinity of the railway, Interstate 10, the Mid-Valley Parkway, and Da Vall Drive from high noise levels generated by existing and future noise sources.

Program 1.A: Develop and maintain an inventory of existing noise sources and areas of incompatibility and establish procedures to reduce the noise levels in these areas, where economically and aesthetically feasible.

Program 1.B: Require building setbacks, the installation of wall and window insulation, soundwalls, earthen berms, and/or other mitigation measures in areas exceeding the City’s noise limit standards for private development projects as they occur.

Program 1.C: Maintain and enforce a Noise Control ordinance that establishes community-wide noise standards and identifies measures designed to resolve noise complaints.

Program 1.D: Use Specific Plans and the development review process to encourage the use of buffers between noise sensitive land uses and incompatible land uses.

Program 1.E: Parking lots, loading zones, and large trash bins shall be located at a sufficient distance from adjacent residential properties to reduce associated noise impacts.

Policy 2: The relationship between land use designations in the Land Use Element and changes in the circulation pattern of the City, as well as individual developments shall be monitored and mitigated.

Program 2.A: The City zoning ordinance and development review standards shall be used to limit land use patterns and project designs to those that are noise compatible.

Program 2.B: Develop guidelines and minimal criteria requirements for noise analyses for future development projects. Studies shall evaluate project impacts and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures.

Program 2.C: Periodically review and amend the Land Use map as appropriate to assure reasonable land use/noise level compatibility.

Policy 3: Private sector project proposals shall include measures that assure that noise exposures levels comply with State of California noise insulation standards as defined in Title 25 (California Noise Insulation Standards).

Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Setting
14 Policy 4: Maintain a circulation map which maintains low levels of traffic within neighborhoods, and assigns truck routes to major roadways only.

Program 4.A: Designate primary truck routes and ensure that they are clearly marked throughout the community. Except for traffic providing location-specific services and deliveries, construction trucks and delivery trucks shall be limited to East Palm Canyon Drive, Interstate-10, Date Palm Drive, Palm Drive, Varner Road, Edom Hill Road, Dinah Shore Drive, Ramon Road, and Vista Chino.

Program 4.B: Development projects which result in through-traffic in residential neighborhoods shall be discouraged through the development review process.

Policy 5: Maintain an ongoing contact with the Palm Springs Airport to ensure that flight paths and airport improvements do not impact or extend noise contours into the City.

Policy 6: Coordinate with adjoining municipalities to assure noise-compatible land uses across jurisdictional boundaries.

Policy 7: The City shall restrict grading and construction activities that may impact residential neighborhoods to specified days of the week and times of day.

City of Cathedral City – Noise Ordinance
Section 11.96.030 “Prohibited acts” from the noise ordinance outlines the City’s exterior noise limits as it relates to stationary noise sources.
(A) It is unlawful for any person to engage in the following activities:. (6) To produce, suffer or allow to be produced noise or sounds that exceeds the dB(A) levels in the table below. Exterior noise shall be measured at the lot line of the lot where the noise or sounds are emanating. If the measurement location is on the boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. Interior noise shall be measured at least four feet from the wall, floor, or ceiling nearest to the noise source and with all windows, doors and other openings to the exterior closed.

Noises caused by motor vehicles or trains are exempt from these standards.

In the event the ambient noise level exceeds these levels, no person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced noise or sounds in excess of the ambient noise level.

Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Setting
15 Table 2: Cathedral City’s Exterior Noise Limits
Zone Time dB(A) Level
Residential – Exterior Noise 7 a.m. – 10 p.m. 65
10 p.m. - 7 a.m. 50
Residential – Interior Noise 7 a.m. – 10 p.m. 50
10 p.m. - 7 a.m. 40
Commercial Industrial – Exterior Noise 7 a.m. – 10 p.m. 85 10 p.m. – 7 a.m. 55
Section 11.96.060(L) of the Municipal Code enlist the exceptions from Chapter 11.96 as follows:
(L) Construction, repair or excavation work performed pursuant to a valid written agreement with the city or any of its political subdivisions which agreement provides for noise mitigation measures;
In addition, Chapter 9.86 of the Municipal Code outlines the performance standards for commercial and industrial zones. This section classifies the performance standards in A, B, and C, referring all three to Chapter 11.96 for noise limits.

Also, Chapter 9.96 “Special Provisions Applying to Miscellaneous Problem Uses” outlines the noise attenuation requirements for carwashes on Section 9.96.140.

Vibration Regulations
Chapter 9.86 states vibration standards as follows: All uses shall be so operated as not to generate vibration discernible without instruments by the average person while on or beyond the lot upon which the source is located or within an adjoining enclosed space if more than one establishment occupies a structure. Vibration caused by motor vehicles, trains, and temporary construction or demolition work is exempted from this standard.

Construction Regulations
Chapter 11.96 outlines the permitted hours for construction work in Section 11.96.070 limiting the time for construction work as stated in Subsection B of this Section.

1. October 1st through April 30th.

Monday – Friday: 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Saturday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Sunday: No permissible hours
State holidays: No permissible hours
Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Regulatory Setting
16 2. May 1st through September 30th.

Monday – Friday: 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Saturday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Sunday: No permissible hours
State holidays: No permissible hours
Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Study Method and Procedure
17 5.0 Study Method and Procedure
The following section describes the noise modeling procedures and assumptions used for this assessment.

5.1 Noise Measurement Procedure and Criteria
Noise measurements are taken to determine the existing noise levels. The following criteria are used to select measurement locations and receptors:
• Locations expected to receive the highest noise impacts, such as first row of houses • Locations that are acoustically representative and equivalent of the area of concern • Human land usage
• Sites clear of major obstruction and contamination
MD conducted the sound level measurements in accordance to CalTrans technical noise specifications. All measurements equipment meets American National Standards Institute (ANSI) specifications for sound level meters (S1.4-1983 identified in Chapter 19.68.020.AA). The following gives a brief description of the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement procedures for sound level measurements:
• Microphones for sound level meters were placed 5-feet above the ground for all measurements • Sound level meters were calibrated (Larson Davis CAL 200) before and after each measurement • Following the calibration of equipment, a wind screen was placed over the microphone • Frequency weighting was set on “A” and slow response
• Results of the long-term noise measurements were recorded on field data sheets • During any short-term noise measurements any noise contaminations such as barking dogs, local traffic, lawn mowers, or aircraft fly-overs were noted
• Temperature and sky conditions were observed and documented

5.2 Noise Measurement Locations
Noise monitoring locations were selected based on the distance of the nearest sensitive on-site receptors to the main noise source (Date Palm Drive). Short-term noise measurements were conducted near the southwestern corners of the project site. Measurements represent ambient levels at the site. Appendix A includes photos, field sheet, and measured noise data. Exhibit E illustrates the location of the measurements.

5.3 Stationary Noise Modeling
SoundPLAN (SP) acoustical modeling software was utilized to model future worst‐case stationary noise impacts to the adjacent land uses. SP is capable of evaluating multiple stationary noise source impacts at various receiver locations. SP’s software utilizes algorithms (based on the inverse square law and reference equipment noise level data) to calculate noise level projections. The software allows the user to input specific noise sources, spectral content, sound barriers, building placement, topography, and sensitive receptor locations.

Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Study Method and Procedure
18 The future worst-case noise level projections were modeled using referenced sound level data for the stationery on-site sources (HVAC and parking). The reference equipment sound level data is provided in Appendix D. Modeling assumes that project operations occur continuously. The SP model (see Appendix D and Exhibit F) assumes a total of 1 HVAC equipment per residential unit, and the parking lot area operating simultaneously (worst-case scenario) when in actuality the noise will be intermittent and lower in noise level.

5.3 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model
Traffic noise from vehicular traffic was projected using a computer program that replicates the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The FHWA model arrives at the predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL). Roadway volumes and percentages correspond to the project’s traffic impact study as projected by the Trip Generation and VMT scoping agreement for Date Palm Apartments development made by Integrated Engineering Group, and Coachella Valley Association of Governments 2015 Traffic Census Report (Extrapolated to the opening year with a 2% annual growth). The referenced traffic data was applied to the model and is in Appendix B. The following outlines the key adjustments made to the REMEL for the roadway inputs:
• Roadway classification – (e.g. freeway, major arterial, arterial, secondary, collector, etc), • Roadway Active Width – (distance between the center of the outer most travel lanes on each side of the roadway)
• Average Daily Traffic Volumes (ADT), Travel Speeds, Percentages of automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks
• Roadway grade and angle of view
• Site Conditions (e.g. soft vs. hard)
• Percentage of total ADT which flows each hour through-out a 24-hour period Table 3 indicates the roadway parameters and vehicle distribution utilized for this study.

Table 3: Roadway Parameters and Vehicle Distribution
Roadway Segment Existing ADT1 Existing Plus Project ADT2 Speed (MPH) Site Conditions Data Palm 30th & Mc Callum 25,409 26,784 45 Hard
Rosemont Ave Date Palm &Sierra 15,000 16,375 25 Hard
Major Arterial Vehicle Distribution (Truck Mix)
Motor-Vehicle Type Daytime %
(7AM to 7 PM)
Evening %
(7 PM to 10 PM)
Night %
(10 PM to 7 AM)
Total % of
Traffic Flow
Automobiles 81.4 10.4 8.2 96.05
Medium Trucks 86.7 5.3 8.0 2.65
Heavy Trucks 89.2 3.4 7.3 1.30
Notes:
1 Per CVAG 2015 Traffic Census Report and VMT scoping agreement, Integrated Engineering Group. 2 Trip Generation per Integrated Engineering Group report September 2023.

Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Study Method and Procedure
19 The following outlines key adjustments to the REMEL for project site parameter inputs:
• Vertical and horizontal distances (Sensitive receptor distance from noise source) • Noise barrier vertical and horizontal distances (Noise barrier distance from sound source and receptor).
• Traffic noise source spectra
• Topography
MD projected the traffic noise levels to the on-site receptors. The project noise calculation worksheet outputs are located in Appendix B.

5.4 FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model
The construction noise analysis utilizes the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RNCM), together with several key construction parameters. Key inputs include distance to the sensitive receiver, equipment usage, % usage factor, and baseline parameters for the project site.

The project was analyzed based on the different construction phases. Construction noise is expected to be loudest during the grading, concrete and building phases of construction. The construction noise calculation output worksheet is located in Appendix C. The following assumptions relevant to short-term construction noise impacts were used:
• It is estimated that construction will occur over a 1-year time period. Construction noise is expected to be the loudest during the grading, concrete, and building phases.

Exhibit E
Measurement Locations
20 Study Method and Procedure
1 = Short-Term
Monitoring Location
1 SITE
Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA
Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Existing Noise Environment
21 6.0 Existing Noise Environment
Onee (1) short-term (1-hour) ambient noise measurement were conducted at or near the project site.

The noise measurements were taken to determine the existing baseline noise conditions.

6.1 Short-Term Noise Measurement Results
The results of the short-term noise data are presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Short-Term Noise Measurement Data (dBA)1
Date Location 30-minutes dB(A)
Start Stop LEQ LMAX LMIN
9/26/2023 ST-1 3:01 PM 4:01 PM 67 79 39
Notes:

1. Short-term noise monitoring location (ST-1) is illustrated in Exhibit E.

Noise data indicate the equivalent ambient level measured 67 dBA Leq(h) at the southwest corner of the project site. Maximum levels reach up to 79 dBA at the due to traffic along Date Palm Drive. The minumum noise level measured 39 dBA. The measured ambient level at or near the project site shows that the primary noise source is traffic along Date Palm Drive. Additional field notes and photographs are provided in Appendix A.

Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Future Noise Environment Impacts 22 7.0 Future Noise Environment Impacts
This assessment analyzes future noise impacts to and from the project and compares the results to the City’s Noise Standards. The analysis details the estimated exterior noise levels associated with traffic from adjacent roadways and project stationery noise sources.

7.1 Future Exterior Noise
The following outlines the exterior noise levels associated with the proposed project.

7.1.1 Noise Impacts to Off-Site Receptors Due to Stationary Sources Sensitive receptors that may be affected by project operational noise include existing residential to the east and south. The worst-case stationary noise was modeled using SoundPLAN acoustical modeling software. Worst-case assumes project’s noise sources are always operational when in reality the noise will be intermittent and cycle on/off depending on customer usage.

A total of three (3) receptors were modeled to evaluate the proposed project’s operational impact. A receptor is denoted by a yellow dot. All yellow dots represent either a calibration point, property line, or a sensitive receptor such as an outdoor sensitive area (courtyard, patio, backyard, etc).

This study compares the Project’s operational noise levels to two (2) different noise assessment scenarios: 1) Project Only operational noise level projections, 2) Project plus ambient noise level projections.

Project Operational Noise Levels
Exhibit F shows the “project only” operational noise levels at the property lines and/or sensitive receptor area. Operational noise levels at the adjacent uses are anticipated to range between 42 dBA to 43 dBA Leq (depending on the location).

The “project only” noise projections to the property lines are below the City’s 65 dBA daytime residential limit, and 50 dBA nighttime limit as outlined within the City’s noise ordinance (see Section 4.3 of this report).

Project Plus Ambient Operational Noise Levels
Table 5 demonstrates the project plus the ambient noise levels. Project plus ambient noise level projections are anticipated to range between 56 to 58 dBA Leq at nearby receptors (R1 – R3). The “project plus ambient” noise projections to the adjacent uses are not increasing the ambient noise level.

Exhibit F
Operational Noise Levels Contours
23 Future Noise Environment Impacts
Date Palm Dr
Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA
Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Future Noise Environment Impacts 24 Table 5: Worst-case Predicted Operational Noise Level1 Receptor1 Floor
Existing
Ambient
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)2
Project
Noise
Level
(dBA,
Leq)3
Total
Combined
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)
Daytime (7AM - 10PM)
Stationary Noise Limit
Exterior (dBA, Leq)4
Exceeds
Exterior
Standard
Change in Noise
Level as Result
of Project
1 1 56 41 56 65 No 0.0
2 1 58 42 58 65 No 0.0
3 1 56 41 56 65 No 0.0
Notes:

1. Receptor 1 - 3 represents residential uses.

2. The ambient noise condition was estimated using the FHWA TNM based on receiver distance to Date Palm Dr and calibrated to the noise measurement performed at the project site. See Appendix A for noise measurement and Appendix B for traffic noise calculation sheets.

3. See Exhibit F for the operational noise level projections at said receptors.

4. Per Section 11.96.030 from the City's Municipal Code.

As shown in Table 5, the project does not exceed the City’s exterior noise limit. The project was compared to the existing baseline condition (estimated at receiver location based on the measurement performed) to the operational plus ambient noise condition to show the change in noise level. Table 5 provides the anticipated change in noise level as a result of the proposed project. The existing noise levels are anticipated to have a negligible increase at the receptor locations analyzed.

When comparing the change in noise level to acoustic characteristics outlined within Table 1 (Section

2.5 of this report), the noise level increase would be “Not Perceptible” at the receptors.

7.1.2 Noise Impacts to Off-Site Receptors Due to Project Generated Traffic A worst-case project generated traffic noise level was modeled utilizing the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model - FHWA-RD-77-108. Traffic noise levels were calculated at two locations. The first one represents the residences close to the south edge of the project site, and is approximately 400 feet from the centerline of Date Palm Drive. The second location represents the residences to the east of the project site and is 670 feet from the centerline of Date Palm Drive. Additionally at the first location the impact is analyzed from the Rosemont Avenue opening. The trip generation for the multi-family residence project is 1,375, distributed 100% on Date Palm Drive for conservative purposes. The modeling is theoretical and does not take into account any existing barriers, structures, and/or topographical features that may further reduce noise levels. Therefore, the levels are shown for comparative purposes only to show the difference in with and without project conditions. In addition, the noise contours for 60, 65 and 70 dBA CNEL were calculated. The potential off-site noise impacts caused by an increase of traffic from operation of the proposed project on the nearby roadways were calculated for the following scenarios:

Opening Year (without Project): This scenario refers to opening year 2025 traffic noise conditions.

Opening Year (Plus Project): This scenario refers to opening year + project traffic noise conditions.

Table 6 compares the without and with project scenario and shows the change in traffic noise levels as a result of the proposed project. It takes a change of 3 dB or more to hear a perceptible difference. As demonstrated in Table 6, the project is anticipated to generate a small change in the noise CNEL level.

Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Future Noise Environment Impacts 25 The change in noise level is less than significant as a 0.4 dBA noise increase is projected. No further mitigation is required.

Table 6: Existing Scenario - Noise Levels Along Roadways (dBA CNEL) Opening Without Project Exterior Noise Levels
CNEL
(dBA)
Distance to Contour (Ft)
Roadway Segment 70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
Date Palm Dr 30th Ave to Mccallum Way (@400’) 58.7 79 249 788 2492 Date Palm Dr 30th Ave to Mccallum Way (@670’) 56.4 78 247 783 2475 Rosemont Ave Date Palm to Sierra (@50’) 61.0 13 42 132 417 Opening With Project Exterior Noise Levels
CNEL
(dBA)
Distance to Contour (Ft)
Roadway Segment 70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
Date Palm Dr 30th Ave to Mccallum Way (@400’) 58.9 83 263 831 2626 Date Palm Dr 30th Ave to Mccallum Way (@670’) 56.7 82 261 825 2608 Rosemont Ave Date Palm to Sierra (@50’) 61.4 14 46 144 456 Change in Existing Noise Levels as a Result of Project
CNEL at locations dBA1,2
Roadway Segment
Existing
Without
Project
Existing
With
Project
Change
in
Noise
Level
Potential
Significant
Impact
Date Palm Dr 30th Ave to Mccallum Way (@400’) 58.7 58.9 0.2 No Date Palm Dr 30th Ave to Mccallum Way (@670’) 56.4 56.7 0.3 No Rosemont Ave Date Palm to Sierra (@50’) 61.0 61.4 0.4 No Notes:
1 Exterior noise levels calculated at 5 feet above ground level. 2 Noise levels calculated from centerline of subject roadway.

7.1.3 Noise Impacts to On-Site Receptors Due to Traffic Traffic noise from the local roadway network was evaluated and compared to the City’s noise compatibility matrix. Per the City’s Land Use Compatibility (Table V-2 from Geneal Plan / Noise Element), multi-family residential is conditionally acceptable up to 70 dBA CNEL. Opening Plus Project traffic noise projections show that the traffic noise contour for 70 dBA CNEL will reach up to 88 feet from the Date Palm centerline. The proposed residential structures are located as close as 85 feet away from Date Palm Drive centerline and fall within the 70 to 65 dBA CNEL contour of the Roadway and are located within the conditionally acceptable region for multiple-family residential (per land use compatibility matrix).

Exhibit G
Traffic Noise Levels Contours CNEL
26 Future Noise Environment Impacts
Date Palm Dr
Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA
Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Future Noise Environment Impacts 27 7.1.4 Interior Noise Levels
The future interior noise level was calculated for the sensitive receptor locations using a typical “windows open” and “windows closed” condition. A “windows open” condition assumes 12 dBA of noise attenuation from the exterior noise level. A “windows closed” condition” assumes 20 dBA of noise attenuation from the exterior noise level. Table 7 indicates the first and second-floor interior noise levels for the project site.

Table 7: Future Interior Noise Levels (dBA CNEL)
Location Roadway
Noise Source
Exterior Facade
Study Location
Noise
Level at
Building
Facade1
Interior Noise
Reduction
Required to
Meet Interior
Noise Standard
of 45 dBA CNEL
Interior Noise Level w/
Typical Residential
Windows (STC≥ 30)
STC Rating
for Windows
Facing
Subject
Roadway4
Window
Open2
Windows
Closed3
1st Row Units
Along Western
Property Line
Date Palm
Dr
1 st Floor 70 25 58 45 30
2 nd Floor 70 25 58 45 30
Notes:

1. Noise level from Section 7.1 and from worksheets Appendix B.

2. A minimum of 12 dBA noise reduction is assumed with a "windows open" condition.

3. A minimum of 20 dBA noise reduction is assumed with a "windows closed" condition.

4. Indicates the required STC rating to meet the interior noise standard.

As shown in Table 7, the interior noise level will be 58 dBA CNEL with the windows open and 45 dBA CNEL with the windows closed.

To meet the interior 45 dBA CNEL standard a “windows closed” condition is required. The windows and sliding glass doors directly facing Date Palm Drive will require a minimum STC rating of 30 for the 1st floor and 2nd floors. A “windows closed” condition simply means that in order to achieve a 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level, the windows must be closed and does not mean the windows must be fixed.

The present project is designed to meet the Title 24 CBC; therefore, the construction assembly and techniques shall suffice to meet the interior noise isolation requirements.

7.2 Summary of Recommendations
The following recommendations are provided:

COA-1: Consistent with the Land Use Compatibility Matrix and prior to issuance of grading permit, a detailed sound attenuation study is necessary to verify the project will achieve a minimum 25 dBA noise reduction.

Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Construction Noise Impact
28 8.0 Construction Noise Impact
The degree of construction noise may vary for different areas of the project site and also vary depending on the construction activities. Noise levels associated with the construction will vary with the different phases of construction.

8.1 Construction Noise
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise-generated characteristics of typical construction activities. The data is presented in Table 8.

Table 8: Typical Construction Noise Levels1
Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion Engines
Type Noise Levels (dBA) at 50 Feet
Earth Moving
Compactors (Rollers) 73 - 76
Front Loaders 73 - 84
Backhoes 73 - 92
Tractors 75 - 95
Scrapers, Graders 78 - 92
Pavers 85 - 87
Trucks 81 - 94
Materials Handling
Concrete Mixers 72 - 87
Concrete Pumps 81 - 83
Cranes (Movable) 72 - 86
Cranes (Derrick) 85 - 87
Stationary
Pumps 68 - 71
Generators 71 - 83
Compressors 75 - 86
Impact Equipment
Type Noise Levels (dBA) at 50 Feet
Saws 71 - 82
Vibrators 68 - 82
Notes:
1 Referenced Noise Levels from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Construction noise is considered a short-term impact and would be considered significant if construction activities are taken outside the allowable times as described in the City’s Municipal Code (Section

11.96.070). Construction is anticipated to occur during the permissible hours according to the City’s Municipal Code. Construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise level above the existing within the project vicinity. Furthermore, noise reduction measures are provided to further reduce construction noise. The impact is considered not significant however construction noise level projections are provided.

Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Construction Noise Impact
29 Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels will be loudest during grading phase. A likely worst-case construction noise scenario during grading assumes the use of a grader, a dozer, and two (2) excavators, two (2) backhoes and a scraper operating at 320 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor (residences to the east).

Assuming a usage factor of 40 percent for each piece of equipment, unmitigated noise levels at 290 feet have the potential to reach 69 dBA Leq and 73 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptors during grading.

Noise levels for the other construction phases would be lower and range between 62 to 65 dBA.

8.2 Construction Vibration
Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent land uses. The 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 primary vibration source during construction may be from a bull dozer. A large bull dozer has a vibration impact of 0.089 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet which is perceptible but below any risk to architectural damage.

The fundamental equation used to calculate vibration propagation through average soil conditions and distance is as follows:

PPVequipment = PPVref (100/Drec)
n
Where: PPVref = reference PPV at 100ft.

Drec = distance from equipment to receiver in ft.
n = 1.1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through ground) The thresholds from the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual in Table 9 (below) provides general thresholds and guidelines as to the vibration damage potential from vibratory impacts.

Table 9: Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5
Source: Table 19, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Caltrans, Sept. 2013.

Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA Construction Noise Impact
30 Table 10 gives approximate vibration levels for particular construction activities. This data provides a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions.

Table 10: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment1 Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity Approximate Vibration Level
(inches/second) at 25 feet LV (dVB) at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range) 112

0.644 (typical) 104
Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 upper range 105

0.170 typical 93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill 0.008 in soil 66
(slurry wall) 0.017 in rock 75
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
1 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006.

At a distance of 320 feet, a large bulldozer would yield a worst-case 0.005 PPV (in/sec) which below the threshold of perception and any risk of damage. The impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

8.3 Construction Noise Reduction Measures
Construction operations must follow the City’s General Plan and the Noise Ordinance, which states that construction, repair or excavation work performed must occur within the permissible hours. To further ensure that construction activities do not disrupt the adjacent land uses, the following measures should be taken:

1. Construction should occur during the permissible hours as defined in Section 11.96.070.

2. During construction, the contactor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuating devices.

3. The contractor should locate equipment staging areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise/vibration sources and sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.

4. Idling equipment should be turned off when not in use.

5. Equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.

Date Palm Apartments - Noise
Noise Impact Study
City of Cathedral City, CA References
31 9.0 References
State of California General Plan Guidelines: 1998. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research City of Cathedral City: Municipal Code Chapter 11.96
City of Cathedral City: General Plan Chapter V - Environmental Hazards - Noise Element.

Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.

Scoping Agreement for Date Palm Apartments Project, Cathedral City, Integrated Engineering Group, September 22, 2023.

Appendix A:

Field Measurement Data
1-Hour Noise Measurement Datasheet
Project Name: 170 Units Date Palm Dr Noise
Project: #/Name: 0805-2023-007
Site Address/Loca�on: Date Palm Drive & Rosemount
Date: 09/26/2023
Field Tech/Engineer:

Sound Meter: XL2, NTI SN: A2A-08562-E0
Se�ngs: A-weighted, slow, 1-sec, 1-hour interval
Site Id: NM1
Site Observa�ons:
1 Map data ©2023 Imagery ©2023 Airbus, CNES / Airbus, Maxar Technologies, USDA/FPAC/GEO Report a map error Source: Global Forecast System (GFS) weather forcast model 1-Hour Noise Measurement Datasheet - Cont.

Project Name: 170 Units Date Palm Dr Noise
Site Address/Loca�on: Date Palm Drive & Rosemount
Site Id: NM1
Figure 1: NM1 Figure 2: NM1 Figure 3: NM1
Table 1: Baseline Noise Measurement Summary
Loca�on Start Stop Leq Lmax Lmin L2 L8 L25 L50 L90
NM1 3:01 PM 4:01 PM 66.8 79.3 39.1 74.1 71.8 67.8 63.5 51.5 1-Hour Noise Measurement Datasheet - Cont.

