1.3 This approval shall be valid for a period of (2) two years from the date of approval unless a completed building permit application has been submitted or a one- year extension has been granted pursuant to Section 9.72.110 of the Cathedral City Municipal Code.
1.4 Prior to issuance of a building permit the Applicant shall sign the approved Conditions of Approval which shall certify that the Applicant agrees to implement all Conditions of Approval.
1.5 A copy of all pages of the signed Conditions of Approval shall be included in the construction drawing package.
1.6 Any deviation from these plans or this approval shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval.
1.7 No Certificate of Occupancy shall be granted until all conditions of approval have been satisfied.
1.8 The development of the site shall conform to all ordinances, codes, regulations, policies and development design controls pursuant to the Cathedral City Municipal Code taking effect prior to issuance of any building permits.
SECTION 2 FEES
2.1 Prior to issuance of any permit, including grading or demolition permits, the Applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in the processing of the development entitlement in excess of the initial deposit amount.
Such reimbursement costs include, but are not limited to, staff and consultant costs, and costs associated with noticing the public hearing.
2.2 The Applicant shall pay all applicable City of Cathedral City fees, charges and other costs as prescribed by City Ordinance, including development impact fees.
Be advised that the fees may change at the time they become due and payable, as permitted by applicable law.
NOTICE TO APPLICANT: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), the 90 day period to protest the imposition of any impact fee, dedication, reservation, or other exaction described in this resolution begins on the effective date of this approval and any such protest must be in a manner that complies with Section 66020(a), and failure to follow this procedure in a timely manner will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void or annul imposition.
The right to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions does not apply to planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application processing fees or service fees in connection with this project. It further does not apply to any fees, dedication, reservations, or exactions for which the applicant has been given a notice similar to this, nor does it revive challenges to any fees for which the Statute of Limitations has previously expired.
22 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
SECTION 3 PLANNING
3.1 The project is approved for construction in phases . The proposed phasing schedule may be modified, subject to Planning Department approval, provided that the amended schedule would not involve any increase from the approved square footage.
3.2 The Applicant shall contact the Planning Department 90 days after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to arrange for a follow -up on-site inspection to ensure that all plant material is being maintained consistent with the approved Exhibit “A”.
3.3 A Final Landscape Construction Plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect and approved by the Director of Community and Economic Development, shall be signed by the local water agency prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Final Landscape Construction Plan shall contain the following required information:
a. A title block with sheet number, site address and APNs, date of preparation, and name, address, and phone number of Applicant on all sheets. b. A plant landscape legend, including a specific symbol for each plant species used, size (i.e., caliper, gallon, box, or brown trunk height, and/or quantity) and whether it is deciduous or evergreen.
c. Show use of concrete mow strip between turf and other surfaces. d. Clear indication where landscaping will be used to screen mechanical, electrical, and irrigation equipment.
e. A plant landscape legend, including a specific symbol for each plant species used, size (i.e., caliper, gallon, box, or brown trunk height, and/or quantity) and whether it is deciduous or evergreen.
f. Show all locations of mechanical, electrical, and irrigation equipment and landscaping that will screen from public view.
g. A detail showing planter design adjacent to walkways and driveways that is designed to prevent soil and/or decomposed granite from flowing onto walkways and driveways. There shall be a minimum two- inch vertical separation between the pavement and the soil.
h. Plant and tree installation and staking details. Plant and tree installation and staking details that require single trunk trees to be double staked and multi - trunk trees to be staked appropriate to the species of tree. 23 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
i. Details, specifications, and location of all pavers and decorative surface materials used on the site. Samples of crushed rock material or decomposed granite materials shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. j. All decorative surface materials shall be approved by the Director of Community and Economic Development before issuance of any permits. k. Landscaping and irrigation shall be provided along the street frontage. l. Landscape plans shall meet the requirements of the City of Cathedral City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
m. All plant materials used on the project site shall be those listed in the most recent version of Coachella Valley Water District’s “Lush & Efficient Landscape Gardening in the Coachella Valley”.
n. An Irrigation Plan with equipment details.
3.4 Site landscaping shall comply with the City Design Guidelines and Water Conservation policies and rules regardless of whether the items are illustrated on the Construction Landscape Plans:
a. Plants and trees shall be primarily drought tolerant species compatible with the desert environment.
b. Projects shall minimize the use of turf.
c. At least 50% of the trees shall be evergreen species.
d. All single trunk trees shall be double staked, and multi -trunk trees shall be staked appropriate to the species of tree.
e. Arbor guards shall be installed around trees in turf areas.
f. Projects located along major arterials and/or streets shall comply with the street tree requirements of the Design Guidelines.
g. All ground-mounted equipment, such as mechanical, electrical, and irrigation equipment (backflow preventers), shall be located within a landscape planter.
This equipment shall not be located within a turf area and shall not be visible from the public view.
h. Any drain that terminates in a planter shall have a splash guard.
i. All palm trees shall have a brown truck height of at least 20 feet.
j. All 36 -inch box trees or greater shall be verified as to size by the project planner prior to being planted. It is the responsibility of the contractor and/or 24 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
Applicant to make an appointment with the project planner to conduct this verification.
k. All trees on site shall be non-fruit-bearing.
l. All planter areas adjacent to pavement shall be designed to prevent soil and/or decomposed granite from flowing onto walkways and driveways.
There shall be a minimum two-inch vertical separation between the pavement and the top of the surface soil and/or decomposed granite.
3.6 The building and landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a condition that substantially complies with this approval. Trees, shrubs, ground covers, etcetera, shall be watered and permanently maintained. All dead vegetation shall be removed and replaced in a timely manner.
3.7 The Applicant shall record a maintenance covenant over the property that guarantees the removal of weeds, dust, blowsand, and debris, and ensures that the property is maintained in a weed, dust, blowsand, and debris -free condition per the approved plans and conditions of approval.
3.8 Exterior paint colors shall be consistent with the color samples on file in the Planning Department.
3.9 Signage is not a part of this approval and shall require a separate Sign Permit.
3.10 All walls and trash enclosures shall be constructed to City Standard and have a decorative surface and a decorative cap that are consistent with the overall architecture and be approved by the Director of Community and Economic Development prior to issuance of a Building Permit . The trash enclosure shall accommodate an organic waste bin in compliance with SB 1383.
3.11 All lighting shall comply with Chapter 9.89 (Outdoor Lighting Standards) of the Municipal Code. All exterior lighting shall be installed and maintained in such a manner that glare and intensive light sources will not be visible at the property line. All exterior illuminating devices shall be shielded.
3.12 The Applicant shall provide a photometric plan in accordance with the lighting proposed on the building and around the project site, and to include the landscape lighting within the planter areas on the photometric plan during plan check submittal.
3.13 No lighting fixture or standard shall have a height over 18 feet.
3.14 The Project and all operations shall comply with Chapter 11.96 (Noise Control) of the Municipal Code.
3.15 All mechanical equipment, either roof - or ground- mounted, shall be screened from public view. All such equipment shall be fully screened by the roof structure, 25 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
a parapet wall, appropriate ground mounted walls, berming, or landscaping. All walls shall architecturally match the building. If after construction, but prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, it is determined by the Director of Planning that equipment can be viewed from the public right -of-way a plan for screening the equipment shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. Once approved, said screening shall be constructed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
3.16 All breaker boxes, fire sprinkler risers, and utility conduits shall be interior to the building.
3.17 All roof drains and downspouts shall be on the interior of the building. Exposed drainpipes are specifically prohibited unless approved by the Director of Community and Economic Development.
3.18 All drain terminations shall be the Watts Drainage Product RD -940 or a product of equal value.
3.19 All electrical switchgear and cabinets shall be located within the interior of the building or installed within a City approved enclosure.
3.20 All roof access is to be internal to the building. Exterior mounted ladders are prohibited.
3.21 Access driveways:
i. There shall be no stopping, standing, or parking on any portion of the access driveways, including the northern access driveway starting from Bolero Drive and the southern access driveway starting from Carey Road, except in the designated parking area as indicated on the site plan approved for CUP 25-0003.
ii. The access driveways shall be signed as ‘Emergency Access and Fire Lane – No Stopping, Standing, or Parking’. Curbs shall be painted red and stenciled ‘No Stopping, Standing, or Parking’. iii. The Fire Marshall has the right and authority to restrict use of the access driveways to emergency vehicles only, as needed.
3.22 All on -campus special events must be organized by the school for its students and must be typical of events associated with schools. Rental of the school facilities, including the gymnasium, for any third- party events shall require a Special Use Permit approved by the Director of Community and Economic Development.
3.23 If during excavation, grading or construction, artifacts or other archaeological resources are discovered, all work in the immediate area of the find shall be halted and the applicant shall immediately notify the Director of Community and Economic Development. A qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualifications standards for archaeology, shall be called to the site by, and at the expense of, the applicant to identify the find and propose mitigation if the resource is culturally significant.
26 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
3.24 In the event that any human remains are discovered, the Applicant shall cease all work and contact the Riverside County Coroner’s Office and work shall not resume until such time that the site has been cleared by County Coroner and/or the Cathedral City Police Department. The Applicant shall also be required to consult with the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO).
Work shall resume after consultation with the City of Cathedral City and implementation of the recommendations of the archaeologist. If archaeological resources are discovered, the archaeologist will be required to provide copies of any studies or reports to the Eastern Information Center for the State of California located at the University of California Riverside and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) for permanent inclusion in the Agua Caliente Cultural Register.
AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
3.25 Any outdoor lighting installed shall be hooded or shielded to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky. Outdoor lighting shall be downward facing.
3.26 The following uses are prohibited:
(a) Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA - approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator. (b) Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an airport. (c) Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area. (Such uses include landscaping utilizing water features, aquaculture, outdoor production of cereal grains, sunflower, and row crops, composting operations, wastewater management facilities, artificial marshes, trash transfer stations that are open on one or more sides, recycling centers containing putrescible wastes, construction and demolition debris facilities, fly ash disposal, and incinerators.)
(d) Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation. (e) Any use which results in a hazard to flight, including physical (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of aircraft operations.
3.27 The “Notice of Airport in Vicinity” attached to the ALUC Letter of Consistency shall be provided to all prospective purchasers and occupants of the property. 27 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
3.28 Any proposed stormwater basins or facilities shall be designed and maintained to provide for a maxim um 48-hour detention period following the design storm, and remain totally dry between rainfalls. Vegetation in and around the basins that would provide food or cover for birds would be incompatible with airport operations and shall not be utilized in project landscaping. Trees shall be spaced so as to prevent large expanses of contiguous canopy, when mature.
Landscaping in and around the basin(s) shall not include trees or shrubs that produce seeds, fruits, or berries.
Landscaping in the stormwater basin, if not rip- rap, should be in accordance with the guidance provided in ALUC “LANDSCAPING NEAR AIRPORTS” brochure, and the “AIRPORTS, WILDLIFE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT”
brochure available at RCALUC.ORG which list acceptable plants from Riverside County Landscaping Guide or other alternative landscaping as may be recommended by a qualified wildlife hazard biologist.
