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

MOUNTAIN VIEW ESTATES ______________________________________________________________________________________ TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Exhibit 4-3 shows the corresponding forecast assignment of the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour projectgenerated trips assuming the trip percent distribution shown in Exhibit 4-2.

EXHIBIT 4-3: PROJECT TRAFFIC PEAK HOUR TRIP ASSIGNMENT

Page 22 ends

29 30
(35%)
35%
(35%) 35%
(50%)
(15%)
9/10
14/16
9/10
9/10 33/36
-11/-12
44/48
52/57
30/34
32 33
Cathedral Cove Center Traffic Analysis
EXHIBIT 4-5: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT MAP
C4 C5 C6
RM5
P2
P4
RM24
P3
P1
RM10 RM21
RM19 RM16
RM17 C16
C7 RM1 RM15 C11 C2
C12
C14
C17 C13
C8 C1 C18
C15 RM31 C19
C9
SITE
RM26
RM11
C10 C3
RM29
RM27
RM9 RM28
RM30
RM12
RM13 RM4
RM6
RM2
RM8 RM7
RM32
RM25
RM23
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
N
12962 - 08 - CD Map.mxd
34 45
46 APPENDIX F -

CUMULATIVE 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
66 66
0 204
204
0 100
100
0 63
63 0
141
141
0 69
69 0
43 43
0 571
571
0 45
45 0
99 99
0 1056
1056
0 56
56 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
227

0.90 2
372

0.32 1179
0 1.00
No
1870
157

0.90 2
371

0.32 1178
0 1.00
No
1870
634

0.90 2
1488

0.31 4823
446
1702

4.3 1.00
No
1870
1173

0.90 2
1704

0.34 4955
806
1702

8.4 1870
73 0.90
2 414

0.32 1144
73 1144

2.2 1870
111

0.90 2
182

0.32 577
338
1756

6.8 1870
70 0.90
2 332

0.32 1041
70 1041

2.5 1870
77 0.90
2 182

0.32 578
234
1756

4.4 1870
48 0.90
2 1870
50 0.90
2 116

0.31 377
238
1797

4.4 1870
110

0.90 2
154

0.09 1781
110
1781

2.5 1870
62 0.90
2 91 90

0.05 1781
48 1781

1.1 1.1

1.00 91

0.53 215

1.00 1.00

19.2 4.6

0.34 262
429
1813

8.4 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 6.6 6.8 9.3 0.0 4.4 4.3 4.4 2.5 8.4 8.4

1.00 414

0.18 772

1.00 1.00

13.8 0.2

0.33 553

0.61 1102

1.00 1.00

12.0 1.1

1.00 332

0.21 657

1.00 1.00

16.0 0.3

0.33 553

0.42 1102

1.00 1.00

11.2 0.5

0.21 554

0.43 607

1.00 1.00

11.4 0.5

1.00 154

0.71 344

1.00 1.00

18.4 6.0

0.14 624

0.69 744

1.00 1.00

11.7 2.1
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
1050

0.42 1151

1.00 1.00

11.4 0.3
1171

0.69 1397

1.00 1.00

11.7 1.1

0.0 0.5

0.0 0.0

0.0 2.0

0.0 0.5

0.0 1.2

0.0 0.5

0.0 1.0

0.0 1.2

0.0 1.1

0.0 2.3

0.0 2.6

14.0 B

0.0 A

13.1 B

16.3 B

0.0 A

11.7 B

23.8 C

11.7 B

11.9 B

24.4 C

12.8 B

13.8 B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
411

13.3 B
304

12.8 B
732

12.6 B
1345

14.1 B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1

7.6 4.0

8.0 4.5

0.1 2

16.8 4.0

14.0 6.4
4 17.0

4.0 26.0

8.8 5

6.1 4.0

5.0 3.1

0.0 6

18.2 4.0

17.0 10.4

3.8 8

17.0 4.0

26.0 11.3

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 2.3 2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
HCM 6th LOS

13.4 B
Cumulative 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 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
12 12
0 12
12 0
15 15
0 61
61 0
20 20
0 206
206
0 25
25 0
643
643
0 37
37 0
109
109
0 1071
1071
0 20
20 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

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870
13 0.92
2 119

0.16 763
0 1.00
No
1870
22 0.92
2 1.00
No
1870
699

0.92 2
1375

0.28 4942
480
1702

5.2 1.00
No
1870
1164

0.92 2
1720

0.33 5159
768
1702

8.5 1870
13 0.92
2 1870
16 0.92
2 146

0.16 939
29 1701

0.6 1870
66 0.92
2 200

0.11 1781
66 1781

1.5 1870
224

0.92 2
368

0.25 1463
246
1607

5.9 1870
27 0.92
2 1870
40 0.92
2 1870
118

0.92 2
155

0.09 1781
118
1781

2.8 1870
22 0.92
2 32

0.33 97
418
1853

8.5 30 36 57 78

0.02 1781
13 1781

0.3 0.3

1.00 30

0.44 204

1.00 1.00

21.2 9.8

0.25 144
0 0

0.0 0.0

0.03 1781
27 1781

0.6 0.6

1.00 57

0.47 204

1.00 1.00

20.8 6.0

0.28 282
259
1820

5.2 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 0.6 1.5 5.9 5.2 5.2 2.8 8.5 8.5

0.55 265

0.11 819

1.00 1.00

15.8 0.2

1.00 200

0.33 204

1.00 1.00

17.8 1.0

0.91 404

0.61 774

1.00 1.00

14.4 1.5

0.15 506

0.51 667

1.00 1.00

13.2 0.8

1.00 155

0.76 286

1.00 1.00

19.5 7.4

0.05 618

0.68 764

1.00 1.00

12.5 1.7
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
947

0.51 1248

1.00 1.00

13.2 0.4
1135

0.68 1404

1.00 1.00

12.5 1.0

0.0 0.2

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.2

0.0 0.6

0.0 2.0

0.0 0.3

0.0 1.5

0.0 1.7

0.0 1.3

0.0 2.4

0.0 2.7

31.0 C

0.0 A

16.0 B

18.8 B

0.0 A

15.9 B

26.8 C

13.7 B

14.0 B

26.9 C

13.5 B

14.3 B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
42 20.6
C
312

16.5 B
766

14.3 B
1304

14.9 B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1

7.8 4.0

7.0 4.8

0.0 2

16.1 4.0

16.0 7.2
3 8.9

4.0 5.0

3.5 0.0
4 10.8

4.0 21.0

2.6 5

5.4 4.0

5.0 2.6

0.0 6

18.5 4.0

18.0 10.5

4.1 7

4.7 4.0

5.0 2.3

0.0 8

15.0 4.0

21.0 7.9
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 2.8 0.1 1.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
HCM 6th LOS

15.0 B
Cumulative 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
0 100
100
0 61
61 0
135
135
0 158
158
0 152
152
0 689
689
0 27
27 0
220
220
0 1109
1109
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
440

0.24 1870
275
1870

8.0 1.00
No
1870
147

0.92 2
399

0.21 1870
147
1870

4.1 1.00
No
1870
749

0.92 2
1432

0.28 5044
505
1702

7.6 1.00
No
1870
1205

0.92 2
1619

0.33 4926
833
1702

13.2 13.2
1870
108

0.92 2
138

0.08 1781
108
1781

3.6 1870
109

0.92 2
360

0.24 1532
109
1532

3.5 1870
66 0.92
2 1870
172

0.92 2
327

0.21 1535
172
1535

6.0 1870
165

0.92 2
207

0.12 1781
165
1781

5.5 1870
29 0.92
2 1870
239

0.92 2
287

0.16 1781
239
1781

7.9 1870
72 0.92
2 99 55 97

0.06 1781
66 1781

2.2 2.2

1.00 99

0.67 147

1.00 1.00

28.1 7.6

0.28 195
273
1834

7.6 0.33
294
444
1816

13.2 13.2

0.16 597

0.74 720

1.00 1.00

18.1 3.4
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

3.6 8.0 3.5 4.1 6.0 5.5 7.6 7.6 7.9

1.00 138

0.78 147

1.00 1.00

27.4 22.3

0.0 1.00
360

0.30 658

1.00 1.00

19.1 0.5

1.00 327

0.53 659

1.00 1.00

21.1 1.3

1.00 207

0.80 265

1.00 1.00

26.0 12.2

0.0 0.11
521

0.52 666

1.00 1.00

18.2 0.8

1.00 287

0.83 324

1.00 1.00

24.6 15.2

0.0 440

0.62 803

1.00 1.00

20.8 1.5
399

0.37 803

1.00 1.00

20.3 0.6
966

0.52 1237

1.00 1.00

18.2 0.4
1119

0.74 1349

1.00 1.00

18.1 1.8

0.0 3.2

0.0 1.1

0.0 1.6

0.0 2.0

0.0 2.6

0.0 2.8

0.0 4.3

0.0 2.2 2.8 4.0 4.8

49.7 D

22.2 C

19.5 B

35.7 D

20.9 C

22.4 C

38.2 D

18.7 B

19.1 B

39.8 D

19.9 B

21.5 C
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
492

27.7 C
385

24.1 C
943

22.2 C
1516

23.5 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 13.8

4.0 2

21.2 4.0

22.0 9.6
3 7.4

4.0 5.0

4.2 0.0
4 18.2

4.0 26.0

10.0 1.6
5 11.1

4.0 9.0

7.5 6

23.9 4.0

24.0 15.2

4.7 7

8.7 4.0

5.0 5.6

0.0 8

16.9 4.0

26.0 9.9 8.0

0.1 3.7 0.1 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
HCM 6th LOS

23.8 C
Cumulative 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
98 98
0 119
119
0 77
77 0
75 75
0 136
136
0 68
68 0
89 89
0 1136
1136
0 67
67 0
79 79
0 876
876
0 59
59 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
132

0.90 2
299

0.28 1050
0 1.00
No
1870
151

0.90 2
332

0.28 1166
0 1.00
No
1870
1262

0.90 2
1741

0.35 4929
871
1702

9.3 1.00
No
1870
973

0.90 2
1696

0.35 4872
679
1702

6.8 1870
109

0.90 2
377

0.28 1152
109
1152

3.6 1870
86 0.90
2 195

0.28 684
218
1734

4.3 1870
83 0.90
2 382

0.28 1161
83 1161

2.6 1870
76 0.90
2 167

0.28 587
227
1754

4.5 1870
99 0.90
2 145

0.08 1781
99 1781

2.3 1870
74 0.90
2 102

0.35 289
465
1814

9.3 1870
88 0.90
2 136

0.08 1781
88 1781

2.0 1870
66 0.90
2 115

0.35 330
360
1798

6.8 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 8.1 4.3 7.0 0.0 4.5 2.3 9.3 9.3 2.0 6.8 6.8

1.00 377

0.29 762

1.00 1.00

15.7 0.4

0.39 493

0.44 1074

1.00 1.00

12.3 0.6

1.00 382

0.22 771

1.00 1.00

15.1 0.3

0.33 499

0.45 1086

1.00 1.00

12.3 0.6

1.00 145

0.68 255

1.00 1.00

18.7 5.5

0.16 641

0.73 735

1.00 1.00

11.8 3.1

1.00 136

0.65 212

1.00 1.00

18.8 5.1

0.18 626

0.58 685

1.00 1.00

11.2 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
1202

0.72 1379

1.00 1.00

11.8 1.6
1185

0.57 1298

1.00 1.00

11.1 0.5

0.0 0.8

0.0 0.0

0.0 1.3

0.0 0.6

0.0 1.3

0.0 0.9

0.0 2.3

0.0 2.8

0.0 0.9

0.0 1.8

0.0 2.0

16.1 B

0.0 A

12.9 B

15.4 B

0.0 A

13.0 B

24.3 C

13.4 B

14.9 B

23.9 C

11.7 B

12.1 B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
327

14.0 B
310

13.6 B
1435

14.7 B
1127

12.8 B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1

7.2 4.0

5.0 4.0

0.0 2

18.8 4.0

17.0 11.3

3.5 4

15.9 4.0

26.0 10.1

1.4 5

7.4 4.0

6.0 4.3

0.0 6

18.6 4.0

16.0 8.8
8 15.9

4.0 26.0

9.0 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 3.5 1.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
HCM 6th LOS

13.8 B
Cumulative 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 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
42 42
0 42
42 0
53 53
0 45
45 0
38 38
0 252
252
0 47
47 0
1237
1237
0 40
40 0
161
161
0 831
831
0 38
38 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

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870
46 0.92
2 150

0.20 752
0 1.00
No
1870
41 0.92
2 1.00
No
1870
1345

0.92 2
1632

0.32 5083
901
1702

14.4 14.4

1.00 No
1870
903

0.92 2
1980

0.40 5007
613
1702

7.8 1870
46 0.92
2 1870
58 0.92
2 189

0.20 948
104
1700

3.1 1870
49 0.92
2 151

0.08 1781
49 1781

1.5 1870
274

0.92 2
1870
51 0.92
2 1870
43 0.92
2 1870
175

0.92 2
218

0.12 1781
175
1781

5.6 1870
41 0.92
2 80 50 337

0.24 1407
315
1617

10.8 10.8

0.87 388

0.81 577

1.00 1.00

21.1 5.5
86 52 90

0.04 1781
46 1781

1.5 1.5

1.00 80

0.58 151

1.00 1.00

27.6 6.4

0.24 210
0 0

0.0 0.0

0.05 1781
51 1781

1.7 1.7

1.00 86

0.60 182

1.00 1.00

27.5 6.5

0.32 162
487
1841

14.4 14.4

0.09 591

0.82 626

1.00 1.00

18.4 8.4

0.40 227
331
1830

7.8 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 3.1 1.5 5.6 7.8 7.8

0.56 339

0.31 606

1.00 1.00

20.1 0.5

1.00 151

0.32 151

1.00 1.00

25.3 1.2

1.00 218

0.80 242

1.00 1.00

25.1 16.0

0.0 0.12
724

0.46 724

1.00 1.00

13.1 0.5
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
1093

0.82 1157

1.00 1.00

18.4 4.8
1346

0.46 1346

1.00 1.00

13.1 0.2

0.0 0.8

0.0 0.0

0.0 1.2

0.0 0.7

0.0 4.4

0.0 0.8

0.0 5.3

0.0 6.4

0.0 2.4

0.0 3.1 2.6

33.9 C

0.0 A

20.6 C

26.6 C

0.0 A

26.6 C

33.9 C

23.2 C

26.9 C

41.2 D

13.4 B

13.6 B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
150

24.7 C
364

26.6 C
1439

24.8 C
1119

17.8 B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1

11.2 4.0

8.0 7.6
2 22.9

4.0 20.0

16.4 2.5
3 9.0

4.0 5.0

3.5 0.0
4 15.8

4.0 21.0

5.1 5

6.8 4.0

6.0 3.7

0.0 6

27.3 4.0

22.0 9.8
7 6.6

4.0 5.0

3.5 0.0
8 18.1

4.0 21.0

12.8 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 0.0 0.4 4.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay
HCM 6th LOS

22.5 C
Cumulative 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 99
99 0
22 22
0 125
125
0 139
139
0 272
272
0 1197
1197
0 17
17 0
30 30
0 947
947
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

0.97 1.00

1.00 1.00

0.97 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 1.00
No
1870
146

0.92 2
437

0.23 1870
146
1870

4.0 1.00
No
1870
136

0.92 2
358

0.19 1870
136
1870

3.9 1.00
No
1870
1301

0.92 2
2317

0.45 5190
853
1702

11.5 11.5

1.00 No
1870
1029

0.92 2
1356

0.29 4687
747
1702

12.4 12.4
1870
97 0.92
2 124

0.07 1781
97 1781

3.3 1870
108

0.92 2
358

0.23 1532
108
1532

3.6 1870
24 0.92
2 1870
151

0.92 2
293

0.19 1531
151
1531

5.5 1870
296

0.92 2
1870
18 0.92
2 32

0.45 72
466
1857

11.5 11.5

0.04 829

0.56 838

1.00 1.00

12.7 0.8
1870
33 0.92
2 1870
109

0.92 2
49 342

0.19 1781
296
1781

10.0 10.0

1.00 342

0.87 344

1.00 1.00

24.3 19.8

0.0 62 143

0.29 496
391
1779

12.4 12.4

0.28 515

0.76 602

1.00 1.00

20.1 4.8

0.03 1781
24 1781

0.8 0.8

1.00 49

0.49 143

1.00 1.00

29.8 7.5

0.03 1781
33 1781

1.1 1.1

1.00 62

0.53 143

1.00 1.00

29.5 6.8
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

3.3 4.0 3.6 3.9 5.5

1.00 124

0.78 143

1.00 1.00

28.4 21.0

0.0 1.00
358

0.30 642

1.00 1.00

19.6 0.5

1.00 293

0.52 641

1.00 1.00

22.5 1.4
437

0.33 783

1.00 1.00

19.8 0.4
358

0.38 783

1.00 1.00

21.9 0.7
1520

0.56 1535

1.00 1.00

12.7 0.5
985

0.76 1152

1.00 1.00

20.1 2.5

0.0 1.6

0.0 1.2

0.0 0.4

0.0 1.6

0.0 1.9

0.0 3.5

0.0 3.9

0.0 0.5

0.0 4.3

0.0 2.0 5.6 4.8

49.4 D

20.2 C

20.1 C

37.3 D

22.6 C

23.9 C

44.1 D

13.2 B

13.5 B

36.3 D

22.6 C

24.9 C
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
351

28.3 C
311

24.4 C
1615

18.9 B
1171

23.7 C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1

6.2 4.0

5.0 3.1

0.0 2

31.7 4.0

28.0 13.5

7.0 3

5.7 4.0

5.0 2.8

0.0 4

18.5 4.0

26.0 6.0
5 15.9

4.0 12.0

12.0 0.0
6 22.0

4.0 21.0

14.4 3.4
7 8.3

4.0 5.0

5.3 0.0
8 15.9

4.0 26.0

7.5 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

22.0 C
Cumulative Year 2025
Timing Plan: PM Peak
Synchro 11 Report

APPENDIX G -

HORIZON YEAR VOLUME DEVELOPMENT
Date Palm Drive Mixed Use
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use1
Shopping Plaza (40-150k)3
Mini-Warehouse
Units2
ITE LUCode Daily
In Out

1.34 0.04
Total

3.53 0.09
In Out

5.12 0.08
Total

9.84 0.15
TSF
TSF
821
151

2.19 0.05

4.72 0.07
102.78

1.45 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021). 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet
3 Peak hour and daily trip rates for LU 821 Shopping Plaza are based on fitted curve equations for total 54,725 sf of retail proposed for entire project.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use1 Intensity Units2 Daily
In
120
0 120
6 Out
73 0
73 5
Total
193
0 193
50 In
258
103
155
8 Out
280
112
168
9 Total
538
215
323
17 Shopping Plaza (40-150k) 54.725 TSF 5,625
2,250
3,375
167
Pass-by Reduction (40% - PM Peak Hour & Daily)3
Subtotal
Mini-Warehouse 115.054 TSF
Total 126 78 243 163 177 340 3,542
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021). 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet
3 Pass-by reduction percentage is based on the ITE methodology per 2021 Pass-By Tables for ITE Trip Generation Appendices.

Vallarta Shopping Center
AM Peak Hour
Out
PM Peak Hour
Out
Land Use1 Units2
ITE LUCode Daily
In

2.19 22.75
Total

3.53 44.61
In

4.13 17.18
Total

8.61 33.03
Shopping Plaza (40k-150k)3 TSF
TSF
821
934

1.34 21.86

4.48 15.85

88.08 Fast Food Restaurant w/ Drive-through Window 467.48 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021).
3 Peak hour and daily trip rates for LU 822 Strip Retail Plaza are based on fitted curve equations for total 127,000 sf of retail proposed for entire project.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use1
Intensity Units2 Daily
In
278
22 Out
170
22 Total
448
44 In
525
47 191
287
120
35 47
38 325
Out
569
34 214
321
111
46 36
29 350
Total
1,094
81 405
608
231
81 83
67 675
Shopping Plaza (40k-150k) 127.000 TSF 11,186
783 3
Internal Capture (8% - AM In, 13% - AM Out, 9% - PM In, 6% - PM Out, 7% - Daily) Pass-by Reduction (40% - PM Peak Hour & Daily)4
Subtotal
0 0 0 4,161
6,242
3,272
1,145
1,170
957
256
159
22 69
68 148
153
21 66
66 404
312
43 135
134
538
Fast Food Restaurant w/ Drive-through Window 7.000 TSF
3 Internal Capture (14% - AM In, 14% - AM Out, 29% - PM In, 41% - PM Out, 35% - Daily) Pass-by Reduction (50% - AM Peak Hour, 55% - PM Peak Hour & Daily)4 Subtotal
Total 324 214 7,199
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021).
3 Internal Capture percentage is based on NCHRP Report 684, as recommended in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. 4 Pass-by reduction percentage is based on the ITE methodology per 2021 Pass-By Tables for ITE Trip Generation Appendices.