Project Name: 170 Units Date Palm Dr Noise
Site Address/Loca�on: Date Palm Drive & Rosemount
Site Id: NM1
NM1 Ambient Noise Level (1-sec)
Site Topo: Flat desert condi�ons next to h
Meteorological Cond.: 92F winds 0-1 MPH
Ground Type: Sandy soil and clay
Noise Source(s) w/ Distance:

Road and residen�al noise
NM1 dBA, Leq
15:01:1515:02:14
15:03:13
15:04:12
15:05:11
15:06:1015:07:09
15:08:08
15:09:07
15:10:06
15:11:05
15:12:04
15:13:03
15:14:02
15:15:01
15:16:00
15:16:59
15:17:5815:18:57
15:19:56
15:20:55
15:21:54
15:22:53
15:23:52
15:24:51
15:25:50
15:26:49
15:27:48
15:28:47
15:29:46
15:30:4515:31:4415:32:4315:33:4215:34:4115:35:40
15:36:39
15:37:38
15:38:3715:39:3615:40:35
15:41:34
15:42:33
15:43:3215:44:31
15:45:3015:46:29
15:47:2815:48:27
15:49:2615:50:25
15:51:24
15:52:23
15:53:22
15:54:21
15:55:20
15:56:1915:57:1815:58:1715:59:16
16:00:15
16:01:14
40 50
60 70
80 Time
dBA
Appendix B:

Traffic FHWA Worksheets
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
PROJECT: Date Palm Apartments JOB #: 0805-23-07
ROADWAY: Date Palm Drive, between 30th Ave and Mccallum Way DATE: 18-Oct-23 LOCATION: 400 ft from Date Palm Dr centerline ENGINEER: F. Irarrazabal ADT = 25,409 RECEIVER DISTANCE = 400
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 70
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST = 64 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 330 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION = 0.0
GRADE = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= -90
PK HR VOL = 2,541 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES = 10 HTH WALL= 6.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)

VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.104 0.082 0.9605 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 392.39
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.053 0.080 0.0265 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 392.29 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.034 0.073 0.0130 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 398.73

VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 62.4 60.7 57.8 52.0 61.0 61.5
MEDIUM TRUCKS 55.1 53.6 47.5 44.5 53.6 53.9
HEAVY TRUCKS 56.4 55.1 47.0 45.5 54.8 55.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 63.9 62.4 58.5 53.4 62.5 62.9

VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 56.4 54.7 51.8 46.0 55.0 55.5
MEDIUM TRUCKS 49.9 48.4 42.3 39.3 48.4 48.7
HEAVY TRUCKS 56.4 55.1 47.0 45.5 54.8 55.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 59.7 58.1 54.2 49.2 58.3 58.7
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL 79 249 788 2492
LDN 71 225 712 2251
NOISE INPUT DATA Opening Year 2025

ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA

SITE CONDITIONS WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO

0.814 - -

DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
- -

0.00 0.867

0.892

NOISE OUTPUT DATA

NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)

NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
PROJECT: Date Palm Apartments JOB #: 0805-23-07
ROADWAY: Date Palm Drive, between 30th Ave and Mccallum Way DATE: 18-Oct-23 LOCATION: 400 ft from Date Palm Dr centerline ENGINEER: F. Irarrazabal ADT = 26,784 RECEIVER DISTANCE = 400
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 70
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST = 64 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 330 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION = 0.0
GRADE = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= -90
PK HR VOL = 2,678 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES = 10 HTH WALL= 6.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)

VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 62.6 60.9 58.0 52.2 61.2 61.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 55.3 53.9 47.8 44.8 53.8 54.1
HEAVY TRUCKS 56.6 55.3 47.2 45.7 55.0 55.2
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 64.2 62.6 58.7 53.7 62.7 63.2

VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 56.6 54.9 52.0 46.2 55.2 55.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 50.1 48.7 42.6 39.6 48.6 48.9
HEAVY TRUCKS 56.6 55.3 47.2 45.7 55.0 55.2
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 59.9 58.4 54.5 49.4 58.5 58.9
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL 83 263 831 2626
LDN 75 237 750 2373

NOISE CONTOUR (FT)

DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.814 - -

0.867 - -

0.892 0.00

NOISE OUTPUT DATA

NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)

NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
NOISE INPUT DATA Opening Year 2025 + Project

ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA

SITE CONDITIONS WALL INFORMATION
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
PROJECT: Date Palm Apartments JOB #: 0805-23-07
ROADWAY: Date Palm Drive, between 30th Ave and Mccallum Way DATE: 18-Oct-23 LOCATION: 670 ft from Date Palm Dr centerline ENGINEER: F. Irarrazabal ADT = 25,409 RECEIVER DISTANCE = 670
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 70
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST = 64 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 600 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION = 0.0
GRADE = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= -90
PK HR VOL = 2,541 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES = 10 HTH WALL= 6.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)

VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.104 0.082 0.9605 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 662.39
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.053 0.080 0.0265 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 662.29 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.034 0.073 0.0130 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 669.24

VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 60.1 58.4 55.5 49.7 58.7 59.2
MEDIUM TRUCKS 52.8 51.4 45.2 42.3 51.3 51.6
HEAVY TRUCKS 54.2 52.9 44.7 43.2 52.5 52.7
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 61.7 60.1 56.2 51.2 60.2 60.7

VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 54.1 52.4 49.5 43.7 52.7 53.2
MEDIUM TRUCKS 47.6 46.2 40.0 37.1 46.1 46.4
HEAVY TRUCKS 54.2 52.9 44.7 43.2 52.5 52.7
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 57.5 55.9 52.0 46.9 56.0 56.4
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL 78 247 783 2475
LDN 71 224 707 2236

NOISE CONTOUR (FT)

DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.814 - -

0.867 - -

0.892 0.00

NOISE OUTPUT DATA

NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)

NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
NOISE INPUT DATA Opening Year 2025

ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA

SITE CONDITIONS WALL INFORMATION
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
PROJECT: Date Palm Apartments JOB #: 0805-23-07
ROADWAY: Date Palm Drive, between 30th Ave and Mccallum Way DATE: 18-Oct-23 LOCATION: 670 ft from Date Palm Dr centerline ENGINEER: F. Irarrazabal ADT = 26,784 RECEIVER DISTANCE = 670
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 70
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST = 64 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 600 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION = 0.0
GRADE = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= -90
PK HR VOL = 2,678 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES = 10 HTH WALL= 6.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)

VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 60.3 58.6 55.7 49.9 58.9 59.4
MEDIUM TRUCKS 53.0 51.6 45.5 42.5 51.6 51.8
HEAVY TRUCKS 54.4 53.1 44.9 43.5 52.8 53.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 61.9 60.3 56.4 51.4 60.5 60.9

VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 54.3 52.6 49.7 43.9 52.9 53.4
MEDIUM TRUCKS 47.8 46.4 40.3 37.3 46.4 46.6
HEAVY TRUCKS 54.4 53.1 44.9 43.5 52.8 53.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 57.7 56.1 52.2 47.2 56.2 56.7
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL 82 261 825 2608
LDN 75 236 745 2357

NOISE CONTOUR (FT)

DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.814 - -

0.867 - -

0.892 0.00

NOISE OUTPUT DATA

NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)

NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
NOISE INPUT DATA Opening Year 2025 + Project

ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA

SITE CONDITIONS WALL INFORMATION
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
PROJECT: Date Palm Apartments JOB #: 0805-23-07
ROADWAY: Date Palm Drive, between 30th Ave and Mccallum Way DATE: 18-Oct-23 LOCATION: 85 ft from Date Palm Dr centerline Project First Row ENGINEER: F. Irarrazabal ADT = 26,784 RECEIVER DISTANCE = 85
SPEED = 45 DIST C/L TO WALL = 63
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST = 64 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 22 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION = 0.0
GRADE = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= -90
PK HR VOL = 2,678 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES = 10 HTH WALL= 6.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)

VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.104 0.082 0.9605 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 76.44
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.053 0.080 0.0265 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 76.33 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.034 0.073 0.0130 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 76.33

VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 69.7 68.0 65.1 59.3 68.3 68.8
MEDIUM TRUCKS 62.4 61.0 54.9 51.9 60.9 61.2
HEAVY TRUCKS 63.8 62.5 54.4 52.9 62.2 62.4
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 71.3 69.7 65.8 60.8 69.8 70.3

VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 63.8 62.1 59.2 53.4 62.4 62.9
MEDIUM TRUCKS 57.0 55.6 49.5 46.5 55.5 55.8
HEAVY TRUCKS 58.9 57.6 49.4 47.9 57.2 57.4
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 65.6 64.0 60.1 55.1 64.2 64.6
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL 91 287 909 2874
LDN 82 260 821 2597

NOISE CONTOUR (FT)

DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.814 - -

0.867 - -

0.892 0.00

NOISE OUTPUT DATA

NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)

NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
NOISE INPUT DATA Opening Year 2025 + Project

ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA

SITE CONDITIONS WALL INFORMATION
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
PROJECT: Date Palm Apartments JOB #: 0805-23-07
ROADWAY: Date Palm Drive, between 30th Ave and Mccallum Way DATE: 18-Oct-23 LOCATION: 50 ft from Rosemont Ave centerline Residence to the south of project site ENGINEER: F. Irarrazabal ADT = 15,000 RECEIVER DISTANCE = 50
SPEED = 25 DIST C/L TO WALL = 25
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST = 24 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 25 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION = 0.0
GRADE = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= -90
PK HR VOL = 1,500 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES = 10 HTH WALL= 6.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)

VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.104 0.082 0.9605 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 47.31
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.053 0.080 0.0265 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 47.04 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.034 0.073 0.0130 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 48.63

VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 61.9 60.2 57.3 51.5 60.5 61.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS 58.0 56.6 50.5 47.5 56.5 56.8
HEAVY TRUCKS 60.9 59.6 51.5 50.0 59.3 59.5
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 65.3 63.8 59.0 54.7 63.8 64.2

VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 54.8 53.1 50.2 44.4 53.4 53.9
MEDIUM TRUCKS 52.2 50.8 44.7 41.7 50.7 51.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 60.9 59.6 51.5 50.0 59.3 59.5
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 62.1 60.6 55.8 51.5 60.6 61.0
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL 13 42 132 417
LDN 12 38 121 384
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
NOISE INPUT DATA Opening Year 2025

ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA

SITE CONDITIONS WALL INFORMATION

NOISE CONTOUR (FT)

DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.814 - -

0.867 - -

0.892 0.00

NOISE OUTPUT DATA

NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)

NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
PROJECT: Date Palm Apartments JOB #: 0805-23-07
ROADWAY: Date Palm Drive, between 30th Ave and Mccallum Way DATE: 18-Oct-23 LOCATION: 50 ft from Rosemont Ave centerline Residence to the south of project site ENGINEER: F. Irarrazabal ADT = 16,375 RECEIVER DISTANCE = 50
SPEED = 25 DIST C/L TO WALL = 25
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST = 24 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 25 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION = 0.0
GRADE = 0.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= -90
PK HR VOL = 1,638 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES = 10 HTH WALL= 6.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)

VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 62.3 60.6 57.7 51.9 60.9 61.4
MEDIUM TRUCKS 58.4 57.0 50.8 47.9 56.9 57.2
HEAVY TRUCKS 61.3 60.0 51.8 50.4 59.7 59.9
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 65.7 64.2 59.4 55.1 64.2 64.6

VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 55.2 53.5 50.6 44.8 53.8 54.3
MEDIUM TRUCKS 52.6 51.2 45.0 42.1 51.1 51.4
HEAVY TRUCKS 61.3 60.0 51.8 50.4 59.7 59.9
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 62.5 61.0 56.1 51.9 61.0 61.4
NOISE LEVELS 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
CNEL 14 46 144 456
LDN 13 42 132 419

NOISE CONTOUR (FT)

DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.814 - -

0.867 - -

0.892 0.00

NOISE OUTPUT DATA

NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)

NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
NOISE INPUT DATA Opening Year 2025 + Project

ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA

SITE CONDITIONS WALL INFORMATION
Appendix C:

Construction Noise Modeling Output
Construction Noise Levels at Senstive Receptors by Phase Activity
Leq at 320 FT (East) Lmax at 320 FT (East)
Site Preparation 62 66
Grading 69 73
Building Construction 65 69
Architectural Coating 62 66
Equipment Summary
Reference (dBA) 50 ft
Lmax
Rock Drills 96
Jack Hammers 82
Pneumatic Tools 85
Pavers 80
Dozers 85
Scrapers 87
Haul Trucks 88
Cranes 82
Portable Generators 80
Rollers 80
Tractors 80
Front-End Loaders 86
Hydraulic Excavators 86
Graders 86
Air Compressors 86
Trucks 86
Noise Level Calculation Prior to Implementation of Noise Attenuation Requirements Lmax Leq
1 Dozer 85 1 40 320 0.5 0 64.8 60.9 1220703.13
2 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 80 1 40 320 0.5 0 59.8 55.9 386020.222 Source: MD Acoustics, LLC - Sept. 2021. Lmax* 66 Leq 62 1- Percentage of time that a piece of equipment is operating at full power. Lw 96 Lw 94 dBA – A-weighted Decibels
Lmax- Maximum Level
Leq- Equivalent Level
Feet Meters Ground Effect
No
Shielding
Leq dBA
1 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
2 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
3 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
4 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
5 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
6 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
7 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
8 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
9 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
10 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
11 dBA
Shielding
LeqdBA
12 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
13 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
14 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
15 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
50 15.2 0.5 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 60 18.3 0.5 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 70 21.3 0.5 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 80 24.4 0.5 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 90 27.4 0.5 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 100 30.5 0.5 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 110 33.5 0.5 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 120 36.6 0.5 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 130 39.6 0.5 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 140 42.7 0.5 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 150 45.7 0.5 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 160 48.8 0.5 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 170 51.8 0.5 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 180 54.9 0.5 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 190 57.9 0.5 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 200 61.0 0.5 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 210 64.0 0.5 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 220 67.1 0.5 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 230 70.1 0.5 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 240 73.1 0.5 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 250 76.2 0.5 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 260 79.2 0.5 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 270 82.3 0.5 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 280 85.3 0.5 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 290 88.4 0.5 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 300 91.4 0.5 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 310 94.5 0.5 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 320 97.5 0.5 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 330 100.6 0.5 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 340 103.6 0.5 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 350 106.7 0.5 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 360 109.7 0.5 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 370 112.8 0.5 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 No. Equipment Description Reference (dBA) 50 ft Lmax Quantity Usage
Factor1
Distance to
Receptor
(ft)
Ground
Effect
Shielding
(dBA)
Calculated (dBA)
Energy
Site Preparation
Noise Level Calculation Prior to Implementation of Noise Attenuation Requirements Lmax Leq
1 Grader 86 1 40 320 0.5 0 65.8 61.9 1536774.18
2 Dozer 85 1 40 320 0.5 0 64.8 60.9 1220703.13
3 Tractor/Backhoe 80 2 40 320 0.5 0 62.9 58.9 772040.444 4 Scrapers 87 1 40 320 0.5 0 66.8 62.9 1934684.07
5 Excavators 86 2 40 320 0.5 0 68.9 64.9 3073548.37
Source: MD Acoustics, LLC - Sept. 2021. Lmax* 73 Leq 69 1- Percentage of time that a piece of equipment is operating at full power. Lw 102 Lw 101 dBA – A-weighted Decibels
Lmax- Maximum Level
Leq- Equivalent Level
Feet Meters Ground Effect
No
Shielding
Leq dBA
1 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
2 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
3 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
4 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
5 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
6 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
7 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
8 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
9 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
10 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
11 dBA
Shielding
LeqdBA
12 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
13 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
14 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
15 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
50 15.2 0.5 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 60 18.3 0.5 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 70 21.3 0.5 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 80 24.4 0.5 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 90 27.4 0.5 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 100 30.5 0.5 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 110 33.5 0.5 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 120 36.6 0.5 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 130 39.6 0.5 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 140 42.7 0.5 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 150 45.7 0.5 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 160 48.8 0.5 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 170 51.8 0.5 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 180 54.9 0.5 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 190 57.9 0.5 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 200 61.0 0.5 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 210 64.0 0.5 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 220 67.1 0.5 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 230 70.1 0.5 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 240 73.1 0.5 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 250 76.2 0.5 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 260 79.2 0.5 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 270 82.3 0.5 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 280 85.3 0.5 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 290 88.4 0.5 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 300 91.4 0.5 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 310 94.5 0.5 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 320 97.5 0.5 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 330 100.6 0.5 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 340 103.6 0.5 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 350 106.7 0.5 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 360 109.7 0.5 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 370 112.8 0.5 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 Shielding
(dBA)
Calculated (dBA)
No. Equipment Description Reference (dBA) 50 ft Lmax Energy Ground
Quantity Effect
Usage
Factor1
Distance to
Receptor
(ft)
Grading
Noise Level Calculation Prior to Implementation of Noise Attenuation Requirements Lmax Leq
1 Forklift/Tractor 80 3 40 320 0.5 0 64.6 60.6 1158060.67 2 Tractor/Backhoe 80 3 40 320 0.5 0 64.6 60.6 1158060.67 3 Cranes 82 1 40 320 0.5 0 61.8 57.9 611800.822
4 Generator 80 1 40 320 0.5 0 59.8 55.9 386020.222
Source: MD Acoustics, LLC - Sept. 2021. Lmax* 69 Leq 65 1- Percentage of time that a piece of equipment is operating at full power. Lw 101 Lw 97 dBA – A-weighted Decibels
Lmax- Maximum Level
Leq- Equivalent Level
Feet Meters Ground Effect
No
Shielding
Leq dBA
1 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
2 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
3 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
4 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
5 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
6 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
7 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
8 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
9 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
10 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
11 dBA
Shielding
LeqdBA
12 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
13 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
14 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
15 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
50 15.2 0.5 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 60 18.3 0.5 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 70 21.3 0.5 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 80 24.4 0.5 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 90 27.4 0.5 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 100 30.5 0.5 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 110 33.5 0.5 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 120 36.6 0.5 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 130 39.6 0.5 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 140 42.7 0.5 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 150 45.7 0.5 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 160 48.8 0.5 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 170 51.8 0.5 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 180 54.9 0.5 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 190 57.9 0.5 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 200 61.0 0.5 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 210 64.0 0.5 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 220 67.1 0.5 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 230 70.1 0.5 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 240 73.1 0.5 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 250 76.2 0.5 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 260 79.2 0.5 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 270 82.3 0.5 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 280 85.3 0.5 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 290 88.4 0.5 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 300 91.4 0.5 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 310 94.5 0.5 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 320 97.5 0.5 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 330 100.6 0.5 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 340 103.6 0.5 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 350 106.7 0.5 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 360 109.7 0.5 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 370 112.8 0.5 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 Distance to
Receptor
(ft)
Ground
Effect
Shielding
(dBA)
Calculated (dBA)
Energy
Building Construction
No. Equipment Description Reference (dBA) 50 ft Lmax Quantity Usage
Factor1
Noise Level Calculation Prior to Implementation of Noise Attenuation Requirements Lmax Leq
1 Air Compressor 86 1 40 320 0.5 0 65.8 61.9 1536774.18 Source: MD Acoustics, LLC - Sept. 2021. Lmax* 66 Leq 62 1- Percentage of time that a piece of equipment is operating at full power. Lw 97 Lw 94 dBA – A-weighted Decibels
Lmax- Maximum Level
Leq- Equivalent Level
Feet Meters Ground Effect
No
Shielding
Leq dBA
1 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
2 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
3 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
4 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
5 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
6 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
7 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
8 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
9 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
10 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
11 dBA
Shielding
LeqdBA
12 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
13 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
14 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
15 dBA
Shielding
Leq dBA
50 15.2 0.5 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 60 18.3 0.5 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 70 21.3 0.5 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 80 24.4 0.5 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 90 27.4 0.5 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 100 30.5 0.5 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 110 33.5 0.5 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 120 36.6 0.5 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 130 39.6 0.5 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 140 42.7 0.5 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 150 45.7 0.5 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 160 48.8 0.5 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 170 51.8 0.5 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 180 54.9 0.5 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 190 57.9 0.5 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 200 61.0 0.5 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 210 64.0 0.5 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 220 67.1 0.5 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 230 70.1 0.5 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 240 73.1 0.5 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 250 76.2 0.5 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 260 79.2 0.5 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 270 82.3 0.5 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 280 85.3 0.5 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 290 88.4 0.5 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 300 91.4 0.5 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 310 94.5 0.5 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 320 97.5 0.5 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 330 100.6 0.5 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 340 103.6 0.5 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 350 106.7 0.5 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 360 109.7 0.5 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 370 112.8 0.5 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 Distance to
Receptor
(ft)
Ground
Effect
Shielding
(dBA)
Calculated (dBA)
Energy
Architectural Coating
No. Equipment Description Reference (dBA) 50 ft Lmax Quantity Usage
Factor1
Project: Date Palm Apartments Date: 10/4/23
Source: Large Bulldozer
Scenario: Unmitigated
Location:

Address: Data Palm Drive between 30th Ave and Mccallum Way, Cathedral City CA PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment = INPUT SECTION IN BLUE
Type
PPVref = 0.089 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.

D = 320.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.10 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.005 IN/SEC OUTPUT IN RED

DATA OUT RESULTS
2 Large Bulldozer
Note: Based on reference equations from Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, 2006, pgs 38-43.

VIBRATION LEVEL IMPACT
Project Site

DATA INPUT
Appendix D:

SoundPLAN Noise Modeling Inputs/Outputs and Noise Reference Levels 170 Units Date Palm Dr Cathedral City Noise
Octave spectra of the sources in dB(A) - 001 - Date Palm Apartments: Outdoor SP 3 Name Source type l or A
m,m²
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
KI
dB
KT
dB
LwMax
dB(A)
DO-Wall
dB
Time histogram Emission spectrum 63Hz
dB(A)
125Hz
dB(A)
250Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
1kHz
dB(A)
2kHz
dB(A)
4kHz
dB(A)
8kHz
dB(A)
16kHz
dB(A)
Parking PLot 89.91 55.9 75.5 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 58.8 70.4 62.9 67.4 67.5 67.9 65.2 59.0 46.2 Parking PLot 93.80 55.7 75.5 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 58.8 70.4 62.9 67.4 67.5 67.9 65.2 59.0 46.2 Parking PLot 92.84 55.8 75.5 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 58.8 70.4 62.9 67.4 67.5 67.9 65.2 59.0 46.2 Parking PLot 94.28 55.7 75.5 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 58.8 70.4 62.9 67.4 67.5 67.9 65.2 59.0 46.2 Parking PLot 101.92 55.4 75.5 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 58.8 70.4 62.9 67.4 67.5 67.9 65.2 59.0 46.2 Parking PLot 101.39 55.4 75.5 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 58.8 70.4 62.9 67.4 67.5 67.9 65.2 59.0 46.2 Parking PLot 29.01 55.4 70.0 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 53.4 65.0 57.5 62.0 62.1 62.5 59.8 53.6 40.8 Parking PLot 69.28 55.6 74.0 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 57.3 68.9 61.4 65.9 66.0 66.4 63.7 57.5 44.7 Parking PLot 125.73 55.5 76.5 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 59.9 71.5 64.0 68.5 68.6 69.0 66.3 60.1 47.3 Parking PLot 123.76 55.1 76.0 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 59.4 71.0 63.5 68.0 68.1 68.5 65.8 59.6 46.8 Parking PLot 95.07 55.7 75.5 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 58.8 70.4 62.9 67.4 67.5 67.9 65.2 59.0 46.2 Parking PLot 28.89 55.4 70.0 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 53.4 65.0 57.5 62.0 62.1 62.5 59.8 53.6 40.8 Parking PLot 26.14 55.8 70.0 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 53.4 65.0 57.5 62.0 62.1 62.5 59.8 53.6 40.8 Parking PLot 27.99 55.5 70.0 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 53.4 65.0 57.5 62.0 62.1 62.5 59.8 53.6 40.8 Parking PLot 26.13 55.8 70.0 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 53.4 65.0 57.5 62.0 62.1 62.5 59.8 53.6 40.8 Parking PLot 26.91 55.7 70.0 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 53.4 65.0 57.5 62.0 62.1 62.5 59.8 53.6 40.8 Parking PLot 97.76 54.9 74.8 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 58.1 69.7 62.2 66.7 66.8 67.2 64.5 58.3 45.5 Parking PLot 91.86 55.8 75.5 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 58.8 70.4 62.9 67.4 67.5 67.9 65.2 59.0 46.2 Parking PLot 112.45 54.9 75.5 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 58.8 70.4 62.9 67.4 67.5 67.9 65.2 59.0 46.2 Parking PLot 100.15 55.4 75.5 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 58.8 70.4 62.9 67.4 67.5 67.9 65.2 59.0 46.2 Parking PLot 97.77 55.5 75.5 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 58.8 70.4 62.9 67.4 67.5 67.9 65.2 59.0 46.2 Parking PLot 84.42 55.5 74.8 0.0 0.0 0 33 Typical spectrum 58.1 69.7 62.2 66.7 66.8 67.2 64.5 58.3 45.5 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 1 170 Units Date Palm Dr Cathedral City Noise
Octave spectra of the sources in dB(A) - 001 - Date Palm Apartments: Outdoor SP 3 Name Source type l or A
m,m²
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
KI
dB
KT
dB
LwMax
dB(A)
DO-Wall
dB
Time histogram Emission spectrum 63Hz
dB(A)
125Hz
dB(A)
250Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
1kHz
dB(A)
2kHz
dB(A)
4kHz
dB(A)
8kHz
dB(A)
16kHz
dB(A)
HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 2 170 Units Date Palm Dr Cathedral City Noise
Octave spectra of the sources in dB(A) - 001 - Date Palm Apartments: Outdoor SP 3 Name Source type l or A
m,m²
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
KI
dB
KT
dB
LwMax
dB(A)
DO-Wall
dB
Time histogram Emission spectrum 63Hz
dB(A)
125Hz
dB(A)
250Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
1kHz
dB(A)
2kHz
dB(A)
4kHz
dB(A)
8kHz
dB(A)
16kHz
dB(A)
HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 3 170 Units Date Palm Dr Cathedral City Noise
Octave spectra of the sources in dB(A) - 001 - Date Palm Apartments: Outdoor SP 3 Name Source type l or A
m,m²
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
KI
dB
KT
dB
LwMax
dB(A)
DO-Wall
dB
Time histogram Emission spectrum 63Hz
dB(A)
125Hz
dB(A)
250Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
1kHz
dB(A)
2kHz
dB(A)
4kHz
dB(A)
8kHz
dB(A)
16kHz
dB(A)
HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 HVAC Point 80.2 80.2 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h HVAC: 72dB @ 3ft - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 57.3 65.8 68.2 72.5 74.8 74.4 71.4 66.5 54.2 SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 4 170 Units Date Palm Dr Cathedral City Noise
Contribution level - 001 - Date Palm Apartments: Outdoor SP 9 Source group Source typeTr. lane Leq,d
dB(A)
A
dB
Receiver R1 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 42.0 dB(A)
Default parking lot noise PLot -10.8 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot -6.7 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot -9.5 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot -3.4 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot -4.1 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 9.3 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 1.5 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 6.7 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 10.5 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 11.3 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 14.0 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 13.5 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 11.5 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 17.8 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 17.2 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 20.5 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 20.8 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 25.2 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 23.7 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 24.1 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 26.9 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 11.9 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 17.8 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 17.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 17.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 21.2 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 21.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 25.9 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 21.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 21.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 16.9 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 18.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 23.8 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 25.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 19.2 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 18.9 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 18.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 19.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 20.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 17.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 17.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 16.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 20.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 16.6 0.0
SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 1 170 Units Date Palm Dr Cathedral City Noise
Contribution level - 001 - Date Palm Apartments: Outdoor SP 9 Source group Source typeTr. lane Leq,d
dB(A)
A
dB
Default industrial noise Point 16.8 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 16.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 18.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 19.7 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 17.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 18.8 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 20.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 17.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 22.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 20.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 17.8 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 22.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 26.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 26.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 20.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 27.8 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 28.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 22.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 32.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 35.9 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 22.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 21.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 26.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 21.9 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 26.2 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 25.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 27.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 20.8 0.0
Receiver R3 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 41.8 dB(A)
Default parking lot noise PLot 14.6 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 20.9 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 26.6 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 19.6 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot -0.6 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 13.2 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 14.5 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 13.4 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 16.9 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 18.0 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 0.4 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot -0.3 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 4.7 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 4.1 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 3.3 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot -0.7 0.0
SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 2 170 Units Date Palm Dr Cathedral City Noise
Contribution level - 001 - Date Palm Apartments: Outdoor SP 9 Source group Source typeTr. lane Leq,d
dB(A)
A
dB
Default parking lot noise PLot -1.2 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 1.1 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot -0.5 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot -0.6 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot -0.4 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 2.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 24.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 27.8 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 27.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 27.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 21.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 22.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 27.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 23.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 20.9 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 18.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 16.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 10.2 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 15.9 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 23.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 27.8 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 27.8 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 27.2 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 24.8 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 28.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 29.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 28.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 25.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 29.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 32.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 29.7 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 22.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 20.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 17.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 20.9 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 19.9 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 17.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 21.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 19.7 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 18.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 16.2 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 14.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 15.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 15.9 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 11.7 0.0
SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 3 170 Units Date Palm Dr Cathedral City Noise
Contribution level - 001 - Date Palm Apartments: Outdoor SP 9 Source group Source typeTr. lane Leq,d
dB(A)
A
dB
Default industrial noise Point 13.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 13.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 10.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 10.9 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 23.2 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 19.8 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 23.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 18.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 23.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 18.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 24.8 0.0
Receiver R3 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 42.5 dB(A)
Default parking lot noise PLot -7.7 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot -1.8 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot -4.0 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 4.5 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot -1.4 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 20.6 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 16.2 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 10.4 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 9.9 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 8.1 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 5.3 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 5.1 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 4.1 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 4.3 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 5.6 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 11.9 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 12.6 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 21.4 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 18.0 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 18.0 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 17.2 0.0
Default parking lot noise PLot 2.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 16.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 17.9 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 25.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 26.2 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 25.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 26.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 20.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 24.8 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 18.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 17.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 20.0 0.0
SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 4 170 Units Date Palm Dr Cathedral City Noise
Contribution level - 001 - Date Palm Apartments: Outdoor SP 9 Source group Source typeTr. lane Leq,d
dB(A)
A
dB
Default industrial noise Point 22.6 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 15.9 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 16.2 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 19.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 25.7 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 30.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 16.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 17.8 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 24.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 25.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 16.2 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 17.7 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 23.8 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 26.2 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 26.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 23.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 16.8 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 20.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 19.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 16.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 18.8 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 19.8 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 16.3 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 21.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 24.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 16.4 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 24.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 22.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 17.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 30.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 25.7 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 19.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 27.2 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 27.5 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 30.0 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 30.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 34.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 34.1 0.0
Default industrial noise Point 22.5 0.0
SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 5 170 Units Date Palm Dr Cathedral City Noise
Contribution spectra - 001 - Date Palm Apartments: Outdoor SP 23 Time
slice
Sum
dB(A)
25Hz
dB(A)