A notice sign, in a form similar to that attached to the ALUC Letter of Consistency, shall be permanently affixed to the stormwater basin with the following language: “There is an airport nearby. This stormwater basin is designed to hold stormwater for only 48 hours and not attract birds. Proper maintenance is necessary to avoid bird strikes”. The sign will also include the name, telephone number or other contact information of the person or entity responsible to monitor the stormwater basin.
3.29 The project has been evaluated to construct a 27,121 square foot gymnasium building with classrooms and three new classroom buildings totaling 9,049 square feet on an existing school site totaling 5.26- acres. Any increase in building area, change in use to any higher intensity use, change in building location, or modification of the tentative parcel map lot lines and areas will require an amended review to evaluate consistency with the ALUCP compatibility criteria, at the discretion of the ALUC Director.
SECTION 4 ENGINEERING / PUBLIC WORKS
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
4.1 The Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Cathedral City (“city”), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003 (CUP) and Entitlement Plans (Plans). The city will have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The city will promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense.
4.2 CUP shall expire two years after the City Planning Commission approval date, unless granted a completed Building Permit application and/or a time extension pursuant to Cathedral City Ordinances.
28 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
4.3 Not used.
4.4 The CUP will comply with all applicable terms, conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following approvals:
i. CUP No. 25-0003.
ii. Cathe
dral City Design Guidelines.
iii. Cathe
dral City Water Conservation Policies and Rules.
iv. Cathe
dral City Municipal Codes and Ordinances.
In the event of any conflict(s) between the above provisions for these conditions or approvals, the Applicant will notify the Director of Public Works and/or Director of Community and Economic Development to determine precedence.
4.5 Not used.
4.6 All conditions herein will be met prior to the Grading or Encroachment Permit issuance for the CUP or as specifically modified by item as linked to a Certificate of Occupancy (COO) issuance and/or time limit from the date of issuance of the Grading and/or Encroachment Permit.
4.7 References to “approved by the city” include the following city staff to be contacted as applicable to the specific approval:
i. The Director of Public Works, or
ii. The Director of Community and Economic Development, or iii. The City Engineer, or
iv. Chief Building Official.
4.8 Prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit by the city, the Applicant will obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, where required:
i. City of Cathedral City Fire Marshal.
ii. Cathedral City Public Works Department.
iii. Cathedral City Development Services Department.
iv. Riverside County Environmental Health Department.
v. Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD).
vi. Desert Water Agency (DWA).
vii. Southern California Edison (SCE).
viii. Frontier Communications.
ix. Spectrum Cable.
x. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (RCALUC). xi. California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). 29 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
xii. State Water Resources Control Board.
xiii. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
xiv. Sunline Transit Agency (SunLine).
xv. South Coast Air Quality Management District – Coachella Valley (SCAQMD).
xvi. Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFCD).
The Applicant is responsible for all the requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above-mentioned agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the Applicant will furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvement plans for city approval.
4.9 Approval of this CUP will not be construed as approval for any horizontal and/or vertical dimensions implied by any site plans or exhibits unless specifically identified in the following Conditions of Approval.
4.10 The Applicant will reimburse the city, within thirty (30) days of presentation of the invoice, all costs and actual attorney fees incurred by the City Attorney to prepare, review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions and/or subsequent modification requests to these Conditions of Approval. This obligation will be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and the Applicant’s failure to make such payment will be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval.
4.11 The Applicant will reimburse the city, within thirty (30) days of presentation of the invoice, all cost and actual consultant’s fees incurred by the city for engineering, surveying and/or any other technical consultants to review and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions and/or subsequent modification requests. This obligation will be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and the Applicant’s failure to make such payment will be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval.
4.12 The Applicant will reimburse the city, within thirty (30) days of presentation of the invoice, all actual costs incurred by the city for Public Works and/or Community and Economic Development Departments reviews and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions and/or subsequent modification requests. This obligation will be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and the Applicant’s failure to make such payment will be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval.
REAL PROPERTY
4.13 Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the Applicant will acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed CUP. Conferred rights will include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the city for emergency services, maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. 30 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
4.14 Pursuant to the condition, conferred rights will include approvals from all necessary persons or entities over easements and other property rights necessary for construction and proper functioning of the proposed CUP, not limited to access rights over proposed and/or existing private streets that access public streets and open space/drainage facilities of all phases of the CUP.
Specifically:
i. If utility easements exist where the proposed CUP is proposed, in accordance with the provisions of the City Municipal Code and prior to CUP approval, these easements will either be quitclaimed or terminated by their owners, or the city will be provided with “non-interference” letters from the easement owners stating that the Applicant’s proposed CUP will not interfere with their easements.
ii. The Owner of Record will be responsible for blow sand, debris, trash, rubbish and deleterious material removal in all areas of the CUP’s parking lots and Bolero Road and Carey Road frontage areas, including gutter pans, sidewalks, parkways, drive aisles, entry areas and all interior areas within walled areas and all other areas outside walled areas of the CUP.
The Owner of Record will include these responsibilities in the regular maintenance of the site for perpetuity and will record a Maintenance Covenant on APNs 681-310-019 and 040.
iii. The Owner of Record will be responsible for the daily maintenance of the interior and exterior (right of way frontage) landscaping continually in a condition to COO or better (matured) and will be required to enter into a Landscaping Maintenance Agreement, which includes improvement securities as cited further in Condition 4.62 of these Conditions of Approval.
Further, the Owner of Record will include these landscaping responsibilities in the regular maintenance of the site for perpetuity and will include these responsibilities in the Maintenance Covenant cited above in 4.14.ii.
iv. The Owner of Record will offer for dedication to the city those easements necessary for access to drainage facilities and basins and execute and record a separate Drainage System and Basin Covenant with the city prior to issuance of the COO.
4.15 N/A.
31 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
4.16 The Applicant will retain for private use on the CUP all parking lots, drive aisles, alleys, access ways, entry areas and rights of way in conformance with the Cathedral City General Plan, Municipal Code and/or as required by the city.
4.17 When the city determines that access rights to a proposed street right -of-way shown on the CUP are necessary prior to the issuance of the COO, the Owner of Record will grant the necessary rights -of-way within 60 days of a written request by the city.
4.18 Where applicable, where public facilities (e.g. sidewalks) are placed on privately owned setbacks, the Owner of Record shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes by separate instrument prior to the issuance of the first COO.
4.19 The Applicant shall cause all missing property corners and survey monuments within the boundaries of the CUP to be set and file the required Record of Survey prior to the issuance of the COO.
4.20 The Applicant will furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which, and not limited to, grading, wall construction, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, street improvements, sidewalks, driveways, utility relocations, other encroachments and other construction activities will occur.
i. Further, all abutting properties disturbed by the Applicants, and not limited to, grading, wall construction, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, street improvements, sidewalks, driveways, utility relocations, other encroachments and other construction activities performed by the Applicant, will be restored to original and/or improved conditions subject to city inspection.
4.21 The Applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the CUP and the date of issuance of the COO, unless such easement is approved by the city.
4.22 The Applicant will be responsible for the vacation, quitclaim or granting of easements that address changes in the existing easements over the proposed CUP that may be affected by proposed improvements. Pursuant to this Condition, the Applicant will apply to the city for any street vacation request of public right -of-way and/or utility easements. The Applicant must provide all applicable exhibits and legal descriptions and perform all necessary abandonments or relocation of easements and/or facilities as required by all affected utility purveyors over the public rights -of-way and/or utility easements.
Typically, the right -of-way vacation process may take up to three (3) months to complete.
PHASE I, SWPPP, STORMWATER AND NPDES REQUIREMENTS
32 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
4.23 The Applicant, where applicable, will be responsible for completing all CUP approved Phase I Study, city, Riverside County and Riverside County Department of Environmental Health requirements, respectively. Proof of compliance will be submitted to the city before issuance of any permit for the CUP.
4.24 The Applicant’s wind and erosion control plans (separate plans) will include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices (“BMPs”), but not limited to:
i. Temporary soil stabilization (erosion control).
ii. Temporary sediment control.
iii. Wind erosion control.
iv. Track out control.
v. Non-storm water management.
vi. Waste management and materials pollution control.
vii. Retention and infiltration basins management.
viii. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the Applicant will be approved by the city prior to implementation.
ix. All erosion control BMPs will remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the city.
4.25 The Applicant’s CUP PM -10 and erosion control plans (separate plans and/or packet) will include provisions for all the above cited Best Management Practices (“BMPs”).
4.26 This CUP will comply with the Cathedral City Floodplain Management Ordinance §8.24.
4.27 The Applicant will design and construct facilities to capture all onsite nuisance and stormwater, with breakout facilities, within the paved and landscaped areas of the CUP, per Cathedral City Municipal Code §8.24 requirements and other conditions generally shown on the CUP’s Plans and submitted in the CUP’s June 16, 2025 Preliminary Hydrology Study.
4.28 Final stormwater handling will conform to a final approved Hydrology Study for the CUP. The design of the Project will not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels, or frequencies in any area outside the CUP.
4.29 Stormwater and nuisance water (drainage) for the CUP will be retained on site and will be disposed of in an approved manner. Nuisance water shall be disposed of via on-site storm drains, catch basins, underground percolation piping, retention basin(s) and/or a combination of the aforementioned (as generally shown on the CUP’s Plans) as approved by the city.
All retention systems will be designed for full containment of the 100 year-3-hour 33 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
storm event. All infiltration rates used in calculations for said retention basins or underground systems will conform to the CUP’s Geotechnical Infiltration Report or no more than 2-inches per hour (2.0”/hr.), whichever is less. All proposed infiltration locations will be at the proposed bottom of the retention basin and/or underground retention system elevation. No drainage water storage facility shall detain or retain standing water for longer than 36 hours.
The minimum precipitation frequency rate utilized for the 100 year-3-hour storm event shall be at the current rate published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and RCFCD and approved by the city. All flows for the proposed drainage system (catch basins, piping, etc.) will be calculated utilizing the largest flow rate of the 100-year storm event (1 - hour, 3 - hour, 6 - hour or 24 - hour).
4.30 Storm water drainage historically received from adjoining properties will be received and retained and/or passed though into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
4.31 The Applicant will comply with applicable provisions for post construction runoff per the Cathedral City’s NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; the Californian Regional Water Quality Control Board – Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Regional Board Order No. R7-2013-0011 and the State Water Resources Control Board’s Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ.
i. For post-construction, urban runoff from New Development and Redevelopment Projects, the Applicant will implement requirements of the NPDES permit for the design, construction and the covenants for the perpetual operation and maintenance of BMPs per the approved revised/updated Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project as require by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Colorado River Basin (CWQRCB- CRB) Region Board Order No. R7- 2013-0011.
ii. The Applicant will implement the revised/updated WQMP Design Standards per (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2013-0011 utilizing BMPS approved by the city.
iii. The Owner of Record will execute and record a Water Quality Management Plan and Urban Runoff Best Management Practices Transfer, Access and Maintenance Covenant with the city (as part of the WQMP) on the CUP prior to the issuance of the first COO
4.32 Retention basins will be designed as follows:
i. The minimum slopes accepted without security fencing will be 3:1. ii. Slopes will be lined with 3-inch to 6-inch angular rock over weed block. 34 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
iii. The bottom will not be rock lined or landscaped.
iv. Landscaping will be allowed on the top bench.
v. A maintenance access route to the bottom of the retention basin will be provided.
vi. A basin elevation monument will be installed at the bottom of each retention basin and visible when driving by.