RIVCOM 4.01 - 2018 AM peak period volumes (Wren Resi + Date Palm + Vallarata) VERON A RD 205 VERON A RD 190
--0--0
--0
VISTA CHINO 1951 VISTA CHINO 2449
VISTA CHINO 2583 VISTA CHINO 1964
VISTA CHINO 2654 VISTA CHINO 1992
--16--362
--149--107
30TH AVE 833 30TH AVE 305
30TH AVE 476 30TH AVE 509
30TH AVE 385 30TH AVE 491
30TH AVE 618 30TH AVE 937
MC CALLUM WAY 377MC CALLUM WAY 552
SAN LUIS REY DR 0SAN LUIS REY DR 0 E BARIST O RD 0E BARIST O RD 430

RAMO N RD
752 RAMO N RD RAMO N RD 1051
2684 RAMO N RD 2952
RAMO N RD 2684 RAMO N RD 2952
RAMO N RD 2935 RAMO N RD 3248

RAMO N RD
2734 RAMO N RD
3079
RAMO N RD 3739 RAMO N RD 3729
RAMO N RD 3350 RAMO N RD 2249
HCMTy pe CC
(6866) Collector
(8161) Freeway
(8427) HOV
(893)
DINAH SHORE DR Local
(3067) MinArteria
l (12488) PrArterial
(8422)

DINAH SHORE DR
34TH AVE 189 34TH AVE 90

DINAH SHORE DR
755
75 82 5
2 DINAH SHORE DR737

DINAH SHORE DR
737
DINAH SHORE DR738 0 .05 .1 .15
Mile
s
RIVCOM 4.01 - 2045 AM peak period volumes (Wren Resi + Date Palm + Vallarata) --0--0
--0--0
--0
VISTA CHINO 2597 VISTA CHINO 2523
VISTA CHINO 178 VISTA CHINO 292
--139--109
30TH AVE 856 30TH AVE 335
30TH AVE 433 30TH AVE 506
30TH AVE 350 30TH AVE 517
MC CALLUM WAY 71MC 5CALLUM WAY 817
SAN LUIS REY DR 0SAN LUIS REY DR 0 E BARIST O RD 0E BARIST O RD 473

RAMO N RD
1251 RAMO N RD RAMO N RD 1975 RAMO N RD
3619 RAMO N RD
3482
RAMO N RD 4696 RAMO N RD 3495
RAMO N RD 3698 RAMO N RD 3344
3844 RAMO N RD 3257

BOB HOPE DR
1358 BOB HOPE DR
3530
HCMTy pe CC (6866) Collector (8161) Freeway (8427) HOV (893) Local (3067) MinArteria l (12488) PrArterial (8422)
DINAH SHORE DR1246 DINAH SHORE DR1096

DINAH SHORE DR
1246 DINAH SHORE DR
1096
34TH AVE 222 34TH AVE 107
DINAH SHORE DR1457 DINAH SHORE DR 0 1344 .05 .1 .15
Mile
s
AM Peak Hour Growth RIVC OM
2018
toRIVC OM
204 5
Ann ual
Gro wth
Rat
e
Adjusted 2023 Plus 3 2045 Plus
Projects
Adjus ted RIVCOM Intersection Approach RIVCOM 201 8
204 5
Proj
ect
E
S
W
N
E
967
566 1
616
499 7
153
438 3
352
421 2
925
121 8
729 2
153 2
556 6
163

0.96 %

1.07 %

5.51 %

0.42 %

0.24 %

0.82 %

0.19 %

0.86 %

0.32 %

0.84 %

0.35 %

0.18 %
598
164 0
630
171 0
607
169 5
438
191 4
831
719
200 8
135 9
186 1
638
198 7
455
225 9
886
1 2
3 S 535 5
350
W
N
E
S
W
N
518 8
100 4
508 9
170 0
539 5
415 0
155 5
514 0
195 9
805
207 3
230 4
863
215 3
Scenario: Adjusted 2023 Plus 3 Projects AMN/S Street: Date Palm Drive E/W Street: McCallum Way Intersection #: 1
63%
107 9
↓
37%
631 ↑
1,71 0
68 ↙
916↓95
↘ ↖←↙
58 140
59 39%
61%
248
630
382
←
→
←
→
257
598
341
43%
57%
84 204
94 ↗→↘228 9
↖
40 ↑
489
↑
↗
42 ↓106 9
65%
1,64 0571
35%
Scenario: 2045+P AM N/S Street: Date Palm Drive E/W Street: McCallum Way 115 6↓186 1687
15 ↑
5 ↙
953↓48
↘ ↖←↙
26 231
44 535
135 9
804
←
→
←
→
303
719
410
166
326
311
↗→↘2,93 9
↖
149
↑495↑
↗
34 ↓
130 9200 8678
Legend
Existing Turning Movements Existing Peak Hour Counts per intersection leg Forecasted Peak Hour per intersection leg Scenario: Adjusted 2023 Plus 3 Projects N/S Street: Date Palm Drive E/W Street: Rosemount Road Intersection #: 2 59%
113 3
↓
41%
781 ↑
1,91 4
79 ↙
897↓157
↘
↖←↙205
79 69
58%
42%
256
438
182
←
→
←
→
353
607
254
58%
42%
56 56
70 ↗→↘232 7
↖
98 ↑
520
↑
↗
41 ↓
103 6
61%
1,69 5659
39%
Scenario: 2045 Plus Project N/S Street: Date Palm Drive E/W Street: Rosemount Road 133 3↓225 9922
89 ↑
↙
107 2↓172
↘
↖←↙227
75 70
266
455
189
←
→
←
→
372
638
267
63 53
72 ↗→↘2,66 9
↖
102
↑631↑
↗
42 ↓
121 4198 7775
Legend
Existing Turning Movements Existing Peak Hour Counts per intersection leg Forecasted Peak Hour per intersection leg Scenario: Adjusted 2023 Plus 3 Projects AMN/S Street: Date Palm Drive E/W Street: 30th Avenue Intersecti on #: 3
61%
125 5
↓
39%
818 ↑
2,07 3
62 ↙
986↓207
↘
↖←↙148
127
74 44%
56%
351
805
454
←
→
←
→
349
831
482
42%
58%
93 238
123
↗→↘283 4
↖
162
↑
577
↑
↗
37 ↓118 3
60%
1,95 9776
40%
Scenario: 2045 + P AM N/S Street: Date Palm Drive E/W Street: 30th Avenue 134 8↓215 3850
45 ↑
↙
111 1↓192
↘
↖←↙132
128
115
376
863
499
←
→
←
→
375
886
514
72 263
165
↗→↘3,13 1
↖
204
↑646↑
↗
59 ↓
139 1230 4909
Legend
Existing Turning Movements Existing Peak Hour Counts per intersection leg Forecasted Peak Hour per intersection leg RIVCOM 4.01 - 2018 PM peak period volumes (Wren Resi + Date Palm + Vallarata) VERON A RD 212 VERON A RD 225
--0--0
--0
VISTA CHINO 2737 VISTA CHINO 2543
VISTA CHINO 2470 VISTA CHINO 2979
VISTA CHINO 2507 VISTA CHINO 3059
--283--
-- 43 148--181
30TH AVE 521 30TH AVE 911
30TH AVE 605 30TH AVE 596
30TH AVE 567 30TH AVE 507
30TH AVE 1062 30TH AVE 885
MC CALLUM WAY 638MC CALLUM WAY 484
SAN LUIS REY DR 0SAN LUIS REY DR 0 E BARIST O RD 0E BARIST O RD 764

RAMO N RD
293 RAMO N RD RAMO N RD 1412
3652 RAMO N RD 3423
RAMO N RD 3652 RAMO N RD 3423
RAMO N RD 4008 RAMO N RD 3741

RAMO N RD
3770 RAMO N RD
3491
RAMO N RD 4653 RAMO N RD 4805
RAMO N RD 2819 RAMO N RD 4134
HCMTy pe CC
(6866) Collector
(8161) Freeway
(8427) HOV
(893)
DINAH SHORE DR Local
(3067) MinArteria
l (12488) PrArterial
(8422)

DINAH SHORE DR
34TH AVE 140 34TH AVE 214

DINAH SHORE DR
800
80 77 0
2 DINAH SHORE DR822

DINAH SHORE DR
822
DINAH SHORE DR860 0 .05 .1 .15
Mile
s
RIVCOM 4.01 - 2045 PM peak period volumes (Wren Resi + Date Palm + Vallarata) --0--0
--0--0
--0
VISTA CHINO 2973 VISTA CHINO 3174
VISTA CHINO 302 VISTA CHINO 225
--153--174
30TH AVE 554 30TH AVE 961
30TH AVE 569 30TH AVE 554
30TH AVE 581 30TH AVE 468
MC CALLUM WAY 1094 MC CALLUM WAY 900
SAN LUIS REY DR 0SAN LUIS REY DR 0 E BARIST O RD 0E BARIST O RD 731

RAMO N RD
1116 RAMO N RD RAMO N RD 2622 RAMO N RD
4273 RAMO N RD
4508
RAMO N RD 4391 RAMO N RD 5694
RAMO N RD 4276 RAMO N RD 4933
4076 RAMO N RD 4776

BOB HOPE DR
3415 BOB HOPE DR
2265
HCMTy pe CC (6866) Collector (8161) Freeway (8427) HOV (893) Local (3067) MinArteria l (12488) PrArterial (8422)

DINAH SHORE DR
1227 DINAH SHORE DR
1163
DINAH SHORE DR1227 DINAH SHORE DR1163
34TH AVE 167 34TH AVE 260
DINAH SHORE DR1452 DINAH SHORE DR 0 1450 .05 .1 .15
Mile
s
PM Peak Hour Growth RIVC OM
2018
toRIVC OM
204 5
Ann ual
Gro wth
Rat
e
Adjusted 2023 Plus 3 2045 Plus
Projects
Adjus ted RIVCOM Intersection Approach RIVCOM 201 8
204 5
Proj
ect
E
S
W
N
E
118 2
700 6
703
628 1
206
148 1
923 3
199 4
698 0
241

0.94 %

1.18 %

6.80 %

0.41 %

0.63 %

0.96 %

0.06 %

1.02 %

0.19 %

1.02 %

0.32 %

0.38 %
535
197 4
620
200 9
821
196 9
446
234 6
478
640
246 2
150 6
218 3
929
236 8
451
284 7
1 2
3 S 549 9
465
693 1
472
W
N
E
S
W
N
528 1
112 5
519 4
194 7
642 5
673 0
109 5
662 7
211 3
707 9
497
280 2
896
2,3 07
840
2,1 47
231 7
Scenario: Adjusted 2023 Plus 3 Projects PMN/S Street: Date Palm Drive E/W Street: McCallum Way Intersection #: 1
43%
866 ↓
57%
114 3
↑
2,00 9
78 ↙
721↓67
↘ ↖←↙
63 145
70 49%
51%
306
620
314
←
→
←
→
278
535
257
52%
48%
115
127
72 ↗→↘256 9
↖
83 ↑
965
↑
↗
63 ↓863
44%
1,97 4111 1
56%
Scenario: 2045+P PM N/S Street: Date Palm Drive E/W Street: McCallum Way 938↓218 3124 2
17 ↑
0 ↙
738↓31
↘ ↖←↙
27 245
56 743
150 6
752
←
→
←
→
328
640
307
244
224
283
↗→↘3,36 9
↖
328
↑970↑
↗
53 ↓
107 6246 2135 1
Legend
Existing Turning Movements Existing Peak Hour Counts per intersection leg Forecasted Peak Hour per intersection leg Scenario: Adjusted 2023 Plus 3 Projects N/S Street: Date Palm Drive E/W Street: Rosemount Road Intersection #: 2 40%
944 ↓
60%
140 2
↑
2,34 6
66 ↙
609↓269
↘
↖←↙279
66 85
48%
52%
215
446
231
←
→
←
→
430
821
391
52%
48%
71 71
89 ↗→↘279 1
↖
83 ↑
105 2
↑
↗
51 ↓
783
40%
1,96 9118 6
60%
Scenario: 2045 Plus Project N/S Street: Date Palm Drive E/W Street: Rosemount Road 114 6↓284 7170 1
71 ↑
↙
757↓318
↘
↖←↙330
64 95
217
451
234
←
→
←
→
489
929
442
76 68
90 ↗→↘3,30 3
↖
83 ↑129 5↑
↗
56 ↓
942236 8143 5
Legend
Existing Turning Movements Existing Peak Hour Counts per intersection leg Forecasted Peak Hour per intersection leg Scenario: Adjusted 2023 Plus 3 Projects PMN/S Street: Date Palm Drive E/W Street: 30th Avenue Intersecti on #: 3
42%
904 ↓
58%
124 3
↑
2,14 7
94 ↙
782↓28
↘ ↖←↙
131
117
39 60%
40%
505
840
335
←
→
←
→
287
478
191
60%
40%
83 126
126
↗→↘288 6
↖
294
↑
102 9
↑
↗
37 ↓947
41%
2,30 7136 0
59%
Scenario: 2045 + P PM N/S Street: Date Palm Drive E/W Street: 30th Avenue 994↓231 7134 1
63 ↑
↙
909↓22
↘ ↖←↙
114
112
65 539
896
358
←
→
←
→
291
497
199
61 121
176
↗→↘3,22 9
↖
365
↑116 7↑
↗
55 ↓
115 0280 2158 6
Legend
Existing Turning Movements Existing Peak Hour Counts per intersection leg Forecasted Peak Hour per intersection leg RIVCOM 4.01 - 2018 Daily Model Volumes (Wren Resi + Date Palm + Vallarata) VERON A RD 651 VERON A RD 710
--0--0
--0
VISTA CHINO 8411 VISTA CHINO 8870
VISTA CHINO 9078 VISTA CHINO 8857
VISTA CHINO 9279 VISTA CHINO 9050
--498--505
--510--499
30TH AVE 2310 30TH AVE 2084
30TH AVE 1882 30TH AVE 1902
30TH AVE 1667 30TH AVE 1720
30TH AVE 3046 30TH AVE 3227
MC CALLUM WAY 1872 MC CALLUM WAY 1914
SAN LUIS REY DR 0SAN LUIS REY DR 0 E BARIST O RD 0E BARIST O RD 2137

RAMO N RD
1573 RAMO N RD RAMO N RD 4728
11815 RAMO N RD 11780
RAMO N RD 11815 RAMO N RD 11780
RAMO N RD 12951 RAMO N RD 12920

RAMO N RD
12142 RAMO N RD
12134
RAMO N RD 15642 RAMO N RD 15656
RAMO N RD 11484 RAMO N RD 11909
HCMTy pe CC (6866) Collector (8161) Freeway (8427) HOV (893) Local (3067) MinArteria l (12488) PrArterial (8422)
DINAH SHORE DR2553 DINAH SHORE DR2607

DINAH SHORE DR
2553 DINAH SHORE DR
2607
34TH AVE 586 34TH AVE 543
DINAH SHORE DR2670INAH SHORE DR2593 0 .05 .1 .15
Mile
s
RIVCOM 4.01 - 2045 ADaily Model Volumes (Wren Resi + Date Palm + Vallarata) --0--0
--0--0
--0
VISTA CHINO 10160 VISTA CHINO 10309
VISTA CHINO 886 VISTA CHINO 888
--514--495
30TH AVE 2391 30TH AVE 2202
30TH AVE 1677 30TH AVE 1751
30TH AVE 1619 30TH AVE 1693
MC CALLUM WAY 3129 MC CALLUM WAY 3082
SAN LUIS REY DR 0SAN LUIS REY DR 0 E BARIST O RD 0E BARIST O RD 2136

RAMO N RD
3604 RAMO N RD RAMO N RD 9222 RAMO N RD
14569 RAMO N RD
14459
RAMO N RD 16726 RAMO N RD 16370
RAMO N RD 15210 RAMO N RD 15098
14419 RAMO N RD 14316

BOB HOPE DR
8911 BOB HOPE DR
10604
HCMTy pe CC (6866) Collector (8161) Freeway (8427) HOV (893) Local (3067) MinArteria l (12488) PrArterial (8422)
DINAH SHORE DR3895 DINAH SHORE DR3645

DINAH SHORE DR
3895 DINAH SHORE DR
3645
34TH AVE 711 34TH AVE 664
DINAH SHORE DR4802 DINAH SHORE DR4580
0 .05 .1 .15
Mile
s
AM Peak Hour Growth RIVC OM
2018
toRIVC OM
204 5
Ann ual
Gro wth
Rat
e
Adjusted 2023 Plus 3 2045 Plus
Projects
Adjus ted RIVCOM Intersection Approach RIVCOM 201 8
204 5
Proj
ect
E
S
W
N
E
967
566 1
616
499 7
153
438 3
352
421 2
925
121 8
729 2
153 2
556 6
163

0.96 %

1.07 %

5.51 %

0.42 %

0.24 %

0.82 %

0.19 %

0.86 %

0.32 %

0.84 %

0.35 %

0.18 %
598
164 0
630
171 0
607
169 5
438
191 4
831
719
200 8
135 9
186 1
638
198 7
455
225 9
886
1 2
3 S 535 5
350
W
N
E
S
W
N
518 8
100 4
508 9
170 0
539 5
415 0
155 5
514 0
195 9
805
207 3
230 4
863
215 3

APPENDIX H -
HORIZON YEAR 2045 NO PROJECT CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION

ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Date Palm Drive & McCallum Way The Wren Project 05/31/ 2024
Move ment EBLEBTEBRWB LWBT WBR NBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSB Lane R Configuratio
nsTraffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Initial Q (Qb), veh 166
166
0 326
326
0 311
311
0 44440231
231
0 26260149
149
0 487
487
0 3434048480929
929
0 155
155
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

1.0 0

0.9 9

1.0 0

0.9 9

1.0 0

0.9 9

1.0 0

0.9 6

1.0 0

1.0 0
No 187 0
362

0.9 0
2 368

0.4 2
872
0 1.0 0
No 187 0
257

0.9 0
2 695

0.4 2
164 8
0 1.0 0
No 187 0
541

0.9 0
2 167 1

0.3 4
487 0
377
170 2

5.2 1.0 0
No 187 0
103 2

0.9 0
2 123 4

0.2 8
438 3
801
170 2

14. 2

14. 2
187 0
184

0.9 0
2 456

0.4 2
109 2
184
109 2

8.9 15. 7

1.0 0
456

0.4 0
456

1.0 0

18. 1

0.6 187 0
346

0.9 0
2 187 0
49 0.9 0
2 121

0.4 2
741
49 741

0.7 27. 0

1.0 0
121

0.4 1
121

1.0 0

32. 0

2.2 187 0
29 0.9 0
2 187 0
166

0.9 0
2 195

0.1 1
178 1
166
178 1

5.9 187 0
38 0.9 0
2 116

0.3 4
339
202
180 5

5.3 187 0
53 0.9 0
2 187 0
172

0.9 0
2 352

0.4 2
834
708
170 6

26. 3

0.4 9
719

0.9 8
719

1.0 0

18. 3

29. 5

0.0 78 85 205

0.2 8
729
403
170 8

14. 2

0.4 3
481

0.8 4
507

1.0 0

21. 6

11. 4

0.0 0.4 2
186
286
183 4

6.8 0.0 5
178 1
53 178 1

1.9 1.9 1.0 0
85 0.6 2
167

1.0 0

29. 9

7.3 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%),v eh/ln Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS 0 0.0 0.0
0 0.0 0.0 6.8 5.9 5.2 5.3 0.1 0
773

0.3 7
773

1.0 0

12. 7

0.3 1.0 0
195

0.8 5
195

1.0 0

28. 0

28. 7

0.0 0.1 9
619

0.3 3
619

1.0 0

15. 6

0.3 0

0.0 0
0 1.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0.0
0 0.0 0
0 1.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
116 8

0.3 2
116 8

1.0 0

15. 5

0.2 958

0.8 4
101 0

1.0 0

21. 6

6.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.9 0.0 14. 5.6 0

3.7 6.4

18. 7
B

0.0A47. 8
D

34. 1
C

0.0A13. 0
B

56. 7
E

15. 7
B

15. 9
B

37. 2
D

27. 6
C

33. 0
Approach C
Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
892

41. 8
D
335

16. 1
B
745

24. 9
C
125 7

29. 7 Timer - C Assigned Phs
1 7.1 4.0 6.0 3.9 0.0
2 26. 0

4.0 20. 0

7.3 4

31. 0

4.0 27. 0

28. 3

0.0 5

11. 0

4.0 7.0 7.9
6 22. 0

4.0 19. 0

16. 2

1.8 8

31. 0

4.0 27. 0

29. 0

0.0 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

2.5 0.0
Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS

30. 5
C
Horizon Year 2045 No Project Timing Plan: AM PeakSynchro 11 Report HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Date Palm Drive & 30th Avenue The Wren Project 05/31/ 2024
Move ment EBLEBTEBRWB LWBT WBR NBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSB Lane R Configuratio
nsTraffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Initial Q (Qb), veh 72720263
263
0 165
165
0 115
115
0 128
128
0 132
132
0 204
204
0 625
625
0 59590192
192
0 110 4
110 4
0 45450
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

1.0 0

0.9 7

1.0 0

0.9 7

1.0 0

1.0 0
No 187 0
286

0.9 2
2 438

0.2 3
187 0
286
187 0

9.3 1.0 0
No 187 0
139

0.9 2
2 498

0.2 7
187 0
139
187 0

4.0 1.0 0
No 187 0
679

0.9 2
2 141 5

0.3 0
474 8
485
170 2

7.9 1.0 0
No 187 0
120 0

0.9 2
2 145 9

0.2 9
503 1
812
170 2

15. 0

15. 0
187 0
78 0.9 2
2 102

0.0 6
178 1
78 178 1

2.9 187 0
179

0.9 2
2 359

0.2 3
153 2
179
153 2

6.8 187 0
125

0.9 2
2 158

0.0 9
178 1
125
178 1

4.6 187 0
143

0.9 2
2 410

0.2 7
154 1
143
154 1

5.1 187 0
222

0.9 2
2 266

0.1 5
178 1
222
178 1

8.2 187 0
64 0.9 2
2 132

0.3 0
444
258
178 9

8.0 187 0
209

0.9 2
2 252

0.1 4
178 1
209
178 1

7.7 187 0
49 0.9 2
2 60 0.2 9
205
437
183 3

15. 0

0.1 1
531

0.8 2
572

1.0 0

22. 3

8.9 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%),v eh/ln Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS

2.9 9.3 6.8 4.6 4.0 5.1 8.2 7.9 8.0 7.7 1.0 0
102

0.7 7
159

1.0 0

31. 3

11. 4

0.0 1.0 0
359

0.5 0
592

1.0 0

22. 3

1.1 1.0 0
158

0.7 9
159

1.0 0

30. 0

22. 8

0.0 1.0 0
410

0.3 5
595

1.0 0

20. 0

0.5 1.0 0
266

0.8 4
291

1.0 0

27. 8

17. 4

0.0 0.2 5
533

0.4 8
585

1.0 0

19. 4

0.7 1.0 0
252

0.8 3
265

1.0 0

28. 1

18. 9

0.0 438

0.6 5
723

1.0 0

23. 3

1.7 498

0.2 8
723

1.0 0

19. 6

0.3 101 4

0.4 8
111 3

1.0 0

19. 3

0.4 987

0.8 2
106 2

1.0 0

22. 3

5.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 2.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.7 0.0 2.8 0.0 3.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 1.5 2.8 4.4 4.2 6.6

42. 7
D

25. 0
C

23. 4
C

52. 8
D

19. 9
B

20. 5
C

45. 2
D

19. 7
B

20. 1
C

47. 0
D

27. 3
C

31. 2
Approach C
Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
543

27. 0
C
407

30. 2
C
965

25. 7
C
145 8

31. 3 Timer - Assigned C Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1 13. 5

4.0 2

24. 1

4.0 22. 0

10. 0

3.5 3

10. 0

4.0 6.0 6.6
4 19. 8

4.0 26. 0

11. 3

1.8 5

14. 0

4.0 11. 0

10. 2

0.1 6

23. 5

4.0 21. 0

17. 0

2.5 7

7.8 4.0 6.0 4.9 0.0
8 21. 9

4.0 26. 0

7.1 9.7 0.0 0.0 1.0
Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS

28. 9
C
Horizon Year 2045 No Project Timing Plan: AM PeakSynchro 11 Report HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Date Palm Drive & McCallum Way The Wren Project 05/31/ 2024
Move ment EBLEBTEBRWB LWBT WBR NBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSB Lane R Configuratio
nsTraffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Initial Q (Qb), veh 244
244
0 224
224
0 283
283
0 56560245
245
0 27270328
328
0 944
944
0 5353031310722
722
0 170
170
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

1.0 0

0.9 9

1.0 0

0.9 9

1.0 0

0.9 9

1.0 0

0.9 6

1.0 0

1.0 0
No 187 0
249

0.9 0
2 279

0.3 7
745
0 1.0 0
No 187 0
272

0.9 0
2 618

0.3 7
165 2
0 1.0 0
No 187 0
104 9

0.9 0
2 207 0

0.4 2
494 4
722
170 2

10. 9

1.0 0
No 187 0
802

0.9 0
2 926

0.2 3
410 0
665
170 2

13. 1

13. 1
187 0
271

0.9 0
2 187 0
314

0.9 0
2 187 0
62 0.9 0
2 154

0.3 7
847
62 847

4.2 26. 0

1.0 0
154

0.4 0
154

1.0 0

33. 1

1.7 187 0
30 0.9 0
2 187 0
364

0.9 0
2 187 0
59 0.9 0
2 187 0
34 0.9 0
2 187 0
189

0.9 0
2 373

0.3 7
107 6
271
107 6

17. 4

26. 0

1.0 0
373

0.7 3
373

1.0 0

26. 1

6.9 351

0.3 7
939
563
168 4

21. 8

0.5 6
630

0.8 9
630

1.0 0

20. 5

15. 2

0.0 68 405

0.2 3
178 1
364
178 1

13. 8

1.0 0
405

0.9 0
410

1.0 0

26. 1

21. 9

0.0 116

0.4 2
278
386
181 7

10. 9

0.1 5
761

0.5 1
761

1.0 0

14. 9

0.6 62 216

0.2 3
957
326
165 2

13. 2

0.5 8
373

0.8 7
380

1.0 0

26. 0

19. 4

0.0 0.3 7
182
302
183 4

8.6 0.0 3
178 1
34 178 1

1.3 1.3 1.0 0
62 0.5 5
128

1.0 0

33. 0

7.5 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%),v eh/ln Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS 0 0.0 0.0
0 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.1 0
686

0.4 4
686

1.0 0

16. 3

0.4 0

0.0 0
0 1.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0.0
0 0.0 0
0 1.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
142 5

0.5 1
142 5

1.0 0

14. 9

0.3 769

0.8 6
783

1.0 0

25. 9

9.8 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 3.4 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 9.9 7.5 5.7 6.6

33. 0
C

0.0A35. 6
D

34. 7
C

0.0A16. 7
B

48. 0
D

15. 2
B

15. 5
B

40. 5
D

35. 6
D

45. 4
Approach D
Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
834

34. 8
C
364

19. 8
B
147 2

23. 4
C
102 5

38. 9 Timer - D Assigned Phs
1 6.4 4.0 5.0 3.3 0.0
2 33. 1

4.0 27. 0

12. 9

5.4 4

30. 0

4.0 26. 0

28. 0

0.0 5

19. 8

4.0 16. 0

15. 8

0.0 6

19. 7

4.0 16. 0

15. 2

0.5 8

30. 0

4.0 26. 0

28. 0

0.0 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
Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS

29. 9
C
Horizon Year 2045 No Project Timing Plan: PM PeakSynchro 11 Report HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Date Palm Drive & 30th Avenue The Wren Project 05/31/ 2024
Move ment EBLEBTEBRWB LWBT WBR NBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSB Lane R Configuratio
nsTraffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Initial Q (Qb), veh 61610121
121
0 176
176
0 65650112
112
0 114
114
0 365
365
0 115 3
115 3
0 5555022220886
886
0 63630
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

1.0 0

0.9 6

1.0 0

0.9 7

1.0 0

1.0 0
No 187 0
132

0.9 2
2 383

0.2 0
187 0
132
187 0

4.2 1.0 0
No 187 0
122

0.9 2
2 386

0.2 1
187 0
122
187 0

3.8 1.0 0
No 187 0
125 3

0.9 2
2 241 2

0.4 8
499 2
854
170 2

12. 0

1.0 0
No 187 0
963

0.9 2
2 125 6

0.2 6
486 8
673
187 0
66 0.9 2
2 187 0
191

0.9 2
2 312

0.2 0
152 7
191
152 7

7.9 187 0
71 0.9 2
2 187 0
124

0.9 2
2 317

0.2 1
153 4
124
153 4

4.8 187 0
397

0.9 2
2 187 0
60 0.9 2
2 187 0
24 0.9 2
2 187 0
68 0.9 2
2 93 96 449

0.2 5
178 1
397
178 1

14. 8

1.0 0
449

0.8 8
567

1.0 0

24. 9

13. 0

0.0 116

0.4 8
239
459
182 7

12. 0

0.1 3
883

0.5 2
100 5

1.0 0

12. 3

0.5 48 89 0.0 5
178 1
66 178 1

2.5 2.5 1.0 0
93 0.7 1
129

1.0 0

32. 2

10. 5

0.0 0.0 5
178 1
71 178 1

2.7 2.7 1.0 0
96 0.7 4
129

1.0 0

32. 2

14. 1

0.0 0.0 3
178 1
24 178 1

0.9 0.9 1.0 0
48 0.5 0
129

1.0 0

33. 2

8.0 0.2 6
343
358
180 7

12. 7

0.1 9
466

0.7 7
549

1.0 0

23. 7

5.5 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%),v eh/ln Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS 170 2

12. 6

4.2 7.9 3.8 4.8 1.0 0
312

0.6 1
575

1.0 0

25. 0

1.9 1.0 0
317

0.3 9
577

1.0 0

23. 7

0.8 383

0.3 5
704

1.0 0

23. 5

0.5 386

0.3 2
704

1.0 0

23. 3

0.5 164 5

0.5 2
187 3

1.0 0

12. 3

0.3 878

0.7 7
103 5

1.0 0

23. 7

2.9 0.0 1.7 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.0 3.7 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 4.6 0.0 1.3 1.5 7.1 5.3

42. 7
D

24. 0
C

26. 9
C

46. 3
D

23. 7
C

24. 5
C

37. 9
D

12. 6
B

12. 8
B

41. 2
D

26. 6
C

29. 2
Approach C
Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
389

28. 6
C
317

29. 1
C
171 0

18. 5
B
105 5

27. 9 Timer - C Assigned Phs
1 5.8 4.0 5.0 2.9 0.0
2 37. 4

4.0 38. 0

14. 0

9.0 3

7.7 4.0 5.0 4.7 0.0
4 18. 1

4.0 26. 0

9.9 5

21. 4

4.0 22. 0

16. 8

0.6 6

21. 8

4.0 21. 0

14. 7

3.0 7

7.6 4.0 5.0 4.5 0.0
8 18. 3

4.0 26. 0

6.8 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

1.1 0.9
Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS

23. 4
C
Horizon Year 2045 No Project Timing Plan: PM PeakSynchro 11 Report

APPENDIX H -

HORIZON YEAR PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION

ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Date Palm Drive & McCallum Way The Wren Project 05/31/ 2024
Move ment EBLEBTEBRWB LWBT WBR NBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSB Lane R Configuratio
nsTraffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Initial Q (Qb), veh 166
166
0 326
326
0 311
311
0 44440231
231
0 26260149
149
0 495
495
0 3434048480953
953
0 155
155
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

1.0 0

0.9 9

1.0 0

0.9 9

1.0 0

0.9 9

1.0 0

0.9 6

1.0 0

1.0 0
No 187 0
362

0.9 0
2 367

0.4 2
872
0 1.0 0
No 187 0
257

0.9 0
2 693

0.4 2
164 8
0 1.0 0
No 187 0
550

0.9 0
2 168 2

0.3 5
487 6
383
170 2

5.3 1.0 0
No 187 0
105 9

0.9 0
2 124 9

0.2 8
440 2
819
170 2

14. 6

14. 6
187 0
184

0.9 0
2 454

0.4 2
109 2
184
109 2

8.9 15. 8

1.0 0
454

0.4 1
454

1.0 0

18. 2

0.6 187 0
346

0.9 0
2 187 0
49 0.9 0
2 119

0.4 2
741
49 741

0.6 27. 0

1.0 0
119

0.4 1
119

1.0 0

32. 1

2.3 187 0
29 0.9 0
2 187 0
166

0.9 0
2 194

0.1 1
178 1
166
178 1

5.9 187 0
38 0.9 0
2 115

0.3 5
334
205
180 6

5.4 187 0
53 0.9 0
2 187 0
172

0.9 0
2 350

0.4 2
834
708
170 6

26. 4

0.4 9
717

0.9 9
717

1.0 0

18. 4

30. 3

0.0 78 85 202

0.2 8
714
412
171 1

14. 6

0.4 2
485

0.8 5
506

1.0 0

21. 7

12. 5

0.0 0.4 2
186
286
183 4

6.9 0.0 5
178 1
53 178 1

1.9 1.9 1.0 0
85 0.6 2
166

1.0 0

30. 0

0.3 7
771

1.0 0

12. 8

0.3 1.0 0
194

0.8 5
194

1.0 0

28. 1

29. 2

0.0 0.1 8
623

0.3 3
623

1.0 0

15. 5

0.3 0

0.0 0
0 1.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0.0
0 0.0 0
0 1.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
117 5

0.3 3
117 5

1.0 0

15. 5

0.2 966

0.8 5
100 7

1.0 0

21. 7

6.7 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.9 0.0 14. 5.9 2

3.7 6.7

18. 8
B

0.0A48. 7
D

34. 3
C

0.0A13. 1
B

57. 3
E

15. 7
B

15. 8
B

37. 3
D

28. 4
C

34. 2
Approach C
Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
892

42. 6
D
335

16. 2
B
754

24. 9
C
128 4

30. 6 Timer - C Assigned Phs
1 7.1 4.0 6.0 3.9 0.0
2 26. 2

4.0 20. 0

7.4 4

31. 0

4.0 27. 0

28. 4

0.0 5

11. 0

4.0 7.0 7.9
6 22. 2

4.0 19. 0

16. 6

1.6 8

31. 0

4.0 27. 0

29. 0

0.0 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

2.6 0.0
Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS

31. 1
C
Horizon Year Plus Project Timing Plan: AM PeakSynchro 11 Report HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Date Palm Drive & Rosemount Road The Wren Project 05/31/ 2024
Move ment EBLEBTEBRWB LWBT WBR NBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSB Lane R Configuratio
nsTraffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Initial Q (Qb), veh 6363053530727207070075750227
227
0 102
102
0 631
631
0 42420172
172
0 107 2
107 2
0 89890
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

1.0 0

1.0 0
No 187 0
58 0.9 2
2 157

0.2 2
723
0 1.0 0
No 187 0
82 0.9 2
2 103

0.2 5
411
0 1.0 0
No 187 0
686

0.9 2
2 126 0

0.2 6
489 0
476
170 2

6.4 1.0 0
No 187 0
116 5

0.9 2
2 148 6

0.3 1
480 3
826
170 2

11. 8

11. 8
187 0
68 0.9 2
2 106

0.0 6
178 1
68 178 1

2.0 187 0
78 0.9 2
2 211

0.2 2
972
136
169 5

3.6 187 0
76 0.9 2
2 167

0.0 9
178 1
76 178 1

2.2 187 0
247

0.9 2
2 187 0
111

0.9 2
2 142

0.0 8
178 1
111
178 1

3.3 187 0
46 0.9 2
2 187 0
187

0.9 2
2 234

0.1 3
178 1
187
178 1

5.4 187 0
97 0.9 2
2 311

0.2 5
123 7
329
164 8

10. 0

0.7 5
414

0.7 9
649

1.0 0

18. 7

3.7 84 124

0.3 1
400
436
179 8

11. 8

0.2 2
556

0.7 8
607

1.0 0

16. 8

6.2 0.2 6
326
256
181 2

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%),v eh/ln Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS 0 0.0 0.0
0 0.0 2.0 3.6 2.2 0.0 3.3 6.4 6.5 5.4 1.0 0
106

0.6 4
167

1.0 0

24. 5

6.3 0.5 7
368

0.3 7
668

1.0 0

17. 8

0.6 1.0 0
167

0.4 6
167

1.0 0

22. 9

1.9 1.0 0
142

0.7 8
167

1.0 0

24. 1

18. 2

0.0 0.1 8
467

0.5 5
510

1.0 0

17. 1

1.0 1.0 0
234

0.8 0
267

1.0 0

22. 5

14. 1

0.0 0

0.0 0
0 1.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0.0
0 0.0 0
0 1.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
877

0.5 4
958

1.0 0

17. 1

0.5 105 3

0.7 8
115 0

1.0 0

16. 8

3.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 3.9 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.3 0.0 4.1 0.0 1.9 2.9 4.8

30. 8
C

0.0A18. 4
B

24. 8
C

0.0A22. 3
C

42. 3
D

17. 6
B

18. 1
B

36. 6
D

20. 1
C

23. 0
Approach C
Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
204

22. 5
C
405

22. 8
C
843

21. 0
C
144 9

23. 1 Timer - C Assigned Phs
1 11. 0

4.0 8.0 7.4
2 17. 7

4.0 15. 0

8.5 3

9.0 4.0 5.0 4.2 0.0
4 15. 6

4.0 21. 0

5.6 5

8.2 4.0 5.0 5.3 0.0
6 20. 5

4.0 18. 0

13. 8

2.7 7

7.2 4.0 5.0 4.0 0.0
8 17. 4

4.0 21. 0

12. 0

1.4 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 2.3 0.6
Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS

22. 4
C
Horizon Year Plus Project Timing Plan: AM PeakSynchro 11 Report Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year 2045 Plus Project The Wren Project 05/30/ 2024 Intersection: 2: Date Palm Drive & Rosemount Road Move ment EBL 843568
EBTR108
4185 425
WB
L
874074
WB
TR181
80 149
430
NBL
120
59 NBT
147
79 125
560
NBT
129
74 119
560
NBT
135
69 114
560
NBR
682153
SBL
201
100
171
SBT
229
122
202
121 0
SBT
247
137
224
121 0
Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) 10 Link 1
Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 100
0 0
14018010
0 0
0 280
0 0
1 0
1 1
0 0
1 0
Intersection: 2: Date Palm Drive & Rosemount Road Move ment SBT 249
147
237
121 0
SBR
180
59 Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) 13 Link 6
Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 14 0
0 0
1413
HY+P AM SimTraffic Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Date Palm Drive & 30th Avenue The Wren Project 05/31/ 2024
Move ment EBLEBTEBRWB LWBT WBR NBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSB Lane R Configuratio
nsTraffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Initial Q (Qb), veh 72720263
263
0 165
165
0 115
115
0 128
128
0 132
132
0 204
204
0 646
646
0 59590192
192
0 111 1
111 1
0 45450
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

1.0 0

0.9 7

1.0 0

0.9 7

1.0 0

1.0 0
No 187 0
286

0.9 2
2 438

0.2 3
187 0
286
187 0

9.3 1.0 0
No 187 0
139

0.9 2
2 498

0.2 7
187 0
139
187 0

4.0 1.0 0
No 187 0
702

0.9 2
2 142 2

0.3 0
476 4
500
170 2

8.1 1.0 0
No 187 0
120 8

0.9 2
2 146 2

0.2 9
503 3
817
170 2

15. 1

15. 1
187 0
78 0.9 2
2 101

0.0 6
178 1
78 178 1

2.9 187 0
179

0.9 2
2 358

0.2 3
153 2
179
153 2

6.8 187 0
125

0.9 2
2 158

0.0 9
178 1
125
178 1

4.6 187 0
143

0.9 2
2 410

0.2 7
154 1
143
154 1

5.1 187 0
222

0.9 2
2 266

0.1 5
178 1
222
178 1

8.2 187 0
64 0.9 2
2 129

0.3 0
431
266
179 1

8.2 187 0
209

0.9 2
2 252

0.1 4
178 1
209
178 1

7.7 187 0
49 0.9 2
2 59 0.2 9
204
440
183 3

15. 1

0.1 1
532

0.8 3
571

1.0 0

22. 3

9.2 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%),v eh/ln Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS

2.9 9.3 6.8 4.6 4.0 5.1 8.2 8.1 8.2 7.7 1.0 0
101

0.7 7
159

1.0 0

31. 4

11. 5

0.0 1.0 0
358

0.5 0
591

1.0 0

22. 4

1.1 1.0 0
158

0.7 9
159

1.0 0

30. 1

22. 9

0.0 1.0 0
410

0.3 5
594

1.0 0

20. 0

0.5 1.0 0
266

0.8 4
291

1.0 0

27. 9

17. 5

0.0 0.2 4
535

0.5 0
584

1.0 0

19. 5

0.7 1.0 0
252

0.8 3
264

1.0 0

28. 2

18. 9

0.0 438

0.6 5
721

1.0 0

23. 3

1.7 498

0.2 8
721

1.0 0

19. 6

0.3 101 6

0.4 9
111 1

1.0 0

19. 4

0.4 989

0.8 3
106 0

1.0 0

22. 3

5.2 0.0 3.8 0.0 2.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.7 0.0 2.9 0.0 3.1 0.0 5.7 0.0 1.5 2.8 4.4 4.2 6.7

42. 8
D

25. 0
C

23. 5
C

53. 0
D

19. 9
B

20. 5
C

45. 4
D

19. 8
B

20. 2
C

47. 1
D

27. 5
C

31. 6
Approach C
Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
543

27. 1
C
407

30. 3
C
988

25. 7
C
146 6

31. 5 Timer - Assigned C Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1 13. 5

4.0 2

24. 1

4.0 22. 0

10. 2

3.5 3

10. 0

4.0 6.0 6.6
4 19. 8

4.0 26. 0

11. 3

1.8 5

14. 1

4.0 11. 0

10. 2

0.1 6

23. 6

4.0 21. 0

17. 1

2.4 7

7.8 4.0 6.0 4.9 0.0
8 21. 9

4.0 26. 0

7.1 9.7 0.0 0.0 1.0
Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS

29. 0
C
Horizon Year Plus Project Timing Plan: AM PeakSynchro 11 Report HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Date Palm Drive & McCallum Way The Wren Project 05/31/ 2024
Move ment EBLEBTEBRWB LWBT WBR NBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSB Lane R Configuratio
nsTraffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Initial Q (Qb), veh 244
244
0 224
224
0 283
283
0 56560245
245
0 27270328
328
0 970
970
0 5353031310738
738
0 170
170
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

1.0 0

0.9 9

1.0 0

0.9 9

1.0 0

0.9 9

1.0 0

0.9 6

1.0 0

1.0 0
No 187 0
249

0.9 0
2 278

0.3 7
745
0 1.0 0
No 187 0
272

0.9 0
2 617

0.3 7
165 2
0 1.0 0
No 187 0
107 8

0.9 0
2 207 9

0.4 2
495 2
741
170 2

11. 2

1.0 0
No 187 0
820

0.9 0
2 936

0.2 3
411 9
676
170 2

13. 3

13. 3
187 0
271

0.9 0
2 187 0
314

0.9 0
2 187 0
62 0.9 0
2 153

0.3 7
847
62 847

4.1 26. 0

1.0 0
153

0.4 1
153

1.0 0

33. 2

1.7 187 0
30 0.9 0
2 187 0
364

0.9 0
2 187 0
59 0.9 0
2 187 0
34 0.9 0
2 187 0
189

0.9 0
2 372

0.3 7
107 6
271
107 6

17. 4

26. 0

1.0 0
372

0.7 3
372

1.0 0

26. 2

7.0 351

0.3 7
939
563
168 4

21. 9

0.5 6
629

0.9 0
629

1.0 0

20. 6

15. 4

0.0 68 405

0.2 3
178 1
364
178 1

13. 8

1.0 0
405

0.9 0
409

1.0 0

26. 1

22. 0

0.0 114

0.4 2
271
396
181 9

11. 3

0.1 5
764

0.5 2
764

1.0 0

15. 0

0.6 62 214

0.2 3
941
333
165 6

13. 5

0.5 7
376

0.8 8
380

1.0 0

26. 0

20. 9

0.0 0.3 7
182
302
183 4

8.6 0.0 3
178 1
34 178 1

1.3 1.3 1.0 0
62 0.5 5
128

1.0 0

33. 1

0.4 4
685

1.0 0

16. 4

0.4 0

0.0 0
0 1.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0.0
0 0.0 0
0 1.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
142 9