31.5Hz
dB(A)
40Hz
dB(A)
50Hz
dB(A)
63Hz
dB(A)
80Hz
dB(A)
100Hz
dB(A)
125Hz
dB(A)
160Hz
dB(A)
200Hz
dB(A)
250Hz
dB(A)
315Hz
dB(A)
400Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
630Hz
dB(A)
800Hz
dB(A)
1kHz
dB(A)

1.25kHz
dB(A)

1.6kHz
dB(A)
2kHz
dB(A)

2.5kHz
dB(A)

3.15kHz
dB(A)
4kHz
dB(A)
5kHz
dB(A)

6.3kHz
dB(A)
8kHz
dB(A)
10kHz
dB(A)

12.5kHz
dB(A)
16kHz
dB(A)
20kHz
dB(A)
Receiver R1 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 42.0 dB(A)
Leq,d 20.5 4.4 15.9 2.1 8.4 13.4 14.7 9.8 -4.2 -39.5
Leq,d 17.2 2.3 13.1 -1.3 5.2 10.1 11.0 5.8 -11.0 -55.1
Leq,d 17.8 2.2 13.0 -1.3 6.4 11.3 11.6 6.9 -10.5 -54.9
Leq,d 11.5 -1.3 5.0 -8.6 -1.5 4.2 7.6 0.2 -22.4 -74.8
Leq,d 13.5 0.3 8.2 -4.9 1.0 7.5 8.0 1.1 -19.4 -69.0
Leq,d 20.8 4.3 15.8 2.0 8.2 14.3 15.1 10.2 -3.9 -39.2
Leq,d 11.9 -3.2 6.6 -6.5 -0.4 6.0 6.3 0.7 -15.5 -56.3
Leq,d 26.9 10.4 22.5 10.9 16.6 19.6 20.2 16.6 7.2 -14.8 Leq,d 24.1 7.9 19.8 6.7 12.9 17.0 17.6 13.3 1.5 -27.1
Leq,d 23.7 7.6 19.4 6.4 12.6 16.5 17.1 12.9 1.3 -27.0
Leq,d 25.2 6.7 20.3 7.9 14.4 18.6 19.2 14.9 2.8 -26.3
Leq,d -4.1 -12.2 -7.9 -15.2 -12.7 -13.5 -14.6 -24.8 -47.2 Leq,d -3.4 -10.2 -5.3 -19.8 -17.4 -16.5 -18.0 -27.2 -52.5 Leq,d -9.5 -16.9 -12.6 -23.6 -22.2 -18.0 -20.3 -30.1 -56.6 Leq,d -6.7 -14.8 -9.4 -19.2 -17.0 -18.6 -17.6 -28.4 -57.1 Leq,d -10.8 -17.3 -13.2 -23.8 -22.4 -24.6 -25.4 -34.7 -63.9 Leq,d 9.3 -4.1 1.3 -12.5 -4.5 3.9 5.2 -2.0 -23.9 -81.1
Leq,d 14.0 0.6 8.8 -2.9 1.6 7.9 8.4 1.4 -19.0 -69.8
Leq,d 11.3 -1.7 6.6 -6.8 -0.9 5.1 5.3 -1.4 -22.9 -78.9
Leq,d 10.5 -2.1 6.3 -7.2 -0.8 3.7 3.9 -2.8 -25.1 -84.7
Leq,d 6.7 -3.1 3.4 -10.0 -4.5 -1.4 -1.4 -9.7 -33.0 -94.5 Leq,d 1.5 -6.9 -2.2 -14.3 -9.0 -6.9 -6.6 -16.1 -40.1 -93.9 Leq,d 22.6 -30.7 -24.7 -20.7 -7.7 -2.7 -8.7 -0.6 1.4 0.3 2.4 2.5 4.6 5.7 6.9 11.0 13.2 9.6 12.2 14.4 14.3 14.5 10.2 9.3 4.3 -0.4 -12.3 -27.4 -43.3 -65.8 -94.7 Leq,d 17.8 -31.8 -25.8 -21.8 -8.8 -3.8 -9.8 -1.8 0.1 -1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 3.8 4.8 8.6 10.3 6.1 7.8 8.8 6.1 6.2 1.6 0.4 -5.1 -10.4 -23.3 -39.6 -57.4 -82.4 Leq,d 20.6 -29.3 -23.3 -19.3 -6.3 -1.4 -7.4 0.6 2.6 1.5 3.5 3.5 5.4 6.4 7.3 11.2 13.0 8.8 10.6 11.6 9.1 9.4 5.3 4.6 -0.1 -4.1 -15.0 -28.6 -42.5 -62.4 -88.0 Leq,d 20.0 -28.2 -22.3 -18.5 -5.7 -0.9 -7.1 0.7 2.5 1.3 2.9 2.8 4.7 5.6 6.4 10.2 11.9 7.5 9.2 10.0 10.2 10.4 6.1 5.2 0.3 -4.1 -15.6 -29.9 -44.8 -66.7 -95.3 Leq,d 26.5 -22.5 -16.7 -12.9 -0.1 4.7 -1.5 6.3 8.1 6.9 8.5 8.5 10.3 11.3 13.0 16.8 18.5 14.9 16.9 18.0 15.4 15.7 11.6 11.1 7.0 4.0 -5.1 -15.6 -24.9 -38.4 -56.2 Leq,d 26.3 -26.5 -20.4 -16.5 -3.5 1.5 -4.5 3.5 5.5 4.4 6.4 6.4 8.4 9.4 10.3 16.1 18.0 14.5 16.5 17.9 15.9 17.1 13.2 12.8 8.6 5.2 -4.5 -16.1 -27.0 -42.5 -62.6 Leq,d 18.8 -31.1 -25.1 -21.1 -8.1 -3.1 -9.1 -1.1 0.8 -0.3 1.7 1.7 3.7 4.6 5.6 9.5 11.2 7.1 8.9 9.9 7.4 7.6 3.3 2.4 -2.6 -7.3 -19.3 -34.5 -50.8 -73.7 Leq,d 17.3 -30.3 -24.4 -20.5 -7.7 -2.9 -9.1 -1.4 0.4 -0.9 0.7 0.6 2.5 3.4 4.3 8.1 9.9 5.6 7.3 8.2 5.5 5.4 0.8 -0.6 -6.4 -12.1 -25.5 -42.8 -61.8 -88.5 Leq,d 19.7 -28.2 -22.3 -18.5 -5.7 -0.9 -7.1 0.7 2.5 1.3 2.9 2.8 4.7 5.7 6.6 10.4 12.2 7.9 9.7 10.6 8.0 8.2 3.9 2.9 -2.0 -6.5 -18.2 -32.8 -48.0 -69.6 -97.5 Leq,d 22.6 -30.9 -24.8 -20.8 -7.8 -2.8 -8.7 -0.7 1.3 0.4 2.5 2.6 4.8 6.0 7.3 11.7 14.2 11.2 13.9 14.9 12.4 12.6 8.4 7.5 2.5 -2.1 -13.9 -28.9 -44.8 -67.4 -96.5 Leq,d 17.4 -32.1 -26.1 -22.1 -9.1 -4.2 -10.2 -2.2 -0.2 -1.3 0.6 0.6 2.6 3.5 4.4 8.3 10.0 5.8 7.5 8.4 5.8 5.8 1.2 -0.1 -5.7 -11.2 -24.3 -41.1 -59.4 -85.2 Leq,d 20.0 -29.7 -23.7 -19.7 -6.7 -1.8 -7.8 0.2 2.1 1.1 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.9 6.8 10.7 12.4 8.2 10.0 10.9 8.4 8.5 4.3 3.4 -1.5 -5.8 -17.2 -31.3 -45.9 -66.7 -93.4 Leq,d 27.8 -20.2 -14.2 -15.0 -2.0 3.0 -3.0 5.0 7.0 5.9 7.9 7.9 9.9 10.9 11.9 17.5 19.5 15.9 18.2 19.8 17.5 18.0 14.1 13.9 10.1 7.3 -1.7 -12.3 -21.7 -35.3 -53.1 SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 1 170 Units Date Palm Dr Cathedral City Noise
Contribution spectra - 001 - Date Palm Apartments: Outdoor SP 23 Time
slice
Sum
dB(A)
25Hz
dB(A)

31.5Hz
dB(A)
40Hz
dB(A)
50Hz
dB(A)
63Hz
dB(A)
80Hz
dB(A)
100Hz
dB(A)
125Hz
dB(A)
160Hz
dB(A)
200Hz
dB(A)
250Hz
dB(A)
315Hz
dB(A)
400Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
630Hz
dB(A)
800Hz
dB(A)
1kHz
dB(A)

1.25kHz
dB(A)

1.6kHz
dB(A)
2kHz
dB(A)

2.5kHz
dB(A)

3.15kHz
dB(A)
4kHz
dB(A)
5kHz
dB(A)

6.3kHz
dB(A)
8kHz
dB(A)
10kHz
dB(A)

12.5kHz
dB(A)
16kHz
dB(A)
20kHz
dB(A)
Leq,d 26.2 -25.8 -19.8 -15.8 -2.8 2.2 -3.8 4.3 6.2 5.2 7.2 7.3 9.3 10.4 11.4 15.5 17.5 13.6 15.7 17.2 15.4 16.6 14.0 15.1 11.4 8.9 0.1 -10.5 -20.2 -34.5 -53.4 Leq,d 21.9 -28.5 -22.5 -18.5 -5.5 -0.6 -6.6 1.4 3.4 2.3 4.3 4.3 6.3 7.2 8.2 12.1 13.9 9.8 12.2 13.3 10.8 11.2 7.1 6.6 2.2 -1.3 -11.6 -24.2 -36.8 -55.0 -78.6 Leq,d 26.6 -26.3 -20.2 -16.2 -3.2 1.7 -4.2 3.8 5.8 4.8 6.8 6.9 9.0 10.1 11.2 15.3 17.4 13.7 16.1 17.9 16.7 18.2 14.6 14.4 10.7 7.9 -1.1 -12.0 -22.2 -37.1 -56.7 Leq,d 20.8 -30.3 -24.2 -20.2 -7.3 -2.3 -8.3 -0.3 1.6 0.6 2.6 2.6 4.5 5.5 6.4 10.3 12.1 7.9 11.9 13.1 10.6 10.7 6.4 5.3 0.2 -4.5 -16.3 -31.0 -46.2 -67.6 -95.2 Leq,d 27.1 -25.4 -19.3 -15.3 -2.3 2.6 -3.4 4.7 6.7 5.6 7.7 7.8 9.8 10.8 12.0 16.0 18.1 14.2 16.5 18.1 16.4 18.0 15.6 15.6 12.0 9.6 1.0 -9.4 -18.7 -32.6 -50.8 Leq,d 25.4 -28.3 -22.2 -18.2 -5.2 -0.2 -6.2 1.9 3.9 2.9 5.0 5.2 7.3 8.5 9.8 14.1 16.5 13.3 16.6 18.0 15.5 16.0 12.0 11.5 7.3 3.9 -6.2 -18.7 -31.0 -48.8 -71.9 Leq,d 32.6 -23.2 -17.2 -13.1 -0.1 4.9 -1.0 7.2 9.3 8.4 10.6 11.0 13.4 15.0 17.8 22.1 24.9 21.2 23.2 24.4 22.1 22.7 19.1 19.2 15.8 13.7 5.6 -3.7 -11.7 -23.5 -39.2 Leq,d 22.0 -26.6 -20.7 -16.9 -4.2 0.5 -5.7 1.9 3.7 2.4 4.0 3.9 5.8 6.7 7.5 11.3 13.0 10.0 11.7 14.6 12.0 12.1 7.8 6.9 2.1 -2.3 -13.5 -27.5 -41.7 -61.8 -87.6 Leq,d 28.3 -22.4 -16.3 -12.3 0.6 5.6 -0.4 7.7 9.6 8.6 10.5 10.5 12.5 13.4 14.4 18.7 20.5 16.4 18.2 19.2 16.9 17.4 13.7 13.8 10.4 8.3 0.4 -8.7 -16.4 -27.8 -43.0 Leq,d 21.4 -28.8 -22.8 -18.8 -5.8 -0.9 -6.9 1.2 3.1 2.0 4.0 4.1 6.0 7.0 7.9 11.8 13.6 9.5 11.4 12.5 10.0 10.4 6.4 5.9 1.6 -2.0 -12.4 -25.3 -38.3 -56.9 -81.1 Leq,d 22.5 -25.4 -19.6 -15.8 -3.0 1.7 -4.6 3.1 4.8 3.6 5.2 5.1 7.0 7.9 8.7 12.5 14.2 11.1 13.2 14.1 11.4 11.5 7.2 6.2 1.4 -2.7 -13.5 -26.4 -38.9 -56.7 -79.6 Leq,d 35.9 -19.4 -13.4 -9.3 3.8 8.8 2.9 11.4 13.5 12.7 14.8 15.4 18.1 20.2 21.6 25.5 28.1 24.0 26.0 27.1 25.0 25.8 22.4 22.9 20.1 18.8 11.9 4.2 -1.5 -10.6 -22.9 Leq,d 16.9 -30.7 -24.8 -21.1 -8.4 -3.6 -9.8 -2.1 -0.3 -1.5 0.2 0.2 2.0 3.0 3.9 7.7 9.4 5.2 6.9 7.8 5.1 5.0 0.4 -1.1 -7.0 -12.8 -26.6 -44.2 -63.9 -91.2 Leq,d 21.0 -28.0 -22.1 -18.2 -5.3 -0.5 -6.6 1.1 2.9 1.6 2.9 2.9 4.7 5.7 6.5 10.3 12.2 9.8 11.6 12.7 10.4 10.9 7.3 6.2 1.0 -3.9 -16.2 -31.7 -48.2 -71.2 Leq,d 21.4 -28.3 -22.4 -18.5 -5.6 -0.8 -7.0 0.7 2.5 1.2 2.7 2.6 4.5 5.5 6.3 10.2 12.0 10.5 12.8 13.8 11.2 11.4 7.0 5.9 0.7 -4.3 -16.6 -32.0 -48.3 -70.9 -99.8 Leq,d 25.3 -23.7 -17.9 -14.1 -1.3 3.4 -2.8 5.0 6.7 5.5 7.2 7.1 9.0 9.9 10.8 14.6 16.3 12.9 14.7 17.9 15.3 15.6 11.5 10.9 6.5 2.9 -7.2 -19.0 -29.9 -45.1 -64.7 Leq,d 23.8 -27.4 -21.4 -17.4 -4.4 0.5 -5.5 2.5 4.5 3.4 5.4 5.4 7.4 8.4 9.3 13.3 15.1 11.0 12.8 16.0 13.5 14.6 10.4 9.7 5.2 1.6 -8.4 -20.3 -31.8 -48.2 -69.7 Leq,d 18.6 -31.3 -25.2 -21.3 -8.3 -3.3 -9.3 -1.3 0.6 -0.4 1.5 1.5 3.5 4.4 5.4 9.3 11.0 6.9 8.7 9.7 7.2 7.4 3.0 2.1 -3.0 -7.8 -20.0 -35.4 -52.0 -75.4 Leq,d 17.4 -31.7 -25.7 -21.7 -8.7 -3.8 -9.8 -1.8 0.1 -1.1 0.9 0.8 2.7 3.5 4.4 8.1 9.7 5.3 8.1 8.8 5.8 5.5 0.5 -1.3 -7.3 -13.1 -26.5 -43.2 -61.3 -86.5 Leq,d 17.4 -32.9 -26.8 -22.9 -9.9 -4.9 -10.9 -2.9 -1.0 -2.1 -0.1 -0.1 1.8 2.7 3.7 7.6 9.3 5.1 8.4 9.3 6.6 6.6 1.9 0.4 -5.6 -11.6 -25.6 -43.5 -63.4 -91.0 Leq,d 17.8 -33.8 -27.8 -23.8 -10.8 -5.8 -11.8 -3.8 -1.8 -2.8 -0.8 -0.7 1.3 2.3 3.4 7.5 9.5 5.6 7.8 9.5 7.9 8.7 3.9 2.3 -3.4 -9.9 -24.7 -43.8 -65.4 -95.4 Leq,d 25.9 -26.8 -20.7 -16.7 -3.7 1.3 -4.7 3.3 5.3 4.3 6.3 6.4 8.5 9.5 10.7 14.7 16.8 13.0 15.3 17.1 15.6 17.6 14.0 13.8 9.9 7.0 -2.2 -13.5 -24.1 -39.6 -60.0 Leq,d 21.0 -29.1 -23.1 -19.1 -6.1 -1.1 -7.1 0.9 2.8 1.8 3.7 3.8 5.7 6.7 7.6 11.6 13.3 9.2 11.1 12.2 9.7 10.1 6.1 5.5 1.1 -2.6 -13.2 -26.4 -39.7 -58.8 -83.6 Leq,d 21.2 -28.2 -22.2 -18.2 -5.2 -0.3 -6.3 1.5 3.4 2.3 3.3 3.3 5.2 6.6 7.5 11.3 13.7 9.4 11.7 12.9 10.1 9.9 5.2 3.8 -1.8 -7.3 -20.0 -36.0 -53.0 -76.8 Leq,d 19.2 -28.6 -22.7 -18.9 -6.1 -1.3 -7.5 0.2 2.0 0.7 2.3 2.2 4.0 5.0 5.8 9.6 11.2 6.9 8.5 9.3 6.5 9.9 5.7 4.8 0.1 -3.9 -15.9 -31.6 -48.4 -72.0 Leq,d 16.6 -31.7 -25.9 -22.1 -9.3 -4.6 -10.8 -3.2 -1.5 -2.7 -1.1 -1.2 0.7 1.6 2.5 6.3 8.1 3.8 5.5 9.0 6.7 7.0 2.0 0.0 -6.7 -13.9 -29.6 -50.0 -73.2 Leq,d 20.1 -31.6 -25.5 -21.5 -8.5 -3.6 -9.6 -1.5 0.4 -0.7 1.3 1.4 3.3 4.3 5.3 9.3 11.1 8.5 11.2 12.3 9.8 10.2 6.1 5.4 0.8 -3.5 -15.6 -31.6 -48.8 -72.9 Leq,d 16.6 -32.1 -26.0 -22.1 -9.1 -4.1 -10.2 -2.2 -0.3 -1.4 0.5 0.5 2.3 3.2 4.0 7.8 9.4 5.0 6.5 7.3 4.4 4.1 -0.8 -2.4 -8.0 -14.0 -27.6 -44.8 -63.4 -89.4 Leq,d 18.4 -32.0 -25.9 -21.9 -9.0 -4.0 -10.0 -2.0 0.0 -1.1 0.9 0.9 2.8 3.8 4.8 8.7 10.5 6.3 8.1 10.4 7.8 7.8 3.3 2.1 -3.2 -8.3 -20.8 -36.6 -53.6 -77.3 Leq,d 16.6 -32.4 -26.4 -22.4 -9.4 -4.5 -10.5 -2.5 -0.6 -1.8 0.1 0.1 1.9 2.8 3.6 7.4 8.9 4.5 7.4 8.1 5.0 4.6 -0.5 -2.4 -8.8 -15.1 -29.1 -46.8 -66.2 -93.0 Leq,d 16.8 -33.4 -27.4 -23.4 -10.4 -5.5 -11.5 -3.4 -1.5 -2.6 -0.6 -0.7 1.3 2.2 3.1 7.0 8.7 4.5 7.8 8.7 6.0 5.9 1.1 -0.6 -6.8 -13.3 -27.8 -46.5 -67.5 -96.6 Leq,d 19.1 -31.4 -25.3 -21.4 -8.4 -3.4 -9.4 -1.4 0.5 -0.6 1.4 1.4 3.3 4.3 5.2 9.1 10.8 6.6 10.2 11.1 8.4 8.4 3.8 2.4 -3.2 -8.5 -21.2 -37.2 -54.2 -78.1 Leq,d 18.0 -32.6 -26.6 -22.6 -9.6 -4.7 -10.7 -2.6 -0.7 -1.8 0.2 0.2 2.1 3.0 4.0 7.9 9.6 5.4 8.7 10.5 7.7 7.7 3.0 1.5 -4.4 -10.4 -24.2 -41.9 -61.3 -88.2 Leq,d 18.9 -33.6 -27.6 -23.6 -10.5 -5.6 -11.5 -3.5 -1.5 -2.5 -0.5 -0.4 1.7 2.8 4.0 8.2 10.4 6.8 9.5 11.8 9.1 9.0 4.3 2.7 -3.4 -9.7 -24.0 -42.7 -63.8 -93.1 Leq,d 17.1 -33.1 -27.1 -23.1 -10.1 -5.2 -11.2 -3.2 -1.3 -2.3 -0.4 -0.4 1.5 2.5 3.4 7.3 9.0 4.8 8.1 9.0 6.3 6.2 1.5 -0.1 -6.2 -12.5 -26.7 -45.0 -65.4 -93.8 Leq,d 17.1 -31.1 -25.1 -21.1 -8.1 -3.2 -9.2 -1.6 0.3 -0.9 0.2 0.2 2.0 3.3 4.1 7.9 10.1 5.7 7.2 8.0 5.1 4.8 -0.2 -2.1 -5.8 -12.8 -28.2 -48.3 -70.9 SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 2 170 Units Date Palm Dr Cathedral City Noise
Contribution spectra - 001 - Date Palm Apartments: Outdoor SP 23 Time
slice
Sum
dB(A)
25Hz
dB(A)

31.5Hz
dB(A)
40Hz
dB(A)
50Hz
dB(A)
63Hz
dB(A)
80Hz
dB(A)
100Hz
dB(A)
125Hz
dB(A)
160Hz
dB(A)
200Hz
dB(A)
250Hz
dB(A)
315Hz
dB(A)
400Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
630Hz
dB(A)
800Hz
dB(A)
1kHz
dB(A)

1.25kHz
dB(A)

1.6kHz
dB(A)
2kHz
dB(A)

2.5kHz
dB(A)

3.15kHz
dB(A)
4kHz
dB(A)
5kHz
dB(A)

6.3kHz
dB(A)
8kHz
dB(A)
10kHz
dB(A)

12.5kHz
dB(A)
16kHz
dB(A)
20kHz
dB(A)
Leq,d 20.1 -27.9 -21.9 -18.0 -5.0 -0.2 -6.2 1.5 3.3 2.1 3.2 3.1 4.9 6.0 6.8 10.5 12.4 8.0 10.4 11.5 8.6 8.4 3.6 2.1 -3.5 -8.7 -21.2 -36.7 -53.1 -76.0 Receiver R3 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 41.8 dB(A)
Leq,d -0.7 -8.6 -3.8 -13.2 -10.2 -10.9 -11.6 -21.7 -48.8 Leq,d 3.3 -5.9 -0.6 -8.8 -6.9 -4.8 -5.4 -12.0 -39.6
Leq,d 4.1 -5.7 -0.4 -11.0 -6.9 -3.1 -3.1 -9.4 -36.0
Leq,d 4.7 -6.8 -1.5 -12.1 -10.3 -1.4 -0.3 -5.9 -30.2 -95.9 Leq,d -0.3 -8.1 -3.4 -14.4 -12.8 -8.9 -10.3 -20.2 -45.1 Leq,d -1.2 -9.3 -4.7 -15.7 -10.6 -10.0 -11.4 -20.9 -48.1 Leq,d 2.5 -8.2 -2.2 -12.7 -8.9 -5.3 -3.6 -10.5 -31.6 -86.9 Leq,d -0.4 -8.1 -2.7 -12.9 -11.0 -13.0 -13.9 -23.5 -52.9 Leq,d -0.6 -8.5 -3.9 -14.7 -10.6 -10.0 -10.1 -20.3 -48.1 Leq,d -0.5 -8.3 -3.5 -12.7 -10.6 -11.1 -11.0 -21.8 -49.4 Leq,d 1.1 -6.7 -1.5 -12.2 -10.5 -8.3 -11.0 -21.7 -46.6
Leq,d -0.6 -10.4 -5.3 -11.6 -8.3 -8.1 -10.6 -18.9 -38.3 -83.1 Leq,d 19.6 1.6 12.4 3.9 9.8 13.5 14.2 10.1 -0.9 -27.9
Leq,d 26.6 11.0 22.1 11.0 16.5 19.1 19.7 16.3 7.4 -13.1 Leq,d 20.9 4.3 16.6 4.2 10.1 13.6 14.2 10.3 -0.1 -25.3
Leq,d 14.6 -2.2 8.6 -3.9 4.0 8.5 9.1 4.2 -10.1 -46.4
Leq,d 13.2 0.1 7.2 -2.6 0.2 7.4 7.4 3.2 -12.5 -52.4
Leq,d 0.4 -8.1 -3.3 -14.1 -12.6 -12.4 -5.5 -13.4 -42.6
Leq,d 18.0 5.1 14.0 0.0 6.1 10.9 11.3 6.1 -9.1 -48.1
Leq,d 16.9 3.2 11.2 -0.3 5.9 11.0 11.2 5.2 -12.4 -57.5
Leq,d 13.4 1.3 8.1 -2.1 3.2 7.1 7.1 0.7 -17.8 -66.0
Leq,d 14.5 0.5 6.8 -4.3 4.1 8.9 9.4 4.5 -9.5 -47.4
Leq,d 18.5 -33.3 -27.2 -23.2 -10.3 -5.3 -11.3 -3.3 -1.4 -2.5 -0.5 -0.5 1.4 2.4 3.3 7.2 10.9 6.6 9.5 11.2 8.4 8.3 3.4 1.7 -4.6 -11.1 -25.7 -44.4 -65.2 -93.8 Leq,d 19.7 -28.1 -22.2 -18.4 -5.5 -0.7 -6.9 0.8 2.6 1.4 2.9 2.8 4.7 5.6 6.5 10.4 12.2 7.9 9.7 10.7 8.1 8.3 4.0 3.1 0.2 -4.3 -16.0 -30.7 -46.2 -68.1 -96.5 Leq,d 21.4 -31.1 -25.0 -21.0 -8.1 -3.1 -9.1 -1.1 0.8 -0.2 1.7 1.7 3.7 4.6 5.6 9.5 13.3 9.1 12.1 14.2 11.6 11.9 7.8 6.7 1.2 -3.8 -16.6 -32.8 -50.1 -74.0 Leq,d 15.6 -34.3 -28.3 -24.3 -11.3 -6.4 -12.4 -4.4 -2.5 -3.6 -1.6 -1.6 0.3 1.2 2.1 6.0 7.7 3.5 5.1 7.4 5.5 5.2 0.2 -1.9 -8.7 -15.9 -31.6 -51.9 -75.0 Leq,d 14.6 -34.1 -28.1 -24.1 -11.2 -6.2 -12.3 -4.4 -2.6 -3.8 -1.9 -2.1 -0.4 0.3 0.9 4.5 5.8 1.1 2.3 6.9 4.8 5.1 -0.2 -2.5 -9.4 -16.5 -32.3 -52.7 -75.9 Leq,d 16.2 -31.0 -25.1 -21.3 -8.5 -3.7 -9.9 -2.0 -0.2 -1.4 0.3 0.2 1.9 2.5 3.2 6.7 8.1 3.4 4.7 8.1 5.0 4.6 -0.5 1.4 -4.9 -11.3 -25.7 -44.1 -64.0 -90.5 Leq,d 17.5 -32.1 -26.1 -22.1 -9.1 -4.2 -10.2 -2.2 -0.3 -1.3 0.6 0.6 2.6 3.5 4.5 8.3 10.1 5.9 7.6 8.6 6.0 6.1 1.6 0.3 -5.2 -10.5 -23.6 -40.1 -58.4 -84.0 Leq,d 20.6 -29.0 -23.0 -19.0 -6.0 -1.1 -7.1 0.9 2.9 1.8 3.7 3.7 5.6 6.6 7.5 11.3 13.0 8.8 10.5 11.5 8.9 9.1 4.8 3.9 1.6 -2.5 -13.5 -27.0 -40.8 -60.4 -85.8 Leq,d 22.1 -26.6 -20.6 -16.7 -3.7 1.2 -4.9 2.8 4.6 3.3 4.4 4.3 6.1 7.2 8.0 11.8 13.7 10.9 12.6 13.6 11.0 11.1 8.0 7.1 3.3 -1.1 -12.4 -26.5 -40.9 -61.2 -87.3 Leq,d 17.0 -32.8 -26.7 -22.8 -9.8 -4.8 -10.8 -2.8 -0.9 -2.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.9 3.8 7.7 9.5 5.3 7.0 8.0 5.4 5.4 0.8 1.0 -4.8 -10.8 -24.5 -42.2 -61.7 -88.9 Leq,d 19.9 -29.8 -23.8 -19.8 -6.8 -1.8 -7.9 0.2 2.1 1.0 3.0 3.0 4.9 5.8 6.8 10.6 12.4 8.2 9.9 10.9 8.4 8.6 4.3 3.4 -1.4 -5.8 -17.1 -31.3 -46.0 -66.8 -93.7 Leq,d 20.9 -30.4 -24.4 -20.4 -7.4 -2.4 -8.4 -0.4 1.5 0.4 2.4 2.4 4.4 5.3 6.3 10.2 13.9 9.7 11.5 12.5 10.0 10.2 5.9 4.9 -0.1 -4.0 -15.7 -30.7 -46.5 -68.6 -96.8 SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 3 170 Units Date Palm Dr Cathedral City Noise
Contribution spectra - 001 - Date Palm Apartments: Outdoor SP 23 Time
slice
Sum
dB(A)
25Hz
dB(A)