OFFSITE PUBLIC ROADWAYS
4.33 All traffic impacts and mitigations are in conformance to the city accepted “King’s School Expansion – Traffic Impact Analysis” letter prepared by Christiansen & Company, August 18, 2025.
4.34 Public road information:
i. Carey Road information – a General Plan designated residential collector roadway which is currently constructed as follows:
1. Curb to curb width is 40 feet.
a. There is no parking restriction on either side of the street. b. Right of way width is 60 feet with a half right of way width of 30 feet.
c. A 5-foot curb adjacent sidewalk on the north and south side of the CUP’s Carey Road frontage is constructed connecting to existing sidewalks west and south of the CUP.
ii. Bolero Drive information – a City of Palm Springs roadway designated residential collector roadway which is currently constructed as follows:
1. Curb to curb width is 40 feet.
a. There are restrictions on parking designated on both sides of the street.
b. Right of way width is 50 feet with a half right of way width of 25 feet.
c. A 5 -foot curb adjacent sidewalk on the south side of the CUP’s Bolero Drive frontage is constructed connecting to existing sidewalks east and west of the CUP.
4.35 The Applicant will design and construct the following public street improvements:
i. Within the City of Palm Springs (subject to City of Palm Springs approval and permit):
1. A Riverside County Standard (RC) 207A driveway approximately 16 feet wide at the CUP’s northeastern corner to accommodate the northeastern private driveway access.
ONSITE PRIVATE ROADWAYS
35 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
4.36 The Applicant will design and construct the following private street improvements within and abutting the CUP to be retained for private use:
i. The southern access driveway starting from Carey Road abutting the CUP’s south frontage. - as generally shown on the CUP’s plans, to be reconstructed as follows:
1. The Applicant will construct 3 inches of new asphalt concrete (a.c.) over 4- 1/2 inches of Class II base the full width of the private access driveway (approximately 24 feet wide) from the existing access gate approximately 45 feet north of Carey Road to southern parking lot and collecting drive aisle (approximately 240 feet) and as generally shown on the CUP’s Plans.
2. The applicant will replace the two (2) existing utility box lids with traffic rated H -20 lids located approximately 25 feet north of Carey Road along the west side of the southern access driveway south of the existing access gate near the call box area.
ii. The northern access driveway from Bolero Drive abutting the CUP’s north frontage. - as generally shown on the CUP’s plans, to be reconstructed as follows:
1. The Applicant will construct 3 inches of new a.c. over 4- 1/2 inches of Class II base the full width of the private access driveway (transitions from approximately 16 to 20 feet wide) from the CUP’s northern Bolero Drive driveway to the southern parking lot and collecting drive aisle (approximately 240 feet) and as generally shown on the CUP’s Plans.
iii. The southern parking lot and collecting drive aisle abutting adjacent APN 681-310-009 within the CUP - as generally shown on the CUP’s plans, to be reconstructed as follows
1. The Applicant will construct 3 inches of new a.c. over 4- 1/2 inches of Class II base the full width of the parking drive aisle (approximately 24 feet wide) and parking spaces area
(approximately 19 feet wide) from the northern termination of the southern access driveway to the southern termination of the northern access driveway (approximately 240 feet) and as generally shown on the CUP’s Plans.
4.37 All onsite traffic mitigation/management, queuing and active/passive signage are to be integrated into the onsite precise grading plans, separate signage and striping plans and/or in conformance with a city required “Traffic Management Plan”, subject to the approval of the city.
i. The private access driveways and parking lot collecting drive aisles will provide ingress and egress for employees, suppliers and service vehicles. There shall be no stopping, standing, or parking in the access driveways.
ii. Parents, students, employee, and service vehicle parking is allowed only in designated areas as generally shown on the CUP’s Plans. 36 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
iii. Stormwater collection on the CUP’s drive aisles and parking lots will be via surface sheet flow to A-6 gutter pan areas and inlet drains constructed to transport water to the CUP’s retention basins as generally shown on the CUP’s Plans.
SPECIFIC DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
4.38 The Applicant will design and construct the CUP’s public or private roadways corresponding to the following standards:
i. Pavement:
1. The Applicant will design public or private street pavement sections using Caltrans’s design procedure for 20- year life pavement, and the site-specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections, with asphalt placed in two lifts will be:
a. Bolero Drive a.c. repairs adjacent RC 207A driveway repairs will be as follows:
i. Subject to the City of Palm Springs permit and
inspection requirements; or,
ii. 1” over existing, whichever is greater.
b. Onsite access driveways, parking lot and collecting drive aisle will be as follows:
i. 3.0” a.c. over 4.5” class II base with 12” at 95%
compaction.
ii. Sidewalks:
1. The Applicant will construct non- adjacent to curb concrete sidewalks or adjacent to curb concrete sidewalks as generally shown on the CUP’s Plans in conformance with ADA requirements using RC Std. 401.
iii. Curbs and Gutters:
1. The Applicant will construct curbs in accordance with (as applicable):
a. RC Std. 200 Type A-6 Curb and Gutter (6” curb face); or, b. RC Std. 204 Type “D” Curb (6” curb face).
c. On streets with no parking is allowed on one side of the street or both sides of the street the street curbing will be painted red with white stenciling of “NO PARKING FIRE
LANE.”
d. Curbs will be constructed to convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue during street sweeping operations.
iv. Cross Gutters and Spandrels:
1. RC Std. 209 Cross Gutter and Spandrel.
2. RC Std. 210 Cross Gutter and Spandrel with Splash Area. v. Dead Ends:
37 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
1. Whether interim of permanent, the “Dead End” on private drive aisles will incorporate signing, striping and/or improvements to minimize turning conflicts to be approved by the city.
vi. Corner Curve Radii:
1. The Applicant will construct corners with the following curve radii criteria:
a. Onsite driveways within the CUP: 25- foot to 35 -foot, and/or radii as generally shown on the CUP’s Plans.
b. Entryway streets from public streets connecting the CUP:
minimum 25 to 35-foot radii to be shown on the CUP’s Plans to be approved by the city.
vii. ADA Ramps:
1. The Applicant will construct ADA ramps to Caltrans A88A Standards using the appropriate Case or Detail on and offsite of the CUP.
viii. Connectivity:
1. The Applicant will ensure that the CUP’s infrastructure is built with connectivity to the north, south, west, or east with roadways, drainage facilities, sidewalks, ADA paths of travel, utilities and all other infrastructure necessary for completing the CUP.
ix. Line of Sights:
1. The Applicant will remove/relocate and/or reconstruct all existing landscaping, monuments and/or structures that the city determines to impair vehicle, bicycle and/or pedestrian line- of-sights along all the frontages associated with this CUP.
GENERAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
4.39 The Applicant will construct all streets, parking areas, drive aisles, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, and driveways to uniformly connect to existing adjacent public and/or private improvements within and adjacent the CUP.
4.40 The Applicant will construct all appurtenant roadway components such as, but not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, ADA ramps, traffic control striping, legends, traffic control signs and street name signs in accordance with city and MUTCD standards.
4.41 The Applicant will construct and dedicate streets and related street improvements to conform to the General Plan and/or requirements of the CUP’s Traffic Letter.
4.42 The Applicant will construct full crowned street improvements and coordinate all public and private roadway improvements, driveway transitions, relocation of fire hydrants, water meters, storm drains, and all other appurtenances as required.
4.43 Right-of-Way geometry for property line corner cutbacks at curb returns will conform to RC Std. 805.
38 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
4.44 Improvements will be designed and constructed in accordance with city adopted standards, supplemental drawings, and specifications.
4.45 All public and private improvements will be subject to city requirements and inspection during construction.
4.46 The city will conduct final inspections of building structures when the building structures have improved street and sidewalk access to publicly maintained streets. The improvements will include the required traffic control devices, pavement markings, ADA improvements and street name signs.
4.47 The Applicant will complete the final pavement lift prior to the COO of the CUP.
STREET LIGHTS
4.48 N/A.
OVERHEAD AND OTHER UTILITIES
4.49 Where applicable, the Applicant will coordinate and pay all cost necessary for the undergrounding and removal of all, and not limited to, aerial wires, power lines, telephone wires, cable lines, communication equipment, pole under burden and respective poles that are within this CUP prior to the issuance of the COO.
i. Where existing overhead utilities exist, the Applicant will seek a concurrence from the city on which lines are and/or are not subject to undergrounding per Cathedral City Municipal Code §8.30.050, after which, the Applicant will coordinate all undergrounding of existing facilities with each respective utility, service provider and adjacent properties owners to ensure that all aerial lines are
removed/undergrounded from the CUP’s property.
ii. If applicable, the Applicant will coordinate and pay all cost necessary for the undergrounding and removal of all, and not limited to, aerial wires, power lines, telephone wires, cable lines, communication equipment, pole under burden and respective poles that are within this CUP prior to the issuance of the first COO.
iii. If applicable, the Applicant will coordinate all undergrounding of existing facilities with each respective utility, service provider and adjacent properties owners to ensure that all aerial lines are removed from the CUP’s site.
4.50 The Applicant will obtain approval from the city for the location of all utility lines within any right -of-way, and all above- ground utility structures including, but not 39 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes.
4.51 All service runs and new utilities will be installed underground, per the utility purveyor standards.
4.52 Underground utilities will be installed prior to overlaying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the Applicant will comply with trench restoration requirements required by the city.
4.53 The Applicant will provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for city approval.
4.54 The CUP will be served with a gravity sanitary sewer system, a domestic water system and a fire protection system in accordance with DWA and Cathedral City Fire Department requirements and standards. Applicant will pay to the city and DWA all applicable sewer and water service charges, capacity charges and construction reimbursements to ensure all services are complete, in place and operational prior to the COO being issued.
4.55 The Applicant will abandon or relocate existing easements over the CUP prior to the issuance of the COO as required by the agency and/or individual favored and as approved by the city. Additionally, the Applicant will relocate existing utility facilities that are required by all utility purveyors prior to issuance of the first building permit.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as “engineer,”’ “surveyor,” and “architect,” refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California.
4.56 Improvement plans will be prepared, for each phase, by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and will comply with all the requirements of the city.
4.57 The following improvement plans will be prepared and submitted for review to the city. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below will be prepared.
The plans will utilize the minimum scale specified, unless authorized by the city.
Plans may be prepared on a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired.
NOTE: Engineering Site Plans will be prepared by a Civil Engineer licensed to practice their profession in the State of California.
NOTE: The Applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and 40 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
utility purveyors.
A. Precise Grading Plan 1” = 10’ Horizontal
B. PM 10 Packet (Plan submitted in report form)
C. Erosion Control Plan 1” = 20’ Horizontal
D. WQMP (Plan submitted in report form)
E. On Site Storm Drain Plan (not applicable) 1” = 20’ Horizontal F. Street Signing/Striping Plan (not applicable) 1” = 20’ Horizontal
NOTE: A through D to be submitted concurrently.
NOTE: Precise Grading Plan will normally include perimeter wall with Top of Wall and Top of Footing elevations shown. All footings will have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
NOTE: The Precise Grading Plan will show the sidewalk in the combined parkway and landscape setback area.