0.5 2
142 9

1.0 0

15. 0

0.3 773

0.8 7
782

1.0 0

26. 0

10. 7

0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.8 0.0 9.9 7.5 0.7 6.0 6.9

33. 3
C

0.0A36. 0
D

34. 9
C

0.0A16. 8
B

48. 2
D

15. 3
B

15. 6
B

40. 6
D

36. 7
D

47. 0
Approach D
Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
834

35. 1
D
364

19. 9
B
150 1

23. 4
C
104 3

40. 1 Timer - D Assigned Phs
1 6.4 4.0 5.0 3.3 0.0
2 33. 2

4.0 27. 0

13. 3

5.5 4

30. 0

4.0 26. 0

28. 0

0.0 5

19. 8

4.0 16. 0

15. 8

0.0 6

19. 8

4.0 16. 0

15. 5

0.3 8

30. 0

4.0 26. 0

28. 0

0.0 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
Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS

30. 3
C
Horizon Year Plus Project Timing Plan: PM PeakSynchro 11 Report HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Date Palm Drive & Rosemount Road The Wren Project 05/31/ 2024
Move ment EBLEBTEBRWB LWBT WBR NBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSB Lane R Configuratio
nsTraffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Initial Q (Qb), veh 7676068680909009595064640330
330
0 83830129 5
129 5
0 56560318
318
0 757
757
0 71710
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

1.0 0

1.0 0
No 187 0
74 0.9 2
2 167

0.2 3
730
0 1.0 0
No 187 0
70 0.9 2
2 1.0 0
No 187 0
140 8

0.9 2
2 155 6

0.3 1
501 8
955
170 2

23. 8

1.0 0
No 187 0
823

0.9 2
2 217 5

0.4 6
475 2
588
187 0
83 0.9 2
2 106

0.0 6
178 1
83 178 1

4.1 187 0
98 0.9 2
2 221

0.2 3
967
172
169 6

7.7 187 0
103

0.9 2
2 121

0.0 7
178 1
103
178 1

5.1 187 0
359

0.9 2
2 187 0
90 0.9 2
2 116

0.0 6
178 1
90 178 1

4.4 187 0
61 0.9 2
2 187 0
346

0.9 2
2 187 0
77 0.9 2
2 63 322

0.2 4
136 0
429
162 6

21. 0

0.8 4
385

1.1 1
385

1.0 0

33. 8

80. 2

0.0 67 379

0.2 1
178 1
346
178 1

16. 8

1.0 0
379

0.9 1
382

1.0 0

34. 1

25. 8

0.0 203

0.4 6
443
312
179 1

10. 1

0.2 5
820

0.3 8
820

1.0 0

15. 8

0.3 0.2 4
265
0 0

0.0 0.0

0.3 1
217
514
183 1

23. 8

0.1 2
568

0.9 0
579

1.0 0

29. 3

17. 6

0.0 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) 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%),v eh/ln Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS 0 0.0 0.0
170 2

10. 0

4.1 7.7 5.1 4.4 1.0 0
106

0.7 8
121

1.0 0

41. 1

24. 7

0.0 0.5 7
388

0.4 4
402

1.0 0

29. 3

0.8 1.0 0
121

0.8 5
121

1.0 0

40. 9

41. 3

0.0 1.0 0
116

0.7 8
201

1.0 0

40. 8

10. 6

0.0 0

0.0 0
0 1.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 0.0 0
0 1.0 0

0.0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
105 6

0.9 0
107 6

1.0 0

29. 3

10. 7

0.0 155 8

0.3 8
155 8

1.0 0

15. 7

0.2 0.0 3.2 0.0 3.5 0.0 2.5 3.6 16. 3.8 7

2.2 10. 512. 49.5

65. 8
E

0.0A
255

41. 7
D

30. 1
C

82. 1
F

0.0 114.0 51. 4
D

40. 0
D
155 9

42. 9
D

46. 9
D

59. 8
E

15. 9
B
124 6

28. 1
C

16. 1
B
A
532
107. 8
F
F
Timer - Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s1

22. 8

4.0 2

31. 5

4.0 28. 0

25. 8

1.6 3

10. 0

4.0 6.0 7.1
4 24. 3

4.0 21. 0

9.7 5

9.8 4.0 10. 0

6.4 0.1
6 44. 6

4.0 37. 0

12. 1

5.7 7

9.3 4.0 6.0 6.1 0.0
8 25. 0

4.0 21. 0

23. 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7
Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS

47. 3
D
Horizon Year Plus Project Timing Plan: PM PeakSynchro 11 Report Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year 2045 Plus Project The Wren Project 05/30/ 2024 Intersection: 2: Date Palm Drive & Rosemount Road Move ment EBL 122
53 EBTR193
69 138
425
WB
L
190
70 WB
TR331
148
267
430
NBL
236
81 NBT
327
220
314
560
NBT
327
192
280
560
NBT
285
153
235
560
NBR
177
33 SBL
307
177
281
SBT
189
68 160
121 0
SBT
180
84 162
121 0
Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) 98 14718510 Link 3
Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 100
1 1
140
0 2
180
0 0
100280
2 4
4 3
1110 1614 158
Intersection: 2: Date Palm Drive & Rosemount Road Move ment SBT 208
98 179
121 0
SBR
113
27 Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) 75 Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 14 0
0 0
6 4
HY+P PM SimTraffic Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Date Palm Drive & 30th Avenue The Wren Project 05/31/ 2024
Move ment EBLEBTEBRWB LWBT WBR NBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSB Lane R Configuratio
nsTraffic Volume (veh/h) Future Volume (veh/h) Initial Q (Qb), veh 61610121
121
0 176
176
0 65650112
112
0 114
114
0 365
365
0 116 7
116 7
0 5555022220909
909
0 63630
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

1.0 0

0.9 6

1.0 0

0.9 7

1.0 0

1.0 0
No 187 0
132

0.9 2
2 381

0.2 0
187 0
132
187 0

4.2 1.0 0
No 187 0
122

0.9 2
2 384

0.2 1
187 0
122
187 0

3.9 1.0 0
No 187 0
126 8

0.9 2
2 243 7

0.4 9
499 5
864
170 2

12. 2

1.0 0
No 187 0
988

0.9 2
2 128 9

0.2 6
487 7
689
187 0
66 0.9 2
2 187 0
191

0.9 2
2 311

0.2 0
152 7
191
152 7

8.0 187 0
71 0.9 2
2 187 0
124

0.9 2
2 315

0.2 1
153 4
124
153 4

4.9 187 0
397

0.9 2
2 187 0
60 0.9 2
2 187 0
24 0.9 2
2 187 0
68 0.9 2
2 92 95 446

0.2 5
178 1
397
178 1

15. 1

1.0 0
446

0.8 9
534

1.0 0

25. 3

15. 0

0.0 115

0.4 9
236
464
182 7

12. 2

0.1 3
892

0.5 2
991

1.0 0

12. 3

0.5 47 89 0.0 5
178 1
66 178 1

2.6 2.6 1.0 0
92 0.7 2
127

1.0 0

32. 7

11. 3

0.0 0.0 5
178 1
71 178 1

2.8 2.8 1.0 0
95 0.7 5
127

1.0 0

32. 7

15. 1

0.0 0.0 3
178 1
24 178 1

0.9 0.9 1.0 0
47 0.5 1
127

1.0 0

33. 6

8.1 0.2 6
335
367
180 9

13. 1

0.1 9
478

0.7 7
568

1.0 0

23. 8

5.3 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%),v eh/ln Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS 170 2

13. 1

4.2 8.0 3.9 4.9 1.0 0
311

0.6 1
567

1.0 0

25. 4

2.0 1.0 0
315

0.3 9
569

1.0 0

24. 1

0.8 381

0.3 5
694

1.0 0

23. 9

0.5 384

0.3 2
694

1.0 0

23. 7

0.5 166 1

0.5 2
184 6

1.0 0

12. 3

0.3 899

0.7 7
106 9

1.0 0

23. 8

2.8 0.0 1.7 0.0 2.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.7 0.0 3.8 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 4.8 0.0 1.3 1.5 7.5 5.4

44. 0
D

24. 4
C

27. 4
C

47. 8
D

24. 1
C

24. 9
C

40. 3
D

12. 6
B

12. 8
B

41. 7
D

26. 6
C

29. 1
Approach C
Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
389

29. 2
C
317

29. 7
C
172 5

19. 0
B
108 0

27. 8 Timer - C Assigned Phs
1 5.9 4.0 5.0 2.9 0.0
2 38. 2

4.0 38. 0

14. 2

9.1 3

7.7 4.0 5.0 4.8 0.0
4 18. 3

4.0 26. 0

10. 0

1.1 5

21. 5

4.0 21. 0

17. 1

0.5 6

22. 5

4.0 22. 0

15. 1

3.3 7

7.6 4.0 5.0 4.6 0.0
8 18. 4

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

0.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS

23. 8
C
Horizon Year Plus Project Timing Plan: PM PeakSynchro 11 Report APPEN

DIX J -
INTERSECTION 2 SIGNAL WARRANT WORKSHEETS
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Rev 6 Scenario: Project Completion Year 2025 ConditionsMajor Approach: Date Palm Drive Minor Approach: WARRANT 3 - Rosemount Road PEAK HOUR SATIS FIED (Part A or Part B must be satisfied) YES YES
NO
Part NO
A
SATIS (All parts 1, 2, and 3 below FIED must be satisfied for the same

1. The total delay experienced by traffic on one minor street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for one-lane approach, or five vehicle-hours for a two- lane approach; AND YES
YES
NO

2. The volume on the same minor street NO approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches YES
YES
NO
SATIS NO Part FIED B
Tw
APPROAC o
H LANES One
Both Approaches or More
- Major Street Higher Approach - Minor Street
190 4
295

ENTER CORRECT HOURS
ENTER PEAK HOUR VOL. The plotted point falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3 (Urban Areas) OR The plotted point falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-4 (Rural Areas) YES
YES
NO
NO
The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.

My Results (Minimum 42 Vehicles) 5
400
375
350
325
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75 295
50 25
0 300400500600700800900100 0110 0120 0130 Major 0
Street Total of Both Approaches - VPH
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Rev 6 Scenario: Cumulative Year 2025 Conditions Major Approach: Date Palm Drive Minor Approach: WARRANT 3 - Rosemount Road PEAK HOUR SATIS FIED

SATIS FIED
(Part A or Part B must be satisfied) YES
YES
NO
Part NO
A(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied for the same

My Results (Minimum 42 Vehicles) 5
400
375
350
325
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75 335
50 25
0 300400500600700800900100 0110 0120 0130 Major 0
Street Total of Both Approaches - VPH
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Rev 6 Scenario: Horizon Year Plus Project Conditions Major Approach: Date Palm Drive Minor Approach: WARRANT 3 - Rosemount Road PEAK HOUR SATIS FIED (Part A or Part B must be satisfied) YES YES
NO
Part NO
A
SATIS (All parts 1, 2, and 3 below FIED must be satisfied for the same

My Results (Minimum 50 Vehicles) 0
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50 489
0 300400500600700800900100 0110 0120 0130 Major 0
Street Total of Both Approaches - VPH
APPEND
IX K -

TRANSIT ROUTE INFORMATION
PALM
SPRING
S
48 ROU TERUT A4ROSA
PARKS
RD
E SAN
RAFAEL

DR RACQUET

CLUB DR VISTA
CHINO
AVE
30TH
STEVEN
S RD 2
H
C
TACHEV

AH DR THOU

SAND PAL

MS EASTTAHQUITZC E ANYONWAY BARIS
TO
RAMO
N RD
RAMO
N RD 2
1W C
V
2 DINAH
SHORE

DR PALM
SPRING
S
CATHE

DRAL CITY H RAN
CHO

ROUTE /

RUTA MIRA
GE

POST OFFICE /

OFICINA POSTAL HOSPITAL COUNTRY

CLUB DR SCHOOL / MESCUELA MALL /
CENTRO

COMERCIAL

ROUTE /

RUTAS SENIOR CENTER / CENTRO

PARA ADULTOS MAYORES POST OFFICE /

OFICINA POSTAL C N
HOSPI
TAL
CASI

NO H AIRPORT /

AEROPUERT
O

SCHOOL /

ESCUELA CITY HALL /

AYUNTAMIENT
O
M
S
C
MALL /
CENTRO

COMERCIAL

LIBRARY /

BIBLIOTECA SENIOR CENTER / CENTRO

PARA ADULTOS MAYORES SUNLINE

TRANSIT
AGENCY
CASI

NO TIMEPOINT /

PUNTO DE
TIEMPO

AIRPORT /

AEROPUERT
O
PALM

FRED WARING
DR

TRANSFER POINT /

PUNTO DE

TRANSFERENCIA

CITY HALL / M

AYUNTAMIENT
O
DES
ERT
HWY
111 LIBRARY /

BIBLIOTECA
1W
V
1EV

SUNLINE

TRANSIT
AGENCY
5 TIMEPOINT / PUNTO DE 6

TIEMPO TRANSFER POINT / PUNTO DE TRANSFERENCIA
49 Effective January 7, 2024SunLine Transit Agency • SunLine.orgEfectivo 7 de enero de 2024 EASTBOUND | HACIA EL ESTE WESTBOUND | HACIA EL OESTE
50 ROU TERUTA4 6:10
a
7:10
a
8:10
a
9:10
a
10:1 0a11:10
a
12:10
p
1:10
p
2:10
p
3:10
p
4:10
p
5:10
p
6:10
p
7:10
p
8:10
p
6:42
a
7:42
a
8:42
a
9:42
a
10:4 3a11:4 3a12:4 3p1:43
p
2:43
p
3:43
p
4:43
p
5:43
p
6:43
p
7:43
p
8:42
p
7:05
a
8:05
a
9:05
a
10:0 5a11:0 5a12:0 5p1:05
p
2:05
p
3:05
p
4:05
p
5:05
p
6:07
p
7:07
p
8:07
p
9:03
p
7:20
a
8:20
a
9:20
a
10:2 0a11:2 0a 12:2 0p1:20
p
2:20
p
3:20
p
4:20
p
5:20
p
6:20
p
7:20
p
8:20
p
9:20
p
7:41
a
8:41
a
9:41
a
6:10
a
7:10
a
8:10
a
9:10
a
10:1 0a11:10
a
12:10
p
1:10
p
2:10
p
3:10
p
4:10
p
5:10
p
6:10
p
7:10
p
8:10
p
6:30
a
7:30
a
8:30
a
9:30
a
10:3 2a11:32
a
12:3 2p1:32
p
2:32
p
3:32
p
4:32
p
5:31
p
6:31
p
7:31
p
8:31
p
6:46
a
7:46
a
8:4 6a9:46
a
10:4 9a11:4 9a 12:4 9p1:49
p
2:49
p
3:49
p
4:49
p
5:48
p
6:48
p
7:48
p
8:47
p
7:10
a
8:10
a
9:10
a
10:1 0a11:13
a
12:13
p
1:13
p
2:13
p
3:13
p
4:13
p
5:13
p
6:12
p
7:12
p
8:12
p
9:12
p
7:25
a
8:25
a
9:25
a
10:2 5a11:2 8a 12:2 8p1:28
p
2:28
p
3:28
p
4:28
p
5:28
p
6:26
p
7:26
p
8:26
p
9:26
p
7:36a 7:47a 8:36a 8:47a 9:36a 9:47a 10:36a 10:47a 11:41a 11:53a 12:41p 12:53p 10:41
a
11:4 3a12:4 3p1:43
p
2:43
p
3:43
p
4:43
p
5:43
p
6:40
p
7:40
p
8:40
p
9:38
p
1:41
p
1:53 2:41p p
2:53p 3:41p 3:53p 4:41p 4:53p 5:41p 5:53p 6:40p 6:52p 7:40p 7:52p 8:40p 8:52p 9:39p 9:50p For the VillageFest Thursday night detour, please see the map on page 36- 37.

Para ver el desvío del jueves del VillageFest,
por
favor vea el mapa en las páginas 36 y 37.
51 Effective January 7, 2024SunLine Transit Agency • SunLine.orgEfectivo 7 de enero de 2024 The Wren Multiple-Family Development Project
Appendix G-2
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
The Wren Residential Development, Cathedral City, CA
General Technologies and Solutions
June 3, 2024
t +1 213 267 2332 | f +1 213 318 0744
[email protected] | www.gentecsol.com
11900 W Olympic Blvd #450, Los Angeles, CA 90064
GTS | General Technologies and Solutions

MEMORANDUM
Date: June 3, 2024 GTS: 240408.01
To: Integrated Engineering Group
From: GTS
Subject: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
The Wren Residential Development, Cathedral City, CA
This memorandum describes the development of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis for The Wren residential development (project) in Cathedral City (City), CA. The project is located southeast of Date Palm Drive and 30th Ave in Cathedral City within Riverside County. The project proposes construction of 204 low-rise multifamily dwelling units.

Background
On December 28, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law cleared the revised California Environmental Quality Act (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 vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

Methodology
Cathedral City has yet to adopt Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) guidelines and therefore, the VMT analysis was based upon the methodology and significant threshold criteria identified in the County of Riverside Transportation Analysis (TA) Guidelines for Level of Service (LOS) and Vehicle Miles Traveled, December 2020 (Guidelines).

The guidelines include several project screening criteria which were reviewed for the project evaluation.

The project includes residential land uses only. Therefore, project use was assessed with screening criteria established in the guidelines as below:

Small Projects: The county guidelines have identified project size thresholds for multiple land uses that can be screened out of a detailed VMT analysis. Project land use was compared with the criteria established for small projects. The guidelines recommend screening multifamily developments with less than 147 dwelling units from a detailed VMT analysis. The project proposes 204 multifamily dwelling units which is greater than 147 and therefore this screening criteria is not applicable for the project.

Project Near High Quality Transit: Projects within a ½ mile of an existing major transit stop can be screened out of detailed VMT analysis. The project is not within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop and therefore cannot be screened out of VMT analysis using this criterion.

Wren Residential Development
Cathedral City
VMT Analysis
Local-serving retail: Retail project buildings with area less 50 TSF can be screened out VMT analysis with approval from the Transportation Department. The project consists of residential land use and therefore this criterion is not applicable for the project.

Affordable Housing: The project consists of market rate residential land uses only and therefore doesn’t qualify for screening under this criterion.

Local Essential Service: Projects with public/local serving uses can be screened out VMT analysis after approval from the Transportation Department. The project doesn’t include any local essential services and therefore, the project uses cannot be screened out VMT analysis.

Map-based Screening: The project is not located in a low VMT area and therefore, the project cannot be screened out of VMT analysis using this criterion.

As shown above, the project cannot be screened out of a detailed VMT analysis and therefore, a detailed VMT analysis was conducted using RIVCOM 4.01 as recommended in the guidelines.

The guidelines recommend use of total home-based VMT per capita as the VMT metric to evaluate residential land uses. The home-based VMT is computed by using production VMT for all of the HomeBased trip purposes. According to the guidelines, the project will constitute a significant impact if the project VMT per capita is higher than the Riverside Countywide residential VMT per capita.

VMT Analysis
Both baseline (2018) and horizon year (2045) model runs were used to estimate 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. Model outputs for the project TAZ with were utilized to calculate project specific VMT per capita.

No project specific network modifications were conducted for the model scenarios. Full model runs with all feedback loops were conducted for all of the project scenarios. It should be noted that the project land use was included in the model as additional land use in the cumulative (2045) scenario and no shifting of land use from other TAZs was used. In that regard, the cumulative VMT analysis can be considered as a conservative estimate.

As indicated before, the project VMT per capita was compared with Riverside Countywide VMT per capita for project evaluation. The Riverside Countywide VMT per capita was estimated using “No Project” RIVCOM 4.01 runs conducted by GTS. VMT metrics for the threshold and project were developed using consistent methodology.

Table 1 below shows the project VMT metrics for both baseline (2018) and cumulative (2045) conditions along with the regional VMT thresholds.

Wren Residential Development
Cathedral City
VMT Analysis
Table 1: Project VMT analysis
2018
Wren Residential
(Project) *
Riverside County
(County) **
Total Population 660 2,358,439
Total Employment - 759,857
Homebased Production (HBP) VMT 10,375 42,904,715
HBP VMT per capita 15.7 18.2
2045
Wren Residential
(Project) *
Riverside County
(County) **
Total Population 660 3,424,454
Total Employment - 1,116,025
Homebased Production (HBP) VMT 9,785 63,396,364
HBP VMT per capita 14.8 18.5
*: Estimated using RIVCOM4.01 “with project” model runs **: Estimated using GTS No Project RIVCOM 4.01 model runs Conclusion
Based on the VMT analysis as shown in the above Table 1, the project does not have a significant impact for VMT.

106 October 2024

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Category
Mitigation Measures Action
Required
Implementati
on
Timing
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Air
Resources
AIR-1: Should building construction and
architectural coatings/painting occur
simultaneously, the volatile organic compound
(VOC) content should be no greater than 45
grams VOC per liter for interior paint.

AIR-A: The Project
contractor shall
provide the City’s
Building
Department with
written
substantiation that
paint to be used for
the Project does not
exceed 45 grams
VOC per liter prior to
the initiation of any
building coating.

During
Construction.

City Building
Department
inspection
Biological
Resources
BIO-1: Nesting bird nesting season generally
extends from February 1 through September 15
in southern California and specifically, March 15
through August 31 for migratory passerine birds.