31.5Hz
dB(A)
40Hz
dB(A)
50Hz
dB(A)
63Hz
dB(A)
80Hz
dB(A)
100Hz
dB(A)
125Hz
dB(A)
160Hz
dB(A)
200Hz
dB(A)
250Hz
dB(A)
315Hz
dB(A)
400Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
630Hz
dB(A)
800Hz
dB(A)
1kHz
dB(A)

1.25kHz
dB(A)

1.6kHz
dB(A)
2kHz
dB(A)

2.5kHz
dB(A)

3.15kHz
dB(A)
4kHz
dB(A)
5kHz
dB(A)

6.3kHz
dB(A)
8kHz
dB(A)
10kHz
dB(A)

12.5kHz
dB(A)
16kHz
dB(A)
20kHz
dB(A)
Leq,d 15.9 -31.8 -25.8 -21.8 -8.9 -4.0 -10.1 -2.1 -0.3 -1.5 0.3 0.1 1.8 2.5 3.2 6.7 8.0 3.4 4.6 7.7 4.5 4.1 -1.1 -3.1 -9.4 -15.8 -29.7 -47.1 -65.7 -91.1 Leq,d 18.1 -29.9 -23.9 -20.0 -7.0 -2.1 -8.2 -0.2 1.6 0.4 2.2 2.1 3.8 4.5 5.1 8.7 10.0 7.2 8.5 9.1 6.0 5.7 0.7 -0.9 -6.7 -12.0 -24.4 -39.4 -54.7 -76.0 Leq,d 23.6 -24.7 -18.8 -14.9 -2.0 2.8 -3.3 4.4 6.1 4.8 6.0 5.8 7.4 8.3 9.0 14.4 16.1 12.3 13.9 14.7 12.3 12.3 7.9 6.9 2.0 -2.2 -13.1 -26.3 -39.3 -57.3 -80.1 Leq,d 19.8 -29.8 -23.8 -19.9 -6.9 -2.0 -8.1 -0.1 1.7 0.5 2.3 2.1 3.8 4.5 5.2 8.7 10.1 9.7 11.2 12.0 9.2 9.1 4.5 3.3 -2.0 -6.9 -19.1 -34.3 -50.2 -72.5 Leq,d 24.8 -23.8 -17.9 -14.0 -1.1 3.7 -2.5 5.2 7.0 5.6 6.8 6.5 8.2 9.1 9.7 15.5 17.9 13.5 15.1 15.9 13.2 13.3 9.1 8.4 4.0 0.4 -9.7 -21.9 -33.7 -50.6 -72.3 Leq,d 18.6 -30.1 -24.1 -20.1 -7.2 -2.3 -8.3 -0.4 1.4 0.3 2.1 1.9 3.7 4.3 5.0 8.6 9.9 7.1 9.8 10.5 7.5 7.3 2.4 0.9 -4.9 -10.4 -23.2 -38.9 -55.0 -76.9 Leq,d 23.6 -27.7 -21.7 -17.7 -4.8 0.2 -5.9 2.1 3.9 2.8 4.6 4.5 6.3 7.0 7.8 11.4 15.8 12.2 14.0 15.1 13.1 13.8 10.6 10.2 5.8 2.2 -8.1 -20.8 -33.3 -51.3 -74.8 Leq,d 13.6 -32.0 -26.0 -22.1 -9.3 -4.5 -10.8 -3.1 -1.5 -2.9 -1.4 -1.9 -0.5 -0.1 0.2 3.4 4.4 -0.6 0.4 0.6 5.1 5.0 0.4 -1.1 -6.9 -12.6 -26.1 -43.4 -62.5 -89.2 Leq,d 13.0 -34.3 -28.3 -24.3 -11.3 -6.4 -12.5 -4.5 -2.7 -3.9 -2.0 -2.2 -0.5 0.2 0.9 4.5 5.9 1.2 2.5 2.9 -0.5 -1.2 -6.7 -9.2 -16.4 -23.9 -39.7 -60.1 -83.3 Leq,d 11.7 -34.3 -28.3 -24.5 -11.7 -6.9 -13.2 -5.5 -3.9 -5.3 -3.8 -4.3 -2.9 -2.6 -2.3 0.9 1.9 -3.1 3.0 3.5 2.1 1.5 -4.0 -6.7 -14.2 -22.4 -39.4 -60.8 -85.8 Leq,d 23.2 -25.1 -19.3 -15.4 -2.7 2.1 -4.1 3.6 5.3 4.0 5.5 5.3 7.0 7.7 8.4 12.0 15.8 12.2 13.8 14.6 12.3 12.4 8.0 7.1 2.4 -1.7 -12.5 -25.6 -38.4 -56.3 -79.0 Leq,d 10.9 -32.7 -26.9 -23.1 -10.4 -5.7 -12.0 -4.5 -2.9 -4.4 -3.0 -3.5 -2.0 -1.6 -1.3 2.0 3.1 -1.9 -1.0 -0.9 -4.4 -5.4 -2.7 -4.8 -11.5 -18.7 -34.4 -55.0 -78.7 Leq,d 10.3 -34.2 -28.3 -24.4 -11.5 -6.8 -13.0 -5.3 -3.6 -5.1 -3.5 -4.0 -2.6 -2.2 -1.9 1.3 2.3 -2.7 -1.8 -1.7 -1.0 -2.0 -7.8 -10.8 -18.4 -25.4 -42.4 -59.2 -84.3 Leq,d 20.9 -28.4 -22.3 -18.4 -5.4 -0.4 -6.5 1.5 3.5 2.4 4.3 4.3 6.2 7.1 7.9 11.8 13.4 9.1 10.8 11.7 9.0 9.1 4.7 3.9 -0.8 -4.8 -15.5 -28.7 -41.7 -60.3 -84.4 Leq,d 23.6 -28.8 -22.7 -18.7 -5.7 -0.8 -6.8 1.3 3.2 2.2 4.2 4.3 6.3 7.3 8.4 12.4 15.8 11.8 13.7 15.0 12.9 13.8 10.6 11.1 7.0 3.2 -7.0 -20.0 -33.1 -51.7 -75.8 Leq,d 27.3 -26.6 -20.5 -16.5 -3.5 1.5 -4.5 3.6 5.6 4.6 6.7 6.8 8.9 10.1 11.3 15.5 18.5 14.9 17.6 20.0 17.6 18.1 14.3 14.1 10.3 7.4 -1.5 -12.7 -23.3 -38.6 -58.7 Leq,d 10.2 -34.1 -28.1 -24.2 -11.4 -6.6 -12.8 -5.0 -3.4 -4.8 -3.3 -3.7 -2.3 -1.9 -1.6 1.7 2.7 -2.3 -1.3 -1.2 -4.8 -5.8 -11.5 -14.1 -21.3 -28.7 -44.4 -64.5 -85.6 Leq,d 16.0 -30.7 -24.8 -21.0 -8.3 -3.5 -9.7 -1.9 -0.1 -1.4 0.4 0.2 1.9 2.6 3.2 6.7 8.1 3.4 6.6 7.2 4.2 3.8 -1.2 -3.1 -9.3 -15.6 -27.5 -45.4 -64.7 -90.8 Leq,d 18.1 -31.6 -25.6 -21.6 -8.6 -3.7 -9.7 -1.7 0.3 -0.8 1.2 1.2 3.1 4.0 5.0 8.9 10.6 6.4 8.2 9.2 6.6 6.7 2.2 1.1 -4.2 -9.3 -21.2 -37.5 -55.1 -79.6 Leq,d 27.6 -21.7 -15.6 -11.7 1.3 6.3 0.2 8.4 10.3 9.2 11.0 10.9 12.8 13.7 14.5 18.3 20.0 15.7 17.4 18.3 15.7 15.9 12.0 11.8 8.1 5.8 -2.2 -11.4 -19.0 -30.2 -45.0 Leq,d 27.8 -23.8 -17.8 -13.8 -0.8 4.1 -1.9 6.2 8.1 7.1 9.0 9.1 11.0 13.3 14.3 18.2 20.0 15.9 17.8 18.9 16.5 17.1 13.4 14.4 10.7 8.2 -0.4 -10.3 -18.8 -31.4 -47.9 Leq,d 24.0 -26.4 -20.4 -16.4 -3.4 1.6 -4.4 3.6 5.5 4.5 6.5 6.5 8.4 9.4 10.4 14.3 16.1 12.0 13.9 15.0 12.7 13.2 9.5 9.3 5.5 2.7 -6.4 -17.5 -27.9 -43.0 -62.9 Leq,d 22.0 -28.6 -22.8 -19.0 -6.3 -1.5 -7.7 0.2 1.9 0.7 2.4 2.3 4.0 4.6 5.3 8.8 14.2 11.2 13.7 14.6 11.9 12.0 7.6 6.6 1.6 -3.1 -14.9 -29.7 -45.3 -67.3 -95.6 Leq,d 21.4 -25.4 -19.6 -15.8 -3.0 1.7 -4.5 3.3 5.0 3.7 5.4 5.2 6.9 7.7 8.3 11.9 13.4 10.2 11.6 12.3 9.4 9.3 4.7 3.6 -1.4 -5.5 -16.1 -28.6 -40.4 -57.2 -78.9 Leq,d 27.6 -23.2 -17.2 -13.2 -0.2 4.8 -1.2 6.8 8.7 7.7 9.7 9.7 11.7 12.6 13.6 18.0 19.8 15.8 17.7 18.7 16.4 17.0 13.3 13.4 10.0 8.0 0.0 -9.4 -17.3 -29.2 -45.1 Leq,d 15.9 -34.4 -28.4 -24.4 -11.4 -6.5 -12.5 -4.5 -2.6 -3.7 -1.7 -1.8 0.1 1.0 1.9 5.8 7.4 5.4 7.0 7.9 5.0 4.7 -0.4 -2.6 -9.4 -16.7 -32.6 -53.3 -77.1 Leq,d 25.6 -25.6 -19.6 -15.6 -2.6 2.4 -3.6 4.4 6.4 5.3 7.3 7.4 9.3 10.3 11.3 15.3 17.2 13.7 15.7 16.9 14.7 15.4 11.8 12.0 8.6 6.6 -1.5 -10.8 -19.6 -33.7 -52.2 Leq,d 28.3 -17.6 -16.4 -12.4 0.6 5.6 -0.4 7.7 9.6 8.6 10.5 10.5 12.5 13.5 14.4 18.4 20.5 16.4 18.3 19.4 17.1 17.7 14.1 14.3 11.1 9.2 1.4 -7.6 -15.0 -26.3 -41.3 Leq,d 29.6 -20.4 -14.3 -10.4 2.6 7.6 1.6 9.8 11.7 10.6 12.4 12.4 14.3 15.2 16.2 20.0 21.8 17.6 19.4 20.4 17.9 18.4 14.7 14.7 11.4 9.4 1.8 -6.8 -13.6 -23.8 -37.5 Leq,d 29.7 -21.5 -15.5 -11.5 1.5 6.5 0.5 8.7 10.6 9.6 11.4 11.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 19.5 21.6 17.5 19.5 20.8 18.6 19.4 16.0 16.5 13.7 12.3 5.3 -2.7 -8.8 -18.1 -30.5 Leq,d 32.4 -18.7 -12.7 -8.7 4.3 9.3 3.3 11.6 13.6 12.5 14.2 14.3 16.2 17.2 18.2 22.2 24.2 20.1 22.1 23.3 21.3 22.1 18.8 19.3 16.6 15.4 8.8 1.3 -4.0 -12.5 -24.0 Leq,d 29.1 -22.3 -16.2 -12.2 0.8 5.7 -0.3 7.8 9.8 8.7 10.7 10.7 12.7 13.7 14.7 19.2 21.1 17.1 19.0 20.2 18.0 18.7 15.3 15.6 12.5 10.8 3.3 -5.2 -12.1 -22.6 -36.6 Leq,d 27.8 -22.8 -16.8 -12.8 0.1 5.1 -1.0 7.1 9.0 7.8 9.7 9.7 11.5 12.4 13.2 18.4 20.6 16.4 18.0 18.9 16.4 16.7 12.6 12.2 8.2 7.5 -1.4 -11.8 -20.8 -33.6 -50.2 Leq,d 27.8 -24.6 -18.5 -14.6 -1.6 3.4 -2.6 5.4 7.4 6.3 8.3 8.3 10.3 12.6 13.6 17.5 20.3 16.4 18.2 19.3 17.0 17.5 13.6 13.5 9.7 7.1 -1.5 -11.6 -20.5 -33.6 -50.7 Leq,d 23.3 -26.8 -20.8 -16.8 -3.8 1.1 -4.9 3.1 5.1 4.0 6.0 6.0 7.9 8.9 9.8 13.7 15.5 11.4 13.2 14.5 12.0 12.4 8.4 8.0 3.8 0.7 -8.9 -20.6 -31.7 -47.8 -68.8 Leq,d 28.5 -23.1 -17.1 -13.1 -0.1 4.9 -1.1 6.9 8.9 7.8 9.8 9.8 11.8 12.7 13.7 17.6 20.8 16.7 18.6 19.8 17.5 18.2 14.6 14.8 11.5 9.5 1.4 -8.4 -16.9 -29.1 -45.1 SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 4 170 Units Date Palm Dr Cathedral City Noise
Contribution spectra - 001 - Date Palm Apartments: Outdoor SP 23 Time
slice
Sum
dB(A)
25Hz
dB(A)

31.5Hz
dB(A)
40Hz
dB(A)
50Hz
dB(A)
63Hz
dB(A)
80Hz
dB(A)
100Hz
dB(A)
125Hz
dB(A)
160Hz
dB(A)
200Hz
dB(A)
250Hz
dB(A)
315Hz
dB(A)
400Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
630Hz
dB(A)
800Hz
dB(A)
1kHz
dB(A)

1.25kHz
dB(A)

1.6kHz
dB(A)
2kHz
dB(A)

2.5kHz
dB(A)

3.15kHz
dB(A)
4kHz
dB(A)
5kHz
dB(A)

6.3kHz
dB(A)
8kHz
dB(A)
10kHz
dB(A)

12.5kHz
dB(A)
16kHz
dB(A)
20kHz
dB(A)
Leq,d 24.8 -26.0 -20.0 -16.0 -3.0 1.9 -4.1 4.0 5.9 4.8 6.8 6.9 8.8 9.8 10.8 14.7 16.6 13.2 15.1 16.2 13.9 14.4 10.6 10.4 6.6 3.8 -5.2 -15.9 -25.9 -40.5 -59.6 Leq,d 27.2 -24.0 -18.0 -14.0 -1.0 3.9 -2.1 6.0 7.9 6.9 8.9 8.9 10.9 11.8 13.5 17.3 19.6 15.5 17.3 18.4 16.1 16.6 12.9 13.0 9.5 7.3 -0.9 -10.5 -18.9 -31.3 -47.8 Receiver R3 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 42.5 dB(A)
Leq,d 11.9 -0.5 5.5 -6.6 -0.4 3.5 7.8 1.9 -18.3 -69.2
Leq,d 5.6 -3.7 2.0 -9.1 -3.9 -4.5 -2.8 -6.4 -30.6 -91.8 Leq,d 4.3 -4.4 1.0 -10.3 -5.7 -6.2 -4.6 -9.1 -34.0 -92.1 Leq,d 4.1 -4.2 1.4 -10.2 -8.4 -5.8 -6.8 -9.8 -35.1 -86.9 Leq,d 5.1 -3.6 2.1 -9.0 -5.9 -3.4 -5.1 -14.7 -38.6 -91.6 Leq,d 12.6 -1.4 4.3 -7.9 0.3 6.1 8.9 2.6 -17.7 -69.6
Leq,d 2.1 -7.3 -1.8 -14.4 -12.7 -7.7 -3.9 -10.5 -30.7 -67.6 Leq,d 17.2 0.3 9.4 -0.7 7.1 11.7 12.3 7.1 -8.0 -46.5
Leq,d 18.0 2.7 10.9 -0.6 7.0 12.2 13.1 7.4 -9.1 -49.4
Leq,d 18.0 2.2 10.6 -0.4 6.9 12.6 13.1 7.4 -9.2 -50.7
Leq,d 21.4 3.8 14.5 5.0 11.3 15.5 16.1 11.5 -1.6 -34.5
Leq,d -1.4 -9.4 -3.8 -14.5 -12.6 -12.2 -13.8 -23.9 -49.0 Leq,d 4.5 -4.4 2.6 -11.5 -8.5 -6.6 -8.0 -15.0 -32.1 -73.0 Leq,d -4.0 -11.5 -6.6 -18.3 -16.8 -13.7 -14.9 -23.0 -42.5 -89.0 Leq,d -1.8 -10.0 -4.3 -14.8 -13.1 -12.1 -14.1 -23.6 -46.5 Leq,d -7.7 -14.6 -9.9 -20.7 -19.3 -21.4 -23.3 -31.5 -55.0 Leq,d 20.6 5.3 14.1 3.0 10.6 14.5 15.1 10.7 -1.3 -29.8
Leq,d 5.3 -3.7 2.1 -7.7 -5.8 -3.5 -4.8 -10.6 -36.6 -93.8 Leq,d 8.1 -2.1 4.3 -8.8 -5.6 -1.2 2.2 -6.0 -28.2 -77.5
Leq,d 9.9 -0.4 6.2 -6.5 -2.4 1.5 3.3 -4.5 -26.3 -77.5
Leq,d 10.4 -0.2 6.6 -4.8 -1.6 2.4 3.5 -3.6 -24.8 -76.1
Leq,d 16.2 1.4 7.7 -5.2 5.7 10.8 11.3 7.0 -7.5 -44.3
Leq,d 16.3 -31.8 -25.8 -21.8 -8.9 -3.9 -10.0 -2.0 -0.1 -1.3 0.6 0.5 2.3 3.1 3.9 7.6 9.1 4.6 6.0 6.6 3.5 3.2 -1.8 -3.6 -9.5 -15.3 -28.7 -45.5 -63.7 -89.0 Leq,d 19.8 -30.9 -24.8 -20.8 -7.8 -2.9 -8.9 -0.9 1.1 0.0 2.0 2.0 3.9 4.9 5.9 9.8 11.5 7.4 10.2 11.3 8.7 9.0 6.8 5.8 0.8 -3.8 -15.8 -30.8 -46.6 -69.0 -98.0 Leq,d 18.8 -27.8 -22.0 -18.2 -5.3 -0.6 -6.7 1.1 2.9 1.6 3.3 3.2 4.9 5.7 6.4 10.0 11.4 6.9 8.3 8.8 5.8 5.6 0.8 2.1 -3.3 -8.3 -20.3 -34.9 -49.4 -69.5 -95.2 Leq,d 16.4 -32.1 -26.1 -22.1 -9.2 -4.2 -10.3 -2.3 -0.4 -1.5 0.4 0.4 2.2 3.0 3.9 7.6 9.1 4.7 6.2 6.9 3.9 3.6 -1.3 -3.0 -9.0 -15.0 -28.5 -45.7 -64.5 -90.6 Leq,d 24.1 -29.4 -23.3 -19.3 -6.3 -1.3 -7.3 0.7 2.7 1.7 3.7 3.8 5.9 6.9 8.1 12.2 14.2 10.5 14.8 16.5 14.8 15.7 11.6 10.8 6.2 2.1 -8.8 -22.4 -36.1 -55.7 -81.1 Leq,d 21.5 -25.1 -19.2 -15.4 -2.5 2.2 -4.0 3.8 5.5 4.2 5.6 5.5 7.2 8.1 8.8 12.5 14.1 9.6 11.1 11.8 8.9 8.9 4.4 3.5 -0.6 -4.5 -15.2 -27.8 -40.0 -57.3 -79.6 Leq,d 16.8 -29.0 -23.2 -19.5 -6.8 -2.1 -8.3 -0.6 1.1 -0.2 1.4 1.2 3.0 3.8 4.5 8.1 9.6 5.0 6.4 7.0 3.9 3.5 -1.5 -3.1 -9.0 -14.5 -27.5 -43.7 -61.1 -85.3 Leq,d 23.1 -30.8 -24.8 -20.8 -7.8 -2.8 -8.7 -0.6 1.4 0.4 2.5 2.6 4.8 6.0 7.3 11.7 14.2 11.2 14.8 15.8 13.2 13.4 9.0 8.0 2.9 -1.8 -13.8 -28.8 -44.7 -67.2 -96.3 Leq,d 26.1 -25.7 -19.7 -15.7 -2.7 2.3 -3.7 4.1 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.9 9.4 10.3 14.2 16.7 12.6 15.7 19.0 17.1 17.4 13.3 12.8 8.3 4.5 -6.0 -19.0 -31.9 -50.6 -74.7 Leq,d 16.4 -31.6 -25.6 -21.6 -8.6 -3.7 -9.8 -1.8 0.1 -1.1 0.8 0.7 2.5 3.3 4.1 7.7 9.2 4.7 6.1 6.7 3.6 3.2 -1.7 -3.4 -9.3 -15.0 -28.2 -44.7 -62.5 -87.3 Leq,d 19.1 -30.9 -24.8 -20.8 -7.8 -2.9 -8.9 -0.9 1.1 0.0 2.0 2.0 3.9 4.9 5.8 9.7 11.5 7.4 9.2 10.2 7.7 8.0 3.7 2.8 -2.1 -6.7 -18.5 -33.4 -46.7 -69.1 -98.1 SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 5 170 Units Date Palm Dr Cathedral City Noise
Contribution spectra - 001 - Date Palm Apartments: Outdoor SP 23 Time
slice
Sum
dB(A)
25Hz
dB(A)

31.5Hz
dB(A)
40Hz
dB(A)
50Hz
dB(A)
63Hz
dB(A)
80Hz
dB(A)
100Hz
dB(A)
125Hz
dB(A)
160Hz
dB(A)
200Hz
dB(A)
250Hz
dB(A)
315Hz
dB(A)
400Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
630Hz
dB(A)
800Hz
dB(A)
1kHz
dB(A)

1.25kHz
dB(A)

1.6kHz
dB(A)
2kHz
dB(A)

2.5kHz
dB(A)

3.15kHz
dB(A)
4kHz
dB(A)
5kHz
dB(A)

6.3kHz
dB(A)
8kHz
dB(A)
10kHz
dB(A)