NOTE: Separate Storm Drain Plan if applicable and/or required by the city.
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for city approval that are not listed above will be prepared in formats approved by the city prior to commencing plan preparation.
All plans will show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200 feet beyond the CUP’s limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
All Signing and Striping Plans will show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (RPMs) (including Blue RPMs at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Cathedral City Standard Plans and/or as approved by the city.
4.58 The Applicant will furnish accurate mylars of all improvement plans, to the city for approval. The improvement plans will be of a scale approved by the city.
4.59 The Applicant will furnish a PDF copy of all approved improvement plans acceptable to the city.
4.60 Upon completion of construction, and prior to final acceptance of the improvements by the city, the Applicant will furnish the city with reproducible record drawings, of all improvement plans which were approved by the city.
Each sheet will be clearly marked “As Built” and will be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant will have all approved Mylars previously submitted to the city, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. The Applicant will employ or 41 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
retain the Engineer of Record (EOR) during the construction phase of the project so that the EOR can make site visits in support of preparing “As Built”. However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the city and reflect said “As Built” conditions, the EOR may submit a letter attesting to said fact to the city in lieu of Mylar submittal.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
4.61 A Public Works Completion Agreement may be required prior to the issuance of an Encroachment Permit(s) for the CUP’s improvements. The Public Works Completion Agreement will be entered into by and between the Applicant and the city, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of the public improvements related to the CUP and shall comply with all applicable city codes and ordinances
All required improvement securities shall be in a form and amount as approved by the City Attorney and city. Evidence of liability and worker’s compensation insurance coverage shall be submitted as required by the terms of the Public Works Completion Agreement.
4.62 A Landscaping Maintenance Agreement is required prior to the issuance of the COO of the CUP and will be released one year after the COO of the CUP was issued. The Landscaping Maintenance Agreement will be entered into by and between the Applicant and the city, for the purpose of guaranteeing the establishment of all offsite and onsite landscaping improvements, including and not limited to, planted trees, bushes, shrubs, etc. installed by the Applicant as required for the CUP in compliance will all applicable city codes and ordinances.
All required landscaping maintenance securities shall be in a form and amount as approved by the City Attorney and city. Evidence of liability and worker’s compensation insurance coverage shall be submitted as required by the terms of the Landscaping Maintenance Agreement.
4.63 Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements and/or may provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation.
Improvements and obligations required shall be either complete prior to the issuance of the COO of the CUP, or as otherwise approved by the city.
In the event the Applicant fails to construct the improvements for this CUP or fails to satisfy its obligations for this CUP in a timely manner, the city shall have the right to halt issuance of permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of this CUP.
4.64 Prior to improvement plans approval, the Applicant will submit applicable fees or deposits for the cost of reviewing the applicable, and not limited to, Public Works 42 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
Completion Agreement(s), Landscaping Covenant, Drainage Covenant, Mutual Drainage Easements, Street Light Covenant, PM -10 Cleanup Mitigation Covenant and/or any other requests or form submittals made by the Applicant related to the CUP. Once approved by the city, the Applicant will execute and record such Covenants and/or easements.
4.65 If applicable, the Applicant will provide security to guarantee the final monumentation of the CUP. All securities for the final survey monumentation will be in the form of 100% cash deposits
GRADING
4.66 The Applicant will comply with all the provisions of Cathedral City municipal codes and ordinances.
4.67 The Applicant will obtain a Grading Permit approved by the city prior to initiating any construction or on the project site.
4.68 To obtain an approved Grading Permit, the applicant will submit and obtain approval of all of the following:
i. A Grading Plan prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of California,
ii. A preliminary geotechnical (“Soils”) Report prepared by a professional registered in the State of California,
iii. A Fugitive Dust Control Packet prepared in accordance with city requirements,
iv. An Erosion Control Plan prepared in accordance with city requirements, v. A WQMP prepared by an authorized professional registered in the State of California, and
vi. Where applicable, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) issued by FEMA. If the Applicant is not securing a CLOMR the Applicant must verify that the entire Project limits are outside a FEMA designated Flood Hazard Area and/or Area of Flood Hazard Risk as designated by the latest approved FEMA FIRM Map and in accordance with the Cathedral City Municipal Code Chapter 8.24.
4.69 All grading will conform with the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report and Phase 1 Environmental Assessment report (if having been required) and will be certified as being adequate by the soils engineer, or engineering geologist registered in the State of California.
4.70 A statement will appear in the CUP’s Grading Plans that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code §17953 and California Government Code §66490.
43 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
4.71 The Applicant will furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
Additionally, the Applicant will replenish said security if expended by the city to comply with the Fugitive Dust Control Plan as required by the city.
4.72 N/A.
4.73 The Applicant will maintain all open graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land will either be planted with interim landscaping, stabilized with other erosion control measures, or maintained as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
4.74 Grading within the parkway areas will conform to city requirements except as otherwise modified by this condition. The maximum slope will not be steeper than 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the back slope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscaped lot) which will not be steeper than 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The steepest slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb will not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six feet (6’) of the curb, otherwise the steepest slope within the right of way will not be steeper than 3:1. All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb will be depressed one and one- half inches (1.5”) in the first eighteen inches (18’) behind the curb.
4.75 Building pad elevations on the Plans submitted for city’s approval shall conform to the pad elevations shown on the improvement plans, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in the Conditions of Approval.
4.76 Prior to any site grading or re- grading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus half of a foot (0.5’) from the elevation shown on the approved Grading Plans, the Applicant will submit the proposed grading changes to the city for a substantial conformance review.
4.77 Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the CUP, the Applicant will provide a parcel pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor with applicable compaction tests and over excavation documentation. Each pad certification will list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification will also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. If there are multiple lots, the data will be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
SECTION 5 FIRE PROTECTION
This project has been reviewed as a “ Group B” type occupancy. Any other use will 44 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
require further review.
Unless specifically stated herein, these conditions shall not be construed to permit or allow deviation from any Federal or State laws nor any of the local codes and ordinances adopted by this jurisdiction. The City of Cathedral City enforces the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 9, 2022 California Fire Code with local amendments, and the CCFD Development Guidelines. In addition, CCR Title 19 requirements may be applicable. The design professional should refer to these provisions for guidance when developing project drawings and specifications. Please contact the City of Cathedral City Fire Department for any questions regarding compliance with the applicable codes or following conditions:
Note: All references to the 2022 California Fire Code are shown as CFC, the 2022 California Building Code is shown as CBC and the California Code of Regulations are shown as CCR.
AGENCY APPROVALS
5.1 The Final Conditions of Approval for this project shall be included in any site plan or construction plans submitted for permit issuance. Plans will not be approved without reference to these conditions.
5.2 A clear scope of operations shall be provided on the architectural plan cover sheet.
5.3 All deferred submittals (when approved to be deferred) shall be listed on the cover sheet of the architectural plan.
5.4 Occupancy separation, if required, shall comply with 2022 CA Building Code Table 508.4.
5.5 This project is subject to review and approval in accordance with the CCR, Title 19 for Fire and Life Safety.
5.6 This project is subject to an annual inspection and permit from the Cathedral City Fire Department for this type of occupancy (use).
LIFE SAFETY AND FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
5.7 A fire access plan shall be submitted to the Cathedral City Fire Department for review and approval. This plan shall demonstrate access to and around all portions of the proposed structures to within 150 feet of an approved access road. The plan shall indicate all existing and proposed fire hydrants for the project. The plan shall note any existing and or new proposed gates on the project.
5.8 A water availability/fire flow test shall be conducted and the minimum fire flow shall be available for the project.
45 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
5.9 Architectural plans shall be submitted to the Cathedral City Building Department for review and approval.
5.10 Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, "No Parking - Fire Lane" signs, red curbing, street signs and other required markings shall be provided to the specifications of the Cathedral City Fire Department in accordance with the CFC, Section 503.3 and California Vehicle Code Section 22500.1.
5.11 In accordance with the CFC, Section 503, security gates (where required), shall be installed with approved automatic devices and/or key switches to allow Fire access and egress pursuant to the Cathedral City Fire Department guidelines.
5.12 Install Knox key box and/or Knox key switch/padlock for vehicle gate (if applicable) for Fire Department access in accordance with CFC Section 506.
5.13 Means of Egress shall be in compliance with the 2022 CA Building Code Chapter 10 with a scaled, measured emergency egress plan provided as part of the architectural plan for review.
5.14 Fire extinguishers are to be installed throughout the facility, covering a floor area of not more than 1,500ft2 at a maximum of 75ft travel distance and have a minimum rating of 2- A:10-B:C in accordance with the 2022 CA Fire Code Section 906.
5.15 Plans for the fire sprinkler system shall be submitted for approval and shall meet the design requirements of NFPA 13
5.16 Plans for the fire alarm system shall be submitted for approval and shall meet the design requirements of NFPA 72.
SECTION 6 BUILDING DEPARTMENT
General Conditions
6.1 Shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as applicable:
2022 California Building Code
2022 California Electrical Code
2022 California Mechanical Code
2022 California Plumbing Code
2022 California Energy Code
2022 California Fire Code
2022 California Green Building Standards Code
6.2 Accessible Parking shall comply with California Building Code minimum standards;
46 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
A. Minimum one (1) Van Accessible parking spot required.
B. Accessible route to building shall comply
6.3 Refer to Fire Marshal’s comments regarding Fire and Smoke Suppression Systems.
6.4 The requirements of the Air Quality Management District for Rule 1403 shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of any Demolition, Tenant Improvement or residential alteration permit. Link can be found here, chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defa ult-source/compliance/Asbestos-Demolition-/1403-frequently-asked- questions.pdf
6.5 Any additions or alteration, temporary building, trailer, commercial coach, etc. installed and/or used in connection with a construction project shall comply with City Code and respective building permits shall be obtained.
A. Sales trailer/office (temporary or permanent) open to the public, shall comply with minimum accessibility requirements.
B. Parking, signage and accessible route from parking to office.
6.6 All detached shade structures exceeding 120 sqft., Picnic Area, or swimming pool shall require permits.
6.7 If demolition is to occur, compliance with SoCal AQMD requirements for minimum reporting requirements shall be submitted through AQMD prior to permit issuance.
A. A demolition permit shall be obtained for the project.
B. An asbestos report shall be provided with demo application.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING/CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
6.8 If hazardous substances are used and/or stored, a technical opinion and report, identifying and developing methods of protection from the hazards presented by the hazardous materials, may be required. This report shall be prepared by a qualified person, firm, or corporation and submitted to Building & Safety. This report shall also explain the proposed facility's intended methods of operation and list all of the proposed materials, their quantities, classifications, and the effects of any chemical (material) inter -mixing in the event of an accident or spill.
Approved for Planning Entitlements by the Cathedral City City Council on December 10, 2025.
Attest:
47 Conditional Use Permit No. 25-0003
Administrative Variance No. 25-0006
City Council Conditions of Approval
January 14, 2026
________________________ ______________________________ Dominique Camps Don Delair
Associate Planner Applicant
48 1
Section 15162 Consistency Evaluation – King’s Schools Campus Expansion (67675 Bolero Road) Conditional Use Permit 25-0003 and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 25-0001
Note: The sections of this document that are italicized and bold were revised following the Planning Commission hearing on September 3, 2025.