To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common and
special status) during the nesting season, a
qualified Avian Biologist will conduct preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys (NBS) no more than 3-days prior to Project-related disturbance
to nestable vegetation to identify any active
nests. If no active nests are found, no further
action will be required. If an active nest is found,
the biologist will set appropriate no-work
buffers around the nest which will be based
upon the nesting species, its sensitivity to
disturbance, nesting stage, and expected types,
intensity, and duration of the disturbance. The
nests and buffer zones shall be field-checked
weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The
approved no-work buffer zone shall be clearly
BIO-A: If the initial
site grating occurs
between March 15
and September 15,
provide written
evidence to the
City’s Building
Department that a
pre-construction
nesting bird survey
has occurred within
three days prior to
issuance of the
grading permit.

Prior to any
land
disturbance.

Project applicant,
project biologist,
Planning
Department, City
Engineer.

The Wren Multiple-Family Development Project Initial Study Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
107 October 2024
Impact
Category
Mitigation Measures Action
Required
Implementati
on
Timing
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
marked in the field, within which no disturbance
activity shall commence until the qualified
biologist has determined the young birds have
successfully fledged and the nest is inactive.

Cultural
Resources
CUL-1: An approved Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) Cultural Resource
Monitor(s) shall be on-site during any ground
disturbing activities (including grubbing, grading
and excavation). Should buried cultural deposits
be encountered, the Monitor may request that
destructive construction halt. The Monitor shall
notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards and Guidelines) to
investigate and, if necessary, prepare a
mitigation plan for submission to the State
Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua
Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office.

CUL-A Prior to
issuance of grading
permits,
demonstrate
contract with ACBCI
for archaeological
monitoring. Within
30 days following
completion of
monitoring, a report
of findings will be
provided to the City.

Prior to any
ground
disturbance
and during
Construction.

Project applicant,
Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla
Indians, Planning
Department, City
Engineer
Noise NOI-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 interior noise
reduction, specifically for apartment homes
located adjacent to Date Palm Drive.

NOI-A: Provide
detailed sound
attenuation study to
the City’s Building
Department to
verify the Project
will achieve a
minimum 25 dBA
interior noise
reduction,
specifically for
apartment homes
located adjacent to
Date Palm Drive
prior to issuance of
the grading permit.

During
building plan
check.

Project applicant,
project biologist,
Planning
Department, City
Engineer
The Wren Multiple-Family Development Project Initial Study Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
108 October 2024
Impact
Category
Mitigation Measures Action
Required
Implementati
on
Timing
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Tribal
Cultural
Resources
CUL-1: An approved Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) Cultural Resource
Monitor(s) shall be on-site during any ground
disturbing activities (including grubbing, grading
and excavation). Should buried cultural deposits
be encountered, the Monitor may request that
destructive construction halt. The Monitor shall
notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards and Guidelines) to
investigate and, if necessary, prepare a
mitigation plan for submission to the State
Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua
Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office.

Prior to any
ground
disturbance
and during
Construction.

Project applicant,
Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla
Indians, Planning
Department, City
Engineer
Wren Apartments Project
GPA 23-002, CZ 23-001, DR 23-002,
Response to Comments
The City received two comment letters during the comment period for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Project. In addition, an email was received from Caltrans 10 days after the close of the public review period.

The following provides individual comments and responses. The complete comments are attached to this response in Appendix A.

Riverside County Flood Control District
Letter dated October 24, 2024
Comment 1:

The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided.

This project involves District proposed Master Drainage Plan facilities, namely, . The district will accept ownership of such facilities on written request by the City. The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. All regulatory permits (and all documents pertaining thereto, e.g., Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plans, Conservation Plans/Easements) that are to be secured by the Applicant for both facility construction and maintenance shall be submitted to the District for review. The regulatory permits' terms and conditions shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety.
☐
☐ This project proposes channels, storm drains larger than 36 inches in diameter, or other GPA 23-002, CZ 23-001, DR 23-002
Response to Comments

Page 2 of 15 ends

facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension a District's facility, the District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request by the City. The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required.

The regulatory permits' terms and conditions shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of the regulatory permits.

There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety. ☐
☐
An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities, namely, . If a proposed storm drain connection exceeds the hydraulic performance of the existing drainage facilities, mitigation will be required. For further information, contact the District's Encroachment Permit Section at 951.955.1266.

The District's previous comments are still valid.

GENERAL INFORMATION
The project proponent shall bear the responsibility for complying with all applicable mitigation measures defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document, and/or Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and with all other federal, state, and local environmental rules and regulations that may apply, such as, but not limited to, the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act, California Fish and Game Code Section 1602, and the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The District's action associated with the subject project triggers evaluation by the District with respect to the applicant's compliance with federal, state, and local environmental laws. For this project, the Lead Agency is the agency in the address above, and the District is a Responsible Agency under CEQA. The District, as a Co- permittee under the MSHCP, needs to demonstrate that all District related activities, including the actions identified above, are consistent with the MSHCP. This is typically achieved through determinations from the CEQA Lead Agency (if they are also a Co-permittee) for the project. For the MSHCP, the District's focus will be particular to Sections 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.3.2, 7.3.7, 7.5.3, and Appendix C of the MSHCP. Please include consistency determination statements from the Lead Agency/Copermittee for the project for each of these sections in the CEQA document. The District may also require that an applicant provide supporting technical documentation for environmental clearance.

This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.

If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans, and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant GPA 23-002, CZ 23-001, DR 23-002
Response to Comments

Page 3 of 15 ends

obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation, or other final approval of the project and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.

Response 1:

The City thanks the District for its comments, and notes that the District has no facilities that would be impacted by the Project. No further response is required.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Letter dated November 4, 2024
Comment 1:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Availability and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) from the City of Cathedral City (City) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on Projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority. (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.) Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the Project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: S2 Builders
GPA 23-002, CZ 23-001, DR 23-002
Response to Comments

Page 4 of 15 ends

Objective: The Project proposes to amend the General Plan land use designation for the Project site from General Commercial (GC) to Residential High Density (RH) and change the zone district from Planned Community Commercial (PCC) to Multiple-Family Residential (R3) to permit construction of a 204-unit apartment complex on a 10.48 acre lot.

Location: The Project site is located in the northeast corner of Date Palm Drive and the future west extension of Rosemount Road, generally located on the east side of Date Palm Drive, south of 30th Avenue and north of McCallum Way, in the City of Cathedral City, in the Coachella Valley region of Riverside County. The Project is located within Accessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 670- 110-043.

Timeframe: Project construction is proposed to begin in 2025.

Response 1:

The comment is noted. It provides a description of the Project and requires no further response.

Comment 2:

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (i.e., biological resources). CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. The MND has not adequately identified and disclosed the Project’s impacts (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative) on biological resources and whether those impacts are reduced to less than significant.

CDFW’s comments and recommendations on the MND are explained in greater detail below and summarized here. CDFW is concerned that the MND does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, impacts to biological resources. CDFW requests that additional information and analyses be added to a revised MND, along with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant.

Response 2:

The comment is noted. Individual responses to specific issues are provided below.

Comment 3:

Existing Environmental Setting
Compliance with CEQA is predicated on a complete and accurate description of the environmental setting that may be affected by the proposed Project. CDFW is concerned that the assessment of the existing environmental setting has not been adequately analyzed in the MND. CDFW is concerned that without a complete and accurate description of the existing environmental setting, the MND may provide an incomplete analysis of Project-related environmental impacts.

GPA 23-002, CZ 23-001, DR 23-002
Response to Comments

Page 5 of 15 ends

The MND lacks a complete assessment of biological resources within the Project site and surrounding area specifically as it relates to an assessment of biological resources specifically for western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea; burrowing owl). A complete and accurate assessment of the environmental setting and Project-related impacts to burrowing owl is needed to both identify appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and demonstrate that these measures reduce Project impacts to less than significant.

Response 3:

The comment is noted. However, the Initial Study/MND contains a description of the lack of habitat on page 37, a complete description of the species on page 8 of Appendix B, and a report of survey findings on page 10 of Appendix B. Also see Response 5 below.

Comment 4:

Mitigation Measures
CEQA requires that a MND include mitigation measures to avoid or reduce significant impacts.

CDFW is concerned that the mitigation measures proposed in the MND are not adequate to avoid or reduce impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance. To support the City in ensuring that Project impacts to biological resources are reduced to less than significant, CDFW recommends adding mitigation measures for burrowing owl and artificial nighttime lighting, as well as revising the mitigation measure for nesting birds. 1) Nesting Birds
It is the Project proponent’s responsibility to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 afford protective measures as follows: section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.).

With regard to the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), per its associated Implementing Agreement and Permits from CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Take associated with Covered Activities will not be in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and will be consistent with Fish and Game Code sections 3503 and 3503.5; therefore, all Covered Activities within and outside Conservation Areas must undertake measures to avoid the take of individuals, nests, and eggs of nesting birds.

Page 38 ends

potential to provide nesting opportunities for birds.” Based on review of historical aerial and street view imagery using Google Earth, the Project site contains a sparce cover of shrubs, habitat suitable for birds that nest in shrubs and on the ground. CDFW is concerned about impacts to GPA 23-002, CZ 23-001, DR 23-002
Response to Comments

Page 6 of 15 ends

nesting birds including loss of nesting/foraging habitat and potential take from ground-disturbing activities and construction. Although the MND includes a Mitigation Measure BIO-1 for nesting birds, CDFW finds the measure to be insufficient in scope and timing to reduce impacts to nesting birds to a level less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 indicates that the “nesting bird nesting season generally extends from February 1 through September 15 in southern California and specifically, March 15 through August 31 for migratory passerine birds. To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common and special status) during the nesting season, a qualified Avian Biologist will conduct pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys (NBS) no more than 3-days prior to Project related disturbance to nestable vegetation to identify any active nests.” Conducting work outside the peak nesting season is an important avoidance and minimization measure. CDFW also recommends the completion of nesting bird surveys regardless of the time of year to ensure that impacts to nesting birds are avoided. The timing of the nesting season varies greatly depending on several factors, such as bird species, weather conditions in any given year, and long-term climate changes (e.g., drought, warming, etc.). In response to warming, birds have been reported to breed earlier, thereby reducing temperatures that nests are exposed to during breeding and tracking shifts in availability of resources (Socolar et al., 20172). CDFW staff have observed that climate change conditions may result in nesting bird season occurring earlier and later in the year than historical nesting season dates. CDFW recommends that disturbance of occupied nests of migratory birds and raptors within the Project site and surrounding area be avoided any time birds are nesting on- site. CDFW therefore recommends the completion of nesting bird surveys regardless of the time of year to ensure compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to nesting and migratory birds.

To support the City in reducing impacts to nesting birds to a level less than significant, CDFW recommends that the City revise Mitigation Measure BIO-1 with the following additions in bold and removals in strikethrough:

Page 7 of 15 ends

August 31 for migratory passerine birds. To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common and special status) during the nesting season, a qualified Avian Biologist will conduct pre- construction Nesting Bird Surveys (NBS) no more than 3-days prior to Project related disturbance to nestable vegetation to identify any active nests. If no active nests are found, no further action will be required. If an active nest is found, the biologist will set appropriate no-work buffers around the nest which will be based upon the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, nesting stage, and expected types, intensity, and duration of the disturbance. The nests and buffer zones shall be field-checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved no-work buffer zone shall be clearly marked in the field, within which no disturbance activity shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined the young birds have successfully fledged and the nest is inactive.

Response 4:

The comment is noted. However, the commenter appears to imply that birds may nest on the site outside of the established nesting period, without providing substantial evidence. The City’s responsibility is to assure that nesting birds are not disturbed, and that construction be avoided until the young have fledged. It is important to note that MBTA covered species include almost all bird species that could nest on the site, and that since a pre-construction survey will be required, all birds nesting on the site will be identified, regardless of MBTA status. The Initial Study mitigates impacts to nesting bird species to less than significant levels as written. The mitigation measure and the Initial Study correctly protect nesting birds, and do not require amendment.

Comment 5:
2) Burrowing Owl
On October 10, 2024, the Fish and Game Commission determined that western burrowing owl warrants protection as a candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.). During the candidacy period, western burrowing owl will be afforded the same protection as threatened and endangered species under CESA.

Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests is defined by Fish and Game Code section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Take is defined in Fish and Game Code section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.” Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 afford protective measures as follows: It is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Strigiformes, including western burrowing owls, except as otherwise provided in the Fish and Game Code and related regulations. (Fish & G. Code, § 3503.5.) It is also unlawful to take, possess, or destroy western burrowing owl nests or eggs, except as otherwise provided in the Fish and Game Code and related regulations. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3503, 3503.5.) State law also explicitly incorporates the GPA 23-002, CZ 23-001, DR 23-002
Response to Comments

Page 8 of 15 ends

prohibitions on take and possession set forth in the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. (Fish & G.

Code, § 3513.)
With regard to the CVMSHCP, the CDFW Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Permit #2835-2008-001-06 does not provide Take Authorization for burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs. To the contrary, section 3.5.6 of the NCCP Permit states burrowing owl “pairs or individuals will not be Taken” and reiterates that the “HCP/NCCP does not authorize Take of [burrowing owl] nests [or] eggs[.]” Therefore, throughout the CVMSHCP area—both within and without Conservation Areas— Permittees must ensure that activities occurring within their jurisdictions do not result in the take, possession, or destruction of burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs.

Any activity occurring within the CVMSHCP area that results in the take of burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs would be unlawful and would not be a Covered Activity under the CVMSHCP.

Page 37 ends

contain suitable habitat for this species. No burrowing owls were observed during the site visit.

No burrows of any kind were located within the Project Site. No portion of the Project Site showed any evidence of past or present BUOW activity. No feathers, whitewash, or castings were found and no suitable burrow surrogate species are present onsite. Therefore, no suitable habitat exists on-site and no focused surveys are required.” Page 4 of the Project’s Biological Resources Assessment (Biological Assessment) states that a “general reconnaissance survey [was competed] within the Project site to identify the potential for the occurrence of special status species, vegetation communities, or habitats that could support special status wildlife species.

The surveys were conducted on foot, throughout the Project site between 0800 and 0900 hours on August 9, 2023.” The MND and the Biological Assessment do not indicate if a habitat assessment or focused surveys for burrowing owl, conducted independently of surveys for other species, were completed. The Biological Assessment also does not indicate if a habitat assessment and/or surveys were conducted in open- space areas to the north, west, or south of the Project area. Given the MND’s lack of findings from a recent habitat assessment and focused surveys for burrowing owl following the guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation,3 the number of suitable and occupied burrows within the Project site and surrounding areas is unknown.

GPA 23-002, CZ 23-001, DR 23-002
Response to Comments

Page 9 of 15 ends

CDFW is concerned that the Project has the potential to impact burrowing owl, yet the MND lacks appropriate analysis on presence of the species within the Project site and surrounding area and appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. CDFW recommends the MND is revised to include the findings, including survey methods and survey reports, from recent focused burrowing owl surveys following the guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation along with appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures.

To support the City in reducing impacts to burrowing owl to a level less than significant, CDFW recommends the City add the following mitigation measure to a revised MND:

Mitigation Measure BIO-[A]: Burrowing Owl Surveys
Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist according to the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG, 2012 or most recent version) prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are detected during the focused surveys, the qualified biologist and Project proponent shall begin coordination with CDFW and USFWS immediately, and shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and monitoring actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites (occupied site means at least one burrowing owl has been observed within the last three years; may also be indicated by owl sign including feathers, pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near a burrow entrance or perch site), acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measures. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat or burrow cannot be avoided, the Burrowing Owl Plan shall also describe minimization and relocation actions that will be implemented. Proposed implementation of burrow exclusion and closure should only be considered as a last resort, after all other options have been evaluated as exclusion is not in itself an avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and has the possibility to result in take. If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be provided regarding adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls along with proposed relocation actions. The Project proponent shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval. If Project activities, including burrow exclusion and closure, could result in take of burrowing owl, appropriate CESA authorization should be obtained prior to commencement of Project activities.

Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of Project-related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG, 2012 or most recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist following the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities.

GPA 23-002, CZ 23-001, DR 23-002
Response to Comments

Page 10 of 15 ends

Response 5:

The comment is noted. The project biologist found no evidence of burrowing owl, or of burrows which would be appropriate for burrowing owl in the field survey conducted for the project. The commenter does not provide any new facts or evidence to contradict that fact.

There was no need for habitat assessments, since no habitat or sign was identified on the site.

Based on the lack of habitat or burrows, contrary to the commenter’s statement, “the number of suitable and occupied burrows within the Project site” is known – there are none. Further, contrary to the commenter’s assertion that the species can occur in “ruderal grassy fields, vacant lots, and pastures if the vegetation structure is suitable and there are useable burrows and foraging habitat proximity,” the biologist found neither the vegetation structure nor any burrows on the property.

In addition, the site is not surrounded by open space. The site is surrounded by a church on the north, a six-lane major arterial roadway on the west, and a fully built out residential neighborhood on the east.

Finally, the commenter used only Google Earth to assess the value of the habitat. It must be noted that the imagery on Google Earth dates back 2 years (October 2022), and that the project biologist conducted an on-site field survey, which results in much more accurate findings. The commenter provides no further evidence, including any data on the occurrence of the species in this part of the City (which was not identified in the database searches conducted by the project biologist), or any other substantial evidence in support of their opinion.

In addition, the professional biologist conducting the preconstruction bird survey will report the presence of burrowing owl, as they are now proposed for listing. Should that occur, the biologist will be responsible for implementing the CDFW protocols established in the Staff Report for burrowing owl.

The Initial Study therefore correctly assesses, based on substantial evidence, that there is currently no presence or habitat for the species, and no mitigation is required.

Comment 6:
3) Artificial Nighttime Lighting

Page 21 ends

landscape lighting, pole lighting at 18 feet in height, and wall lighting for the apartment buildings”, and that lighting will be “shielded downward consistent with City requirements to protect adjacent property from light, particularly to the east where single family homes occur.” The Project is located adjacent to the open-space areas to the north, west, and south—areas that provide suitable nesting, roosting, foraging, and refugia habitat for birds, migratory birds that fly at night, bats, and other nocturnal and crepuscular wildlife. The Project’s proposed artificial nighttime lighting has the potential to significantly and adversely affect wildlife in the open-space areas adjacent to the Project site. Artificial lighting alters ecological processes including, but not limited to, the temporal niches of species; the repair and recovery of physiological function; the GPA 23-002, CZ 23-001, DR 23-002
Response to Comments

Page 11 of 15 ends

measurement of time through interference with the detection of circadian and lunar and seasonal cycles; the detection of resources and natural enemies; and navigation. Many species use photoperiod cues for communication (e.g., bird song), determining when to begin foraging, behavioral thermoregulation and migration. Phototaxis, a phenomenon that results in attraction and movement towards light, can disorient, entrap, and temporarily blind wildlife species that experience it.

While plans for shielding artificial nighttime lighting support the Project in limiting lighting impacts to biological resources within areas surrounding the Project site, CDFW considers these minimization plans insufficient in scope and timing to reduce impacts to a level less than significant. To support the City in avoiding or reducing impacts of artificial nighttime lighting on biological resources to less than significant, CDFW recommends the City add the following mitigation measure to a revised MND:

Mitigation Measure BIO-[B]: Artificial Nighttime Lighting Throughout construction and the lifetime operations of the Project, the City of Cathedral City and Project proponent shall eliminate all nonessential lighting throughout the Project area and avoid or limit the use of artificial light at night during the hours of dawn and dusk when many wildlife species are most active. The City of Cathedral City and Project proponent shall ensure that all lighting for the Project is fully shielded, cast downward and directed away from surrounding open-space and agricultural areas, reduced in intensity to the greatest extent possible, and does not result in lighting trespass including glare into surrounding areas or upward into the night sky (see the International Dark-Sky Association standards at http://darksky.org/). The City of Cathedral City and Project proponent shall ensure use of LED lighting with a correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvins or less, proper disposal of hazardous waste, and recycling of lighting that contains toxic compounds with a qualified recycler.

Response 6:

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but provides no substantial evidence that the Project will result in substantial lighting, or that the lighting proposed for the Project will impact biological resources. The City’s construction hour restrictions make it unlikely that construction will occur at night. Further, the City’s lighting standards are restrictive to lighting, and it must be fully screened and downward-directed. There is no evidence that lighting on the property would be significant, and no change to the IS is required.

Comment 7:
4) Landscaping

Page 99 ends

Page 12 of 15 ends

Langman’s Sage, Sierra Bouquet Barometerbush, La Jolla Bougainvillea, Spreading Sunshine Lantana, Yellow Bells, Iceberg Rose, and Prostrate Natal Plum are proposed.” CDFW recommends that the MND include recommendations regarding landscaping from Section 4.0 of the CVMSHCP “Table 4- 112: Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping” (pp. 4-180 to 4- 182; https://cvmshcp.org/plan-documents/). CDFW also recommends incorporation of water-wise concepts in any Project landscape design plans. In particular, CDFW recommends xeriscaping with locally native California species and installing water- efficient and targeted irrigation systems (such as drip irrigation). Native plants support butterflies, birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, bees, and other pollinators that evolved with those plants. More information on native plants suitable for the Project location and nearby nurseries is available at Calscape: https://calscape.org/. Local water agencies/cities and resource conservation cities in your area may be able to provide information on plant nurseries that carry locally native species, and some facilities display drought-tolerant locally native species demonstration gardens. Information on drought-tolerant landscaping and water-efficient irrigation systems is available on California’s Save our Water website:
https://saveourwater.com/.