12.5kHz
dB(A)
16kHz
dB(A)
20kHz
dB(A)
Leq,d 20.1 -26.8 -20.9 -17.1 -4.3 0.4 -5.8 1.9 3.6 2.3 3.8 3.6 5.3 6.1 6.7 10.3 11.8 7.2 10.2 10.9 8.0 10.1 5.4 3.9 -1.7 -7.1 -19.5 -34.3 -48.7 -68.4 -93.6 Leq,d 24.5 -23.3 -17.3 -13.4 -0.4 4.5 -1.6 6.3 8.1 6.9 8.0 7.9 9.7 10.8 11.5 15.2 17.1 12.7 14.4 15.1 12.3 12.3 7.9 7.2 2.7 -0.7 -10.4 -22.0 -32.9 -48.6 -68.9 Leq,d 30.1 -20.7 -14.7 -10.7 2.3 7.2 1.2 9.5 11.4 10.3 12.2 12.2 14.2 15.1 16.1 20.1 22.0 17.9 19.9 21.0 18.8 19.8 16.3 16.5 13.5 11.8 4.5 -3.8 -10.3 -20.3 -33.8 Leq,d 30.0 -16.1 -14.8 -10.9 2.1 7.1 1.1 9.3 11.2 10.2 12.0 12.1 14.0 15.0 16.0 19.9 21.9 17.8 19.8 20.9 18.7 19.6 16.1 16.5 13.4 11.8 4.4 -3.9 -10.4 -20.5 -34.0 Leq,d 27.5 -22.4 -16.4 -12.4 0.6 5.5 -0.5 7.6 9.5 8.4 10.3 10.3 12.2 13.1 14.0 17.8 19.6 15.3 17.2 18.1 16.5 16.9 12.8 12.5 8.6 6.0 -2.4 -11.9 -19.9 -31.6 -47.1 Leq,d 22.5 -24.9 -19.1 -15.3 -2.5 2.3 -3.9 3.9 5.6 4.4 6.0 5.8 7.5 8.3 8.9 12.5 14.0 11.0 12.7 13.8 11.6 11.7 7.2 6.1 1.1 -3.2 -14.0 -26.6 -38.1 -54.0 -74.6 Leq,d 34.1 -19.4 -13.3 -9.3 3.7 8.7 2.7 11.0 13.0 12.0 13.8 13.9 15.9 17.0 18.2 22.3 24.5 20.7 23.1 24.9 23.6 25.9 22.6 23.1 20.4 19.1 12.3 4.6 -1.1 -10.0 -22.1 Leq,d 34.1 -19.4 -13.4 -9.4 3.6 8.6 2.6 10.9 12.9 11.9 13.7 13.8 15.9 17.0 18.1 22.2 24.4 20.8 23.3 25.0 23.8 25.9 22.6 23.1 20.3 19.0 12.1 4.4 -1.3 -10.2 -22.4 Leq,d 30.0 -24.8 -18.7 -14.7 -1.7 3.4 -2.6 5.6 7.6 6.7 8.9 9.3 11.6 13.1 14.9 19.5 22.5 18.4 20.4 21.6 19.3 19.9 16.2 16.3 12.8 10.5 2.1 -7.9 -16.9 -30.2 -47.7 Leq,d 17.1 -31.5 -25.5 -21.5 -8.5 -3.6 -9.6 -1.6 0.3 -0.8 1.1 1.0 2.9 3.7 4.6 8.3 9.9 5.5 7.0 7.7 4.8 4.6 -0.2 -1.8 -7.5 -13.1 -26.1 -42.4 -60.0 -84.6 Leq,d 22.5 -28.8 -22.7 -18.7 -5.7 -0.8 -6.7 1.3 3.2 2.2 4.2 4.3 6.2 7.2 8.3 12.3 14.2 10.2 12.6 13.8 11.6 12.4 8.9 9.3 6.3 2.9 -7.4 -20.2 -33.1 -51.6 -75.6 Leq,d 27.2 -20.7 -14.8 -11.0 1.8 6.6 0.4 8.4 10.1 8.9 10.5 10.5 12.3 13.2 14.1 17.8 19.6 15.3 16.9 17.8 15.3 15.6 11.6 11.4 7.8 5.4 -2.9 -12.4 -20.4 -32.2 -47.8 Leq,d 19.1 -30.8 -24.7 -20.8 -7.8 -2.8 -8.8 -0.8 1.1 0.1 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.9 5.9 9.8 11.5 7.3 9.1 10.2 7.6 7.8 3.5 2.6 -2.4 -6.9 -18.9 -33.9 -49.9 -72.3 Leq,d 25.7 -28.2 -22.1 -18.1 -5.1 -0.1 -6.0 2.1 4.1 3.1 5.2 5.4 7.5 8.8 10.2 14.6 17.2 14.3 16.8 17.9 15.5 16.0 12.0 11.7 7.5 4.1 -5.9 -18.3 -30.5 -48.1 -71.0 Leq,d 18.1 -28.4 -22.5 -18.7 -5.9 -1.2 -7.5 0.1 1.8 0.5 1.9 1.8 3.5 4.4 5.1 8.7 10.3 5.8 7.2 9.3 6.3 6.9 1.9 0.1 -5.8 -11.8 -25.1 -41.3 -58.3 -81.8 Leq,d 24.8 -28.6 -22.6 -18.6 -5.6 -0.6 -6.5 1.5 3.5 2.5 4.6 4.7 6.8 8.0 9.2 13.5 15.8 12.3 15.3 17.4 15.0 15.4 11.5 11.2 6.8 7.2 -3.1 -15.8 -28.6 -47.0 -70.9 Leq,d 20.6 -25.5 -19.7 -15.9 -3.1 1.6 -4.6 3.1 4.9 3.6 5.0 4.8 6.5 7.3 7.9 11.4 12.9 8.3 9.6 11.7 8.7 8.5 3.8 2.5 -2.7 -7.1 -17.8 -30.5 -42.7 -60.1 -82.5 Leq,d 22.6 -26.9 -20.9 -17.0 -4.1 0.8 -5.2 2.5 4.4 3.2 4.3 4.2 6.1 7.2 8.1 11.8 13.8 10.1 14.0 14.9 12.2 12.3 7.9 6.9 1.8 -2.8 -14.5 -28.8 -43.5 -64.1 -90.7 Leq,d 20.0 -28.3 -22.2 -18.3 -5.3 -0.4 -6.4 1.6 3.4 2.3 4.2 4.1 5.9 6.7 7.5 11.1 12.7 8.2 9.7 10.3 7.4 7.3 2.8 1.7 -3.2 -7.3 -18.1 -31.3 -44.3 -62.8 -86.6 Leq,d 17.5 -29.1 -23.2 -19.4 -6.6 -1.8 -8.0 -0.3 1.4 0.1 1.6 1.4 3.2 4.0 4.7 8.3 9.8 5.2 6.6 8.6 5.6 5.3 1.8 0.2 -5.6 -11.6 -25.5 -42.4 -60.0 -84.0 Leq,d 25.3 -23.8 -17.8 -13.9 -0.9 4.0 -2.0 5.8 7.7 6.6 7.5 7.4 9.2 10.5 11.2 14.9 18.2 13.9 15.5 16.4 13.9 14.3 10.5 10.4 6.0 2.2 -8.2 -20.8 -33.2 -50.5 -72.5 Leq,d 17.9 -29.9 -23.9 -19.9 -6.9 -2.0 -8.1 -0.1 1.7 0.5 2.4 2.2 3.9 4.7 5.4 8.9 10.3 5.7 7.1 9.0 6.0 5.6 0.7 -1.0 -6.4 -11.8 -24.1 -38.8 -54.0 -75.2 Leq,d 16.1 -30.3 -24.4 -20.6 -7.8 -3.0 -9.2 -1.4 0.4 -0.9 0.8 0.7 2.4 3.2 3.9 7.5 8.9 4.3 5.7 6.2 3.1 2.6 -2.4 -4.2 -9.1 -15.4 -29.0 -45.7 -63.6 -88.5 Leq,d 26.0 -22.0 -16.2 -12.4 0.4 5.2 -0.9 7.0 8.8 7.6 9.3 9.2 11.0 11.9 12.7 16.4 18.1 13.7 15.7 16.4 15.3 15.5 11.3 10.7 6.4 3.3 -5.8 -16.0 -24.8 -37.6 -54.3 Leq,d 25.4 -21.7 -15.9 -12.1 0.7 5.5 -0.7 7.2 8.9 7.7 9.3 9.2 11.0 11.8 12.6 16.3 18.0 13.6 15.1 15.9 13.1 13.3 9.2 8.7 4.8 2.1 -6.6 -16.8 -25.6 -38.4 -55.2 Leq,d 26.2 -24.6 -18.6 -14.6 -1.6 3.4 -2.6 5.4 7.3 6.3 8.3 8.3 10.3 11.3 12.3 16.2 18.1 14.0 16.2 17.4 15.1 15.8 12.2 12.3 8.9 6.8 -1.4 -11.0 -19.5 -32.1 -48.8 Leq,d 15.9 -32.6 -26.6 -22.6 -9.6 -4.7 -10.7 -2.7 -0.8 -2.0 0.0 -0.1 1.7 2.6 3.4 7.1 8.6 4.2 5.7 6.4 3.4 3.0 -2.0 -3.9 -10.1 -16.3 -30.2 -48.1 -67.7 -94.9 Leq,d 16.2 -31.9 -25.9 -21.9 -9.0 -4.1 -10.1 -2.1 -0.3 -1.4 0.4 0.3 2.1 2.9 3.6 7.2 8.7 4.1 5.5 7.6 4.5 4.0 -1.2 -3.2 -9.7 -15.9 -29.6 -46.7 -65.2 -90.7 Leq,d 25.3 -25.3 -19.3 -15.3 -2.3 2.7 -3.3 4.7 6.6 5.6 7.6 7.6 9.6 10.6 11.5 15.5 17.3 13.2 15.4 16.5 14.2 14.8 11.1 11.1 7.5 5.0 -3.6 -13.8 -23.1 -36.8 -54.9 Leq,d 24.3 -27.2 -21.2 -17.2 -4.2 0.8 -5.2 2.8 4.7 3.7 5.7 5.7 7.7 8.6 9.6 13.6 16.8 12.7 14.6 15.8 13.5 14.1 10.3 10.1 6.3 3.4 -6.2 -18.2 -29.5 -45.7 -66.7 Leq,d 26.2 -26.0 -20.0 -16.0 -3.0 2.0 -4.0 4.0 5.9 4.9 6.9 6.9 8.9 9.8 10.8 16.5 18.4 14.3 16.3 17.5 15.3 16.0 12.5 12.8 9.3 6.3 -3.1 -14.3 -24.8 -39.7 -59.0 Leq,d 23.8 -27.6 -21.6 -17.6 -4.6 0.3 -5.7 2.3 4.3 3.2 5.2 5.2 7.2 8.2 9.1 13.1 16.3 12.3 14.2 15.3 12.9 13.4 9.5 9.2 5.4 2.1 -7.6 -20.1 -32.1 -49.2 -71.2 Leq,d 17.7 -30.3 -24.3 -20.3 -7.4 -2.5 -8.5 -0.5 1.3 0.1 2.0 1.9 3.6 4.4 5.1 8.7 10.2 5.6 7.0 8.8 5.8 5.4 0.4 -1.3 -7.1 -12.5 -24.8 -40.0 -55.8 -77.8 Leq,d 25.7 -23.7 -17.8 -13.9 -1.0 3.8 -2.4 5.4 7.1 5.8 7.0 6.8 8.5 9.4 10.1 13.7 19.0 14.7 16.3 17.2 14.7 14.9 10.8 10.2 5.9 2.3 -7.9 -20.4 -32.6 -49.8 -71.5 Leq,d 19.0 -28.2 -22.4 -18.6 -5.8 -1.0 -7.2 0.6 2.3 1.1 2.7 2.5 4.3 5.0 5.6 9.2 10.6 7.4 8.9 11.0 8.1 7.8 2.8 1.1 -4.9 -10.5 -23.0 -37.9 -52.9 -73.8 Leq,d 16.2 -30.3 -24.5 -20.7 -7.8 -3.0 -9.2 -1.4 0.4 -0.8 0.9 0.8 2.5 3.2 3.9 7.5 8.9 4.4 5.7 6.2 3.9 3.4 -1.8 -3.7 -8.9 -15.2 -28.7 -45.3 -63.0 -87.6 SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 6 170 Units Date Palm Dr Cathedral City Noise
Contribution spectra - 001 - Date Palm Apartments: Outdoor SP 23 Time
slice
Sum
dB(A)
25Hz
dB(A)

31.5Hz
dB(A)
40Hz
dB(A)
50Hz
dB(A)
63Hz
dB(A)
80Hz
dB(A)
100Hz
dB(A)
125Hz
dB(A)
160Hz
dB(A)
200Hz
dB(A)
250Hz
dB(A)
315Hz
dB(A)
400Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
630Hz
dB(A)
800Hz
dB(A)
1kHz
dB(A)

1.25kHz
dB(A)

1.6kHz
dB(A)
2kHz
dB(A)

2.5kHz
dB(A)

3.15kHz
dB(A)
4kHz
dB(A)
5kHz
dB(A)

6.3kHz
dB(A)
8kHz
dB(A)
10kHz
dB(A)

12.5kHz
dB(A)
16kHz
dB(A)
20kHz
dB(A)
Leq,d 17.8 -30.1 -24.1 -20.1 -7.1 -2.2 -8.3 -0.3 1.5 0.3 2.2 2.0 3.8 4.5 5.2 8.8 10.2 5.6 6.9 8.8 5.8 5.4 0.5 -1.2 -7.0 -12.3 -24.6 -39.5 -55.0 -76.5 Leq,d 16.1 -30.2 -24.4 -20.6 -7.8 -3.0 -9.2 -1.4 0.4 -0.9 0.8 0.6 2.4 3.1 3.8 7.4 8.9 4.3 5.7 6.2 3.1 2.6 -2.4 -4.2 -9.3 -15.6 -29.2 -46.1 -64.3 -89.5 Leq,d 30.1 -23.8 -17.8 -13.8 -0.8 4.2 -1.7 6.3 8.3 7.3 9.4 9.6 11.7 12.8 14.1 18.3 20.6 17.2 20.1 22.6 20.4 21.0 17.4 17.6 14.3 12.2 4.2 -5.3 -13.4 -25.7 -42.0 SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 7 Project: Sound Library
Job Number: 0000-2020-02
Site Address/Location: Gilbert, AZ
Date: 09/18/2018
Field Tech/Engineer: Robert Pearson
Source/System: Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 Ton
General Location: Measured @ 3'
Sound Meter: NTi XL2 SN: A2A-05967-E0
Settings: A-weighted, slow, 1-sec, 10-sec duration
Meteorological Cond.: 90 degrees, 0 mph wind
Table 1: Summary Measurement Data
Figure 1: Commercial Air Conditioner - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 Ton Acoustic Spectrum - Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 Ton Site Observations:

Clear sky, measurements were performed at 3ft from source.

Leq Lmin Lmax

67.7 66.9 68.5
Ln 2 Ln 8 Ln 25 Ln 50 Ln 90 Ln 99

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Source/System Overall Source Overall
dB(A)
3rd Octave Band Data (dBA)
20 25 31.5 40 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1k 12.5k1.6k 2k 2.5k 3.15k 4k 5k 6.3k 8k 10k 12.5k16k 20k Carrier 50TFQ0006 - 5 Ton HVAC 67.7 11.0 14.0 20.0 24.0 37.0 42.0 36.0 47.0 49.0 48.0 50.0 50.0 52.0 53.0 54.0 58.0 59.0 55.0 57.0 58.0 56.0 57.0 54.0 55.0 53.0 53.0 48.0 43.0 41.0 37.0 31.0 20 40 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k 16k
Freq (Hz)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Sound Pressure Level, dBA
www.mdacoustics.com
AZ Office
4960 S. Gilbert Rd, Ste 1-461
Chandler, AZ 85249
p. (602) 774-1950
CA Office
1197 Los Angeles Ave, Ste C-256
Simi Valley, CA 93065
p. (805) 426-4477
Project: Car idle Ref Level Site Observations:

Site Location: Gilbert, AZ
Date: 9/18/2018
Field Tech/Engineer: Robert Pearson
Source/System: Hyundai Sonata
Location: Parking Lot
Sound Meter: NTi XL2 SN: A2A-05967-E0
Settings: A-weighted, slow, 1-sec, 10-sec duration
Meteorological Cond.: 90 degrees F, 0 mph wind
20 25 32 40 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K3.15K 4K 5K 6.3K 8K 10K 12.5K 16K 20K Hyundai Sonata Motor/Tailpipe 58.7 13 32 15 21 36 37 39 37 41 38 44 39 41 45 45 49 47 47 48 46 49 50 47 45 42 39 37 34 32 30 29 Clear sky, measurements were performed at 3ft of source. Two measurments taken one in the front and one in the back and then Averaged out.

Table 1: Summary Measurement Data
Source System
Overall
dB(A)
3rd Octave Band Data (dBA)
Figure 1: Example Measurement Position
0 10
20 30
40 50
60dBA
Freq (Hz)
Car @ 3ft
Car Idle Data Sheet
The Wren Multiple-Family Development Project
Appendix G-1
The Wren Project Transportation Analysis
Integrated Engineering Group
July 2024
The Wren Project
Transportation Analysis
Prepared for:

Coachella Valley Community Development Group
36101 Bob Hope Drive, Suite E5
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Prepared by:
23905 Clinton Keith Road, 114-280
Wildomar, CA 92595
July 2024
Wren Project TA Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this transportation analysis (TA) report is to identify and document potential traffic deficiencies related to The Wren project (Project) in Cathedral City, according to the County of Riverside Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service (LOS) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), December 2020 (Guidelines). This technical report will also recommend transportation improvements to address potential project deficiencies at local and regional transportation facilities.

Project Overview
The Project will be developed on a vacant site located on the northeast corner of Date Palm Drive and future Rosemount Road extension. The Project is proposing the construction of 204 multi-family (lowrise) dwelling units.

Under existing conditions, Rosemount Road does not extend to Date Palm Drive. The Project will be conditioned to construct half-width roadway improvement along the property frontage on Rosemount Road including curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving. Therefore, access to the Project site will be provided via one proposed driveway along Rosemount Road extension and one existing driveway along Date Palm Drive through an access easement to the adjacent Northgate Community Church site. Additionally, the Project will construct a traffic signal at the new intersection of Rosemount Road and Date Palm Drive.

The Project trip generation was calculated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition). It is estimated that the Project will generate 1,375 total daily trips, 81 AM peak hour trips and 104 PM peak hour trips. Project trip distribution and assignment were developed, in coordination with the Cathedral City staff, based on the land use characteristics of the Project and surrounding area, existing travel patterns within the study area, anticipated travel patterns to and from the Project site, and approved projects located in the vicinity of the Project site. Analysis scenarios and study area were then established in coordination with City staff to determine the potential project deficiencies on the transportation network. Refer to Appendix A for approved scoping agreement.

Analysis Scenarios:
•
•
•
•
•
Existing Conditions Year 2023
Project Completion Year 2025 (Existing plus Ambient plus Project) Cumulative Year 2025 (Existing plus Ambient plus Cumulative plus Project) Horizon Year 2045 No Project Conditions
Horizon Year Plus Project Conditions
Study Area Intersections:

1. Date Palm Drive and McCallum Way

2. Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road

3. Date Palm Drive and 30th Avenue
Study Roadway Segments:

1. Date Palm Drive, McCallum Way to Rosemount Road

2. Date Palm Drive, Rosemount Road to 30th Avenue
i
Wren Project TA Executive Summary
Analysis Results and Recommendations
Existing Year 2023
All study area intersections operate at acceptable level of service (LOS) under Existing Year 2023.

Additionally, all roadway segments have capacity at an acceptable LOS under Existing Year 2023.

Therefore, no improvements are required by this Project.

Project Completion Year 2025
All study area intersections operate at acceptable LOS under Project Completion Year 2025 Conditions. Additionally, all roadway segments have capacity at an acceptable LOS under Project Completion Year 2025. Therefore, no improvements are required by this Project.

Cumulative Year 2025
All study area intersections operate at acceptable LOS under Cumulative Year 2025 Conditions.

Additionally, all roadway segments have capacity at an acceptable LOS under Cumulative Year 2026 Conditions. Therefore, no improvements are required by this Project.

Horizon Year 2045 Scenario
All study area intersections operate at acceptable LOS under Horizon Year 2045 No Project and Horizon Year Plus Project Conditions. Additionally, all roadway segments have capacity at an acceptable LOS under Horizon Year 2045 No Project and Horizon Year Plus Project Conditions.

Therefore, no improvements are required by this Project.

Recommended Improvements
The proposed traffic signal at the new intersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road will be constructed by whichever project completes their final phase first between Date Palm Drive Mixed Use, the Wren Project, and the Future Shopping Center west of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road intersection. The City of Cathedral City Transportation Department staff has requested a fair share assessment to determine the percentage of new traffic volumes added to the intersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road. The three proposed developments are expected to add a total of 12,166 ADTs to the subject intersection. The three projects will contribute to the funding of this transportation improvement based on their portion of total ADT generated as follows:

1. Wren Development is projected to add 1,375 ADTs (13.43%),

2. Date Plam Mixed Use is projected to add 1,668 ADTs (16.29%)

3. Future Shopping Center to the west of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road intersection is projected to add 7,199 ADTs (70.29%)
Project will be conditioned to construct the signal and ensure full signal operation prior to the issuance of project first certificate of occupancy.

Table ES-1 shows the project fair contribution toward the construction of the new signalized intersection at Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road.
ii
Wren Project TA Executive Summary
Table 6-1
Project Feature Contributions
Project Project ADT Project Share %
Wren Project
Date Palm Drive Mixed Use1
Future Shopping Center
1,375
1,668
7,199
12,116

13.43%

16.29%

1. Northbound – three thru lanes, one left turn lane and one exclusive right turn lane

2. Southbound – three thru lanes, one left turn lane and one exclusive right turn lane

3. Eastbound – one left turn lane and one thru-right turn lane

4. Westbound – one left turn lane, one thru lane and one exclusive right turn lane VMT Screening Assessment
The Project is not anticipated to result in a significant transportation impact related to VMT under Base Year 2018, Opening Year 2025, or Horizon Year 2045 scenarios. VMT analysis is provided in a separate document.
iii
The Wren TA Table of Content
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................................................I Purpose of the Report.....................................................................................................................................i Project Overview.............................................................................................................................................i Analysis Results and Recommendations........................................................................................................ii

1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................................1 STUDY AREA ..........................................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION.......................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT.............................................................................................................2 PROJECT ACCESS .....................................................................................................................................................2 PARKING ...............................................................................................................................................................2

2.0 METHODOLOGIES ....................................................................................................................................... 6 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS ...............................................................................................................................................6 STUDY TIME PERIODS...............................................................................................................................................6 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES ......................................................................................................................................6 Intersection Capacity Analysis .......................................................................................................................7 Signalized Intersections..........................................................................................................................................7 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis .....................................................................................................................8 City of Cathedral City 2040 General Plan Compliance ...................................................................................9

3.0 EXISTING YEAR 2023 .................................................................................................................................10 ROADWAY NETWORK.............................................................................................................................................10 TRANSIT SYSTEM...................................................................................................................................................10 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ............................................................................................................................10 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................................................................................10 ANALYSIS RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................11

4.0 PROJECT COMPLETION YEAR 2025 CONDITIONS................................................................................................15 ANALYSIS RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................15

5.0 CUMULATIVE YEAR 2025 CONDITIONS............................................................................................................18 ANALYSIS RESULTS AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................................................20

6.0 HORIZON YEAR 2045 CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................23 ANALYSIS RESULTS AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................................................24

7.0 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED............................................................................................................................29 SB 743...............................................................................................................................................................29 VMT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES....................................................................................................................................29 i
The Wren TA Table of Content
List of Figures
FIGURE 1-1 – PROJECT SITE PLAN ..................................................................................................................................3 FIGURE 1-2 – PROJECT STUDY AREA AND TRIP DISTRIBUTION ..............................................................................................4 FIGURE 1-3 – PROJECT VOLUMES...................................................................................................................................5 FIGURE 3-1 – CATHEDRAL CITY GENERAL PLAN MASTER ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS ............................................................12 FIGURE 3-2 – CATHEDRAL CITY GENERAL PLAN MULTI-MODAL FACILITIES...........................................................................13 FIGURE 3-3 – EXISTING YEAR 2023 AM/PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES..............................................................14 FIGURE 4-1 – PROJECT COMPLETION YEAR 2025 CONDITIONS AM/PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES..........................17 FIGURE 5-1 – CUMULATIVE PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT...................................................................................................21 FIGURE 5-2 – CUMULATIVE YEAR 2025 CONDITIONS AM/PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ......................................22 FIGURE 6-1 – DATE PALM DRIVE AND ROSEMOUNT ROAD INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATION.............................................26 FIGURE 6-2 – HORIZON YEAR 2045 NO PROJECT CONDITIONS AM/PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES..........................27 FIGURE 6-3 – HORIZON YEAR PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS AM/PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................................28 List of Tables
TABLE ES-1 PROJECT FEATURE CONTRIBUTIONS............................................................................................................... III TABLE 1-1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATE ....................................................................................................................2 TABLE 1-2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ...........................................................................................................................2 TABLE 2-1 VEHICULAR LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................................7 TABLE 2-2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE HCM OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS METHOD..............................................8 TABLE 2-4 CATHEDRAL CITY GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY SEGMENT ADT THRESHOLDS ..............................................................8 TABLE 3-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2023 INTERSECTION OPERATION ANALYSIS ......................................................................11 TABLE 3-2 EXISTING YEAR 2023 ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS..........................................................................11 TABLE 4-1 PROJECT COMPLETION YEAR 2025 CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATION ANALYSIS ............................................16 TABLE 4-2 PROJECT COMPLETION YEAR 2025 CONDITIONS ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS ......................................16 TABLE 5-1 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS ...............................................................................................................................18 TABLE 5-2 CUMULATIVE YEAR 2025 CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATION ANALYSIS.........................................................20 TABLE 5-3 CUMULATIVE YEAR 2025 CONDITIONS ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS...................................................20 TABLE 6-1 PROJECT FEATURE CONTRIBUTIONS................................................................................................................24 TABLE 6-2 HORIZON YEAR 2045 CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATION ANALYSIS..............................................................24 TABLE 6-3 HORIZON YEAR 2045 PLUS PROJECTS INTERSECTION QUEUE ANALYSIS ...............................................................25 TABLE 6-4 HORIZON YEAR 2045 CONDITIONS ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS........................................................25 TABLE 7-1 PROJECT VMT ANALYSIS..............................................................................................................................30 Appendices

APPENDIX A - SCOPING AGREEMENT

APPENDIX B - TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA
APPENDIX C - EXISTING YEAR 2023 CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX D - PROJECT COMPLETION YEAR 2025 CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

APPENDIX E - CUMULATIVE PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
APPENDIX F - CUMULATIVE YEAR 2025 CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX G - HORIZON YEAR 2045 VOLUME DEVELOPMENT
APPENDIX H - HORIZON YEAR 2045 NO PROJECT CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

APPENDIX I - HORIZON YEAR PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATION AND QUEUE ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

APPENDIX J - WITH IMPROVEMENT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION AND SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

APPENDIX K - TRANSIT ROUTE INFORMATION
ii
The Wren TA Project Introduction

1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
This transportation analysis (TA) report has been prepared for The Wren project (Project) in Cathedral City, according to the County of Riverside Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service (LOS) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), December 2020 (Guidelines).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project will be developed on a vacant site located on the northeast corner of Date Palm Drive and future Rosemount Road extension. The Project is proposing the construction of 204 multi-family (lowrise) dwelling units.

Figure 1-1 shows the project site plan.

STUDY AREA
The study area for this project was developed consistent with the Guidelines, including all intersections of “Collector” or higher classification streets with “Collector” or higher classification streets, at which the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips. IEG prepared a project traffic study scoping agreement defining the study area, which was reviewed and approved by Cathedral City staff prior to the preparation of this technical report. Refer to Appendix A for approved scoping agreement.

Figure 1-2 presents the study area that includes the following key locations:

Study Area Intersections:

1. Date Palm Drive and McCallum Way

2. Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road

3. Date Palm Drive and 30th Avenue
Study Roadway Segments:

1. Date Palm Drive, McCallum Way to Rosemount Road

2. Date Palm Drive, Rosemount Road to 30th Avenue
Turning movement counts for one weekday during the morning and evening peak hours and average daily traffic (ADT) counts were conducted on Tuesday May 9, 2023. The turning movement and ADT counts are included in Appendix B. These counts will be utilized in Synchro 11 software to determine LOS at all study intersections and for roadway segment capacity analysis. Year 2025 without Project traffic volumes will be developed by adding a 3% annual growth for two years to the existing counts.

Horizon Year Plus Project volumes will be developed by applying an annual growth factor based on the growth from RIVCOM Base Year 2018 with Projects to Forecast Year 2045 with Projects.

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation is a measure or forecast of the number of trips that begin or end at the Project site.

These trips will result in some traffic increases on the streets where they occur. The rates used in this analysis were determined using Trip Generation, 11th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), is the method preferred by the Guidelines. Project ITE average trip generation rates are presented in Table 1-1 and the calculated trip generation based on the number of dwelling units associated with the Project is shown in Table 1-2. 1 The Wren TA Project Introduction
Table 1-1
Project Trip Generation Rate
ITE LU
Code
220
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use1
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Units2 Daily In

0.10 Out Total

0.40 In Out Total
DU 0.30 0.32 0.19 0.51 6.74
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021). 2 DU = Dwelling Unit
Table 1-2
Project Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use1
Intensity Units2 Daily
1,375
In Out
61 Total
81 In Out Total
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 204 DU 20 65 39 104
1Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021). 2 DU = Dwelling Unit
As shown in Table 1-2, the Project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,375 total daily trips, 81 AM peak hour trips and 104 PM peak hour trips.

PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Trip distribution and assignment is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions, and traffic routes that Project related traffic will affect. Once the proposed development’s trips have been estimated, they are assigned to the study area network. For this development, the Project trip distribution and assignment were developed, in coordination with City staff, based on the land use characteristics of the Project and surrounding area, existing travel patterns within the study area, anticipated travel patterns to and from the Project site, and approved projects located in the vicinity of the Project site.

Figure 1-2 and 1-3 show Project study area, trip distribution, and trip assignment.

PROJECT ACCESS
Under existing conditions, Rosemount Road does not extend to Date Palm Drive. The Project will be conditioned to construct half-width roadway improvement along the property frontage on Rosemount Road including curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving. Therefore, access to the Project site will be provided via one proposed driveway along Rosemount Road extension and one existing driveway along Date Palm Drive through an access easement to the adjacent Northgate Community Church site. Additionally, the Project will construct a traffic signal at the new intersection of Rosemount Road and Date Palm Drive.

PARKING
The proposed development will provide on-site parking spaces consistent with Cathedral City parking requirements.
2 The Wren
Project Site Plan
Figure 1-1
35%
3 35% PROJECT SITE
20%
80%
15%
2 55%
25%
40%
1 40%
LEGEND # Intersection
The Wren
Project Study Area and Trip Distribution
Figure 1-2
The Wren
Project Volumes
Figure 1-3
The Wren TA Methodologies

2.0 METHODOLOGIES
This section documents the methodologies and assumptions used to conduct the circulation impact analysis for the proposed project. This section contains the following background information:
•
•
•
Analysis scenarios
Study time periods
Analysis methodologies
Refer to Appendix A for approved scoping agreement.

ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
This report presents an analysis of the study area intersections and roadway segments for the following anticipated timeframe scenarios:
•
•
•
•
•
Existing Conditions Year 2023
Project Completion Year 2025 (Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project) Cumulative Year 2025 (Existing Plus Ambient Plus Cumulative Plus Project) Horizon Year 2045 No Project
Horizon Year Plus Project

STUDY TIME PERIODS
The Guidelines recommend the following peak hours for analysis:
•
•
Weekday AM (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM)
Weekday PM (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM)

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES
Street system operating conditions are typically described in terms of “level of service.” Level of service is a report-card scale used to indicate the quality of traffic flow on roadway segments and at intersections. Level of service (LOS) ranges from LOS A (free flow, little congestion) to LOS F (forced flow, extreme congestion). Table 2-1 describes generalized definitions of auto LOS A through F. 6 The Wren TA Methodologies
Table 2-1
Vehicular Level of Service Definitions
LOS Characteristics
Primarily free-flow operation. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Controlled delay at the boundary intersections is minimal. The travel speed exceeds 85% of the base free-flow speed.

Reasonably unimpeded operation. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and control delay at the boundary intersections is not significant. The travel speed is between 67% and 85% of the base free-flow speed.

Stable operation. The ability to maneuver and change lanes at mid-segment locations may be more restricted than at LOS B. Longer queues at the boundary intersections may contribute to lower travel speeds. The travel speed is between 50% and 67% of the base free-flow speed.

Less stable condition in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in delay and decreases in travel speed. This operation may be due to adverse signal progression, high volume, or inappropriate signal timing at the boundary intersections. The travel speed is between 40% and 50% of the base free-flow speed.

Unstable operation and significant delay. Such operations may be due to some combination of adverse signal progression, high volume, and inappropriate signal timing at the boundary intersections. The travel speed is between 30% and 40% of the base free-flow speed.

A
B
C
D
E
Flow at extremely low speed. Congestion is likely occurring at the boundary intersections, as indicated by high delay and extensive queuing. The travel speed is 30% or less of the base free-flow speed. Also, LOS F is assigned to the subject direction of travel if the through movement at one or more boundary intersections have a volume-to-capacity ratio greater than 1.0.