Purpose
The Environmental Impact Report for the Cathedral City 2040 General Plan Update and Active Transportation Plan (SCH #201808012) was certified by the City Council on July 28, 2021. This memo evaluates the consistency of proposed project, comprised of Conditional Use Permit 25-0003 (amending CUP 93-199), Administrative Variance 25 -0006, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 25 -0001 (amending Chapter 9.24 of Title 9 of the C athedral City Municipal Code), with the previously adopted General Plan EIR, as well as the eligibility for exemption from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Background and Project Description
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION:
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 93-199 was approved on February 2, 1994, for the renovation of the King’s Schools campus located at 67675 Bolero Road. The existing facilities had previously been occupied by the Palm Valley School and included approximately 17,000 square feet of building area. CUP 93 -199 was approved for the King’s Schools to renovate and expand the existing campus, including adding approximately 25,000 square feet of building area over two phases of construction , for a total of 40,954 square feet of building area. An Initial Study Negative Declaration (Environmental Assessment No. 93-516) was approved for CUP 93 -199 and adopted by the Planning Commission with the CUP (Resolution No.
P94-654).
The full expansion approved for CUP 93-199 was never built out in its entirety. As of May 2025, there are 26,594 square feet of existing on -campus facilities, out of the total 40,954 square feet approved for the original CUP.
On February 4, 2025, the King’s Schools submitted a Conditional Use Permit Revision application (CUP 25- 0003) to renovate and expand the on-campus facilities. This application proposes to revise the site plan approved for CUP 93 -199 to add an additional 11,094 square feet of building area over what was previously approved, for a total of 52,048 square feet (Attachment 1 – Existing and Proposed Site Plan).
The proposed renovation would result in an additional 25,454 square feet over what exists on the campus today, which includes a private preschool, elementary school (kindergarten through fifth grade) , and middle school (sixth through eighth grade). The intent for the proposed CUP Revision is to provide more 49 2
space for the school’s existing student population and will not support an increase in student capacity.
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE:
The proposed campus renovation would include construction of a gymnasium for indoor recreation. The proposed gymnasium would be 28 ’-7” at the highest point, which exceeds the 26 ’ maximum height for non-lodging facilities in the RR (Resort Residential) district. The project applicant is requesting an administrative variance to allow an increase of ten percent over the maximum permitted building height.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT:
The project site is located within the planning area for Specific Plan 88-30, established in 1988. The Specific Plan, which covers approximately 45 acres, designates a base zone of R3 (Multiple -Family Residential) over the project site. Schools, either public or private, are permitted in the R3 zone subject to a conditional use permit.
However, with the 2002 General Plan Update, the City’s General Plan Land Use Map was amended to designate the subject site as Resort Residential (RR). For consistency with this General Plan Update, the City’s Zoning Map was amended, resulting in the subjec t site being rezoned to RR. Schools are not a permitted use in the RR zoning district.
To facilitate the proposed renovation and expansion of the long -established King’s Schools campus, the project proposes a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add schools (including public and private schools, but not business or trade schools) as a permitted use in the RR district subject to a conditional use permit.
This amendment does not propose any other changes in permitted uses or development standards in the RR district, and will apply to properties City-wide that are zoned RR.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 Criteria
Section 15162 (SUBSEQUENT EIRS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS) (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
50 3
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.
Certified CEQA Document
The Environmental Impact Report for 2040 General Plan Update and Active Transportation Plan (referred to herein as the General Plan EIR) was certified by City Council on July 28, 2021. The EIR evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated with t he implementation of the City’s Comprehensive General Plan Update, including the proposed land use designations and the updated General Plan Land Use Map. The EIR analyzed environmental impacts using the existing physical conditions in the City as a baseline.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 Consistency Evaluation
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, when an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared unless new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur.
The General Plan EIR contemplated the 5.2 -acre project site including the existing 26,594 square feet of on-campus facilities and the Resort Residential (RR) land use designation. As set forth in the following discussion, staff have determined that the pro posed CUP Revision, Administrative Variance, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment are substantially consistent with the conditions analyzed in the General Plan EIR and therefore the proposed project would not result in any of the three criteria in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, as listed above. As such, no further environmental documentation is necessary.
(a) When an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
51 4
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identifie d significant effects
The project does not propose substantial changes that would require a revision to the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION:
As stated in the project description above, the conditional use permit for the original King’s Schools campus renovation was approved in 1994. During the preparation of the General Plan EIR in 2018 -2021, the campus existed and operated in its current state. The school, therefore, was accounted for in the baseline environmental conditions used to analyze potential impacts in the General Plan EIR.
The proposed revision to CUP 93 -199 would not expand the private school campus beyond the existing
5.2-acre site, nor does it propose any off-site improvements. All new construction would occur within the developed area of the project site. Project construction would be subject to all applic able construction and pre-construction mitigation measures established in the General Plan EIR, and no new impacts or changes in previously identified impacts would occur.
The proposed campus renovation will upgrade and expand the school’s classrooms, as well as administrative, operational, and multi-purpose spaces. This will include replacing existing portables with permanent buildings for classrooms, the construction of a new gymnasium for indoor recreation, as well as the construction of additional surface parking areas. A hydrology study and water quality management plan were prepared for the project to ensure that the new buildings and impervious surfaces will not impact water quality or result in increased run-off.
The proposed campus renovation will not support an increase in student capacity. The school’s enrollment is approximately 300 students (Attachment 2 – Student Enrollment). The preschool program has capacity for up to 75 students based on state licensing. The kindergarten through eighth grades each have one class per grade (nine classes total), with an average of 25 students and a maximum of 28 students per class. The campus currently has preschool five classrooms as well as one classroom per grade (nine total) for the kindergarten through eighth grade s. The proposed campus renovation would add one specialized preschool classroom, dedicated for indoor group activities, and five specialized classrooms for the kindergarten through eighth grades: three rooms dedicated to art, music, and computer courses, and two rooms dedicated to middle school elective courses. None of the proposed classrooms are intended to support increased student capacity. Given that that the CUP Revision would not result in a meaningful change in the number of students or staff, it also would not result in a significant increase in the traffic generated by the campus during daily operations, relative to the traffic and noise analyzed in the baseline conditions for the General Plan EIR.
52 5
Likewise, the campus renovation would not generate new sources of on-site noise, nor would the volume of noise generated by daily operations be expected to increase. Once the proposed gymnasium is constructed, n oise generated by typical operations may decrease as some physical education and recreation activities, currently held exclusively outdoors, are moved to indoor facilities . Overall, the proposed CUP Revision will not result in meaningful changes to the school’s standard operations, as analyzed in the baseline conditions for the General Plan EIR, including impacts related to transportation, air quality, noise, and public services.
In addition to day-to-day operations, the school also periodically organizes special events, such as open houses, student musicals, graduation, and fundraising events . Currently, these events are either held outdoors on the campus or at an off -site venue. After construction of the proposed gymnasium, the school intends to use the facility to host these events on -campus. All on-campus special events will be organized by the school for its students, and will be typical of events associated with schools. While these events would generate additional vehicle trips to and from the site, the increased traffic would be periodic and temporary, and therefore would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts.
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE:
The General Plan EIR analyzed land uses based on the land use designations established in the General Plan Land Use Map. This map designates the subject site as Resort Residential, which corresponds with the RR (Resort Residential) zoning district. The RR zoning district allows range of maximum building heights depending on the proposed land use and the type and proximity of surrounding land uses.
The proposed campus renovation would include construction of a multi -purpose building, including a gymnasium. The gymnasium portion of the proposed multi-purpose building would be 28’-7” tall, which exceeds the 26-foot maximum building height for non-lodging facilities in the RR district. This portion of the building is set back by approximately 80 feet from the nearest adjacent property, which is zoned RR.
A lodging facility on this same location would be allowed a building height of up to 40 feet.
The proposed 28’-7” building height would be allowed for lodging facilities in the RR district, and therefore is consistent with the intent of the Resort Residential land use designation. Therefore, the proposed height would have been accounted for in the conditions analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and no changes or revisions to the EIR would be needed to account for the proposed administrative variance.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT:
The General Plan EIR analyzed land uses based on the proposed designations set forth in Table LU -2 of the General Plan, which defines the purpose of the RR district as follows:
This low-density designation is intended to accommodate single family and attached residential development in a master planned resort setting. On- site amenities typically include golf courses, tennis and swimming facilities, as well as tourist/resort-serving commercial uses. This designation also allows hotels/motels and ancillary visitor and tourist-serving commercial uses. 53 6
The uses permitted in the RR zoning district (subject to a planned unit development permit or a conditional use permit) correspond with the uses described above, including single and multi-family dwellings as well as tourist-serving uses such as hotels, restaurants, golf courses, health spas, and conference rooms. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would add schools (either public or private, but not including business or trade schools) as a conditionally permitted use in the RR district.
Other than the RR zoning district, all the other residential zoning districts in the City (including RE, R1, R2, RM, R3, R4, DRN) permit schools with a conditional use permit. This indicates that schools are a use that is consistent and compatible with the intent of residential land use designations. The proposal to add schools as a conditionally permitted use in the RR zoning district would thus remain consistent with the purpose of the Resort Residential designation as set forth in the General Plan, as well as the current CUP approved for the school, which has been in place since 1994. Therefore, the proposed Z oning Ordinance Amendment would not require a general plan amendment for consistency and the project would not require major revisions to the General Plan EIR.
In addition to residential uses, the R esort Residential designation and RR zoning district contemplate tourist-serving commercial uses. Private and public schools would be expected to generate similar or less significant environmental effects – including in terms of transportation, air quality and greenhouse gas, public services and utility impacts – than these commercial uses that may support numerous employees and draw large numbers of visitors from the wider region and beyond.
Therefore, the impacts analyzed for the Resort Residential designation in the General Plan EIR would encompass potential impacts associated with public and private schools. As such, the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would not require major revisions of the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severi ty of previously identified significant effects; or
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR in 2021, there have been no substantial changes to the environmental setting that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts.
As set forth in subsection (a)(1) above, the King’s Schools campus was accounted for in the existing conditions analyzed in the EIR, and the proposed campus renovation , including the CUP Revision and Administrative Variance, will not result in substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the General Plan was undertaken. Likewise, the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add schools as a conditionally permitted use in the RR zoning district would remain consistent with the Resort Residential land use designation as analyzed in the EIR, and therefore no substantial changes with respect 54 7
to the circumstances under which the General Plan was undertaken will occur. The area surrounding the project site is mostly built out, and no other new projects are being contemplated at this time. The surrounding environmental conditions and regulatory requirements analyzed in the General Plan EIR remain current and therefore no revisions to the original analysis are required under CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(2).