Response 7:

The comment is noted. The Project is required to comply with both the City’s water efficient landscaping standards and CVWD’s water conservation requirements in landscaping, which includes water budgeting for landscaped areas. The Project will therefore be regulated to assure low water use in landscaping, as clearly stated in the Initial Study.

Comment 8:

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-andAnimals.

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G.

Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)

CONCLUSION
GPA 23-002, CZ 23-001, DR 23-002
Response to Comments

Page 13 of 15 ends

CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts to biological resources. CDFW concludes that the MND does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, impacts to biological resources. CDFW also recommends that revised and additional mitigation measures and analysis as described in this letter be added to a revised MND.

CDFW personnel are available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to avoid and minimize impacts. Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Jacob Skaggs, Senior Environmental Scientist Specialist, at [email protected].

Response 8:

The City will continue to assure that biologists report their findings when studies are prepared, and that CDFW fees are paid when necessary. The commenter’s opinions are noted, but as described above, the City has prepared an IS which complies with CEQA and which will mitigate the impacts of the Project to less than significant levels. No changes to the document are necessary.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Email dated November 14, 2024
Comment 1:

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Local Development Review (LDR) unit has completed the initial evaluation of the Wren Residential Project Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration. We have the following comments:

1. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) should include the study area intersections at Date Palm Drive and the I-10 Eastbound (EB) ramps, as well as Date Palm Drive and the I-10 Westbound (WB) ramps.

Response 1:

The commenter requests analysis of the I-10 eastbound and westbound ramps without explanation, and provides no substantial evidence that such analysis is warranted. As described by the City’s consulting traffic engineer in his response memorandum (Appendix A), the City uses a standard methodology of 50 peak hour trips affecting an intersection in determining the need for analysis. The Project will generate up to 36 peak hour trips northbound on Date Palm Drive during the evening peak hour (the higher of the morning and evening peak hour). Some of these trips will enter the I-10 at Date Palm, but others will turn off at Vista Chino, or continue north past the interstate. There is therefore no potential for the Project to contribute 50 or more trips to the I-10 ramps.

In addition, the General Plan analyzed impacts to the I-10 ramps in its EIR, including commercial land uses designated for this Project site. The EIR found, as shown in Table 2.16.8, that both the east- and westbound ramps will operate at Level of Service C or better in 2040, the horizon GPA 23-002, CZ 23-001, DR 23-002
Response to Comments

Page 14 of 15 ends

year for the General Plan. Commercial land uses generate a much higher number of trips than residential land uses, and the EIR therefore estimated a higher number of trips accessing the ramps than will now occur, if the General Plan Amendment is approved.

Therefore, the Initial Study correctly analyzed traffic impacts; the Project will not significantly impact the I-10 ramps on Date Palm Drive; and no further analysis is necessary.

Comment 2:

2. Once the I-10 study areas are included in the TIA, the Caltrans Traffic Forecasting and Analysis Division requests to review the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIA) and provide concurrence with the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) and the forecasted traffic volumes.

3. The Caltrans Division of Transportation Planning shall review and provide concurrence with the appropriate ITE trip generation for the land use and size of proposed project.

Response 2:

Please see Response 1 above. The commenter’s request for additional analysis is not supported by substantial evidence, and no further analysis is warranted. As it relates to the ITE trip generation category, the traffic analysis for the Project and the Initial Study correctly used ITE Land Use Code 220, Multi-Family Low Rise (please see Appendix G of the Initial Study, Table 1-1).

GPA 23-002, CZ 23-001, DR 23-002
Response to Comments

Page 15 of 15 ends

APPENDIX A

COMMENT LETTERS
JASON E. UHLEY
General Manager-Chief Engineer
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
951.955.1200
951.788.9965 FAX
www.rcflood.org
259432

RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL

AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
October 24, 2024
City of Cathedral City
Planning Division
68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234-7031
Attention: Cynthia Schultz Re: GPA 23-002, DR 23-002, CZ 23-001, APN 670-110-043
The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases.

District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided.

The District's review is based on the above-referenced project transmittal, received October 16, 2024. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail, and the following comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety, or any other such issue:
☒ This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities, nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. The project is located within Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD) jurisdiction. CVWD is the responsible agency to review and comment on regional flood control drainage systems within their jurisdictional limits.
☐ This project involves District proposed Master Drainage Plan facilities, namely, . The district will accept ownership of such facilities on written request by the City. The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. All regulatory permits (and all documents pertaining thereto, e.g., Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plans, Conservation Plans/Easements) that are to be secured by the Applicant for both facility construction and maintenance shall be submitted to the District for review. The regulatory permits' terms and conditions shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety.
☐ This project proposes channels, storm drains larger than 36 inches in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension a District's facility, the District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request by the City. The Project Applicant shall enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the terms and conditions of inspection, operation, and maintenance with the District and any other maintenance partners. Facilities must be constructed City of Cathedral City -2 - October 24, 2024
Re: GPA 23-002, DR 23-002, CZ 23-001,
APN 670-110-043 259432
to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance.

Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. The regulatory permits' terms and conditions shall be approved by the District prior to improvement plan approval, map recordation, or finalization of the regulatory permits. There shall be no unreasonable constraint upon the District's ability to operate and maintain the flood control facility(ies) to protect public health and safety. ☐
☐
An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities, namely, ____________________. If a proposed storm drain connection exceeds the hydraulic performance of the existing drainage facilities, mitigation will be required. For further information, contact the District's Encroachment Permit Section at 951.955.1266.

The District's previous comments are still valid.

The District's action associated with the subject project triggers evaluation by the District with respect to the applicant's compliance with federal, state, and local environmental laws. For this project, the Lead Agency is the agency in the address above, and the District is a Responsible Agency under CEQA. The District, as a Copermittee under the MSHCP, needs to demonstrate that all District related activities, including the actions identified above, are consistent with the MSHCP. This is typically achieved through determinations from the CEQA Lead Agency (if they are also a Co-permittee) for the project. For the MSHCP, the District's focus will be particular to Sections 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.3.2, 7.3.7, 7.5.3, and Appendix C of the MSHCP. Please include consistency determination statements from the Lead Agency/Co-permittee for the project for each of these sections in the CEQA document. The District may also require that an applicant provide supporting technical documentation for environmental clearance.

If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans, and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation, or other final approval of the project and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.

Very truly yours,

AMY MCNEILL
Engineering Project Manager
EM:zl
From: McKinney, Elsa
To: Cynthia Schultz
Cc:

Subject:

Date:

McNeill, Amy; Cornelius, William
GPA 23-002, DR 23-002, CZ 23-001-Due 10/24/2024
Thursday, October 24, 2024 2:55:25 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
259432_{83B153B3-B125-CC39-8745-92C057F00000}.pdf
2886_001.pdf
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Good afternoon Cynthia,
Attached you will find a copy of Riverside County Flood Control’s comments pertaining to the abovementioned project.

Should you have any questions please feel free to contact us. *please include, Amy McNeill ([email protected]), Elsa McKinney ([email protected]), and William (Michael) Cornelius ([email protected]) to the City’s distribution list for Flood Control.

This way we can ensure a timely response even if one of us is out of the office.

Kind Regards,
Elsa McKinney, Engineering Tech 1
Development Review
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District [email protected]
1995 Market Street, Riverside, CA 92501
951.955.2878
*Off Fridays
Confidentiality Disclaimer
This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure.

If you are not the author's intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please delete all copies, both electronic and printed, and contact the author immediately.

County of Riverside California

State of California – Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Inland Deserts Region
GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
www.wildlife.ca.gov
November 4, 2024
Sent via email
Cynthia Schultz
Associate Planner
City of Cathedral City
68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234
[email protected]
The Wren Multi-Family Development Project (PROJECT)
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
SCH# 2024100551
Dear Cynthia Schultz:

Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on Projects and related 1CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
Cynthia Schultz, Associate Planner
City of Cathedral City
November 4, 2024

Page 2 ends

activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority. (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.) Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the Project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: S2 Builders
Objective: The Project proposes to amend the General Plan land use designation for the Project site from General Commercial (GC) to Residential High Density (RH) and change the zone district from Planned Community Commercial (PCC) to Multiple-Family Residential (R3) to permit construction of a 204-unit apartment complex on a 10.48 acre lot.

Timeframe: Project construction is proposed to begin in 2025.

Page 3 ends

biological resources. CDFW requests that additional information and analyses be added to a revised MND, along with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
CEQA requires that a MND include mitigation measures to avoid or reduce significant impacts. CDFW is concerned that the mitigation measures proposed in the MND are not adequate to avoid or reduce impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance. To support the City in ensuring that Project impacts to biological resources are reduced to less than significant, CDFW recommends adding mitigation measures for burrowing owl and artificial nighttime lighting, as well as revising the mitigation measure for nesting birds.
1) Nesting Birds
It is the Project proponent’s responsibility to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 afford protective measures as follows: section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules Cynthia Schultz, Associate Planner
City of Cathedral City
November 4, 2024

Page 4 ends

and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.).

Page 38 ends

the potential to provide nesting opportunities for birds.” Based on review of historical aerial and street view imagery using Google Earth, the Project site contains a sparce cover of shrubs, habitat suitable for birds that nest in shrubs and on the ground. CDFW is concerned about impacts to nesting birds including loss of nesting/foraging habitat and potential take from ground-disturbing activities and construction. Although the MND includes a Mitigation Measure BIO-1 for nesting birds, CDFW finds the measure to be insufficient in scope and timing to reduce impacts to nesting birds to a level less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 indicates that the “nesting bird nesting season generally extends from February 1 through September 15 in southern California and specifically, March 15 through August 31 for migratory passerine birds. To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common and special status) during the nesting season, a qualified Avian Biologist will conduct pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys (NBS) no more than 3-days prior to Project related disturbance to nestable vegetation to identify any active nests.” Conducting work outside the peak nesting season is an important avoidance and minimization measure. CDFW also recommends the completion of nesting bird surveys regardless of the time of year to ensure that impacts to nesting birds are avoided. The timing of the nesting season varies greatly depending on several factors, such as bird species, weather conditions in any given year, and long-term climate changes (e.g., drought, warming, etc.). In response to warming, birds have been reported to breed earlier, thereby reducing temperatures that nests are exposed to during breeding and tracking shifts in availability of resources (Socolar et al., 20172).

CDFW staff have observed that climate change conditions may result in nesting bird season occurring earlier and later in the year than historical nesting season dates.

CDFW recommends that disturbance of occupied nests of migratory birds and raptors within the Project site and surrounding area be avoided any time birds are nesting onsite. CDFW therefore recommends the completion of nesting bird surveys regardless of 2 Socolar JB, Epanchin PN, Beissinger SR and Tingley MW (2017). Phenological shifts conserve thermal niches. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(49): 12976-12981.

Cynthia Schultz, Associate Planner
City of Cathedral City
November 4, 2024

Page 5 ends

the time of year to ensure compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to nesting and migratory birds.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nesting Birds
To the greatest extent feasible, Project construction activities will avoid the peak nesting season (February 1 through September 15). Regardless of the time of year, nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified avian biologist no more than 3 days prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. Preconstruction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior. The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey and monitoring efforts. If active nests are found during the pre-construction nesting bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground. Nest buffers are species specific and shall be at least 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors. A smaller or larger buffer may be determined by the qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species and based on nest and buffer monitoring results. Construction activities may not occur inside the established buffers, which shall remain on-site until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the Project has been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance. Nesting bird nesting season generally extends from February 1 through September 15 in southern California and specifically, March 15 through August 31 for migratory passerine birds. To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common and special status) during the nesting season, a qualified Avian Biologist will conduct preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys (NBS) no more than 3-days prior to Project related disturbance to nestable vegetation to identify any active nests. If no active nests are found, no further action will be required. If an active nest is found, the biologist will set appropriate no-work buffers around the nest which will be based upon the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, nesting stage, and expected types, intensity, and duration of the disturbance. The nests and buffer zones shall be field-checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved no-work buffer zone shall be clearly marked in the field, within which no disturbance activity shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined the young birds have successfully fledged and the nest is inactive.

Cynthia Schultz, Associate Planner
City of Cathedral City
November 4, 2024

Page 6 ends

Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, section 15097(f), CDFW has prepared a draft mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) in Attachment 1 for revised Mitigation Measure BIO-1, as well as CDFW-recommended Biological Resources Mitigation Measures BIO-[A] and BIO-[B].
2) Burrowing Owl
On October 10, 2024, the Fish and Game Commission determined that western burrowing owl warrants protection as a candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.). During the candidacy period, western burrowing owl will be afforded the same protection as threatened and endangered species under CESA. .

Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests is defined by Fish and Game Code section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Take is defined in Fish and Game Code section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.” Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 afford protective measures as follows: It is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Strigiformes, including western burrowing owls, except as otherwise provided in the Fish and Game Code and related regulations. (Fish & G. Code, § 3503.5.) It is also unlawful to take, possess, or destroy western burrowing owl nests or eggs, except as otherwise provided in the Fish and Game Code and related regulations. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3503, 3503.5.) State law also explicitly incorporates the prohibitions on take and possession set forth in the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. (Fish & G.

Page 37 ends

does not contain suitable habitat for this species. No burrowing owls were observed during the site visit. No burrows of any kind were located within the Project Site. No portion of the Project Site showed any evidence of past or present BUOW activity. No feathers, whitewash, or castings were found and no suitable burrow surrogate species are present onsite. Therefore, no suitable habitat exists on-site and no focused surveys Cynthia Schultz, Associate Planner
City of Cathedral City
November 4, 2024

Page 7 ends

are required.” Page 4 of the Project’s Biological Resources Assessment (Biological Assessment) states that a “general reconnaissance survey [was competed] within the Project site to identify the potential for the occurrence of special status species, vegetation communities, or habitats that could support special status wildlife species.

The surveys were conducted on foot, throughout the Project site between 0800 and 0900 hours on August 9, 2023.” The MND and the Biological Assessment do not indicate if a habitat assessment or focused surveys for burrowing owl, conducted independently of surveys for other species, were completed. The Biological Assessment also does not indicate if a habitat assessment and/or surveys were conducted in openspace areas to the north, west, or south of the Project area. Given the MND’s lack of findings from a recent habitat assessment and focused surveys for burrowing owl following the guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation,3 the number of suitable and occupied burrows within the Project site and surrounding areas is unknown.

CDFW is also concerned with the MND’s conclusion that the Project site does not contain suitable habitat for burrowing owl. The Project’s Biological Assessment indicates that the “habitat on-site consists of sparse vegetation and bare ground.” CDFW notes that in California, preferred habitat for burrowing owl is generally typified by short, sparse vegetation with few shrubs,4 and that burrowing owls may occur in ruderal grassy fields, vacant lots, and pastures if the vegetation structure is suitable and there are useable burrows and foraging habitat proximity.5 Based on review of historical aerial imagery and street imagery using Google Earth and photos included in the Biological Assessment, the Project site and surrounding areas to the west, north, and south contain habitat with sparse cover of native vegetation that is suitable nesting and foraging habitat for burrowing owl. CDFW considers the Project site to contain suitable habitat for burrowing owl; however, the status of burrowing owl presence within and surrounding the Project site is unknown. In addition, burrowing owls frequently move into disturbed areas prior to and during construction activities since they are adapted to highly modified habitats.6,7
3 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. State of California, Natural Resources Agency. Available for download at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843&inline 4 Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia), in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C., USA. 5 Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, R. G. Anthony. 2003. Space use and pesticide exposure risk of male burrowing owls in an agricultural landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 155-164. 6 Chipman, E. D., N. E. McIntyre, R. E. Strauss, M. C. Wallace, J. D. Ray, and C. W. Boal. 2008. Effects of human land use on western burrowing owl foraging and activity budgets. Journal of Raptor Research 42(2): 87-98.
7 Coulombe, H. N. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the Burrowing Owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. Condor 73:162–176.

Cynthia Schultz, Associate Planner
City of Cathedral City
November 4, 2024

Page 8 ends

CDFW recommends the MND is revised to include the findings, including survey methods and survey reports, from recent focused burrowing owl surveys following the guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation along with appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures.

To support the City in reducing impacts to burrowing owl to a level less than significant, CDFW recommends the City add the following mitigation measure to a revised MND:

Cynthia Schultz, Associate Planner
City of Cathedral City
November 4, 2024

Page 9 ends

Page 21 ends

include landscape lighting, pole lighting at 18 feet in height, and wall lighting for the apartment buildings”, and that lighting will be “shielded downward consistent with City requirements to protect adjacent property from light, particularly to the east where single family homes occur.” The Project is located adjacent to the open-space areas to the north, west, and south—areas that provide suitable nesting, roosting, foraging, and refugia habitat for birds, migratory birds that fly at night, bats, and other nocturnal and crepuscular wildlife. The Project’s proposed artificial nighttime lighting has the potential to significantly and adversely affect wildlife in the open-space areas adjacent to the Project site. Artificial lighting alters ecological processes including, but not limited to, the temporal niches of species; the repair and recovery of physiological function; the measurement of time through interference with the detection of circadian and lunar and seasonal cycles; the detection of resources and natural enemies; and navigation.8 Many species use photoperiod cues for communication (e.g., bird song9), determining when to begin foraging,10 behavioral thermoregulation,11 and migration.12 Phototaxis, a phenomenon that results in attraction and movement towards light, can disorient, entrap, and temporarily blind wildlife species that experience it.15 8 Gatson, K. J., Bennie, J., Davies, T., Hopkins, J. 2013. The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biological Reviews, 88.4: 912-927. 9 Miller, M. W. 2006. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American robins. The Condor 108:130–139.
10 Stone, E. L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2009. Street lighting disturbs commuting bats. Current Biology 19:1123–1127.
11 Beiswenger, R. E. 1977. Diet patterns of aggregative behavior in tadpoles of Bufo americanus, in relation to light and temperature. Ecology 58:98–108.
12 Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution - Review. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:191–198.

Cynthia Schultz, Associate Planner
City of Cathedral City
November 4, 2024

Page 10 ends

The City of Cathedral City and Project proponent shall ensure that all lighting for the Project is fully shielded, cast downward and directed away from surrounding open-space and agricultural areas, reduced in intensity to the greatest extent possible, and does not result in lighting trespass including glare into surrounding areas or upward into the night sky (see the International Dark-Sky Association standards at http://darksky.org/). The City of Cathedral City and Project proponent shall ensure use of LED lighting with a correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvins or less, proper disposal of hazardous waste, and recycling of lighting that contains toxic compounds with a qualified recycler. 4) Landscaping

Page 99 ends

xeriscaping with locally native California species and installing water-efficient and targeted irrigation systems (such as drip irrigation).” In contrast, page 9 of the MND indicates that landscaping trees and shrubs will mostly comprise non-native species, including “Shoestring Acacia, Hybrid Fan Palm and Mediterranean Fan Palm that blend with the proposed architecture (Exhibit 5 – Landscape Plan). Shrubs including but not limited to Barbados Aloe, Rio Bravo Langman’s Sage, Sierra Bouquet Barometerbush, La Jolla Bougainvillea, Spreading Sunshine Lantana, Yellow Bells, Iceberg Rose, and Prostrate Natal Plum are proposed.” CDFW recommends that the MND include recommendations regarding landscaping from Section 4.0 of the CVMSHCP “Table 4- 112: Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping” (pp. 4-180 to 4- 182; https://cvmshcp.org/plan-documents/). CDFW also recommends incorporation of water-wise concepts in any Project landscape design plans. In particular, CDFW recommends xeriscaping with locally native California species and installing waterefficient and targeted irrigation systems (such as drip irrigation). Native plants support butterflies, birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, bees, and other pollinators that evolved with those plants. More information on native plants suitable for the Project location and nearby nurseries is available at Calscape: https://calscape.org/. Local Cynthia Schultz, Associate Planner
City of Cathedral City
November 4, 2024

Page 11 ends

water agencies/cities and resource conservation cities in your area may be able to provide information on plant nurseries that carry locally native species, and some facilities display drought-tolerant locally native species demonstration gardens.

Information on drought-tolerant landscaping and water-efficient irrigation systems is available on California’s Save our Water website: https://saveourwater.com/.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts to biological resources. CDFW concludes that the MND does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, impacts to biological resources. CDFW also recommends that revised and additional mitigation measures and analysis as described in this letter be added to a revised MND.

Cynthia Schultz, Associate Planner
City of Cathedral City
November 4, 2024

Page 12 ends

Sincerely,
Kim Freeburn
Environmental Program Manager
Attachment 1: MMRP for CDFW-Proposed Mitigation Measures ec:

Heather Brashear, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisor), CDFW [email protected]
Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento [email protected]
ATTACHMENT 1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) Mitigation Measures Timing and
Methods
Responsible
Parties
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nesting Birds Timing: No more than 3 days prior
to vegetation
removal or
Implementation:

City of Cathedral City
To the greatest extent feasible, Project construction and Project activities will avoid the peak nesting season proponent (February 1 through September 15). Regardless of
the time of year, nesting bird surveys shall be
performed by a qualified avian biologist no more than
3 days prior to vegetation removal or grounddisturbing activities. Pre-construction surveys shall ground-disturbing
activities. Monitoring and
Reporting: City of
Methods: See Cathedral City
Mitigation
focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, Measure including nest locations and nesting behavior. The
qualified avian biologist will make every effort to
avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey
and monitoring efforts. If active nests are found
during the pre-construction nesting bird surveys, a
qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground. Nest buffers are
species specific and shall be at least 300 feet for
passerines and 500 feet for raptors. A smaller or
larger buffer may be determined by the qualified
biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the
nesting species and based on nest and buffer
monitoring results. Construction activities may not
Cynthia Schultz, Associate Planner
City of Cathedral City
November 4, 2024

Page 13 ends

occur inside the established buffers, which shall
remain on-site until a qualified biologist determines
the young have fledged or the nest is no longer
active. Active nests and adequacy of the established
buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the
qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has
determined the young have fledged or the Project has
been completed. The qualified biologist has the
authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance.