F
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board (2016) Intersection Capacity Analysis
The analysis of peak hour intersection performance was conducted using the Synchro 11 software program, which uses methodologies defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition to calculate LOS. Level of service (LOS) for intersections is determined by control delay. Control delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue to the time the vehicle departs from the stop line. The total elapsed time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position to the first-in-queue position, including deceleration of vehicles from free-flow speed to the speed of vehicles in the queue.

Signalized Intersections
The HCM analysis methodology for evaluating signalized intersections is based on the “operational analysis” procedure. This technique uses 1,900 passenger cars per hour of green per lane (pcphpl) as the maximum saturation flow of a single lane at an intersection. Table 2-2 summarizes the level of service criteria for signalized intersections.
7 The Wren TA Methodologies
Table 2-2
Signalized Intersection Level of Service HCM Operational Analysis Method Average Control
Delay Per Vehicle Level of Service (LOS) Characteristics (seconds)
LOS A occurs when the volume-to-capacity ratio is low and either progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is very short. If it is due to favorable progression, most vehicles arrive during the green indication and travel through the intersection without stopping.
<10.0
LOS B occurs when the volume-to-capacity ratio is low and either progression is highly favorable or the cycle length is short. More vehicles stop than with LOS A.

LOS C occurs when progression is favorable or the cycle length is moderate. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many vehicles still pass through the intersection without stopping.

10.1 – 20.0

20.1 – 35.0
LOS D occurs when the volume-to-capacity ratio is high and either progression is ineffective or the cycle length is long. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

35.1 – 55.0
LOS E occurs when the volume-to-capacity ratio is high, progression is unfavorable, and the cycle length is long. Individual cycle failures are frequent. 55.1 – 80.0 LOS F occurs when the volume-to-capacity ratio is very high, progression is very poor, and the cycle length is long. Most cycles fail to clear the queue. >80.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board (2016) Roadway Capacity Analysis
Roadway capacities are theoretical for planning purposes and are affected by factors such as intersection spacing, configuration, traffic control, access control, roadway grade, design geometrics, sight distance and vehicle mix. Roadway segment level of service is estimated by comparing the ADT on a roadway segment to the roadway ADT capacity. The City of Cathedral City 2040 General Plan provides roadway segment volume capacities based on street classifications. Table 2-4 shows these ADT thresholds.

Table 2-4
Cathedral City General Plan Roadway Segment ADT Thresholds ADT Capacity (Vehicles per day)
Classification Typical Lane Configuration

LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E
Arterial Highway 6-Lane Divided 17,000 27,500 38,000 48,500 59,000 Source: City of Cathedral City 2040 General Plan Table CM-3, 2021 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), amended with California MUTCD 2014 Edition, presents warrant criteria for justifying the installation of a traffic signal at an unsignalized intersection. The criteria include studying traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the intersection location. The MUTCD indicates that satisfaction of one or more of the traffic signal warrants does not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.

This study uses MUTCD Section 4C.04 Warrant 3, Peak Hour to assess the need of a traffic signal at the unsignalized intersections of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road. Signal warrant worksheets are included in Appendix J.
8 The Wren TA Methodologies
City of Cathedral City 2040 General Plan Compliance
In coordination with City staff, the transportation analysis will identify LOS deficiencies for compliance with City of Cathedral City 2040 General Plan goals. Cathedral City has established LOS “D” as the minimum allowable level of service at intersections and roadway segments. Therefore, any intersection or roadway segment resulting in an LOS worse than this minimum will be considered deficient for the purposes of this analysis.
9 The Wren TA Existing Year 2023

3.0 EXISTING YEAR 2023
This section documents the circulation system conditions within the study area of the Project under Existing Year 2023. This section also documents operational deficiencies on the existing local and regional circulation networks.

ROADWAY NETWORK
Locally significant roadway located within the study area of the proposed project is discussed below.

Date Palm Drive functions as a divided 6-lane roadway within the study area from McCallum Way to 30th Avenue. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour. Per the City of Cathedral City 2040 General Plan Circulation & Mobility Element, Date Palm Drive is at its buildout roadway classification of an arterial highway.

Figure 3-1 shows the City of Cathedral City 2040 General Plan Master Roadway Classifications.

TRANSIT SYSTEM
The SunLine Transit Agency (STA) is the main transit agency servicing Cathedral City. Currently, STA operates Route 4 within the vicinity of the project. Route 4 operates seven days a week and connects to Palm Springs west of the site and Palm Desert to the south. Weekday and weekend service frequency is 60 minutes. Bus stops for Route 4 is currently located within 350 ft of the site at the northeast corner of the Date Palm Drive and McCallum Way intersection for northbound service and at the southwest corner for southbound service. Pedestrian accessibility and connectivity from the project site to these bus stops is provided along the frontage (east side of Date Palm Drive) with signalized crossings at the intersection where the bus stops are located. Bus route information is included in Appendix K.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Pedestrian facilities are provided within the study area of the project. Pedestrian crosswalks are generally provided at signalized intersections along Date Palm Drive with sidewalks on the west side from McCallum Way to 30th Avenue and on the east side from the Project limits to McCallum Way.

There are no existing bicycle facilities along Date Palm Drive. However, the City of Cathedral City 2045 General Plan Circulation & Mobility Element proposes a Class I off-road shared bike and pedestrian trail along Date Palm Drive.

Figure 3-2 shows the City of Cathedral City 2040 General Plan Multi-Modal Facilities.

TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The Existing Year 2023 peak hour intersection turning movement and ADT counts were counted on Tuesday May 9, 2023. The counts are provided in Appendix B. 10 The Wren TA Existing Year 2023

ANALYSIS RESULTS
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 show Existing Conditions intersection operation and roadway segment capacity analysis results.

Figure 3-3 shows peak hour intersection turning movement volumes under Existing Year 2023 Conditions.

Table 3-1
Existing Conditions 2023 Intersection Operation Analysis Existing Conditions Intersection Intersection Control Delay (a) LOS (b) AM/PM Peak

1. Date Palm Drive and McCallum Way

3. Date Palm Drive and 30th Avenue
Signalized
Signalized

11.9/11.3

23.2/21.6
B/B
C/C
Notes:
(a) Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection, measured in seconds per vehicle. (b) LOS calculations are based on the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition and performed using Synchro 11.

Per the analysis results shown in Table 3-1, all analyzed intersections are operating at an acceptable LOS under Existing Year 2023 Conditions.

Existing Year 2023 Conditions peak hour analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix C.

Table 3-2
Existing Year 2023 Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis
LOS E
Capacity
Existing Year 2023 Roadway Segment
Date Palm Drive
Classification

ADT V/C LOS
6-lane Arterial
Highway
6-lane Arterial
Highway
McCallum Way to Rosemount Road
Rosemount Road to 30th Avenue
59,000
59,000
21,195
21,246

0.359

0.360
B
B
Per the analysis results shown in Table 3-2, all analyzed roadway segments are operating at an acceptable LOS under Existing Year 2023 Conditions.
11 The Wren
Cathedral City General Plan Master Roadway Classifications Figure 3-1
Date Palm Drive Mixed Use
Cathedral City General Plan Multi-Modal Facilities
Figure 3-2
The Wren
Existing Year 2023 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Figure 3-3
The Wren TA Project Completion Year 2025

4.0 PROJECT COMPLETION YEAR 2025 CONDITIONS
This section documents the circulation system conditions within the study area of the project under Project Completion Year 2025 (Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Phase 1) Conditions. The Project proposes half-width improvements of Rosemount Road including curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving.

Therefore, this analysis assumes the construction of a traffic signal at the new intersection of Rosemount Road and Date Palm Drive by the Project. Signal warrant worksheets are provided in Appendix J. IEG understands that existing traffic patterns would change due to these improvements.

Adjusted Existing Year 2023 intersection peak hour traffic volumes for the Date Palm Drive Rosemount Road intersection were developed by redistributing forecast traffic from the Project’s RIVCOM 3 Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) to the intersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road.

The TAZ adjacent to the west side of Date Palm Drive loads approximately one-third of its base year 2018 daily traffic onto Date Palm Drive. The TAZ that the project is located within also loads approximately one-third of its 2018 daily traffic volume onto the intersection of Santoro Drive and 30th Avenue. Since both TAZs include similar residential and commercial retail components, the unadjusted zone connector volumes applied to the intersection of Santoro Drive and 30th Avenue were also applied at the intersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road.

An annual growth factor based on the growth from Base Year 2018 to Forecast Year 2045 was applied to 2018 TAZ AM and PM peak hour volumes to calculate the redistributed volumes that would be applied to Existing Year 2023 counts. The turning movement distribution percentages for the eastbound approach at the intersection of Date Palm Drive and 30th Avenue was applied to the intersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road to calculate adjusted Year 2023 turning movement volumes. RIVCOM 3 model plots, annual growth calculation, Date Palm Drive and 30th Avenue distribution, and adjusted Year 2023 volumes are included in Appendix B.

Since the Project is expected to be built and operational in 2025, a 3% annual growth factor for two years was applied to the Adjusted Existing 2023 volumes. Project traffic volumes are then added to these volumes to develop Project Completion Year 2025 Conditions traffic volumes. This section also documents potential operational deficiencies on the proposed local and regional circulation network.

ANALYSIS RESULTS
Tables 4-1 and 4-2 show Project Completion Year 2025 Conditions intersection operation and roadway segment capacity analysis results.

Figure 4-1 shows intersection turning movement volumes under Project Completion Year 2025 Conditions, respectively.
15 The Wren TA Project Completion Year 2025
Table 4-1
Project Completion Year 2025 Conditions Intersection Operation Analysis Intersection
Control
Project Completion Year 2025 Intersection Delay (a) LOS (b) AM/PM Peak

1. Date Palm Drive and McCallum Way Signalized
Signalized
Signalized

12.7/11.9

7.6/11.1

22.2/18.5
B/B
A/B
C/B

2. Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road

3. Date Palm Drive and 30th Avenue
Notes:
(a) Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection, measured in seconds/vehicle. (b) LOS calculations are based on the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition and performed using Synchro 11.

Per the analysis results shown in Table 4-1, all analyzed intersections are operating at an acceptable LOS under Project Completion Year 2025 Conditions. Project Completion Year 2025 Conditions peak hour analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix D.

Table 4-2
Project Completion Year 2025 Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis LOS E
Capacity
Project Completion Year 2025 Roadway Segment
Date Palm Drive
Classification

ADT V/C LOS
McCallum Way to Rosemount Road
Rosemount Drive to 30th Avenue
Arterial Highway
Arterial Highway
59,000
59,000
23,040
23,021

0.391

0.390
B
B
Per the analysis results shown in Table 4-2, all analyzed roadway segments are operating at an acceptable LOS under Project Completion Year 2025 Conditions. 16 The Wren
Project Completion Year 2025
Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Figure 4-1
The Wren TA Cumulative Year 2025

5.0 CUMULATIVE YEAR 2025 CONDITIONS
This section documents the circulation system conditions within the study area of the Project under Cumulative Year 2025 (Existing Plus Ambient Plus Cumulative Plus Project) Conditions. The Cumulative Conditions traffic volumes were developed by adding cumulative project trips to develop the Project Completion 2025 Conditions traffic volumes. These cumulative projects are listed in Table 5-1 and the cumulative project trip assignment to the study area is shown in Figure 5-1. The locations and trip distribution for these cumulative projects are included in Appendix E.

Table 5-1
Cumulative Projects
ID1
1 2
3 4
Project
Kroger Gas Station
Date Palm Drive Mixed Use (Phase I)
Future Shopping Center (Phase I)
Canyon Springs Villas
Land Use
Service Station
Self Storage
Shopping Plaza
Residential
Quantity
10 115.054
50 Units2
VFP
TSF
TSF
58 DU
5 Mountain View Estates Residential 110 DU
Service Station with Convenience
Market 6 Tower Market 12 VFP
Residential
Retail
Fast-Food Restaurant
Service Station with Convenience
Market
200

6.65 14.025
DU
TSF
7 Cathedral Cove Center TSF
12 VFP
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
Ecoplex Park Phases 1 & 2
Horizon Gardens
CCBC Restaurant
Quick Quack Carwash
7-Eleven
Cannabis Cultiviation
Senior Living
Restaurant
Carwash
Gas Station
Cannabis (Cultivation) Facility
Dispensary
Residential

93.44 80

2.5 3.5
8 486
3 43
TSF
OB
TSF
TSF
VFP
TSF
TSF
DU
C6 Ramon 19
C7 District East
C8 Greenscape Engineering (67587 Canyon Plaza) Cannabis Cultivation Casino
Shopping Center
High-Turnover Sit-Down
Restaurant
40 40
24 TSF
TSF
TSF
14 TSF
C9 Agua Caliente Casino
Quality Restaurant
Fast Casual Restaurant
Coffee Shop w/o Drive-Thru
Residential
14 6
2 103
6 8

80.0 94.0

11.0 68
111.0

41.0 2,909
TSF
TSF
TSF
DU
Rooms
VFP
TSF
TSF
TSF
Rooms
TSF
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17
C18
C19
Nirvana Estates
Silver Torch Motel
Cree Gas Station
Cathedral City Events Center (35900 Date Palm Dr)
Amazon Hub Center (35780 Date Palm Dr)
Medicinal Healing (36555 Bankside Dr)
Horizon Hotel (67670 Carey Rd)
MoGenCo (67555/67575 East Palm Canyon Drive)
Desert Lexus (67855 East Palm Canyon Drive)
Cathedral City Community Amphitheater
Motel
Convenience Store w/ Gas Station
Event Center
Warehouse
Cannabis Cultivation Facility
Hotel
Cannabis Cultivation Facility
Automobile Dealership
Amphitheater
TSF
Seats
18 The Wren TA Cumulative Year 2025
Canyon View / Summit Project by EHOF Canyon
View, LLC P1 Residential 80 DU
P2
P3
P4
Palm Springs Surf Club
Parker Hotel Expansion
Vibrante
Water Park
Hotel

7.746
32 41
TSF
Rooms
Condominium DU
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Medical Office
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Medical Office
Bank
RM1
RM2
RM3
RM4
RM5
RM6
RM7
RM8
RM 38 JV LLC 82
84 9
20 1,200
34 32
20 46
39 4
4 4
13 75.164
10 97
10 DU
DU
DU
DU
DU
DU
DU
DU
DU
DU
DU
DU
DU
DU
TSF
DU
DU
Carefield Senior Living
ECHO at Rancho Mirage
Santa Barbara Cove Estates
Pulte Homes/ Del Webb
Veneto
Revelle
Bella Clancy
Mirada Villas
Estilo
RM Five-1 LLC/Kilani
Heinrich/Steinberg
Rancho Mirage LLC
La Paloma Homes, Inc.

Monterey Medical Center
38 JV, LLC c/o Meriwether Companies
38 JV, LLC c/o Meriwether Companies
38 JV, LLC c/o Meriwether Companies
GRV Mirage, LLC (ECHO)
Ken Catanzarite
Miragedunes Properties
AMS Development Group (Bellavia)
IN-N-OUT Burgers
DHO Medical Office Building
Chase Bank
RM9
RM10
RM11
RM12
RM13
RM14
RM15
RM16
RM17
RM18
RM19
RM20
RM21
RM22
RM23
RM24
RM25
DU
DU
DU
DU
9 20
9 18 DU

3.995

13.80 3.47
400
175.00
1,932

5.565
60 108

20.00 100
35 106

6.966

6.399
56 58
56 TSF
TSF
TSF
Rooms
TSF
DU
TSF
Rooms
DU
Hotel
RM26 Section 31 Specific Plan Project Commercial
Residential
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Commercial
Hotel
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Office
Drug/Alcohol Treatment Ctr.

Auto Sales (New)
Auto Care Center
RM27
RM28
Tower Energy Group
Oasis Ranch LLC
TSF
Rooms
DU
RM29 Horizon Pacific Rancho Cove MSA Consulting
DU
RM30
RM31
RM32
Ritz-Carlton Residences
TSF
TSF
Beds
TSF
TSF
Hazelden Betty Ford Center
Rancho Mirage Highway 111 Dealerships
Notes:
1 Projects with C, P, or RM designation are based on Cathedral Cove Center Traffic Analysis dated April 8, 2022, and prepared by Urban Crossroads.

Volumes distributed north of Intersection 17 Date Palm Drive and Ramon Road were applied to study intersections as northbound and southbound through volumes.
2 DU = Dwelling Units, TSF = Thousand Square Feet, VFP = Vehicle Fueling Positions, and OB = Occupied Beds This section also documents potential Cumulative Conditions operational deficiencies on the circulation network. Rosemount Road does not currently extend to Date Palm Drive. However, the Project proposes half-width improvements of Rosemount Road including curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving. Therefore, the 19 The Wren TA Cumulative Year 2025
following analysis assumes a traffic signal at the new intersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road. Signal warrant worksheets are provided in Appendix J.

ANALYSIS RESULTS AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Tables 5-2 and 5-3 show Cumulative Conditions intersection operation and roadway segment analysis results, respectively.

Figure 5-2 shows intersection turning movement under Cumulative Conditions.

Table 5-2
Cumulative Year 2025 Conditions Intersection Operation Analysis Cumulative Year 2025 Intersection Intersection Control Delay (a) LOS (b) AM/PM Peak

1. Date Palm Drive and McCallum Way

2. Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road

3. Date Palm Drive and 30th Avenue
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized

13.4/13.8

15.0/22.5

23.8/22.0
B/B
B/C
C/C
Notes:
(a) Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection, measured in seconds/vehicle. (b) LOS calculations are based on the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition and performed using Synchro 11.

Per the analysis results shown in Table 5-2, all analyzed intersections are operating at an acceptable LOS under Cumulative Year 2025 Conditions. Cumulative Year 2025 Conditions peak hour analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix F.

Table 5-3
Cumulative Year 2025 Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis LOS E
Capacity
Cumulative Year 2025 Roadway Segment Classification

ADT V/C LOS
Date Palm Drive
McCallum Way to Rosemount Road
Rosemount Road to 30th Avenue
Arterial Highway
Arterial Highway
59,000
59,000
25,428
25,286

0.431

0.429
B
B
Per the analysis results shown in Table 5-3, all analyzed roadway segments are operating at an acceptable LOS under Cumulative Year 2025 Conditions.
20 The Wren
Cumulative Projects Trip Assignment
Figure 5-1
The Wren
Cumulative Year 2025 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
Figure 5-2
The Wren TA Horizon Year 2045

6.0 HORIZON YEAR 2045 CONDITIONS
This section documents the circulation system conditions within the study area of the Project under Horizon Year 2045 No Project and Horizon Year Plus Project Conditions. Rosemount Road does not currently extend to Date Palm Drive. However, the Project proposes half-width improvements of Rosemount Road including curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving. Therefore, the following analysis assumes a traffic signal at the new intersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road. Signal warrant worksheets are provided in Appendix J.

The proposed traffic signal at the new intersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road will be constructed by whichever project completes their final phase first between Date Palm Drive Mixed Use, the Wren Project, and the Future Shopping Center west of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road intersection. The City of Cathedral City Transportation Department staff has requested a fair share assessment to determine the percentage of new traffic volumes added to the intersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road. The three proposed developments are expected to add a total of 12,166 ADTs to the subject intersection. The three projects will contribute to the funding of this transportation improvement based on their portion of total ADT generated as follows:

1. Wren Development is projected to add 1,375 ADTs (13.43%),

2. Date Plam Mixed Use is projected to add 1,668 ADTs (16.29%)

3. Future Shopping Center to the west of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road intersection is projected to add 7,199 ADTs (70.29%)
Future Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road signalized intersection ultimate geometry will include the following:

1. Northbound – three thru lanes, one left turn lane and one exclusive right turn lane

2. Southbound – three thru lanes, one left turn lane and one exclusive right turn lane

3. Eastbound – one left turn lane and one thru-right turn lane

4. Westbound – one left turn lane, one thru lane and one exclusive right turn lane Project will be conditioned to construct the signal and ensure full signal operation prior to the issuance of project first certificate of occupancy.

Figure 6-1 shows Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road intersection future lane configuration.

Table 6-1 shows the project fair contribution toward the construction of the new signalized intersection at Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road.

Trip generation is shown in Appendix G.
23 The Wren TA Horizon Year 2045
Table 6-1
Project Feature Contributions
Project Project ADT Project Share %
Wren Project
Date Palm Drive Mixed Use1
Future Shopping Center
1,375
1,668
7,199
12,116

13.43%

16.29%

70.29%
Total
Notes:
1 Assumed Scenario 1 as the viable option for this Date Palm Drive Mixed Use, since their Scenario 2, which includes the Vallarta Supermarket, is no longer a viable option because Vallarta has acquired the property to the west of Date Palm Drive to construct the supermarket The Horizon Year Plus Project Conditions traffic volumes were developed by adding an annual growth factor based on the growth from RIVCOM 4.01 Base Year 2018 to Forecast Year 2045. The calculated growth factors are included in Appendix G. Horizon Year 2045 No Project volumes were developed by subtracting Project volumes from Horizon Year Plus Project volumes.

ANALYSIS RESULTS AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Tables 6-2 through 6-4 show Horizon Year 2045 Conditions intersection operation, turn lane queue, and roadway segment analysis results, respectively.

Figures 6-2 and 6-3 show intersection turning movements under Horizon Year 2045 No Project and Horizon Year Plus Project Conditions, respectively.

Table 6-2
Horizon Year 2045 Conditions Intersection Operation Analysis Intersection
Control
Horizon Year 2045 No Project Horizon Year Plus Project Intersection Delay (a) LOS (b) Delay (a) LOS (b) AM/PM Peak

1. Date Palm Drive and McCallum Way

2. Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road

3. Date Palm Drive and 30th Avenue
Signalized
Signalized
Signalized

30.5/29.9
Does not exist

28.9/23.4
C/C 31.1/30.3

22.4/47.3

29.0/23.8
C/C
C/D

C/C C/C
Notes:
(a) Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection, measured in seconds/vehicle. (b) LOS calculations are based on the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition and performed using Synchro 11.

Per the analysis results shown in Table 6-2, all analyzed intersections are operating at an acceptable LOS under Horizon Year 2045 No Project and Horizon Year Plus Project Conditions. Horizon Year 2045 No Project and Horizon Year Plus Project Conditions peak hour analysis worksheets are provided in Appendices H and I, respectively.

Table 6-3 shows the proposed turn lane lengths to accommodate the anticipated queue demand under Horizon Year 2045 Plus Project Conditions. For queues that exceed the proposed turn lane lengths, the excess queue is within one vehicle length (20 feet) and will be accommodated by taper lengths. Queue analysis worksheets are included in Appendix I.
24 The Wren TA Horizon Year 2045
Table 6-3
Horizon Year 2045 Plus Projects Intersection Queue Analysis Recommended Excess
Demand
Analyzed
Turn Lane
Length (ft)
Recommended
Turn Lane
Length (ft)
Minimum Queue (ft)
Taper Length
(ft)
Intersection Movement
AM
101
53 PM AM PM
NBL
NBR
SBL
180
100
280
140
140
90 90
90 90
60 185
103
281
75 --
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
200
120
300
140
160
Date Palm Drive and
Rosemount Road 171
136
74 SBR
WBL 147
Per the analysis results shown in Table 6-4, all analyzed roadway segments are operating at an acceptable LOS under Horizon Year 2045 Conditions.

Table 6-4
Horizon Year 2045 Conditions Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis Horizon Year 2045 No
Project
Horizon Year Plus
Project LOS E
Capacity Roadway Segment
Date Palm Drive
Classification

ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS
Arterial
Highway
Arterial
Highway
McCallum Way to Rosemount Road
Rosemount Road to 30th Avenue
59,000
59,000
26,014 0.441
29,729 0.504
B
C
26,564 0.450
30,207 0.512
B
C
25 Wren Development
1 Rancho Vista Blvd. & 30th St. West
* *
Future
Shopping
Center
*
Rosemount Rd.
* *
Date Palm
Drive
Mixed Use
Development
* Refer to table above for recommended turn lane length Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road
Intersecꢀon Future Lane Configuraꢀon
Figure 6-1
The Wren
Horizon Year 2045 No Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Figure 6-1
The Wren
Horizon Year 2045 Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Figure 6-2
The Wren TA Vehicle Miles Traveled

7.0 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
The purpose of this section is to evaluate the project’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis requirements and compliance with Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

SB 743
On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into State law and started a process intended to fundamentally change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. On December 28, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law cleared the revised CEQA guidelines for use. Among the changes to the guidelines was removal of vehicle delay and level of service from consideration under CEQA. With the adopted guidelines, transportation impacts are to be evaluated based on a project’s effect on VMT.

VMT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
The Project is within the jurisdiction of the City of Cathedral City (City). The City has not formally adopted its own guidance on evaluating VMT for transportation impacts under CEQA. In the absence of adopted lead agency guidance, and in consultation with the City, the Guidelines were selected as the most appropriate basis to evaluate VMT for this project.

VMT ANALYSIS
The VMT analysis was conducted by General Technologies & Solutions using RIVCOM4.01 to assess the Project VMT.

The Guidelines recommend use of home-based production VMT per capita as the VMT metric to evaluate residential land uses. The home-based production VMT is computed by using attraction VMT for the Home-Based production trip purpose. Per the Guidelines, the project will constitute a significant impact if the Project VMT per capita is higher than the Riverside Countywide home-based production VMT per capita.

Both baseline (2018) and horizon year (2045) model runs were used to estimate the Project’s VMT impacts. RIVCOM4.01 socioeconomic databases for the scenarios were updated with the Project land use to calculate Project VMT. Typically, Project VMT is calculated by isolating the Project in a new TAZ or multiple TAZs depending on the diversity of Project land uses and Project size. RIVCOM4.01 does not allow addition of new TAZs or TAZ splits, however it includes some empty zones. One empty zone was borrowed to model the Project. The Project TAZ was utilized to calculate project specific VMT per capita.

Table 7-1 shows the Project VMT metrics and regional VMT thresholds for both baseline (2018) and horizon year (2045) “with Project” model runs.
29 The Wren TA Vehicle Miles Traveled
Table 7-1
Project VMT analysis
Metric Wren Residential (a) Riverside County (b)
2018
Total Population
Total Employment
Homebase Production HBP) VMT
HBP VMT per capita
2045
660
-
10,375

15.7 2,358,439
759,857
42,904,715

18.2 Total Population
Total Employment
Homebase Production (HBP) VMT
HBP VMT per capita
660
-
9,785

14.8 3,424,454
1,116,025
63,396,364

18.5 (a) Estimated using RIVCOM4.01 “with project” model runs (b) Estimated using GTS No Project RIVCOM4.01 model runs A detailed VMT analysis is provided in a separate document. Since the Project is anticipated to be constructed by Opening Year 2025, we utilized interpolation to determine the Project VMT and regional average VMT values for Year 2025. The interpolated values are calculated to a Project VMT of 15.5 and a regional average VMT of 18.3.

Additionally, the project will be constructing half-width of Rosemount Road along the property frontage including travel lanes, curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The addition of travel lanes is in compliant with the Cathedral City Circulation Element and not expected to induce demand since the VMT is not a newly generated VMT; instead, it is the existing residential neighborhood traffic that will redistribute throughout the local roadway network that residents currently travel to and from each day. The roadway extension will provide the proposed project and existing residential neighborhood direct access to Date Palm Drive and to newly built commercial retail services within close proximity that will essentially reduce overall VMT. Therefore, it was determined that the Project and roadway extension are not anticipated to result in a significant transportation impact related to VMT under Base Year 2018, Opening Year 2025, or Horizon Year 2045 scenarios.
30 APPENDIX A -

SCOPING AGREEMENT

SCOPING AGREEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION LOS ANALYSIS
This letter acknowledges Cathedral City Transportation Department requirements for transportation level of service analysis of the following project. The analysis must follow the Riverside County Transportation Department Transportation Analysis Guidelines, December 2020.

Case No.

Related Cases
Project Name:

Project Address:

The Wren
NEC of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road
Project Description: 204 multifamily (low rise) dwelling units and Rosemount Road extension to Date Palm Drive
Traffic Consultant Applicant/Developer
Coachella Valley Comm Dev Group
36101 Bob Hope Drive, Ste E5
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Name: George Ghossain, Integrated Engineering Grp
Address: 23905 Clinton Keith Road 114-280
Wildomar, CA 92595
Telephone:

E-mail:
951-239-1546 626-277-6782
[email protected] [email protected]
Current GP Land Use
Current Zoning
Proposed Land Use General Commercial High Density Residential Proposed Zoning Planned Community Comm R3 Multi Family Res A. Trip Generation Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021) Current Trip Generation Proposed Trip Generation
In Out Total In Out Total
AM Trips
PM Trips
0 0 0 20 61 81
0 0 0 65 39 104
Internal Trip Allowance
Pass-By Trip Allowance
Yes
Yes
✔ No
No
(
(
% Trip Discount)
% Trip Discount)
N/A
✔ N/A
A pass-by trip discount of 25% is allowed for appropriate land uses. The pass-by trips at adjacent study area intersections and project driveways shall be indicated on a report figure.