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
The proposed project does not result in new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time of the General Plan EIR certification. a. The proposed project will not result in any significant effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. As demonstrated above, the General Plan EIR analyzed potential impacts and established mitigation measures for implementation of the General Plan based on the existing conditions and assuming build out of the land use map, including the Resort Residential designation. As discussed above, the proposed CUP Revision, Administrative Variance, and ZOA are substantially consistent with the conditions an alyzed in the General Plan EIR, and would not result in significant effects not previously discussed.
b. The proposed project would not result in substantially more severe significant effects than previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. As demonstrated above, the proposed CUP Revision, Administrative Variance, and ZOA are substantially consistent with the conditions analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and therefore would not result in substantially more severe significant effects than previously analyzed because no increase in school capacity will result, and the site is currently in use as a school.
c. Applicable mitigation measures established in the General Plan EIR will continue to apply to the 55 8
proposed project and will continue to adequately mitigate potential impacts. d. There are no additional mitigation measures that would apply to reduce any significant effects that were different than those analyzed under the General Plan EIR. The mitigation measures analyzed in the General Plan EIR will continue to apply to the proposed project.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.
The General Plan EIR covers the proposed project within its scope. As set forth in subdivision (a) above, no further documentation is required as the proposed project complies with the anticipated use for the
5.2-acre site as analyzed in the baseline conditions and anticipated for the Resort Residential designation.
Potential impacts from the proposed project were sufficiently analyzed in the General Plan EIR, no new circumstances have occurred and no new information of significance has become available sin ce the certification of the EIR. No further documentation is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
56 Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
_______________________________________________
Print Form
Notice of Exemption Appendix E
From: (Public Agency): ____________________________
To: Office of Planning and Research
P.O. Box 3044, Room 113 _______________________________________________Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 County Clerk
(Address)
___________________________
___________________________
County of: __________________
Project Title: ____________________________________________________________________________ Project Applicant: ________________________________________________________________________ Project Location - Specific:
Project Location - City: ______________________ Project Location - County:
Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project:
_____________________
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: _____________________________________________________ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Proj ect: ________________________________________________ Exempt Status: (check one):
Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268);
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
Reasons why project is exempt:
Lead Agency
Contact Person: ____________________________
Area Code/Telephone/Extension: _______________
If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No
Signature: ____________________________ Date:
Signed by Lead Agency
Signed by Applicant
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code. Date Received for filing at OPR:
Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code. _______________
Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: ____________________________________ ______________________________________________
______________ Title: _______________________
Revised 2011
City of Cathedral City
68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234
Riverside
2724 Gateway Drive
Riverside, CA 92507
King's Schools (CUP 25-0003, VAR 25-0006, ZOA 25-0001)
King's Schools of the Desert
67675 Bolero Road (APNs 681-310-019 and -040)
Cathedral City
Riverside
Proposal to revise Conditional Use Permit 93-199 to allow the construction of an additional 36,170 square feet of facilities on the existing King’s Schools campus. Administrative Variance to allow a 10% increase over the 26-foot maximum building height allowed for non-lodging facilities in the RR (Resort Residential) district. An amendment to Section 9.24.030 of the Cathedral City Municipal Code is proposed to allow schools as a permitted use in the RR district subject to a conditional use permit.
Cathedral City City Council
Dominique Camps
X
Section 15162 (SUBSEQUENT EIRS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS) The proposed CUP Revision, Administrative Variance, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment are substantially consistent with the conditions analyzed in the General Plan EIR and therefore the proposed project would not result in any of the criteria in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. As such, no further environmental documentation is necessary.
Dominique Camps
760-770-0380
■
57 N89° 09' 23"W 663.83'
N0° 19' 04"E 327.53'
N88° 57' 49"W 301.94'
N88° 57' 49"W 331.95'
N0° 19' 28"E 325.30'
N0° 19' 16"E 326.51'
N0° 19' 16"E 303.61'
R=45'
L=30'
K.A.C.
C.A.C.
K.A.C.
LOCATION:
BENCHELEV.DESIGN BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:DWG. NO.OF SHEETS
R.C.E. 50083
1 Christiansen & Company
Land Development - Design - Engineering
Est. 2007
5225 Canyon Crest Drive, Ste 251
Riverside, California 92507
Ph: 951-323-4713 Fax: 951-405-8410
email:[email protected]
APPROVED DATE REVISION
CORRECTED APPROVED
BYBY
DATE DATE
E;,67,N* &2N',7,2N6 6,7E 3L$N
.,N*'6 6&+22L E;3$N6,2N
K.A.C.
C.A.C.
K.A.C.
LOCATION:
BENCHMARK:ELEV.PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF:DESIGN BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,FILE NO.
DWG. NO.OF SHEETS
SHEET
KEITH A. CHRISTIANSEN
DATE
R.C.E. 50083
1 EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE PLAN
1 Christiansen & Company
Land Development - Design - Engineering
Est. 2007
5225 Canyon Crest Drive, Ste 251
Riverside, California 92507
Ph: 951-323-4713 Fax: 951-405-8410
email:[email protected]
APPROVED DATE
CORRECTED APPROVED
BYBY
DATE DATE
116363.23
BRONZE DISC. IN CONCRETE MONUMENT AT THE
BENCHMARK: FD. CATHEDRAL CITY
NE COR. OF DATE PALM DR. & RAMON RD. APPROX.
$3N 681310019 681310040
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DATE PALM/RAMON
20 FEET FROM EDGES OF PAVEMENT.
OWNER / MAINTENANCE ENTITY:
IN THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
KING'S SCHOOL EXPANSION
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE:
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE:
LIQUEFACTION: NO LIQUEFACTION AREA
FEMA FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION: ZONE X (FLOOD HAZARD IS UNDETERMINED, BUT POSSIBLE) PER FIRM MAP NO. 06065C1579G / DATED: AUGUST 28, 2008
NOTE:
REVISIONS: NO. DATE:DESCRIPTION:
EXISTING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
RR (RESORT RESIDENTIAL)
RR (RESORT RESIDENTIAL)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
EXISTING GROSS ACREAGE:
PROPOSED NET ACREAGE:
EXISTING BUILDINGS TO REMAIN, (16853 SF)
ASPHALT, CONCRETE, GUTTERS (XXXXX SF)
LANDSCAPE (XXXXX SF)
ACREAGE:
5.18 ACRES
5.18 ACRES
0.39 ACRES
X.XX ACRES
X.XX ACRES
X.XX ACRES
PRIVATE
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 681-310-019 & 040
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE: SCHEDULE "A"
SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY:
ADDRESS:
DATE OF TOPOGRAPHY:
INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS, INC.
7117 ARLINGTON AVENUE, SUITE "A"
RIVERSIDE, CA 92503
OCTOBER 1, 2023TELEPHONE: (951) 687-4252
EXHIBIT PREPARER:
ADDRESS:
CONTACT:
CHRISTIANSEN & COMPANY
5225 CANYON CREST DRIVE, SUITE 251
RIVERSIDE, CA 92507
KEITH CHRISTIANSENTELEPHONE: (951)323-4713
CONTACT:
LAND OWNER:
ADDRESS:
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
CONTACT:
DATA TABLE
KING'S SCHOOLS
67-675 BOLERO ROAD
CATHEDRAL CITY, CA 92234
DON DeLAIRTELEPHONE:(760) 324-5464
EXHIBIT DATE: JUNE 20, 2024
EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE PLAN
ARCHITECT:
ADDRESS:
CONTACT:
BGW ARCHITECT'S
2327 GRANT AVE.
OGDEN, UT 84401
DAVID TYSONTELEPHONE: (800)522-7137
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
ADDRESS:
CONTACT:
HERMANN DESIGN GROUP
77-899 WOLF ROAD, STE. 102
PALM DESERT, CA 92211
CHRIS HERMANNTELEPHONE: (760)777-9131
GEO/INFILTRATION:
ADDRESS:
CONTACT:
email:[email protected]
email:[email protected]
email:[email protected]
email:[email protected]
email:
PRIVATE
PRIVATE
PRIVATE
PRIVATE
EXISTING EASEMENT NOTES:
1 2
AREAS:
UTILITY PURVEYORS:
WATER -COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT PH: 760-398-2651 SEWER -COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT PH: 760-398-2651 ELECTRIC - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISONPH: 760-202-4252
GAS -SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY PH: 800-427-2200
TELEPHONE -FRONTIERPH: 760-864-1726
CABLE -SPECTRUMPH: 760-346-3714
GEOTECHNICAL:
ADDRESS:
CONTACT:
email:
1. THIS MAP INCLUDES THE ENTIRE CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND DIVIDER.
2. THERE ARE NO KNOWN WELL SON PROPERTY OR WITHIN 200 FEET OF PROPERTY.
3. THERE ARE NO EXISTING DWELLINGS, BUILDINGS, OR OTHER STRUCTURES KNOWN ON THIS PROPERTY.
4. SUBDIVISION WILL SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH CITY/COUNTY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PER A SEPARATE WQMP REPORT.
KING'S SCHOOLS
67-675 BOLERO ROAD
CATHEDRAL CITY, CA 92234
DON DeLAIRTELEPHONE:(760) 324-5464
email:[email protected]
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, (XXXXXX SF)
RR (RESORT RESIDENTIAL)
RR (RESORT RESIDENTIAL)
APN 681-310-019, -040KING'S SCHOOL EXPANSION
67-675 BOLERO ROAD - CATHEDRAL CITY, CA. 92234
BOLERO ROAD
SLADDEN ENGINEERING
45090 GOLF CENTER PARKWAY
INDIO, CA 92201
BRETT ANDERSONTELEPHONE: (760)863-0713
email:[email protected]
SLADDEN ENGINEERING
45090 GOLF CENTER PARKWAY
INDIO, CA 92201
BRETT ANDERSONTELEPHONE: (760)863-0713
email:[email protected]
TBD
TBD
TBD
E;,67,N* 32R7$%LE
E;,67,N* 32R7$%LEE;,67,N* 32R7$%LE
E;,67,N* 32R7$%LE
E;,67,N* 32R7$%LE
E;,67,N* %$LL &28R7
E;,67,N**R$9EL2$R.,N*
E;,67,N* 32R7$%LE
E;,67,N* 32R7$%LE
E;,67,N* 6+$'E 67R8&78RE
E;,67,N* *R$66 3L$<*R28N'
E;,67,N* *R$66 3L$<*R28N'
E;,67,N* 6+$'E 67R8&78RE
E;,67,N* 6+$'E 67R8&78RE
E;,67,N* 6<N7+E7,&
78R)
3L$<*R28N'
E;,67,N* RE7E7N,2N %$6,N
E;,67,N* %86 48E8,N*E;,67,N* 3$R.,N* L27
E;,67,N* %8,L',N*
E;,67,N* %8,L',N*
E;,67,N* %8,L',N*
E;,67,N* %8,L',N*
E;,67,N* 672R$*E
$RE$
E;,67,N* *R$9EL $&&E66 R2$'
E;,67,N* 6' %L2&. W$LL
E;,67,N* 6' &+$,N
L,N. )EN&E
E;,67,N* 6' %L2&. W$LL
E;,67,N* 6' %L2&. W$LL
E;,67,N* 6' &+$,N
L,N. )EN&E
E;,67,N* 6' &+$,N
L,N. )EN&E
E;,67,N* 6' &+$,NL,N. )EN&E
E;,67,N* 6' %L2&. W$LL
*$7E
*$7E
E;,67,N* 6' %L2&. W$LL
&L
*$7E
THE PALOMA RESORT
EL DORADO PALMS ESTATES
E;,67,N* 6' &8R% *877ER
E;,67,N* 12' 6EWER 0$,N
E;,67,N* 12' W$7ER 0$,N
),RE 63R,N.LER 6+872))E;,67,N*
E;,67,N*6" '&'$
6" 6EWER L$7. W &2E;,67,N*
6" 6EWER L$7. W &2E;,67,N*
L$N'6&$3EE;,67,N*0E7ER
6" 6EWER L$7. W &2E;,67,N*
7'5'
E;,67,N* RW
E;,67,N* RW
3L
3L
3L
3L
3L
3L
"AS BUILT" "AS BUILT"
PORTOLA DR.