Mitigation Measure BIO-[A]: Burrowing Owl Surveys
Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed
Timing: Focused
surveys: Prior to
vegetation
Implementation:

City of Cathedral City
and Project
on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys removal or shall be conducted by a qualified biologist according ground-disturbing proponent
to the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation
(CDFG, 2012 or most recent version) prior to
vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. If
burrowing owls are detected during the focused
surveys, the qualified biologist and Project
activities. Preconstruction
surveys: No less
than 14 days prior
to start of Projectrelated activities
and within 24
hours prior to
ground
Monitoring and
Reporting: City of
Cathedral City
proponent shall begin coordination with CDFW and
USFWS immediately, and shall prepare a Burrowing
Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review
and approval prior to commencing Project activities.

The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed
avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and monitoring
actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the
number and location of occupied burrow sites
(occupied site means at least one burrowing owl has
been observed within the last three years; may also
be indicated by owl sign including feathers, pellets,
prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement at or
near a burrow entrance or perch site), acres of
burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and
other avoidance measures. If impacts to occupied
burrowing owl habitat or burrow cannot be avoided,
the Burrowing Owl Plan shall also describe
disturbance.

Methods: See
Mitigation
Measure
minimization and relocation actions that will be
implemented. Proposed implementation of burrow
exclusion and closure should only be considered as
a last resort, after all other options have been
evaluated as exclusion is not in itself an avoidance,
minimization, or mitigation method and has the
possibility to result in take. If impacts to occupied
burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be
provided regarding adjacent or nearby suitable
habitat available to owls along with proposed
relocation actions. The Project proponent shall
implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW
Cynthia Schultz, Associate Planner
City of Cathedral City
November 4, 2024

Page 14 ends

and USFWS review and approval. If Project activities,
including burrow exclusion and closure, could result
in take of burrowing owl, appropriate CESA
authorization should be obtained prior to
commencement of Project activities.

Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be
conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of
Project-related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG, 2012 or
most recent version). Preconstruction surveys
should be performed by a qualified biologist
following the recommendations and guidelines
provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation. If the preconstruction surveys confirm
occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities
shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist
shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing
Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW and
USFWS for review and approval prior to commencing
Project activities.

Mitigation Measure BIO-[B]: Artificial Nighttime
Lighting
Timing: Implementation:

City of Cathedral City
and Project
Throughout
construction and
the lifetime
operations of the
Project.

Throughout construction and the lifetime operations
of the Project, the City of Cathedral City and Project
proponent shall eliminate all nonessential lighting
throughout the Project area and avoid or limit the use
of artificial light at night during the hours of dawn
proponent
Monitoring and
Reporting: City of
Methods: See Cathedral City
and dusk when many wildlife species are most active. Mitigation The City of Cathedral City and Project proponent
shall ensure that all lighting for the Project is fully shielded, cast downward and directed away from
surrounding open-space and agricultural areas,
reduced in intensity to the greatest extent possible,
and does not result in lighting trespass including
glare into surrounding areas or upward into the night
sky (see the International Dark-Sky Association
standards at http://darksky.org/). The City of
Measure
Cathedral City and Project proponent shall ensure
use of LED lighting with a correlated color
temperature of 3,000 Kelvins or less, proper disposal
of hazardous waste, and recycling of lighting that
contains toxic compounds with a qualified recycler.

From:

To:

Flores, Victor F@DOT on behalf of LDR D8@DOT
Cynthia Schultz
Cc: Patel, Janki@DOT
Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

The Wren Residential Project - SCH: 2024100551 - Cathedral City Thursday, November 14, 2024 10:22:23 AM
image001.png
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Hi Cynthia,
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Local Development Review (LDR) unit has completed the initial evaluation of the Wren Residential Project Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration. We have the following comments:

1. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) should include the study area intersections at Date Palm Drive and the I-10 Eastbound (EB) ramps, as well as Date Palm Drive and the I-10 Westbound (WB) ramps.

3. The Caltrans Division of Transportation Planning shall review and provide concurrence with the appropriate ITE trip generation for the land use and size of proposed project.

Please feel free to reach out should you have any questions.

Thank you,
Victor F. Flores
Transportation Planner
Local Development Review
D-8 Division of Transportation Planning
Work cell: (909) 925-7520
Email: [email protected]
Response to Comments
To: Cynthia Schultz, AICP
Associate Planner, City of Cathedral City
From: Nicholas Lowe, PE, TE
Deputy Director, Albert A. Webb Associates
Consultant Traffic Engineer
Date: November 14, 2024
Re: The Wren Residential Project Traffic Study – Caltrans Comments, November 14, 2024 Albert A. Webb Associates (WEBB) provides consultant traffic engineering services to the City of Cathedral City (City) which includes the review of development traffic studies. WEBB is in receipt of Caltrans comments for the Wren Residential development (Project) traffic study, previously approved by the City, and has the following responses in blue.

1. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) should include the study area intersections at Date Palm Drive and the I-10 Eastbound (EB) ramps, as well as Date Palm Drive and the I-10 Westbound (WB) ramps.

The City follows the County of Riverside (County) Transportation Analysis Guidelines dated December 2020. Intersections to be included in traffic studies are ones that are forecast to handle 50 or more peak hour trips from the development project not exceeding a 5-mile radius from the development project site. Per the Project traffic study, the Project is expected to generate 81 AM peak hour trips and 104 PM peak hour trips. In addition, the Project traffic study forecasts a project trip distribution of 35% of project trips traveling north on Date Palm Drive towards, but not necessarily to, the I-10/Date Palm Drive interchange.

Therefore, only 36 trips are forecasted to be traveling on Date Palm Drive north of 30th Avenue and no additional intersections north of 30th Avenue are to be included in the traffic study. Project trip generation table and trip distribution from the traffic study are below.

Page 1 of 2 ends

See response for comment #1 above regarding I-10/Date Palm Drive interchange and not being included in the Project traffic study. Also see comment #1 above for Project trip generation table from the traffic study that includes peak hour and daily trip generation.

3. The Caltrans Division of Transportation Planning shall review and provide concurrence with the appropriate ITE trip generation for the land use and size of proposed project.

Please see comment #1 above for Project trip generation table from the traffic study that includes peak hour and daily trip generation per the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

Page 2 of 2 ends

From: SCG SE Region Redlands Utility Request
To: Cynthia Schultz
Cc: McGarrey, Deborah; SCG SE Region Redlands Utility Request Subject: 10/14/24-Fw: The Wren - Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Cathedral City, CA Date: Monday, October 14, 2024 10:38:51 AM
Attachments: image003.png
The Wren Notice of Intent.pdf
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Hello,
I just reviewed the documents regarding General Plan Amendment GPA 23-002 SoCalGas Distribution does have High-Pressure facilities in the area. Please note on case to have Developer contact 811 / USA at DigAlert | Utility Locating California | Underground Wire & Cable Locator prior to any excavation / demolition activities so we can Locate & Mark out our facilities.

If the Developer needs new gas service, please have them contact our Builder Services group to begin the application process as soon as practicable, at https://www.socalgas.com/for-your-business/builder-services.

To avoid delays in processing requests and
notifications, please have all Franchise corespondence
sent to our Utility Request inbox, at
SCGSERegionRedlandsUtilityRequest@semprautilities.
com
I cover the Southeast Region – Redlands
[email protected] would be your contact for requests in the southeastern ends of LA County, Riverside County, San Bernardino & Imperial Counties.

Southeast Region - Anaheim office which is all of Orange County and the southern ends of Los Angeles County; therefore, any Map and/or Will Serve Letter requests you have in these areas please send them to
AtlasRequests/[email protected]
Northwest Region – Compton HQ For West and Central LA County, your Map Request and Will Serve Letters, will go to [email protected] Northwest Region - Chatsworth
For any requests from the northern most parts of LA County all the way up to Visalia, San Luis Obispo, Fresno and Tulare you would contact
[email protected] Transmission
For Transmission requests, please contact SoCalGas Transmission, at [email protected]
READ MORE ……..

MINOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: (CHIP SEAL, SLURRY SEAL, GRIND &

OVERLAY)
Please notify Southern California Gas Company 4 months prior to start of pavement
projects for the gas company to complete leak survey & repair leaks if found.

MAJOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: (PROJECTS REQUIRING EXCAVATIONS GREATER THAN 9 INCHES, WIDENING OF EXISTING STREETS, INSTALLING NEW

CURBS &
GUTTERS, BUS PADS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS, REALIGNMENT, GRADE SEPARATION, ETC.) &
PIPELINE PROJECTS: (STORM DRAIN, WATERLINE, WATER, SEWER, ELECTRICAL, TELECOMUNICATIONS, ETC.)
Please provide Southern California Gas Company with your signed designed plans
with gas company facilities posted on your designs plans, 4-6 months prior to start of construction for possible relocation of SCG medium pressure facilities and 9-12 months
for possible relocation of SCG high pressure facilities.

This time is needed to analyze plans and to design required alterations to any conflicting SCG gas facilities. Please keep us informed of any and all preconstruction meetings, construction schedules, etc., so that our work can be scheduled accordingly.

Potholing may be required to determine if a conflict exists between the proposed development and our facilities. If, for any reason, there are SCG facilities in conflict, and a request to be relocated is needed, it is important to send the request in writing. Please include all required information below:

A Signed “Notice to Owner” request on Official Letterhead from the City, County,
and/or company.

Name, Title and Project Number.

Address, Location, Start Date, Parameters & Scope of Entire Job/Project.

Copy of Thomas Guide Page and/or Google Map Screenshot Highlighting Project Area.

Requestor Company’s Contact Name, Title, Phone Number, Email, and other pertinent information.

Thank you,
Josh Rubal
Lead Planning Associate
Distribution Planning & Project Management
Redlands HQ - Southeast Region
(213) 231-7978 Office
[email protected]
From: McGarrey, Deborah <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 9:34 AM
To: SCG SE Region Redlands Utility Request
<[email protected]> Subject: 10/14/24-Fw: The Wren - Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Cathedral City, CA
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Terra Nova Planning & Research <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 8:04 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] The Wren - Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Cathedral City, CA
Good Morning, On behalf of the City of Cathedral City, attached please find the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above referenced project. The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting material are Good Morning,
On behalf of the City of Cathedral City, attached please find the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above referenced project.

The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting material are available for review online at:
https://www.cathedralcity.gov/departments/planning/public-hearingenvironmental-notices [cathedralcity.gov] or City Hall, 68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero, Cathedral City.

Please provide any comments in response to this notice in writing by November 4, 2024 to:

Cynthia Schultz, Associate Planner
City of Cathedral City
68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234
[email protected]
Regards!
TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC.®
42635 Melanie Place, Ste 101
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Phone: (760) 341-4800
Fax: 760-341-4455
E-Mail: [email protected]
www.terranovaplanning.com [terranovaplanning.com]
This email originated outside of Sempra. Be cautious of attachments, web links, or requests for information.

City of Cathedral City
Public Hearing Notice
Notice of Availability for Public Review
and Environmental Determination
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of
the City of Cathedral City Council will hold a
Public Hearing on the following:

CASE(S)
General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-002
Change of Zone (CZ) 23-001
Design Review (DR) 23-002

APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE
Stefan Vogel, Applicant; Dusty Knapp, representative

PROPOSAL
The proposal is to construct 204 apartment units in 12
buildings on a 10.48-acre project site. Associated with this proposal are General Plan Amendment (GPA) 23-
002 to change the project area land use designation
from CG (General Commercial) to RMH (Residential
Medium High Density) and Change of Zone (CZ) 23-001
to change the zoning from PCC (Planned Community
Commercial) to R3 (Multiple-family Residential). The
project proposes six 2-story and six 3-story buildings, clubhouse, pool, and open space.

On November 20, 2024, the Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing on the Project and voted to
recommend City Council approval.

LOCATION
Northeast (NE) corner of Date Palm Drive and the
extension of Rosemount Road, Assessor’s Parcel No.
670-110-043.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A
Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended and will
be considered during this hearing.

All information regarding the proposed project is
available for public review at the City of Cathedral City Civic Center, Planning Department, 68-700 Avenida
Lalo Guerrero during regular business hours (Monday
through Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM)

DATE AND TIME OF HEARING
January 8, 2025, at 5:30 PM, or as soon thereafter
as the matter may be heard.

PLACE OF HEARING
Cathedral City Civic Center — Council Chambers
68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234
Any person may appear at the hearing and be heard in
support of, or opposition to, or provide other testimony on the proposed project or environmental
determination. In addition, persons may also submit
written testimony on the proposed project or
environmental determination, which must be received
by the Project Planner prior to the close of the public hearing.

The City Council, at the public hearing or during
deliberations, may approve, deny, or propose changes
to the project or to the environmental determination.

If you challenge any of these items in court, you may
be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice or in written correspondence.

For further information, contact the Project Planner at:

Cynthia Schultz, Associate Planner
68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234
(760) 770-0386
NOTE: In compliance with the Americans with Disability
Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (760) 770-0340. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the city to make reasonable accommodations to
ensure accessibility to this meeting. {28 CFR 35.104
ADA TITLE II}
Staff Report
City Council
Item No. 5.A
Meeting Date: January 8, 2025
From: George Crum, Chief of Police
Title: Approval of Grant Expenditure SLESA FY 2021/2022 for FARO 3D Scene Scanner and DELL Computer Workstation.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the expenditure plan appropriating Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) for FY 2021-2022 allocation for a FARO Focus 3D scene scanner and Dell computer workstation.

BACKGROUND:

A Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) has been established in each county of the state, for the purpose of overseeing and allocating funding being provided by the State of California's Citizens Options for Public Safety (Cal-COPS) Program, for the purpose of funding frontline law enforcement services. The total state funding from the program allots a certain percentage for city funding. City funding allocations are distributed based on population estimates provided by Chapter 353 of the Budget Act for the particular year funding.

In accordance with Government Code Section 30061 and 30063, the City Council shall approve the appropriation of the anticipated funding by approving a written request in the form of an expenditure plan. The County of Riverside Sheriff’s Department is designated as the Supplemental Law Enforcement Oversight Committee and must certify receipts and approval of the City's expenditure plan prior to submitting it to the County Board of Supervisors for review and approval, who will subsequently authorize the County Auditor/Controller to release the funding.

DISCUSSION:

Our current balance of SLESA funds for FY 2021-2022 is $165,271.25. The expenditure plan requirement requests the identification of the category (or categories) for which the Police Department plans to expend current funding. It has been determined through management and staff decisions the best and most useful use of a portion of the funding will be designated to purchase a FARO Focus Premium 200m 3D Scene Scanner and Dell Precision 7960 workstation computer.

Over the course of several years, the police department has relied on outside agencies to assist with crime scene processing and documentation. The primary focus for allied agencies assistance was to provide a 3D scan of crime scenes involving major incidents. These primarily involved homicides, serious assaults and fatal traffic collisions. At times, allied agencies were unable to respond to our request for assistance. This would lead to investigators spending a significant amount of time documenting a crime scene. The FARO scanner would allow police department personnel to process a crime scene in a timely and more efficient manner, while providing a 3D rendering of the scene. The FARO Focus Laser Scanner can complete fast, accurate and photo realistic 3D measurements of complex objects and spaces in a matter of minutes. They are intuitive and easy to use and are designed to work in most weather conditions, including high heat. The scanner would allow investigators to complete other tasks on the scene of incidents, while the FARO Scanner completes the scene diagram. The FARO scanner will eliminate our reliance on outside agencies to help with scene documentation and scanning and increase the police department’s technological capabilities.

Staff has researched other 3D rendering scanners and found that FARO is the industry standard for public safety. The following valley agencies currently utilize a FARO 3D scanner:

Palm Springs Police Department, Desert Hot Springs Police Department, Indio Police Department and the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department.

Staff secured a comprehensive quote/package from FARO Technologies below:

FARO Focus Premium 200m USA TAA – 3D Scanner – $42,499
High Resolution Panocam – $1,318
Panocam Mount – $476
Standard Carbon Fiber Tripod – $1,105
Focus Battery Power Block – $518
FARO Zone 3D Scan Software – $4,488
FARO SCENE Software – $4,972
Scanner Training: Online & Onsite – $4,658
FARO Zone Onsite Training for 4 – $4,131
FOCUS Premium Complete Care – $4,752
The total cost of the FARO Device and package is $72,966.82 including tax and shipping.

FARO Technologies has agreed to lower the price by 5% at the time of purchase, if completed within 30 days.

Based upon the specifications provided, the FARO scanner software is labor intensive on a computer terminal, which the department does not currently have a stand-alone computer.

Utilizing the specifications provided by FARO Technologies, the IT department built out a Dell computer to handle the software without issue and be sufficient for an extended period of time. Staff secured a quote from DELL Technologies. The cost for a Dell Precision 7960 tower workstation is $7,737.01. The quote did not include sales tax and shipping. Estimated sales tax is $676.98 and estimated shipping is $100 for a total cost of $8,513.93.

The total cost for the FARO Equipment and Dell computer is $81,480.75 FISCAL IMPACT:
• Council Member Carnevale has agreed to provide $40,000 of his district improvement funds (100-100-110-111-8800-8802, project M05037)
• Council Member Gutierrez has agreed to provide $10,000 of his district improvement funds (100-100-110-111-8800-8802, project M05039)
• The remaining $31,480.75 (247-300-310-311-8200-8209, project G04594) will be expended from the FY 2021-2022 SLESA funding. The remaining balance in the 2021-2022 SLESA will now be $133,790.50.

FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN:

GOAL E: SAFETY – Action E-3; Expand the use of cameras and other technology to promote public safety.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. FARO Device Package Quote

2. DELL Technologies Precision 7960 Tower Workstation

3. FARO Focus Laser Scanner Fact Sheet
FARO Technologies Inc., 125 Technology Park, Lake Mary FL 32746-6204 Check Payments:

FARO Technologies, Inc.

PO Box 116908
Atlanta, GA 30368-6908
Electronic Payments:

FARO Technologies, Inc.

ABA: 061000104
Swift Nbr: SNTRUS3A
USD Account #: 1000009578609
Phone No: 407-333-9911
www.faro.com
Nasdaq: FARO
Confidential 1
Notes:

UNIT COSTS
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL AMOUNT
LS9-PU-TAA FARO Focus Premium 200m USA
TAA
Ships with: scanner head, Status
Indicator, Quick Release, Battery,
Power Dock , Power Supply, 64GB SD
card, transport case, calibration
certificate, quick start guide,
manufacturer warranty
1 $ 49,999 $ 42,499
ACCSS8032 Standard Carbon Fiber Tripod
Carbon fiber tripod, super lightweight,
highly stable, low-vibration,
customized for Focus scanners for
perfect performance and increased
durability.
1 $ 1,300 $ 1,105
Account Manager: Chris Taylor
Email: [email protected]
Sales Support: Ainel Grana
Contact Person: Angie Gudino
Quotation No: 05940062
Quotation Date: 12/13/2024
Expiration Date: 03/12/2025
Lead Time: 2-6 weeks
Bill To: Ship To:

Cathedral City Police
Department
68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City,CA,92234-1208
US
Cathedral City Police Department
Cathedral City,United States
68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City,CA,92234-1208
US
Tracer Lead Time: 12-16 weeks
Ship: Standard/Ground
Payment Terms: immediate payment
Delivery Terms: Ex Works
FARO Technologies Inc
125 Technology Park, Lake Mary FL
32746-6204
Phone No: 407-333-9911
Continued
Quotation No: 05940062
FARO Technologies Inc., 125 Technology Park, Lake Mary FL 32746-6204 Check Payments:

FARO Technologies, Inc.

PO Box 116908
Atlanta, GA 30368-6908
Electronic Payments:

FARO Technologies, Inc.

ABA: 061000104
Swift Nbr: SNTRUS3A
USD Account #: 1000009578609
Phone No: 407-333-9911
www.faro.com
Nasdaq: FARO
Confidential 2
TR-BL-SCN-POS-O Scanner Training - Customer Site
UG
Blended Learning Training combines
flexible online modules with
interactive face-to-face sessions for a
comprehensive educational
experience. Course includes the
principles of Scanner operation,
setup, and basic measurements and
software. Customer Site Trainings are
designed for up to Four trainees to
ensure proper transfer of knowledge
and understanding. Includes online
course and 2 day customer site
session.
1 $ 5,480 $ 4,658
SV2-SCN-Y3 FOCUS Premium Complete CareYear 3
Complete care coverage for Focus
Premium scanners. Includes parts
and labor for repairs and annual
cleaning and calibration. Covers
through year 3 from point of sale.
1 $ 5,590 $ 4,752
ACCSS8063 High Resolution Panocam
High resolution panorama camera for
FARO® ScanPlan, records 360°
images in high resolution and high
quality, still image resolution 6720 x
3360
1 $ 1,550 $ 1,318
Continued
Quotation No: 05940062
FARO Technologies Inc., 125 Technology Park, Lake Mary FL 32746-6204 Check Payments:

FARO Technologies, Inc.

PO Box 116908
Atlanta, GA 30368-6908
Electronic Payments:

FARO Technologies, Inc.

ABA: 061000104
Swift Nbr: SNTRUS3A
USD Account #: 1000009578609
Phone No: 407-333-9911
www.faro.com
Nasdaq: FARO
Confidential 3
ACCS-0016 Panocam Mount
High Speed Color Add-On mount to
connect a high-resolution panoramic
camera with the accessory bay of a
FARO Focus laser. Panoramic camera
not included.
1 $ 560 $ 476
SSA51007-3Y FARO Zone 3D Expert SUB 3Y
Contract Date: 12/13/2024 - 12/13/2027
1 $ 5,280 $ 4,488
SSA0900-3Y SCENE Subscription 3 years
SCENE Subscription 3 year New
License Includes standard
maintenance for three years. License
containers sold separately.