B. Trip Geographic Distribution: N 35 % S 40 % E 25 % W 0 % (attach exhibit for detailed assignment)
C. Background Traffic
Project Build-out Year:

Phase Year(s)
2025 Annual Ambient Growth Rate: %
N/A
3 Other projects to be analyzed:

Model/Forecast methodology
Date Palm Drive Mixed Use & Vallarta Shopping Center
RIVCOM 4 2018 BY & 2045 HY
TAGSA v03092022
D. Study intersections: (NOTE: Subject to revision after other projects, trip generation and distribution are determined, or comments from other agencies.)

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. Date Palm Drive & McCallum Way
Date Palm Drive & Rosemount Road
Date Palm Drive & 30th Avenue 8.

9. 10.

E. Study Roadway Segments: (NOTE: Subject to revision after other projects, trip generation and distribution are determined, or comments from other agencies.)

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. Date Palm Dr, McCallum Wy to Rosemount Rd
Date Palm Dr, Rosemount Rd to 30th Ave

8. 9.

10. F. Other Jurisdictional
Is this project within a City’s Sphere of Influence or one-mile radius of City boundaries? ✔ Yes No If yes, name of jurisdiction(s): Rancho Mirage
G. Site Plan (please attach reduced copy)
H. Specific issues to be addressed in the Study (in addition to the standard analysis described in the Guideline) (To be filled out by Transportation Department) (NOTE: If the traffic study states that “a traffic signal is warranted” (or “a traffic signal appears to be warranted,” or similar statement) at an existing unsignalized intersection under existing conditions, 8-hour approach traffic volume information must be submitted in addition to the peak hourly turning movement counts for that intersection.) Date Palm Dr/Rosemount Rd - traffic signal warrant and queue analysis for exclusive SBL & NBR I. Existing Conditions
Traffic count data must be new or recent. Provide traffic count dates if using other than new counts.

Date of counts_0_5_/_0_9_/_2_0__2_3___________________________________________________________ *NOTE* Traffic Study Submittal Form and appropriate fee must be submitted with this form.

Recommended by: Approved Scoping Agreement
Integrated Engineering Group 6/14/2024
Traffic Consultant Date Cathedral City Transportation
Department
Date
Scoping Agreement Submitted on 6/18/2024
Revised on
TAGSA v03092022
Date:

To:

Jun 2, 2024
John Corella, P.E., City Engineer/Public Works Director, Cathedral City George Ghossain, Principal Engineer, Integrated Engineering Group Scoping Agreement for The Wren Project
From:

Subject:

Integrated Engineering Group (IEG) is pleased to submit this scoping agreement for The Wren project (Project) located at the northeast corner of Date Palm Drive and future Rosemount Road connection within Cathedral City, California. The Project is proposing the construction of 204 multi-family (low-rise) dwelling units on a vacant 11.49- acre lot and the Rosemont Road extension between Date Palm Drive and the existing alignment at the residential subdivision to the east.

Our goal is to obtain comments from Cathedral City staff, to ensure this scoping agreement addresses the analysis requirements for the project, according to the County of Riverside Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service (LOS) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), December 2020 (Guidelines).

The preliminary site plan for the Project is shown in Attachment 1. It is anticipated that the proposed development will be built and occupied by Year 2025. Rosemount Road does not currently extend to Date Palm Drive. However, it is anticipated that the appropriate dedications and easements will be in place prior to Project opening. Therefore, access to the Project site will be provided via one proposed driveway along the Rosemount Road extension and one existing driveway along Date Palm Drive through a proposed access easement to the adjacent Northgate Community Church site. Additionally, the Project will construct a traffic signal at the new intersection of Rosemount Road and Date Palm Drive.

TRIP GENERATION FOR POTENTIAL USES
Trip generation is a measure or forecast of the number of trips that begin or end at the project site. The traffic generated is a function of the extent and type of development proposed for the site. These trips will result in some traffic increases on the streets where they occur. Per the Guidelines, project vehicular traffic generation characteristics should be estimated based on established rates contained in the Trip Generation Manual (TGM), 11th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The proposed Project ITE average trip generation rates are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 - Project Trip Generation Rates
ITE LU
Code
220
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use1 Units2 Daily
In

0.10 Out Total In

0.32 Out

0.19 Total
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) DU 0.30 0.40 0.51 6.74
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021). 2 DU = Dwelling Unit

THE WREN PROJECT
SCOPING AGREEMENT | PAGE 1 OF 3
Table 2 - Project Trip Generation Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use1
Intensity Units2 Daily
1,375
In
20 Out
61 Total
81 In
65 Out
39 Total
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 204 DU 104
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021). 2 DU = Dwelling Unit

STUDY AREA
The study area for this project was developed consistent with the Guidelines, which includes all intersections of two (2) or more “Collector” or higher classification streets, at which the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips, and the roadway segments between these intersections. Attachment 2 presents the study area that includes the key intersection and roadway segment locations identified in the scoping form. 24-hour segment and intersection counts will be conducted for one weekday (Tuesday through Thursday), with turning movements collected during the morning (7:00-9:00am) and evening (4:00-6:00) peak hours. The turning movement counts will be utilized in Synchro to determine level of service (LOS) at all study intersections.

TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Trip distribution and assignment is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions, and traffic routes that project related traffic will likely affect. Trip distribution and assignment information can be estimated from observed traffic patterns, experience or through use of a computerized travel forecast model. Once the proposed developments trips have been estimated, they are assigned to the study area network. For this project, the trip distribution was developed based on the land use characteristics, surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the project site, anticipated travel patterns to and from the project site and existing travel patterns within the study area.

Attachments 2 and 3 show the project’s trip distribution and trip assignment, respectively.

ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
Analysis of the intersection operating conditions during the peak periods will be conducted for the following anticipated timeframe scenarios:





Existing Conditions Year 2023
Project Completion Year 2025 (Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project) Cumulative Year 2025 (Existing + Project + Ambient + Cumulative) Conditions Horizon Year 2045 No Project Conditions
Horizon Year Plus Project Conditions
Ambient growth is 3% per year.

Specific issues to be addressed in the Study (in addition to the standard analysis described in the Guideline)
The Study will include intersection queue analysis to determine the lengths of the following potential exclusive lanes:

THE WREN PROJECT
SCOPING AGREEMENT | PAGE 2 OF 3


Southbound left turn lane length at the intersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road Northbound right turn lane at the intersection of Date Palm Drive and Rosemount Road

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS
Per the Guidelines, the Project does not screen out per the Small Project criteria and will be required to run the model in order to conduct a full VMT analysis. Once City staff provide their input, IEG will conduct the required VMT analysis to determine if the Project would result in a significant transportation VMT impact.

Sincerely,
Approved By:

Signature:

Name:

George Ghossain, MS, PE
Principal Engineer
Address:

Attachments: 1 – Project Site Plan
2 – Project Study Area & Trip Distribution
3 – Project Trip Assignment

THE WREN PROJECT
SCOPING AGREEMENT | PAGE 3 OF 3
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map and Project Site Plan

PROJECT SITE
The Wren
Project Site Plan
Attachment 1
35%
3 35% PROJECT SITE
20%
80%
15%
2 55%
25%
40%
1 40%
LEGEND # Intersection
The Wren
Project Study Area and Trip Distribution
Attachment 2
The Wren
Project Trip Assignment
Attachment 3

APPENDIX B -

TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA
CITY: Cathedral City
PM Period NB
PROJECT: SC4010 Tuesday, May 09, 2023
ADT1 Date Palm north of Mccallum. Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 AM Period NB SB SB
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
21 15
21 14
21 12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
126 128
19 151 145
11 13 64
150
149 576
130
71 148 551
51 40
39 63
135
89 1127
1287
1398
1600
1749
1573
1258
1062
899
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45
14 21
10 6
6 17
6 13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
173 155
182 121
161 157
9 38 174 690 164 597
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
16 10
7 9
12 7
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
197 141
162 163
165 173
7 10 38 78 190 714 207 684
3:00
3:15
3:30
3:45
9 10
10 10
11 15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
207 165
6 204 163
13 205 172
16 46 85 231 847 253 753
4:00
4:15
4:30
4:45
11 15
17 20
6 16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
280 195
10 271 174
25 243 184
34 75 138
405
831
1299
1505
1034
1023
220 1014 182 735
5:00
5:15
5:30
5:45
33 33
62 30 17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
265 190
33 236 172
63 197 151
42 170 109 235 204 902 158 671
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
59 102 18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
206 160
67 134 140 125
71 143 183 141
86 283 169 548 168 697 135 561
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
91 94
188 19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
136 126
169 151 117
126
95 406
130
248 116 129
288 893 152 555 135 507
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
200 20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
148 120
134 266 137 90
167 236 120 101
132 563 240 942 110 515 73 384
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
86 155 21:00
21:15
21:30
21:45
117 70
125 131 111 72
116 156 116 62
121 448 144 586 87 431 79 283 714
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
104 141 22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
73 60
104 144 85 48
118 139 63 42
109 435 164 588 62 283 47 197 480
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
110 124 23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
62 32
119 157 39 28
152
133 514
181
158 620
33 40 174
28 1134 30 118 292
Total Vol. 3083 4673 7756 7398 6041 13439
Daily Totals
NB SB Combined
10481 10714 21195
AM PM
Split % 39.7%
8:00

60.3%
7:30

36.6% 55.0% 45.0% 63.4%
Peak Hour 7:45 15:45 15:45 15:45
Volume
P.H.F.
563

0.84 1002

0.87 1516

0.94 1025

0.94 806

0.80 1831

0.95 [email protected] Tell. 714 253 7888
CITY: Cathedral City
PM Period NB
PROJECT: SC4010 Tuesday, May 09, 2023
ADT2 Date Palm south of 30th. Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 AM Period NB SB SB
0:00
0:15
0:30
0:45
19 16
20 14
24 12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
130 125
18 143 144
10 13 65
157
152 582
133
69 155 557
41 39
40 63
134
77 1139
1264
1374
1609
1696
1551
1299
1073
917
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45
14 10
11 6
6 13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
169 140
13 182 135
6 159 155
11 36 173 683 151 581
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
15 10
7 9 14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
186 151
11 167 155
8 154 177
7 10 38 77 193 700 191 674
3:00
3:15
3:30
3:45
10 9
11 15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
200 153
9 206 159
10 11
12 201 193
16 48 88 260 867 237 742
4:00
4:15
4:30
4:45
10 16
18 19
7 16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
264 176
12 250 187
24 243 162
37 80 143
412
830
1344
1472
1043
1092
233 990 181 706
5:00
5:15
5:30
5:45
28 35
65 28 17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
231 182
34 250 175
73 211 169
41 169 108 243 193 885 140 666
6:00
6:15
6:30
6:45
60 98 18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
212 156
69 141 151 130
70 137 184 147
83 282 172 548 176 723 143 576
7:00
7:15
7:30
7:45
93 203 19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
141 128
108 193 157 119
116 236 115 138
112 429 283 915 155 568 120 505
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
121 212 20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
163 126
124 266 134 91
165 237 124 96
136 546 211 926 110 531 73 386
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
98 169 21:00
21:15
21:30
21:45
117 65
116 125 116 77
121 152 123 60
123 458 139 585 79 435 73 275 710
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
112 147 22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
81 62
121 133 86 48
148 133 63 44
139 520 159 572 57 287 46 200 487
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
113 136 23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
65 30
120 150 37 27
146
137 516
171
146 603
38 40 180
33 1119 26 116 296
Total Vol. 3172 4659 7831 7431 5984 13415
Daily Totals
NB SB Combined
10603 10643 21246
AM PM
Split % 40.5%
11:45

59.5%
7:45

36.9% 55.4% 44.6% 63.1%
Peak Hour 7:45 15:45 15:30 15:45
Volume
P.H.F.
567

0.90 998

0.88 1520

0.95 1017

0.97 793

0.84 1779

0.89 [email protected] Tell. 714 253 7888
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS T218
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
DATE:

Tue, May 9, 23
LOCATION:

NORTH & SOUTH:

EAST & WEST:

Cathedral City
Date Palm
Mccallum
PROJECT #:

LOCATION #:

CONTROL:

SC4010
1 SIGNAL
NOTES: AM
PM
MD
▲
N
◄ W E ►
OTHER
OTHER
S
▼
Add U-Turns to Left Turns

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS
Date Palm Date Palm Mccallum
ET
1 Mccallum
WT
1 NL
1 NT
3 NR
0 SL
1 ST
3 SR
0 EL
1 ER
0 WL
1 WR
0 TOTAL NB
0 SB
0 EB
0 WB
0 TTL
LANES:
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
7:30 AM
7:45 AM
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
8:30 AM
8:45 AM
6 3
10 5
71 79
98 6
14 10
6 10
12 14
13 85
9%
969
14 6
13 14
22 32
16 13
163
152
228
264
164
223
208
219
1,621
88%
/
11 11
7 10
14 11
12 8
84 12
8 20
12 12
15 13
10 29
52 45
15 50
61 65
15 332
53%
/
26 20
34 26
22 23
23 15
12 16
18 18
11 12
18 9
17 37
48 50
21 27
34 35
269
58%
/
8 7
8 10
8 6
18 16
81 17%
418
375
405
539
503
450
546
573
468
3,859
0 0
0 2
0 0
1 0
3 0
0 0
0 1
1 0
0 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
1 1
1 0
5 73
7 109
112
136
106
784
84%
/
7:45 AM
430
84%

0.771
/
238
237
219
188
234
212
168
177
1,673
84%
/
4:00 PM
882
86%

0.928
/
12 16
9 68
7%
937
VOLUMES 130
7%
1,835
102
16%
623
189
30%
545
114
25%
464
APPROACH %

APP/DEPART

BEGIN PEAK HR

VOLUMES
APPROACH %

PEAK HR FACTOR

APP/DEPART
4:00 PM
5%
1,927 0
40 8%
42 8%
84 8%
859
87%

0.859
/
47 5%
52 15%
191
57%

0.834
/
25 45
19 22
17 26
25 20
199
40%
/
94 28%
59 25%
132
57%

0.747
/
49 37
20 21
25 32
24 14
222
51%
/
42 18%
2,072

0.904
512 0
17 19
24 23
29 37
19 26
526
22 14
11 16
14 14
9 14
990
13 8
15 13
12 7
1,015
17 6
14 6
6 20
9 337
22 24
10 26
18 15
19 16
315
17 18
15 22
16 22
23 17
233
28 15
9 18
8 19
13 15
216
18 10
14 5
12 9
9 9
86 20%
500
165
160
155
163
172
145
133
138
1,231
88%
/
631
593
525
523
563
558
460
466
4,319
0 0
1 0
1 0
0 0
2 2
0 0
1 1
0 1
2 7
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
1 1
2 0
1 2
9 4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
9 12
89 6%
1,406
8 VOLUMES 194
10%
1,981
114
6%
1,916
86 6%
1,508
150
30%
499
150
30%
395
125
29%
433
APPROACH %

APP/DEPART

BEGIN PEAK HR

VOLUMES
APPROACH %

PEAK HR FACTOR

APP/DEPART
0 83
8%
63 6%
49 7%
643
87%

0.942
/
43 6%
82 31%
111
42%

0.761
/
72 27%
70 29%
127
52%

0.642
/
47 19%
2,272

0.900
1,028 1,014 735 786 265 220 244 252 0
Date Palm

NORTH SIDE
Mccallum WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Mccallum

SOUTH SIDE
Date Palm
PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE

BICYCLE CROSSINGS

N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL TOTAL
1 2
1 2
5 3
4 4
NS
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
SS
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
2 ES
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 WS
1 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
TOTAL
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
7:30 AM
7:45 AM
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
8:30 AM
8:45 AM
TOTAL
0 0
1 0
1 0
2 0
4 0
1 0
0 1
2 1
3 8
1 1
0 0
0 0
1 2
5 1
0 0
2 3
3 1
0 10
2 2
1 2
5 5
5 5
27 0
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 3
0 1
0 0
1 1
1 2
6 1
1 0
0 0
0 1
2 5
0 0
0 2
3 2
1 0
8 1
0 0
0 0
2 1
1 22 5
14 1 2
AM BEGIN PEAK HR 7:45 AM 2 3 1 8
4:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
TOTAL
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
2 1
1 0
2 2
0 8
0 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
2 1
1 0
0 1
0 0
5 3
4 2
2 0
3 2
0 16
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 1
1 0
2 2
0 7
0 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
2 1
1 1
0 0
1 0
0 4
2 3
2 2
0 3
2 0
14 9
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 2
PM BEGIN PEAK HR 4:00 PM 1 3 2 3
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Date Palm
3,241 170 2,852 219 TOTAL 2,885
1,406
1,835
86 84
1,231
1,621
89 130
PM
AM
1,916
969
Cathedral City
SC4010

ALL HOURS
1,927
1,508
AM
PM
68 194
784
1,673
85 114
937
1,981
3,435 TOTAL 262 2,457 199 2,918
Date Palm
Date Palm
1,725 90 1,502 133
49 84
TOTAL
PM
AM
1,540
735
990
43 47
643
859
1,014
526

PEAK HOUR
AM 7:45 AM
PM 4:00 PM
1,015
786
AM
PM
40 83
430
882
42 63
512
1,028
1,801 Total 123 1,312 105 1,540
Date Palm
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS T218
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
DATE:

Tue, May 9, 23
LOCATION:

NORTH & SOUTH:

EAST & WEST:

Cathedral City
Date Palm
30th
PROJECT #:

LOCATION #:

CONTROL:

SC4010
3 SIGNAL
NOTES: AM
PM
MD
▲
N
◄ W E ►
OTHER
OTHER
S
▼
Add U-Turns to Left Turns

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND U-TURNS
Date Palm Date Palm 30th
ET
1 30th
WT
1 NL
1 NT
3 NR
0 SL
1 ST
3 SR
0 EL
1 ER
0 WL
1 WR
0 TOTAL NB
0 SB
0 EB
0 WB
0 TTL
LANES:
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
7:30 AM
7:45 AM
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
8:30 AM
8:45 AM
6 9
14 15
9 13
15 16
97 10%
975
84 88
87 87
102
96 3
11 15
10 10
15 18
7 89
51 67
64 52
70 100
78 40
522
24%
2,178
188
161
193
255
184
205
178
167
1,531
70%
/
17 19
16 20
17 13
12 11
31 40
50 33
26 15
19 22
24 48
72 57
45 70
66 33
415
50%
13 29
30 18
15 29
26 23
183
22%
3 3
13 10
13 31
31 20
17 34
37 35
38 68
73 52
354
37%
/
37 68
67 52
56 68
70 53
474
577
658
644
585
723
718
557
4,936
0 0
0 0
0 1
2 1
4 0
0 0
1 2
0 0
0 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 0
0 1
2 1
2 1
8 132
113
789
81%
/
7:45 AM
417
80%

0.791
/
206
207
198
197
207
211
186
149
1,561
83%
/
4:00 PM
808
82%

0.938
/
VOLUMES 125
6%
1,841
236
28%
834
124
13%
949
471
50%
572
APPROACH %

APP/DEPART

BEGIN PEAK HR

VOLUMES
APPROACH %

PEAK HR FACTOR

APP/DEPART
4:00 PM
9%
1,499 / 1,024 0
52 10%
53 10%
300
25%
822
69%

0.905
/
62 5%
93 22%
238
57%

0.919
/
37 31
32 26
37 28
26 43
260
46%
/
88 21%
85 16%
214
39%

0.783
/
79 41
56 43
37 45
37 36
374
42%
/
246
45%
2,670

0.923
522 0
50 35
34 28
19 28
21 25
759
8 8
11 8
5 11
4 19
74 4%
2,172
1,184
46 32
41 35
26 45
34 40
998
23 24
27 20
26 20
28 27
419
21 28
12 22
26 23
17 16
588
24 22
19 21
14 14
12 17
545
16 7
9 9
9 4
4 8
325
91 61
60 47
54 44
42 45
129
152
131
147
158
154
150
108
1,129
70%
/
730
648
630
603
618
627
561
533
4,950
7 6
3 4
1 3
3 7
34 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
7 6
3 4
1 4
4 7
36 4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
VOLUMES 240
13%
1,875
299
18%
1,623
195
12%
1,372
165
29%
568
143
25%
631
66 7%
884
444
50%
775
APPROACH %

APP/DEPART

BEGIN PEAK HR

VOLUMES
APPROACH %

PEAK HR FACTOR

APP/DEPART
0 147
15%
35 4%
154
19%
559
69%

0.970
/
94 12%
83 28%
126
43%

0.899
/
86 29%
41 8%
219
42%

0.698
/
259
50%
2,611

0.894
990 1,150 807 706 295 315 519 440 0
Date Palm

NORTH SIDE
30th WEST SIDE EAST SIDE 30th

SOUTH SIDE
Date Palm
PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE

BICYCLE CROSSINGS

N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL TOTAL
2 3
4 4
5 13
0 0
31 22
NS
0 3
2 0
0 3
0 0
SS
4 ES
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 WS
0 TOTAL
7:00 AM
7:15 AM
0 5
2 3
2 6
0 0
6 0
4 2
5 10
2 2
0 0
0 0
0 2
0 0
2 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
1 2
6 6
6 5
7 18
2 3
0 2
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
0 0
2 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
4 0 0 3
7:30 AM 0 4 0 0 2
7:45 AM 3 1 1 0 1
8:00 AM 2 3 2 0 2
8:15 AM 3 8 2 0 5
8:30 AM 0 0 2 0 2
8:45 AM 0 0 2 1 3
TOTAL 18 31 53 10
8 18
12 8 13 1 22
AM BEGIN PEAK HR 7:45 AM 2 0
4:00 PM
4:15 PM
4:30 PM
4:45 PM
5:00 PM
5:15 PM
5:30 PM
5:45 PM
TOTAL
0 0
0 0
2 0
0 0
2 2
1 0
0 0
1 2
0 6
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
3 3
2 1
0 2
1 2
0 11
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
1 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
2 0
3 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 3
1 2
1 0
1 0
2 0
7 4
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
1 2
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 4
PM BEGIN PEAK HR 4:00 PM 0 3
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Date Palm
3,801 320 2,660 821 TOTAL 3,671
1,623
2,178
195
125
1,129
1,531
299
522
PM
AM
2,172
1,499
Cathedral City
SC4010

ALL HOURS
1,841
1,372
AM
PM
97 240
789
1,561
89 74
975
1,875
3,213 TOTAL 337 2,350 163 2,850
Date Palm
Date Palm
1,991 156 1,381 454 TOTAL 1,909
807
1,184
94 62
559
822
154
300
PM
AM
1,150
759

PEAK HOUR
AM 7:45 AM
PM 4:00 PM
998
706
AM
PM
52 147
417
808
53 35
522
990
1,704 Total 199 1,225 88 1,512
Date Palm
RIVCOM 3 - 2018 AM peak period volumes

VISTA CHINO
1912

VISTA CHINO
2377
--
14 --
357 --
163
--
113
30TH AVE
848
30TH AVE
294
30TH AVE
485
30TH AVE
489
30TH AVE
392
30TH AVE
456
30TH AVE
391
30TH AVE
868

HCMTYPE
CC (6867)
Collector (8161)
Freeway (8427)
HOV (893)

RAMON RD
2570 RAMON RD
2974

RAMON RD
3679 RAMON RD
3608

RAMON RD
2520 RAMON RD
2851

RAMON RD
2766 RAMON RD
3145
Local (3067)
MinArterial (12486)
PrArterial (8422)
0 .05 .1 .15
Miles
RIVCOM 3 - 2018 PM peak period volumes

VISTA CHINO
2661

VISTA CHINO
2504
--
279
--
41 --
161
--
198
30TH AVE
520
30TH AVE
904
30TH AVE
619
30TH AVE
603
30TH AVE
563
30TH AVE
502
30TH AVE
959
30TH AVE
611

HCMTYPE
CC (6867)
Collector (8161)
Freeway (8427)
HOV (893)

RAMON RD
3650 RAMON RD
3301

RAMON RD
4510 RAMON RD
4660

RAMON RD
3534 RAMON RD
3234

RAMON RD
3888 RAMON RD
3547
Local (3067)
MinArterial (12486)
PrArterial (8422)
0 .05 .1 .15
Miles
RIVCOM 3 - 2045 AM peak period volumes

VISTA CHINO
2554

VISTA CHINO
2467

VISTA CHINO
180

VISTA CHINO
292
--
150
--
113
30TH AVE
861
30TH AVE
320
30TH AVE
440
30TH AVE
492
30TH AVE
354
30TH AVE
492
30TH AVE
407
30TH AVE
953

HCMTYPE
CC (6867)
Collector (8161)
Freeway (8427)
HOV (893)

RAMON RD
3524 RAMON RD
3427

RAMON RD RAMON RD
3917 RAMON RD
3336

RAMON RD
3767 RAMON RD
3212

RAMON RD
5812 RAMON RD
3243
4765 RAMON RD
3347
Local (3067)
MinArterial (12486)
PrArterial (8422)
0 .05 .1 .15
Miles
RIVCOM 3 - 2045 PM peak period volumes

VISTA CHINO
2867

VISTA CHINO
3092

VISTA CHINO
322

VISTA CHINO
229
--
163
--
187
30TH AVE
544
30TH AVE
918
30TH AVE
559
30TH AVE
509
30TH AVE
559
30TH AVE
462
30TH AVE
1010
30TH AVE
641

HCMTYPE
CC (6867)
Collector (8161)
Freeway (8427)
HOV (893)

RAMON RD
4095 RAMON RD
4392

RAMON RD RAMON RD
4208 RAMON RD
4940

RAMON RD
3903 RAMON RD
4516

RAMON RD
4477 RAMON RD
6686
4329 RAMON RD
5709
Local (3067)
MinArterial (12486)
PrArterial (8422)
0 .05 .1 .15
Miles
AM PM
In Out
187
In Out
Model 2018 219
Model 2045
Annual Growth
Model 2023 Interpolated
183
308

2.88%
209
226
367

2.77%
257
350 411
187 219
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Date Palm
3,801 320 2,660 821 TOTAL 3,671
1,623
2,178
195
125
1,129
1,531
299
522
PM
AM
2,172
1,499
Cathedral City
SC4010

ALL HOURS
1,841
1,372
AM
PM
97 240
789
1,561
89 74
975
1,875
3,213 TOTAL 337 2,350 163 2,850
Date Palm
Date Palm
1,991 156 1,381 454 TOTAL 1,909
807
1,184
94 62
559
822
154
300
PM
AM
1,150
759
AM PM
45%
39%
16%
50%
42%
8%

PEAK HOUR
AM 7:45 AM
PM 4:00 PM
998
706
AM
PM
52 147
417
808
53 35
522
990
1,704 Total 199 1,225 88 1,512
Date Palm
The Wren
Adjusted Year 2023
AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes

APPENDIX C -

EXISTING CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Date Palm Drive & McCallum Way
The Wren Project
05/31/2024
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Initial Q (Qb), veh
52 52
0 191
191
0 94
94 0
59 59
0 132
132
0 42
42 0
40 40
0 430
430
0 42
42 0
84 84
0 859
859
0 47
47 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green

1.00 1.00

0.98 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.98 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.99 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.97 1.00 1.00
No
1870
212