PUEBLO VISTA DR.
GOLF CLUB DR.
GOLF CLUB DR.
HWY 111
CREE RD.
CAREY RD.
JONES RD.
SAN DOMINGO DR.
BOLERO RD.
SAGUARO DR.
ENCINO DR.
JU NIPER DR.
CLUB CIRCLE DR.
THEPALOMARESORT
PROJECTSITE
9,&,N,7< 0$3
N.T.S.
18'5'2' 18' 7'
50'
C/L
EXIST. 6" C&G
EXIST. AC PAVEMENT
EXIST. 6" C&G
EXIST. SIDEWALK
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
KING'S SCHOOL
EXIST.
SOUTHERLY R/W
EXIST.
NORTHERLY R/W
%2LER2 R2$'
N.T.S.
681-310-009
681-310-037
681-310-041
&$RE< R'.
MB 14/652
ZONING: RR
MB 14/652
ZONING: RR
MB 14/652
ZONING: RR
681-311-163
681-311-162
681-311-161
681-311-160
681-311-158
681-311-157
681-311-156
681-310-038
681-310-036
MB 14/652
TR. 28087
MB 338/39-40
58 59
Architectural Site Plan
7/9/25 PROPOSED CAMPUS EXPANSION
KING'S SCHOOLS67-675 BOLERO RDPALM SPRINGS, CA 92264760.324.5464 A3
MHMH
320
320
320
320
320
325
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
Obscured Area
OBS.
Asph.
Asph.
Asph.
Dirt
Asph.
Asph.
Conc.
Asph.
Conc.
Conc.
Conc.
320.2
323.3
315.6
315.8
315.3
319.4
319.4
320.1
322.5322.7
324.5
321.9
321.8
322.2
322.6
322.2
322.7323.2
319.7
320.7
320.5
320.7
319.9 319.7
319.8320.2
321.3
320.4 320.3
320.4 320.4
319.9
320.4321.3
319.9320.8321.5322.2322.5322.7322.9323.2323.5
320.2
322.7
2,887 sq ft
2,357 sq ft
1%
8'
6'
4'3'6"3'3'3'3'6"
3,805 sq ft
27,121 sq ft
TO BUILDING CORNER21'-0"
TO 2'-0" ROOF OVERHANG17'-3"
19'-0"
24'-4 1/2"
24'-2 1/2"
18'-0"
18'-0"
28'-1 1/2"
18'-0"
19'-0"
19'-0"
17'-4 1/2" 13'-0"13'-0"
18'-0"
9'-0"9'-0"8'-0"
R 35'-0" R 15'-0"
R 35'-0"
R 15'-0"
R 15'-0"
R 35'-0"
R 35'-0"
R 15'-0"
43'-2"
101'-4"
80'-1 1/2"
30'-0" PARAPET HGHT
37'-0"
11'-8" EAVE HGHT
13'-11 1/2"
6'-6"
77'-4 1/2"
14'-9"
24'-7 1/2"
92'-0"
15'-7"
13'-4"
HANDICAP ACCESS RAMP
EXISTING PEDESTRIAN GATE
EXISTING PARKING GATE
EXISTING PERIMETER FENCE
EXISTING PERIMETER FENCEEXISTING PERIMETER FENCE
EXISTING PERIMETER FENCE
EXISTING PERIMETER FENCE
0' 50' 100'25'
NEW PLAYGROUND(PARTIALLY SHADED)
OPEN FIELD/RETENTION
PLAYGROUND
PLAYGROUND
LUNCHPAVILION
EXIST .CLASSROOMSEXIST . CLASSROOMS& ADMIN
EXIST .PRE-SCHOOL
64 STALLS
COVEREDOUTDOOR SEATING
25 STALLS
PROPOSED GYMNASIUM/CLASSROOMS/ADMIN(FUTURE)
EXISTINGDUMPSTER/TRASHENCLOSURE
PICKUP/DROP-OFF(3 LANES)
OVERFLOW PARKING
BOLERO RD.
SHADE STRUCTURE OVER9 PARKING STALLS
SHADE STRUCTURE OVER6 PARKING STALLS SHADE STRUCTURE OVER9 PARKING STALLS 3'-0"
44'-0"
19'-0"
9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"
18'-0" 39'-0" 9'-6" 91'-6" 116'-11 1/2" 44'-6" 25'-4"
146'-10"
75'-0"
39'-0 1/2"
MOTORIZED ACCESSGATE WITH KNOX BOX
MOTORIZED ACCESSGATE WITH KNOX BOX
MOTORIZED ACCESSGATE WITH KNOX BOX
4,602 sq ft
7,514 sq ft
3,762 sq ft
PROPOSEDCLASSROOM #2(PHASE 1)
PROPOSEDCLASSROOM #1(PHASE 1)
PROPOSEDCLASSROOM/OPERATIONS(PHASE 1)
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
PROPOSED BUILDINGS
COVERED CANOPY/WALKWAY
EXISTING BUILDINGS
ASPHALT
EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS
ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL
LEGEND
AREA COMPLETED IN PHASE 1
60 Cover Page
8/22/24 PROPOSED CAMPUS EXPANSION
KING'S SCHOOLS67-675 BOLERO RDPALM SPRINGS, CA 92264760.324.5464 A1
PROPOSED CAMPUS EXPANSIONKING'S SCHOOLS
67-675 BOLERO RDPALM SPRINGS, CA 92264760.324.5464
INDEX
ARCHITECTURAL
A1 - COVER SHEETA2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION/INFOA3 - ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN A4 - FLOOR PLAN - PHASE 1
A5 - ROOF PLAN - PHASE 1
A6 - ELEVATIONS - CLASSROOMS
A7 - ELEVATIONS - CLASSROOM/UTILITY
A8 - FLOOR PLAN - FUTURE EXPANSION
A9 - ROOF PLAN - FUTURE EXPANSION
A10 - ELEVATIONS - FUTURE ACTIVITY BUILDING
A11 - BUILDING SECTION - FUTURE
A12 - MATERIALS BOARD
LANDSCAPE
CIVIL
C-1.0 - PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC-1.1 - PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 61 Project Description/Info
7/9/25 PROPOSED CAMPUS EXPANSION
KING'S SCHOOLS67-675 BOLERO RDPALM SPRINGS, CA 92264760.324.5464 A2
KING’S SCHOOLS PROPOSED EXPANSION - PROJECT INFORMATION
ZONING RR (RESORT
RESIDENTIAL)
GROSS LOT SIZE 5.26 AC
PARKING
REGULATIONS
TEN SPACES PLUS ONE
SPACE PER CLASSROOM
(INTERMEDIATE AND
UNDER)
MAX HGHT 0-30’ SETBACK - 16’-0”
30’-100’ SETBACK - 26-0”
100’-200’ SETBACK - 40’-0”
SETBACKS LOT COVERAGE 40%
CUP 93-199 Approved Existing - May 2024 Proposed Phase 1 Proposed Future
EXISTING
CLASSROOM
28,139 22,979 22,979 26,491
NEW CLASSROOMS 6,802 7 ,920
EXISTING
ADMINISTRATION
3,615 3,615 3,615 3,615
NEW ADMIN 1,451
EXISTING
OPERATIONS/
FACILITIES
2,247
NEW OPERATIONS/
FACILITIES
2,247 1,757
NEW
MULTIPURPOSE
9,200 sf 15,993
BLEACHERS SEATING
662
BLEACHERS SEATING 250
DEMO 3,290 7 ,426
TOTAL BUILDING SF 40,954 26,594 32,353 52,048
TOTAL OFFICES 13 10 10 14
TOTAL
CLASSROOMS
22 16 18 20
LOT COVERAGE 18% 12% 14% 23%
BUILDING HEIGHT 21’-6” (SETBACK 30FT) 30’-0” (SETBACK 80’-0”)
PARKING STALLS
REQUIRED
32 26 28 30
ZONING
PARKING
REGULATIONS
SETBACKS
1 Imagery ©2024 Data LDEO-Columbia, NSF, NOAA, Landsat / Copernicus, Airbus, Google, Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO, Data USGS, Map data ©2024 Google 50 ft 7/23/24, 3:34 PM Google Maps
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7949495,-116.4794584,58a,35y,221.68h,72.92t/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu 1/1 Imagery ©2024 Google, Landsat / Copernicus, Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO, Data LDEO-Columbia, NSF, NOAA, Map data ©2024 Google 50 ft 7/23/24, 3:35 PM Google Maps
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7951433,-116.4823737,82a,35y,144.42h,64.71t/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu 1/1 Imagery ©2024 Google, Airbus, Landsat / Copernicus, Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO, Data MBARI, Data LDEO-Columbia, NSF, NOAA, Map data ©2024 Google 50 ft 7/23/24, 3:35 PM Google Maps
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7920847,-116.4795951,75a,35y,322.32h,67.62t/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu 1/1
PARKING STALLS
PROVIDED
54 28 51 89
PLUMBING
FIXTURES REMOVED
- - 9 SINKS
7 TOILETS
1 URINAL
-
PLUMBING
FIXTURES ADDED
- - 7 SINKS
5 TOILETS
2 URINALS
14 SINKS
13 TOILETS
5 URINALS
OPEN SPACE - - - 77 , 150SF
RR (RESORT
RESIDENTIAL)
GROSS LOT SIZE 5.26 AC
TEN SPACES PLUS ONE
SPACE PER CLASSROOM
(INTERMEDIATE AND
UNDER)
MAX HGHT 0-30’ SETBACK - 16’-0”
30’-100’ SETBACK - 26-0”
100’-200’ SETBACK - 40’-0”
LOT COVERAGE 40%
CUP 93-199 Approved Existing - May 2024 Proposed Phase 1 Proposed Future ZONING
PARKING
REGULATIONS
SETBACKS
2 5Kings School Project Information1:0.7639
OWNER:
DON DELAIR - HEADMASTERKING'S SCHOOLS
67-675 BOLERO RD
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264
760.324.5464
ARCHITECT:
DAVID TYSONBGW ARCHITECTS II, PC
2327 GRANT AVE.
OGDEN, UT 84401
801.409.1074
CIVIL ENGINEER
KEITH CHRISTIANSENCHRISTIANSEN AND COMPANY
5225 CANYON CREST DRIVE STE 251
RIVERSIDE, CA 92507
951.323.4713
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
CHRIS HERMANNHERMANN DESIGN GROUP
77899 WOLF RD STE 102
PALM DESERT , CA 92211
760.777 .9131
CHRISTIANSEN& COMPANY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
KING'S SCHOOLS IS LOOKING TO FURTHER THE IMPACT ON CHILDRENPRESCHOOL-8TH GRADE IN AND AND AROUND THE COMMUNITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY BY CONTINUING TO DEVELOP THEIR EXISTING 5.26
ACRE PROPERTY IN NEW AND EFFECTIVE WAYS TO EDUCATE THAT AGE GROUP . THE PROPOSED EXPANSION IS A CONTINUATION OF A
MASTERPLAN THAT WAS STARTED IN 1993 WITH CUP 93-199 AND HAS CONTINUED TO BE DEVELOPED THROUGH THE YEARS SINCE.