Contract Date: 12/13/2024 - 12/13/2027
1 $ 5,850 $ 4,972
TR-FZ3-O FAROZone Onsite Training
FARO Zone 3-day onsite instructor
lead training. Priced per class, class
size limited to 4 persons. NOTE:

Training will expire if not taken within
90-days of purchase.
1 $ 4,860 $ 4,131
ACCS-PWR-0014 Focus Battery Power Block
Power Block battery for Focus laser
scanner and Freestyle.
1 $ 610 $ 518
Continued
Quotation No: 05940062
FARO Technologies Inc., 125 Technology Park, Lake Mary FL 32746-6204 Check Payments:

FARO Technologies, Inc.

PO Box 116908
Atlanta, GA 30368-6908
Electronic Payments:

FARO Technologies, Inc.

ABA: 061000104
Swift Nbr: SNTRUS3A
USD Account #: 1000009578609
Phone No: 407-333-9911
www.faro.com
Nasdaq: FARO
Confidential 4

RECURRING COSTS
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION YRS ANNUAL PRICE SUBTOTAL
Total Unit Price: $ 81,079.00
Total Recurring Costs: $ 0.00
Total Discount: -($ 12,162.00)
Sub Total: $ 68,917.00
Shipping & Handling: $ 32.17
Total Excluding Tax: $ 68,949.17
Total Taxes: $ 4,017.65
Total Due: (USD) $ 72,966.82
Continued
Quotation No: 05940062
FARO Technologies Inc., 125 Technology Park, Lake Mary FL 32746-6204 Check Payments:

FARO Technologies, Inc.

PO Box 116908
Atlanta, GA 30368-6908
Electronic Payments:

FARO Technologies, Inc.

ABA: 061000104
Swift Nbr: SNTRUS3A
USD Account #: 1000009578609
Phone No: 407-333-9911
www.faro.com
Nasdaq: FARO
Confidential 5
**Note: Taxes on this quote are budgetary estimates and are not binding. Taxes charged will be based on applicable tax rates assessed at the time of final invoice.

Quote, including FARO Standard Delivery Terms and Conditions, accepted Signature: _______________________________Print:________________________________ Title:____________________________Date:____________________ Accounts Payable Name:___________________________________________________Email:_____________________________________________________ Do you require a PO number to be referenced on the invoice ( ) No ( ) Yes - PO #:_____________________________________________ Continued
Quotation No: 05940062
FARO Technologies Inc., 125 Technology Park, Lake Mary FL 32746-6204 Check Payments:

FARO Technologies, Inc.

PO Box 116908
Atlanta, GA 30368-6908
Electronic Payments:

FARO Technologies, Inc.

ABA: 061000104
Swift Nbr: SNTRUS3A
USD Account #: 1000009578609
Phone No: 407-333-9911
www.faro.com
Nasdaq: FARO
Confidential 6
PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SALE: As a condition of this agreement, the applicable contract terms are FARO's Standard Terms and Conditions of Sale, or, if the Parties have entered into current master sales terms, such negotiated master terms.

The FARO Standard Terms and Conditions can be found at the following Web link (if such is not an active link, please copy and paste the Web address into a Web browser):
https://www.faro.com/terms/
You can also obtain the terms from your FARO sales representative or please email [email protected] for a copy.

The following article contains all our calibration information under their respective product headings https://knowledge.faro.com/Essentials/Hardware/Compensation_Calibration_and_Certification_Standards_for_FARO_Devices A quote for your consideration.

To retrieve this eQuote online, log in to your Dell Premier Page and search for your eQuote number under “Quotes” in the top menu bar.

Quote No.: 3000184376043
Total (USD): $7,737.01
eQuote Name: PD - FARO
eQuote Creator: [email protected]
Quoted On: Dec. 19, 2024
Expires By: Jan. 18, 2025
Company Name: - Customer Number: - Premier Page Name: City of Cathedral City, California Contract Name: Dell NASPO Computer Equipment PA - California Contract Code: C000001115143
Customer Agreement Number: 23026 / 7-23-70-55-01
Billing Address:
-
,
Pricing Summary
Qty Unit Price Discounted
Unit Price
Subtotal
Precision 7960 Tower Workstation - Build Your Own 1 $13,316.72 $7,737.01 $7,737.01 Premier discount - $5,579.71
Subtotal: $7,737.01
Shipping: $0.00
Estimated Tax: $0.00
Total (USD): $7,737.01
Product Details
Qty Unit Price Subtotal
Precision 7960 Tower Workstation - Build Your
Own
(210-BFNS)
Order Code: xctopt7960usr
1 $7,737.01 $7,737.01
Module Description Product Code SKU Qty
Precision 7960
Tower Precision 7960 Tower XCTO Base G5YZAH1
210-BFNS
1 Processor Intel® Xeon® W5-3423 (30 MB cache, 12 cores, 24 threads, up to 4.2 GHz Turbo, 220 W) GQT72O9 338-CGRJ,412- ABDE 1 Operating
System Windows 11 Pro for Workstations (6 cores plus), English, French, Spanish, Brazilian Portuguese GEHJ7CM 619-ARSN
1 System
Management
Intel Management Engine disabled
GOY1KV4
631-BBKG
1 Memory 96 GB: 6 x 16 GB, DDR5, 4800 MT/s, RDIMM, ECC GBI96WX 370-AHHC 1 Graphics Nvidia RTX 2000 Ada, 16 GB GDDR6, 4 mDP to DP GTAQ97P 490-BKMG 1 Front Flexbay
Configuration: Bays 1-4
F1: Flexbay Boot; [2xNVME + 2xSATA] Front Flexbay; Rear Flexbay optional (Integrated + 1400W) G1EGV0U
403-BDHY
1 Storage Controllers
Integrated Storage Controller GDTFOK3403-BCVC
1 Storage Device Bay 1
2TB, M.2, PCIe NVMe, SSD, Class 40
GU52GHX 400-BPRR,401- BBCQ1
Storage Device Bay 2
2TB, M.2, PCIe NVMe, SSD, Class 40
GU52GHX 400-BPRR,401- BBCQ1
Storage Device Bay 3
2 TB, 7200 RPM, 3.5-inch, SATA, HDD, AG-Enterprise Class GS6071T400-BOGR 1 Storage Device Bay 4
No Hard Drive GMKBO5E400-AKZR
1 Rear Flexbay
Configuration: Bays 5-8R0: No Rear Flexbays GYQ3R7H400-AVDX 1 Storage Device Bay 5
No Hard Drive GMKBO5E400-AKZR
1 Storage Device Bay 6
No Hard Drive GMKBO5E400-AKZR
1 Storage Device Bay 7
No Hard Drive GMKBO5E400-AKZR
1 Storage Device Bay 8
No Hard Drive GMKBO5E400-AKZR
1 5.25” Expansion Bay
Configuration: Bays 9-10
E0: No Expansion Bay
GX7JTRL
429-ABMS
1 Slimline Optical No Optical GYJOG9M 429-ABEL 1
Optical
Software PowerDVD Software not included
GI5LS2C
632-BBBJ
1 Storage Device Bay 9
No Hard Drive GMKBO5E400-AKZR
1 Storage Device Bay 10
No Hard Drive GMKBO5E400-AKZR
1 SATA/SAS
RAID
No SATA/SAS RAID
G9BYT4Q
780-BBCJ
1 NVMe RAID
Configuration No NVME RAID (F1+R0/R2) G81UPTE
780-BCWN
1 Intel VROC
Software and
License
Virtual RAID on CPU software driver - Windows G9OQVMW409-BCXF 1 Chassis Options Precision 7960 Tower 1400W FB NVMe/SATA Chassis (FMX) GZ062IY 321-BIBE
1 Front and Rear Bezels Front Bezel - Non-lockable (E0/E3 ODD) GM27EBW 325-BFHR
1 Power Cord System Power Cord C13 (US 125V, 15A) GF7P08G 470-AATC 1 Network Card No Additional Network Card Selected (Integrated NIC included) GPQ31WV 555-BBJO 1 PCIe I/O Addin-cards Not selected in this configuration GY2RECF 817-BBBC
1 We're here to answer any of your Order Support questions. Contact Us.

Wireless No Wireless LAN Card (no WiFi enablement) GE7Y41P 555-BBFO 1 Keyboard Keyboard not included G2JO9I3 580-AADS 1
Mouse No Mouse G8043UZ 570-AADK 1
Microsoft Office Activate Your Microsoft 365 For A 30 Day Trial GC7OFJV 658-BCSB 1 ENERGY STARNot ENERGY STAR Qualified GRK4Z09 387-BBBE 1 EPEAT Not EPEAT Registered GQY6H8V 389-DVNR 1
TPM Security Dell Precision TPM G1MEH6P 340-ACBY 1
Driver No Wireless LAN GW1SM6D 555-BBNI 1
Documentation Safety/Environment and Regulatory Guide (English/French Multi-language) G7RB0GY 340-AGIK 1 Placemat 7960 Tower Placemat G8HX9OC 340-DLFZ 1
Shipping
Material
Ship Material DAO Tower 7960
GGJ5BO6 340-CBUU,340- DLGD1
Label 7960 Tower 1400W Regulatory Label G8AC9XU 389-EFGG 1 Monitor Stands No Stand GK0645E 575-BBCH 1
Cables and
Dongles No Accessories GM0AKUV
461-AABV
1 Operating
System
Recovery
Options
OS-Windows Media Not Included
GLA9OQ1
620-AALW
1 Resource DVD Resource DVD not Included GP34FJB 430-XXYU 1 External
Speakers No External Speaker GTNM7E2
817-BBBC
1 Non-Microsoft
Application Software Dell Additional Software GCUA4G1658-BFPP 1 FGA Module No FGA NOFGA 817-BBBB 1
Windows AutoPilot
No AutoPilot
GYEO2AP
340-CKSZ
1 Security
Software and
PC Protection No anti-virus software GD4K19S
650-AAAM
1 AlienFx Colour Premier Color 6.1 GP91AS0 640-BBSR 1
Standard
Hardware Support Service4Y ProSupport Plus with ProSupport and AD and KYHD and Service Account Mgr PPN4 997-5852,997- 5919,997-5928,997- 5954,997-59631
Need Help?
CONNECT WITH DELL:

Terms of Sale
This Quote will, if Customer issues a purchase order for the quoted items that is accepted by Supplier, constitute a contract between the entity issuing this Quote (“Supplier”) and the entity to whom this Quote was issued (“Customer”). Unless otherwise stated herein, pricing is valid for thirty days from the date of this Quote. All product, pricing and other information is based on the latest information available and is subject to change. Supplier reserves the right to cancel this Quote and Customer purchase orders arising from pricing errors. Taxes and/or freight charges listed on this Quote are only estimates. The final amounts shall be stated on the relevant invoice. Additional freight charges will be applied if Customer requests expedited shipping. Please indicate any tax exemption status on your purchase order and send your tax exemption certificate to [email protected] or [email protected], as applicable. Governing Terms: This Quote is subject to: (a) a separate written agreement between Customer or Customer’s affiliate and Supplier or a Supplier´s affiliate to the extent that it expressly applies to the products and/or services in this Quote or, to the extent there is no such agreement, to the applicable set of Dell’s Terms of Sale (available at www.dell.com/terms or www.dell.com/oemterms), or for cloud/as-a-Service offerings, the applicable cloud terms of service (identified on the Offer Specific Terms referenced below); and (b) the terms referenced herein (collectively, the “Governing Terms”). Different Governing Terms may apply to different products and services on this Quote. The Governing Terms apply to the exclusion of all terms and conditions incorporated in or referred to in any documentation submitted by Customer to Supplier.

Supplier Software Licenses and Services Descriptions: Customer’s use of any Supplier software is subject to the license terms accompanying the software, or in the absence of accompanying terms, the applicable terms posted on www.Dell.com/eula. Descriptions and terms for Supplier-branded standard services are stated at www.dell.com/servicecontracts/global or for certain infrastructure products at www.dellemc.com/en-us/customer-services/product-warranty-and-service-descriptions.htm. Offer-Specific, Third Party and Program Specific Terms: Customer’s use of third-party software is subject to the license terms that accompany the software. Certain Supplier- branded and third-party products and services listed on this Quote are subject to additional, specific terms stated on www.dell.com/offeringspecificterms (“Offer Specific Terms”).

In case of Resale only: Should Customer procure any products or services for resale, whether on standalone basis or as part of a solution, Customer shall include the applicable software license terms, services terms, and/or offer-specific terms in a written agreement with the end-user and provide written evidence of doing so upon receipt of request from Supplier.

In case of Financing only: If Customer intends to enter into a financing arrangement (“Financing Agreement”) for the products and/or services on this Quote with Dell Financial Services LLC or other funding source pre-approved by Supplier (“FS”), Customer may issue its purchase order to Supplier or to FS. If issued to FS, Supplier will fulfill and invoice FS upon confirmation that: (a) FS intends to enter into a Financing Agreement with Customer for this order; and (b) FS agrees to procure these items from Supplier. Notwithstanding the Financing Agreement, Customer’s use (and Customer’s resale of and the end-user’s use) of these items in the order is subject to the applicable governing agreement between Customer and Supplier, except that title shall transfer from Supplier to FS instead of to Customer. If FS notifies Supplier after shipment that Customer is no longer pursuing a Financing Agreement for these items, or if Customer fails to enter into such Financing Agreement within 120 days after shipment by Supplier, Customer shall promptly pay the Supplier invoice amounts directly to Supplier.

Customer represents that this transaction does not involve: (a) use of U.S. Government funds; (b) use by or resale to the U.S. Government; or (c) maintenance and support of the product(s) listed in this document within classified spaces. Customer further represents that this transaction does not require Supplier’s compliance with any statute, regulation or information technology standard applicable to a U.S. Government procurement.

For certain products shipped to end users in California, a State Environmental Fee will be applied to Customer’s invoice. Supplier encourages customers to dispose of electronic equipment properly.

Electronically linked terms and descriptions are available in hard copy upon request.

Dell Marketing LP. U.S. only. Dell Marketing LP. is located at One Dell Way, Mail Stop 8129, Round Rock, TX 78682 www.faro.com
The Most Compact Lightweight and
Intuitive Laser Scanner Product Line
FARO® Focus Laser Scanner
FARO Focus Laser Scanners are specifically designed for both indoor and outdoor measurements in industries such as Architecture, Engineering, Construction, Public Safety and Forensics or Product Design. All devices capture real world information used in the digital world to analyze, collaborate and execute decisions to improve and maintain the overall project and product quality.

The FocusS
Laser Scanner series offers advanced functionality.

In addition to increased distance, angular accuracy, and range, the FocusS and FocusS Plus scanners’ on-site compensation function ensures high-quality measurements, while external accessory bays and HDR functionality make the scanner
extremely flexible.

Laser Scanners for Short, Medium
and Long Range Applications
Benefits
Features
y Confidence in documented data-quality by traceable
calibration and market-leading on-site compensation.
y Scan in challenging environments while providing protection from dust, debris and water splashes. Mount the FocusS
scanner in an inverted position, such as under a ceiling of a hall.
y The Focus Laser Scanner portfolio offers the most economic 3D scanning solution for all requirements and budgets.
y Minimum training effort is ensured by the intuitive and easy to operate touch-screen interface as well as hands-on and online tutorials.
y Efficient integration into existing software infrastructures and workflows are provided by interfaces to various
standard CAD systems.

Accuracy
Highest accuracy and range by using a combination of the most advanced sensor technologies.

Rescanning of Distant Targets
The Scan Group feature identifies multiple areas to be
rescanned with higher resolution to either perform accurate target detection or to capture smaller areas of interest with greater detail.

IP Rating 54 and Extended Temperature Range
With the sealed design and certified with the industry
standard Ingress Protection (IP) Rating, IP54, the Focus can be used in wet weather conditions at temperatures from -20°C to 55°C8.

Compact and Portable
Focus Laser Scanners are the smallest and lightest devices in their performance class.

On-Site Compensation
With the on-site compensation functionality, users can
verify and adjust the FocusS
compensation immediately
before scanning, ensuring high-quality scan data and
traceable documentation.

On-Site Registration
During on-site data capture, the laser scanner
immediately transmits scan data wirelessly to FARO
SCENE for real-time scan processing and registration,
providing efficiency and time savings.

FocusS and FocusS Plus
FARO Global Headquarters
250 Technology Park, Lake Mary, FL 32746, USA
US: 800 736 0234 MX: +52 81 4170 3542
BR: 11 3500 4600 / 0800 892 1192
FARO Europe Regional Headquarters
Lingwiesenstr. 11/2
70825 Korntal-Münchingen, Germany
00 800 3276 7253
FARO Asia Regional Headquarters
No. 3 Changi South Street 2, #01-01 Xilin
Districentre Building B Singapore, 486548
+65 65111350
Local offices in over 25 countries around the world. Go to www.faro.com to learn more. © 2021 FARO | FARO is a registered trademark of FARO Technologies, Inc. in the United States and other countries. SFDC_04MKT_476 Revised: 09/09/21 Performance Specifications
Additional Features
Dual Axis Compensator Performs a leveling of each scan with an accuracy of 19 arcsec valid within ±2° Height Sensor Via an electronic barometer, the height relative to a fixed point can be detected and added to a scan
Compass⁷ The electronic compass gives the scan an orientation GNSS Integrated GPS & GLONASS
On-Site Compensation* Creates current quality report and improves compensation automatically Accessory Bay* The accessory bay connects versatile accessories to the scanner Inverse Mounting Yes
Real-time, On-site Registration
in SCENE* Connects to SCENE, real-time scan processing and registration, overview map Electronic Automation Interface* Available as option, only at point of sale Digital Hash Function Scans are cryptographically hashed and signed by the scanner Rescanning of Distant Targets Defined areas recaptured in higher resolution at a greater distance Retake Photos Select individual photographs with unwanted objects and retake them General Specifications
Power Supply 19V (external supply), 14.4V (internal battery) Power Consumption 15W idle, 25W scanning, 80W charging
Battery Service Life 4.5 hours
Temperature Operating: 5° - 40° C | Extended Operating⁸: -20° - 55° C | Storage: -10°- 60°C Ingress Protection (IP)
Rating Class IP54
Humidity Resistance Non-condensing
Weight 4.2 kg (including battery)
Size/Dimensions 230 x 183 x 103mm
Maintenance / Calibration Recommended annual
Additional Performance Specifications
Color Unit
Color Resolution Up to 165-megapixel color
HDR Camera Exposure bracketing 2x,
3x, 5x
Parallax Minimized due to co-axial
design
Deflection Unit
Field of View 300°vertical⁶ / 360° horizontal
Step Size

0.009 (40,960 3D-pixel
on 360°) vertical / 0.0009
(40,960 3D-pixel on 360°)
horizontal
Max. Scan Speed 97Hz (vertical)
Laser (Optical Transmitter)
Laser Class Laser Class 1
Wavelength 1550nm
Beam Divergence 0.3mrad (1/e)
Beam Diameter
at Exit 2.12mm (1/e)
Data Handling and Control
Data Storage SDHCTM, SDXCTM; 32GB;
max. 512GB card
Scanner Control
Via touch screen display
and WLAN connection,
Access by mobile devices
with HTML5
Interface Connection
WLAN
802.11n (150Mbit/s), as
access point or client in
existing networks

1. For a Lambertian scatterer. | 2. Ranging noise is defined as a standard deviation of values about the best-fit plane for measurement speed of 122,000 points/sec. | 3. Ranging error is defined as a systematic measurement error at around 10m and 25m. | 4. It is recommended to perform on-site compensation in the event the unit is exposed to exceptional temperature or mechanical stress. | 5. For distances larger 25m add 0.1mm/m of uncertainty. | 6. 2x150°, homogeneous point spacing is not guaranteed. |7. Ferromagnetic objects can disturb the earth magnetic field and lead to inaccurate measurements. | 8. Low temperature operation: scanner has to be powered on while internal temperature is at or above 15°C, high temperature operation: additional accessory required.

All accuracy specifications are one sigma, after warm-up and within operating temperature range; unless otherwise noted. Subject to change without prior notice. *Not integrated with the FocusM 70
FocusS 350 Plus FocusS 150 Plus FocusS 350 FocusS 150 FocusS 70 FocusM 70 Ranging Unit
Unambiguity Interval
614m for up to 0.5 mil pts/sec
307m at 1 mil pts/sec
153m at 2 mil pts/sec
614m for up to 0.5 mil pts/sec
307m at 1 mil pts/sec
614m for up to

0.5 mil pts/sec
Range¹
90% Reflectivity (white) 0.6-350m 0.6-150m 0.6-350m 0.6-150m 0.6-70m 0.6-70m 10% Reflectivity (dark-gray) 0.6-150m 0.6-150m 0.6-150m 0.6-150m 0.6-70m 0.6-70m 2% Reflectivity (black) 0.6-50m 0.6-50m 0.6-50m 0.6-50m 0.6-50m 0.6-50m Range Noise² (mm)
@10m 90% (white) 0.1 0.3 0.7
@10m 10% (dark-gray) 0.3 0.4 0.8
@10m 2% (black) 0.9 1.3 1.5
@25m 90% (white) 0.2 0.3 0.7
@25m 10% (dark-gray) 0.5 0.5 0.8
@25m 2% (black) 1.6 2.0 2.1
Max. Measurement Speed (mil. pts/sec) Up to 2 Up to 1 Up to 0.5 Ranging Error³ (mm) ±1 ±3
Angular Accuracy⁴ 19 arcsec for vertical/horizontal angles not specified 3D Point Accuracy⁵ 2 @10m 3.5 @25m 2 @10m 3.5 @25m not specified

Cathedral City City CouncilJanuary 8, 2025

Cathedral City City Council
January 8, 2025