0.90 2
362

0.31 1178
0 1.00
No
1870
147

0.90 2
415

0.31 1352
0 1.00
No
1870
478

0.90 2
1374

0.29 4726
342
1702

3.0 1.00
No
1870
954

0.90 2
1604

0.32 4946
656
1702

6.1 1870
58 0.90
2 456

0.31 1187
58 1187

1.5 1870
104

0.90 2
178

0.31 578
316
1756

5.7 1870
66 0.90
2 356

0.31 1062
66 1062

2.1 1870
47 0.90
2 133

0.31 432
194
1784

3.2 1870
44 0.90
2 1870
47 0.90
2 133

0.29 458
183
1780

3.0 1870
93 0.90
2 147

0.08 1781
93 1781

1.9 1870
52 0.90
2 87 87

0.05 1781
44 1781

0.9 0.9

1.00 87

0.50 237

1.00 1.00

17.4 4.4

0.32 269
350
1811

6.1 Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
0 0.0

0.0 0

0.0 4.7 5.7 7.8 0.0 3.2 3.0 3.0 1.9 6.1 6.1

1.00 456

0.13 913

1.00 1.00

11.9 0.1

0.33 539

0.59 1215

1.00 1.00

11.0 1.0

1.00 356

0.19 765

1.00 1.00

14.3 0.2

0.24 548

0.35 1235

1.00 1.00

10.1 0.4

0.26 518

0.35 663

1.00 1.00

10.5 0.4

1.00 147

0.63 379

1.00 1.00

16.7 4.4

0.15 587

0.60 819

1.00 1.00

10.6 1.0
0 0.00
0 1.00

0.00 0.0

0.0 0

0.00 0

1.00 0.00

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
990

0.35 1268

1.00 1.00

10.5 0.2
1104

0.59 1540

1.00 1.00

10.6 0.5

0.0 0.3

0.0 0.0

0.0 1.9

0.0 0.5

0.0 1.1

0.0 0.4

0.0 0.8

0.0 1.5

0.0 1.7

12.1 B

0.0 A

12.0 B

14.5 B

0.0 A

10.5 B

21.9 C

10.7 B

10.9 B

21.1 C

11.1 B

11.6 B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
374

12.0 B
260

11.5 B
569

11.6 B
1099

12.1 B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1

7.1 4.0

8.0 3.9

0.1 2

14.9 4.0

14.0 5.0
4 15.5

4.0 26.0

7.7 5

5.8 4.0

5.0 2.9

0.0 6

16.2 4.0

17.0 8.1
8 15.5

4.0 26.0

9.8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.0 2.1 3.9 1.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
HCM 6th LOS

11.9 B
Existing Year 2023 Synchro 11 Report
Timing Plan: AM Peak
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Date Palm Drive & 30th Avenue
The Wren Project
05/31/2024
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Initial Q (Qb), veh
93 93
0 238
238
0 88
88 0
85 85
0 214
214
0 246
246
0 52
52 0
417
417
0 53
53 0
300
300
0 822
822
0 62
62 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green

1.00 1.00

0.97 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.97 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.99 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870
259

0.92 2
502

0.27 1870
259
1870

6.7 1.00
No
1870
233

0.92 2
492

0.26 1870
233
1870

6.0 1.00
No
1870
453

0.92 2
807

0.18 4590
334
1702

5.1 1.00
No
1870
893

0.92 2
1614

0.33 4845
627
1702

8.6 1870
101

0.92 2
129

0.07 1781
101
1781

3.2 1870
96 0.92
2 412

0.27 1536
96 1536

2.8 1870
92 0.92
2 119

0.07 1781
92 1781

2.9 1870
267

0.92 2
405

0.26 1541
267
1541

8.9 1870
57 0.92
2 1870
58 0.92
2 101

0.18 577
177
1763

5.3 1870
326

0.92 2
1870
67 0.92
2 121

0.33 362
333
1804

8.7 93 373

0.21 1781
326
1781

10.1 10.1

1.00 373

0.87 373

1.00 1.00

21.9 19.9

0.0 0.05
1781
57 1781

1.8 1.8

1.00 93

0.61 187

1.00 1.00

26.6 6.5
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS

3.2 6.7 2.8 2.9 6.0 8.9 5.1 5.3 8.6 8.7

1.00 129

0.78 155

1.00 1.00

26.1 18.9

0.0 1.00
412

0.23 697

1.00 1.00

16.4 0.3

1.00 119

0.77 155

1.00 1.00

26.3 15.8

0.0 1.00
405

0.66 699

1.00 1.00

18.8 1.8

0.33 310

0.57 646

1.00 1.00

21.6 1.7

0.20 601

0.55 850

1.00 1.00

15.6 0.8
502

0.52 849

1.00 1.00

17.8 0.8
492

0.47 849

1.00 1.00

17.8 0.7
599

0.56 1247

1.00 1.00

21.6 0.8
1134

0.55 1604

1.00 1.00

15.6 0.4

0.0 2.5

0.0 0.9

0.0 2.3

0.0 2.8

0.0 0.8

0.0 1.8

0.0 2.0

0.0 2.6

0.0 1.9 1.6 5.5 2.8

45.1 D

18.6 B

16.6 B

42.1 D

18.5 B

20.7 C

33.1 C

22.4 C

23.3 C

41.8 D

16.0 B

16.4 B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
456

24.1 C
592

23.1 C
568

23.7 C
1286

22.7 C
Timer - Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
1 16.0

4.0 2

14.1 4.0

21.0 7.3
3 7.8

4.0 5.0

4.9 0.0
4 19.4

4.0 26.0

8.7 5

7.0 4.0

6.0 3.8

0.0 6

23.1 4.0

27.0 10.7

5.0 7

8.2 4.0

5.0 5.2

0.0 8

19.1 4.0

26.0 10.9

0.0 2.4 1.5 1.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
HCM 6th LOS

23.2 C
Existing Year 2023 Synchro 11 Report
Timing Plan: AM Peak
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Date Palm Drive & McCallum Way
The Wren Project
05/31/2024
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Initial Q (Qb), veh
82 82
0 111
111
0 72
72 0
70 70
0 127
127
0 47
47 0
83 83
0 882
882
0 63
63 0
49 49
0 643
643
0 43
43 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green

1.00 1.00

0.98 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.97 1.00 1.00
No
1870
123

0.90 2
281

0.27 1051
0 1.00
No
1870
141

0.90 2
348

0.27 1302
0 1.00
No
1870
980

0.90 2
1653

0.34 4863
685
1702

6.0 1.00
No
1870
714

0.90 2
1533

0.31 4879
497
1702

4.2 1870
91 0.90
2 413

0.27 1187
91 1187

2.4 1870
80 0.90
2 183

0.27 683
203
1734

3.5 1870
78 0.90
2 401

0.27 1177
78 1177

2.1 1870
52 0.90
2 128

0.27 480
193
1782

3.2 1870
92 0.90
2 149

0.08 1781
92 1781

1.8 1870
70 0.90
2 118

0.34 347
365
1806

6.0 1870
54 0.90
2 103

0.06 1781
54 1781

1.1 1870
48 0.90
2 102

0.31 326
265
1801

4.2 Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
0 0.0

0.0 0

0.0 5.6 3.5 5.6 0.0 3.2 1.8 6.0 6.0 1.1 4.2 4.2

1.00 413

0.22 956

1.00 1.00

13.1 0.3

0.39 464

0.44 1257

1.00 1.00

10.9 0.7

1.00 401

0.19 940

1.00 1.00

13.2 0.2

0.27 477

0.40 1292

1.00 1.00

10.8 0.6

1.00 149

0.62 348

1.00 1.00

15.9 4.1

0.19 614

0.59 856

1.00 1.00

9.8 0.9

0.0 1.5

1.00 103

0.52 248

1.00 1.00

16.4 4.0

0.18 566

0.47 754

1.00 1.00

9.9 0.6

0.0 1.1
0 0.00
0 1.00

0.00 0.0

0.0 0

0.00 0

1.00 0.00

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
1157

0.59 1614

1.00 1.00

9.8 0.5

0.0 1.4
1070

0.46 1424

1.00 1.00

9.9 0.3

0.0 1.0

0.0 0.6

0.0 0.0

0.0 1.1

0.0 0.5

0.0 1.1

0.0 0.7

0.0 0.4

13.4 B

0.0 A

11.5 B

13.5 B

0.0 A

11.3 B

20.0 B

10.3 B

10.7 B

20.4 C

10.2 B

10.5 B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
294

12.1 B
271

12.0 B
1142

11.2 B
816

11.0 B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1

6.1 4.0

5.0 3.1

0.0 2

16.2 4.0

17.0 8.0
4 13.6

4.0 26.0

7.6 5

7.0 4.0

7.0 3.8

0.0 6

15.3 4.0

15.0 6.2
8 13.6

4.0 26.0

7.6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.1 1.5 2.9 1.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
HCM 6th LOS

11.3 B
Existing Year 2023 Synchro 11 Report
Timing Plan: PM Peak
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Date Palm Drive & 30th Avenue
The Wren Project
05/31/2024
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Initial Q (Qb), veh
83 83
0 126
126
0 86
86 0
41 41
0 219
219
0 259
259
0 147
147
0 808
808
0 35
35 0
154
154
0 559
559
0 94
94 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green

1.00 1.00

0.99 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.99 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.99 1.00 1.00
No
1870
140

0.90 2
499

0.27 1870
140
1870

3.2 1.00
No
1870
243

0.90 2
457

0.24 1870
243
1870

6.2 1.00
No
1870
898

0.90 2
1375

0.27 5016
609
1702

8.6 1.00
No
1870
621

0.90 2
1231

0.28 4411
477
1702

6.4 1870
92 0.90
2 123

0.07 1781
92 1781

2.8 1870
96 0.90
2 417

0.27 1562
96 1562

2.6 1870
46 0.90
2 1870
288

0.90 2
386

0.24 1583
288
1583

9.2 1870
163

0.90 2
205

0.12 1781
163
1781

4.9 1870
39 0.90
2 1870
171

0.90 2
214

0.12 1781
171
1781

5.1 1870
104

0.90 2
203

0.28 728
248
1735

6.6 82 60

0.05 1781
46 1781

1.4 0.27
217
328
1830

8.7 Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)

2.8 3.2 2.6 1.4

1.00 82

0.56 163

1.00 1.00

25.5 5.9

6.2 9.2 4.9 8.6 8.7 5.1 6.4 6.6

1.00 123

0.75 163

1.00 1.00

25.0 12.6

0.0 1.00
417

0.23 743

1.00 1.00

15.6 0.3

1.00 386

0.75 753

1.00 1.00

19.1 2.9

1.00 205

0.79 228

1.00 1.00

23.6 16.0

0.0 0.12
501

0.65 703

1.00 1.00

17.6 1.5

1.00 214

0.80 228

1.00 1.00

23.4 17.0

0.0 0.42
484

0.51 666

1.00 1.00

16.6 0.8
499

0.28 890

1.00 1.00

15.9 0.3
457

0.53 890

1.00 1.00

18.0 1.0
933

0.65 1308

1.00 1.00

17.5 0.8
950

0.50 1308

1.00 1.00

16.5 0.4
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS

0.0 1.2

0.0 0.8

0.0 0.7

0.0 2.3

0.0 3.1

0.0 2.9

0.0 3.2

0.0 2.0

0.0 1.5 2.7 2.8 2.1

37.6 D

16.2 B

15.9 B

31.4 C

18.9 B

22.0 C

39.5 D

18.3 B

19.0 B

40.4 D

16.9 B

17.4 B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
328

22.1 C
577

21.4 C
1100

21.7 C
896

21.5 C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1

10.6 4.0

7.0 7.1
2 19.0

4.0 21.0

10.7 4.0
3 6.5

4.0 5.0

3.4 0.0
4 18.6

4.0 26.0

5.2 5

10.3 4.0

7.0 6.9
6 19.3

4.0 21.0

8.6 7

7.8 4.0

5.0 4.8

0.0 8

17.3 4.0

26.0 11.2

2.0 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.9 0.0 3.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
HCM 6th LOS

21.6 C
Existing Year 2023 Synchro 11 Report
Timing Plan: PM Peak

APPENDIX D -
PROJECT COMPLETION YEAR 2025 CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS

WORKSHEETS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Date Palm Drive & McCallum Way
The Wren Project
06/02/2024
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Initial Q (Qb), veh
56 56
0 203
203
0 100
100
0 63
63 0
141
141
0 45
45 0
43 43
0 465
465
0 45
45 0
90 90
0 936
936
0 50
50 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green

1.00 1.00

0.98 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.98 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.99 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.97 1.00 1.00
No
1870
226

0.90 2
374

0.32 1177
0 1.00
No
1870
157

0.90 2
430

0.32 1354
0 1.00
No
1870
517

0.90 2
1407

0.30 4734
370
1702

3.4 1.00
No
1870
1040

0.90 2
1630

0.33 4950
715
1702

7.1 1870
62 0.90
2 448

0.32 1173
62 1173

1.7 1870
111

0.90 2
184

0.32 578
337
1756

6.5 1870
70 0.90
2 343

0.32 1042
70 1042

2.4 1870
50 0.90
2 137

0.32 431
207
1785

3.6 1870
48 0.90
2 1870
50 0.90
2 134

0.30 452
197
1782

3.5 1870
100

0.90 2
150

0.08 1781
100
1781

2.2 1870
56 0.90
2 92 88

0.05 1781
48 1781

1.0 1.0

1.00 92

0.52 223

1.00 1.00

18.4 4.5

0.33 266
381
1812

7.1 Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
0 0.0

0.0 0

0.0 5.3 6.5 8.9 0.0 3.6 3.4 3.5 2.2 7.1 7.1

1.00 448

0.14 840

1.00 1.00

12.5 0.1

0.33 558

0.60 1145

1.00 1.00

11.5 1.1

1.00 343

0.20 691

1.00 1.00

15.2 0.3

0.24 567

0.36 1164

1.00 1.00

10.5 0.4

0.25 529

0.37 626

1.00 1.00

11.1 0.4

1.00 150

0.67 357

1.00 1.00

17.7 5.1

0.15 597

0.64 772

1.00 1.00

11.4 1.1
0 0.00
0 1.00

0.00 0.0

0.0 0

0.00 0

1.00 0.00

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
1011

0.37 1195

1.00 1.00

11.0 0.2
1121

0.64 1451

1.00 1.00

11.3 0.6

0.0 0.4

0.0 0.0

0.0 2.2

0.0 0.5

0.0 1.2

0.0 0.5

0.0 0.9

0.0 1.0

0.0 0.9

0.0 1.8

0.0 2.1

12.7 B

0.0 A

12.5 B

15.5 B

0.0 A

10.9 B

22.9 C

11.3 B

11.5 B

22.8 C

12.0 B

12.5 B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
399

12.6 B
277

12.1 B
615

12.3 B
1196

13.0 B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1

7.3 4.0

8.0 4.2

0.1 2

15.8 4.0

14.0 5.5
4 16.7

4.0 26.0

8.5 5

6.1 4.0

5.0 3.0

0.0 6

17.1 4.0

17.0 9.1
8 16.7

4.0 26.0

10.9 1.3
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.1 2.3 3.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
HCM 6th LOS

12.7 B
Project Completion Year 2025
Timing Plan: AM Peak
Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Date Palm Drive & Rosemount Road
The Wren Project
06/02/2024
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Initial Q (Qb), veh
60 60
0 205
205
0 528
528
0 37
37 0
106
106
0 952
952
0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green

1.00 1.00
No
1870
65 0.92
2 382

0.21 1781
65 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
No
1870
574

0.92 2
1344

0.28 5045
399
1702

2.8 1.00
No
1870
1035

0.92 2
2627

0.51 5274
1035
1702

3.6 1870
223

0.92 2
340

0.21 1585
223
1585

3.8 1870
40 0.92
2 1870
115

0.92 2
184

0.10 1781
115
1781

1.8 93

0.28 337
215
1810

2.9 Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
1781

0.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)

0.9 3.8 2.8 2.9 1.8 3.6

1.00 382

0.17 1267

1.00 1.00

9.5 0.2

0.0 0.3

1.00 340

0.66 1127

1.00 1.00

10.6 2.1

0.19 499

0.43 1103

1.00 1.00

8.8 0.6

0.0 0.8

1.00 184

0.62 543

1.00 1.00

12.7 3.4
938

0.43 2075

1.00 1.00

8.8 0.3

0.0 0.7
2627

0.39 5360

1.00 1.00

4.4 0.1

0.0 0.5
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS

0.0 1.1

0.0 0.7

9.7 A

12.7 B

9.1 A

9.4 A

16.1 B

4.5 A
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
288

12.0 B
614

9.2 A
1150

5.6 A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1

7.1 4.0

9.0 3.8

0.1 2

12.1 4.0

18.0 4.9
6 19.2

4.0 31.0

5.6 8

10.3 4.0

21.0 5.8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.3 8.2 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
HCM 6th LOS

7.6 A
Project Completion Year 2025
Timing Plan: AM Peak
Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Date Palm Drive & 30th Avenue
The Wren Project
06/02/2024
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Initial Q (Qb), veh
99 99
0 253
253
0 94
94 0
56 56
0 135
135
0 158
158
0 148
148
0 568
568
0 24
24 0
220
220
0 978
978
0 66
66 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green

1.00 1.00

0.97 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.97 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870
275

0.92 2
449

0.24 1870
275
1870

7.5 1.00
No
1870
147

0.92 2
405

0.22 1870
147
1870

3.8 1.00
No
1870
617

0.92 2
1316

0.26 5025
417
1702

5.9 1.00
No
1870
1063

0.92 2
1512

0.31 4883
741
1702

10.9 10.9
1870
108

0.92 2
138

0.08 1781
108
1781

3.4 1870
102

0.92 2
368

0.24 1533
102
1533

3.1 1870
61 0.92
2 1870
172

0.92 2
333

0.22 1535
172
1535

5.6 1870
161

0.92 2
205

0.12 1781
161
1781

5.0 1870
26 0.92
2 1870
239

0.92 2
290

0.16 1781
239
1781

7.4 1870
72 0.92
2 97 55 102

0.31 330
394
1810

11.0 11.0

0.18 560

0.70 731

1.00 1.00

17.4 2.1

0.05 1781
61 1781

1.9 1.9

1.00 97

0.63 156

1.00 1.00

26.4 6.6

0.26 211
226
1831

5.9 Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS

3.4 7.5 3.1 3.8 5.6 5.0 5.9 5.9 7.4

1.00 138

0.78 156

1.00 1.00

25.8 20.0

0.0 1.00
368

0.28 700

1.00 1.00

17.6 0.4

1.00 333

0.52 701

1.00 1.00

19.7 1.2

1.00 205

0.79 313

1.00 1.00

24.5 7.1

0.12 480

0.47 707

1.00 1.00

17.7 0.7

1.00 290

0.82 344

1.00 1.00

23.0 13.0

0.0 449

0.61 854

1.00 1.00

19.3 1.4
405

0.36 854

1.00 1.00

19.0 0.5
891

0.47 1315

1.00 1.00

17.7 0.4
1054

0.70 1374

1.00 1.00

17.3 1.1

0.0 2.9

0.0 1.0

0.0 0.9

0.0 1.5

0.0 1.8

0.0 2.3

0.0 2.0

0.0 2.2

0.0 3.4

0.0 2.0 3.6 3.8

45.8 D

20.6 C

18.0 B

33.0 C

19.5 B

20.9 C

31.7 C

18.1 B

18.4 B

36.0 D

18.5 B

19.4 B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
485

25.7 C
380

22.3 C
804

20.9 C
1374

21.8 C
Timer - Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
1 13.3

4.0 2

18.9 4.0

22.0 7.9
3 7.1

4.0 5.0

3.9 0.0
4 17.7

4.0 26.0

9.5 5

10.6 4.0

10.0 7.0
6 21.6

4.0 23.0

13.0 4.6
7 8.4

4.0 5.0

5.4 0.0
8 16.3

4.0 26.0

9.4 7.6

0.1 3.2 1.6 0.1 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
HCM 6th LOS

22.2 C
Project Completion Year 2025
Timing Plan: AM Peak
Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Date Palm Drive & McCallum Way
The Wren Project
06/02/2024
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Initial Q (Qb), veh
87 87
0 118
118
0 77
77 0
75 75
0 135
135
0 50
50 0
89 89
0 962
962
0 67
67 0
52 52
0 699
699
0 46
46 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green

1.00 1.00

0.98 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.97 1.00 1.00
No
1870
131

0.90 2
289

0.28 1047
0 1.00
No
1870
150

0.90 2
358

0.28 1297
0 1.00
No
1870
1069

0.90 2
1691

0.35 4875
746
1702

6.9 1.00
No
1870
777

0.90 2
1572

0.32 4888
540
1702

4.8 1870
97 0.90
2 403

0.28 1174
97 1174

2.8 1870
86 0.90
2 190

0.28 687
217
1734

3.9 1870
83 0.90
2 390

0.28 1162
83 1162

2.4 1870
56 0.90
2 134

0.28 484
206
1781

3.6 1870
99 0.90
2 152

0.09 1781
99 1781

2.0 1870
74 0.90
2 117

0.35 337
397
1808

7.0 1870
58 0.90
2 107

0.06 1781
58 1781

1.2 1870
51 0.90
2 103

0.32 319
288
1803

4.9 Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS
0 0.0

0.0 0

0.0 6.4 3.9 6.3 0.0 3.6 2.0 6.9 7.0 1.2 4.8 4.9

1.00 403

0.24 885

1.00 1.00

13.8 0.3

0.40 478

0.45 1190

1.00 1.00

11.3 0.7

1.00 390

0.21 868

1.00 1.00

14.0 0.3

0.27 492

0.42 1223

1.00 1.00

11.2 0.6

1.00 152

0.65 329

1.00 1.00

16.8 4.6

0.19 627

0.63 812

1.00 1.00

10.4 1.1

1.00 107

0.54 235

1.00 1.00

17.3 4.2

0.18 580

0.50 714

1.00 1.00

10.4 0.7
0 0.00
0 1.00

0.00 0.0

0.0 0

0.00 0

1.00 0.00

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
1181

0.63 1528

1.00 1.00

10.3 0.6
1095

0.49 1348

1.00 1.00

10.4 0.3

0.0 0.7

0.0 0.0

0.0 1.3

0.0 0.6

0.0 1.2

0.0 0.8

0.0 1.7

0.0 1.9

0.0 0.5

0.0 1.2

0.0 1.3

14.1 B

0.0 A

12.0 B

14.2 B

0.0 A

11.8 B

21.4 C

10.9 B

11.4 B

21.4 C

10.7 B

11.0 B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
314

12.7 B
289

12.5 B
1242

11.9 B
886

11.5 B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1

6.3 4.0

5.0 3.2

0.0 2

17.1 4.0

17.0 9.0
4 14.5

4.0 26.0

8.4 5

7.2 4.0

7.0 4.0

0.0 6

16.2 4.0

15.0 6.9
8 14.5

4.0 26.0

8.3 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.1 1.6 3.1 1.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
HCM 6th LOS

11.9 B
Project Completion Year 2025
Timing Plan: PM Peak
Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Date Palm Drive & Rosemount Road
The Wren Project
06/02/2024
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Initial Q (Qb), veh
44 44
0 251
251
0 1060
1060
0 40
40 0
157
157
0 647
647
0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green

1.00 1.00
No
1870
48 0.92
2 401

0.23 1781
48 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
No
1870
1152

0.92 2
1798

0.36 5220
776
1702

7.7 1.00
No
1870
703

0.92 2
2953

0.58 5274
703
1702

2.7 1870
273

0.92 2
357

0.23 1585
273
1585

6.6 1870
43 0.92
2 1870
171

0.92 2
221

0.12 1781
171
1781

3.8 67

0.36 188
419
1836

7.8 Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
1781

0.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)

0.9 6.6 7.7 7.8 3.8 2.7

1.00 401

0.12 918

1.00 1.00

12.6 0.1

1.00 357

0.76 817

1.00 1.00

14.8 3.4

0.10 653

0.64 811

1.00 1.00

11.0 1.2

1.00 221

0.77 394

1.00 1.00

17.3 5.6
1211

0.64 1504

1.00 1.00

10.9 0.6
2953

0.24 3885

1.00 1.00

4.2 0.0

0.0 0.3

0.0 2.3

0.0 2.6

0.0 1.7

12.7 B

18.2 B

11.6 B

12.1 B

22.9 C

4.2 A
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
321

17.4 B
1195

11.8 B
874

7.9 A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1

9.1 4.0

9.0 5.8

0.1 2

18.5 4.0

18.0 9.8
6 27.6

4.0 31.0

4.7 8

13.2 4.0

21.0 8.6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.7 5.3 0.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
HCM 6th LOS

11.1 B
Project Completion Year 2025
Timing Plan: PM Peak
Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Date Palm Drive & 30th Avenue
The Wren Project
06/02/2024
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Initial Q (Qb), veh
89 89
0 134
134
0 92
92 0
16 16
0 125
125
0 139
139
0 265
265
0 1008
1008
0 11
11 0
30 30
0 750
750
0 100
100
0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green

1.00 1.00

0.98 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.99 1.00 1.00
No
1870
149

0.90 2
382

0.20 1870
149
1870

3.7 1.00
No
1870
139

0.90 2
288

0.15 1870
139
1870

3.6 1.00
No
1870
1120

0.90 2
2282

0.44 5208
732
1702

8.2 1.00
No
1870
833

0.90 2
1267

0.28 4558
621
1702

8.6 1870
99 0.90
2 128

0.07 1781
99 1781

2.9 1870
102

0.90 2
318

0.20 1560
102
1560

3.0 1870
18 0.90
2 1870
154

0.90 2
243

0.15 1582
154
1582

4.9 1870
294

0.90 2
350

0.20 1781
294
1781

8.5 1870
12 0.90
2 24

0.44 56
400
1860

8.2 1870
33 0.90
2 1870
111

0.90 2
168

0.28 604
323
1758

8.7 39 65

0.02 1781
18 1781

0.5 0.04
1781
33 1781

1.0 Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)

2.9 3.7 3.0 0.5

1.00 39

0.46 167

1.00 1.00

25.8 8.2

3.6 4.9 8.5 8.2 8.2 1.0

1.00 65

0.51 167

1.00 1.00

25.3 6.1

8.6 8.7

1.00 128

0.77 167

1.00 1.00

24.3 15.0

0.0 1.00
318

0.32 760

1.00 1.00

18.1 0.6

1.00 243

0.63 770

1.00 1.00

21.2 2.7

1.00 350

0.84 400

1.00 1.00

20.6 13.3

0.0 0.03
815

0.49 975

1.00 1.00

10.7 0.5

0.34 489

0.66 691

1.00 1.00

17.1 1.5
382

0.39 911

1.00 1.00

18.4 0.7
288

0.48 911

1.00 1.00

20.6 1.3
1492

0.49 1785

1.00 1.00

10.7 0.3
946

0.66 1339

1.00 1.00

17.0 0.8
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
LnGrp LOS

0.0 1.4

0.0 0.9

0.0 0.3

0.0 1.5

0.0 1.7

0.0 2.3

0.0 2.5

0.0 0.5

0.0 2.6

0.0 1.6 4.2 2.9

39.3 D

19.0 B

18.7 B

34.0 C

21.9 C

23.9 C

34.0 C

11.0 B

11.2 B

31.4 C

17.8 B

18.6 B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
350

24.7 C
311

23.6 C
1426

15.8 B
977

18.5 B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1

5.9 4.0

5.0 3.0

0.0 2

27.4 4.0

28.0 10.2

6.6 3

5.2 4.0

5.0 2.5

0.0 4

14.9 4.0

26.0 5.7
5 14.5

4.0 12.0

10.5 0.1
6 18.8

4.0 21.0

10.7 3.9
7 7.8

4.0 5.0

4.9 0.0
8 12.2

4.0 26.0

6.9 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 1.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
HCM 6th LOS

18.5 B
Project Completion Year 2025
Timing Plan: PM Peak
Synchro 11 Report

APPENDIX E -

CUMULATIVE PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT

PROJECT SITE
3 2
5 4
6 1
7 See Cathedral Cove Center TA Excerpts below LEGEND # Cumulative Project The Wren
Cumulative Project Locations
10%
2 5% 5%
20%
10%
1 3 30%

PROJECT SITE
5 4
10%
30%
LEGEND # Intersection Project Driveway Roadway Segment
Kroger Gas Staꢀon
5 Project Study Area and Trip Distribuꢀon
Figure 1-2
LEGEND
(AM/PM) Peak Hour Volumes
Kroger Gas Station
Project Intersection Volumes
Figure 1-3
6 15%
5%
4 20%
5%
25%
15% 20%
3 60%

PROJECT SITE
5 60%
40%
10%
15%
1 6 15%
Date Palm Drive Mixed Use - Study Area and Trip Distribution (Phase 1 Only) LEGEND # Instersecꢀon # Driveway Figure 1-2a
Date Palm Drive Mixed Use
Scenarios 1 & 2 Phase 1 Volumes
Figure 1-3a
5%
5%
4 PROJECT SITE 25% 5%3 5%
20%
20%
65% 2 20%
5%
15%
25%
10% 1
5%
5%
LEGEND # Intersection
Vallarta Shopping Center
Trip Assignment
Vallarta Shopping Center (Phase I)
Trip Assignment
MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES ______________________________________________________________________________________ TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Exhibit 4-2 shows the forecast trip percent distribution of the proposed project within the study area and the trip assignment percentages for each intersection movement.

EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT PERCENTAGES

Page 21 ends

Cathedral City City CouncilJanuary 8, 2025

Cathedral City City Council
January 8, 2025