THE PROPOSED PHASE 1 EXPANSION INCLUDES DEMOLITION OF 3,290SF IN ORDER TO NET AN ADDITION OF 4,400 SF, WHICH INCLUDES 2 ADDITIONAL CLASSROOMS AND 23 ADDITIONAL PARKING STALLS ON SITE. COVERED OUTDOOR EATING AREA AND SPACE FOR BUILDING/
GROUNDS ARE SOME ADDITIONAL AMENITIES IMPORTANT TO THIS PHASE.
FUTURE EXPANSION TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT LAID OUT IN CUP93-199 INVOLVES DEMOLITION OF 7 ,426 SF OF BUILDINGS IN ORDER
TO REMOVE EXISTING TEMPORARY/PORTABLE CLASSROOMS AND
REPLACE WITH HIGHER QUALITY TO BETTER MEET THE CLASSROOMS NEEDS. THE MULTI-USE ACTIVITY CENTER WITHIN THIS PHASE WILL
ALSO PROVIDE THE SCHOOL MUCH NEEDED INDOOR ACTIVITY SPACE
TO ALLOW FOR ALL SCHOOL ASSEMBLIES AND PROVIDE INTERIOR PHYS. ED. OR RECESS LOCATIONS DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER.
VICINITY MAP (N. T .S.)
EXISTING VIEW LOOKING SOUTHWEST EXISTING VIEW LOOKING SOUTHEAST EXISTING VIEW LOOKING NORTHWEST
PROJECT SITE
62 Architectural Site Plan
7/9/25 PROPOSED CAMPUS EXPANSION
KING'S SCHOOLS67-675 BOLERO RDPALM SPRINGS, CA 92264760.324.5464 A3
MHMH
320
320
320
320
320
325
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
OBS.
Obscured Area
OBS.
Asph.
Asph.
Asph.
Dirt
Asph.
Asph.
Conc.
Asph.
Conc.
Conc.
Conc.
320.2
323.3
315.6
315.8
315.3
319.4
319.4
320.1
322.5322.7
324.5
321.9
321.8
322.2
322.6
322.2
322.7323.2
319.7
320.7
320.5
320.7
319.9 319.7
319.8320.2
321.3
320.4 320.3
320.4 320.4
319.9
320.4321.3
319.9320.8321.5322.2322.5322.7322.9323.2323.5
320.2
322.7
2,887 sq ft
2,357 sq ft
1%
8'
6'
4'
3'6"
3' 3'
3'
3'6"
3,805 sq ft
27,121 sq ft
TO BUILDING CORNER
21'-0"
TO 2'-0" ROOF OVERHANG
17'-3"
19'-0"
24'-4 1/2"
24'-2 1/2"
18'-0"
18'-0"
28'-1 1/2"
18'-0"
19'-0"
19'-0"
17'-4 1/2" 13'-0"13'-0"
18'-0"
9'-0"9'-0" 8'-0"
R 35'-0" R 15'-0"
R 35'-0"
R 15'-0"
R 15'-0"
R 35'-0"
R 35'-0"
R 15'-0"
43'-2"
101'-4"
80'-1 1/2"
30'-0" PARAPET HGHT
37'-0"
11'-8" EAVE HGHT
13'-11 1/2"
6'-6"
77'-4 1/2"
14'-9"
24'-7 1/2"
92'-0"
15'-7"
13'-4"
HANDICAP ACCESS RAMP
EXISTING PEDESTRIAN GATE
EXISTING PARKING GATE
EXISTING PERIMETER FENCE
EXISTING PERIMETER FENCE
EXISTING PERIMETER FENCE
EXISTING PERIMETER FENCE
EXISTING PERIMETER FENCE
0' 50' 100'25'
NEW PLAYGROUND(PARTIALLY SHADED)
OPEN FIELD/RETENTION
PLAYGROUND
PLAYGROUND
LUNCHPAVILION
EXIST .CLASSROOMSEXIST . CLASSROOMS& ADMIN
EXIST .PRE-SCHOOL
64 STALLS
COVEREDOUTDOOR SEATING
25 STALLS
PROPOSED GYMNASIUM/CLASSROOMS/ADMIN(FUTURE)
EXISTINGDUMPSTER/TRASHENCLOSURE
PICKUP/DROP-OFF(3 LANES)
OVERFLOW PARKING
BOLERO RD.
SHADE STRUCTURE OVER9 PARKING STALLS
SHADE STRUCTURE OVER6 PARKING STALLS SHADE STRUCTURE OVER9 PARKING STALLS 3'-0"
44'-0"
19'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
18'-0" 39'-0" 9'-6" 91'-6" 116'-11 1/2" 44'-6" 25'-4"
146'-10"
75'-0"
39'-0 1/2"
MOTORIZED ACCESS
GATE WITH KNOX BOX
MOTORIZED ACCESS
GATE WITH KNOX BOX
MOTORIZED ACCESS
GATE WITH KNOX BOX
4,602 sq ft
7,514 sq ft
3,762 sq ft
PROPOSEDCLASSROOM #2(PHASE 1)
PROPOSEDCLASSROOM #1(PHASE 1)
PROPOSEDCLASSROOM/OPERATIONS(PHASE 1)
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
PROPOSED BUILDINGS
COVERED CANOPY/WALKWAY
EXISTING BUILDINGS
ASPHALT
EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS
ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL
LEGEND
AREA COMPLETED IN PHASE 1
63 Phase 1 Classroom/
Building & Grounds
8/22/24 PROPOSED CAMPUS EXPANSION
KING'S SCHOOLS67-675 BOLERO RDPALM SPRINGS, CA 92264760.324.5464 A4
32'-6" 32'-6" 10'-0"
11'-6" 6'-0" 17'-6" 11'-10"38'-6" 10'-0" 13'-0" 43'-6"
35'-0"
12'-0" 38'-6" 44'-6"
22'-6" 14'-6" 7'-6"
LUNCHPAVILION
EXISTINGBUILDING/WALKWAY
0' 40'20' 60'
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
G
A: 176 sq ft
B
A: 138 sq ft
KINDERGARDEN
A: 1,232 sq ft
ETS
A: 100 sq ft
1ST GRADE
A: 1,181 sq ft
STORAGE
A: 294 sq ft
FACILTIES
A: 1,653 sq ft
CLASSROOM
A: 1,496 sq ft
ETS
A: 100 sq ft
2ND GRADE
A: 1,200 sq ft
CAFE
A: 213 sq ftJAN.
A: 41 sq ft
ETS
A: 100 sq ft
ELECT .
A: 43 sq ft
ELECT .
A: 63 sq ft
OFFICE
A: 237 sq ft
BREAKROOM
A: 154 sq ft
RR/
SHWR
A: 77 sq
ft
64 Roof Plan - Phase 1
8/22/24 PROPOSED CAMPUS EXPANSION
KING'S SCHOOLS67-675 BOLERO RDPALM SPRINGS, CA 92264760.324.5464 A5
2'-0"
OVERHANG
11'-6"
11'-6"
OVERHANG
38'-6" 11'-6"
OVERHANG
2'-0"
OVERHANG
16'-6"
OVERHANG
2'-0"
OVERHANG
44'-6" 2'-0"
OVERHANG
11'-6"
OVERHANG
35'-0" 2'-0"
OVERHANG
SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE
SLOPESLOPE
0' 40'20' 60'
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
65 Elevations
8/22/24 PROPOSED CAMPUS EXPANSION
KING'S SCHOOLS67-675 BOLERO RDPALM SPRINGS, CA 92264760.324.5464 A6
14'-0"
14'-0"
14'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16” = 1’-0”
SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16” = 1’-0”
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16” = 1’-0”
WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16” = 1’-0”
0' 5' 10' 20'
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 1
1 1
1 1
1 5
5 5
6 6
6 6
7 7
7 7
STUCCO FINISH - VINTAGE
STUCCO FINISH - SLATE ROSE
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF - SLATE GREY
ALUM. METAL FLASHING - TERRACOTTA
EXTERIOR HOLLOW METAL DOORS - PAINT TO MATCH
WINDOWS/STOREFRONT - ANODIZED ALUM. W/ LOW-E GLAZING
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF - DRIFTWOOD
66 Elevations
8/22/24 PROPOSED CAMPUS EXPANSION
KING'S SCHOOLS67-675 BOLERO RDPALM SPRINGS, CA 92264760.324.5464 A7
WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16” = 1’-0”
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16” = 1’-0”
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16” = 1’-0”
SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16” = 1’-0”
22'-6"
14'-10"
22'-6"
0' 5' 10' 20'
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 1
1 11
1 7
7 7
7 66
6 6
5 5
5 5
STUCCO FINISH - VINTAGE
STUCCO FINISH - SLATE ROSE
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF - SLATE GREY
ALUM. METAL FLASHING - TERRACOTTA
EXTERIOR HOLLOW METAL DOORS - PAINT TO MATCH
WINDOWS/STOREFRONT - ANODIZED ALUM. W/ LOW-E GLAZING
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF - DRIFTWOOD
67 Future Gymnasium/
Classrooms/Admin
8/22/24 PROPOSED CAMPUS EXPANSION
KING'S SCHOOLS67-675 BOLERO RDPALM SPRINGS, CA 92264760.324.5464 A8
1 A11
15'-6"35'-2" 8'-0" 74'-8" 26'-8" 8'-0" 19'-8"
18'-2" 11'-6" 34'-11" 10'-0" 36'-6" 6'-3 1/2"
23'-0" 29'-8" 28'-7" 28'-7" 10'-0" 13'-2" 12'-6" 10'-0" 17'-5" 8'-3 1/2" 30'-8" 38'-0" 38'-6" 39'-8"
RETRACTABLE SCREEN
SCREENSCREEN
MOVABLESCOREBOARD/SOUND
0' 40'20' 60'
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
GYMNASIUM
A: 7,789 sq ft
M
A: 318 sq ft
W
A: 318 sq ft
CLASSROOM
A: 1,131 sq ft
CLASSROOM
A: 1,430 sq ft
RR
A: 71 sq ft
CLASSROOM
A: 1,275 sq ft CLASSROOM
A: 1,275 sq ft
CLASSROOM
A: 955 sq ft
AD OFFICE
A: 141 sq ft
LOUNGE
A: 415 sq ft
CLASSROOM
A: 955 sq ft
CHNG.
A: 299 sq ft
KITCHEN
A: 792 sq ft
PANTRY
A: 133 sq ft
BACKSTAGE
A: 377 sq ft
PLATFORM
A: 1,509 sq ft
CHNG.
A: 299 sq ft
RR
A: 60 sq ft
RECEPTION
A: 323 sq ft
DIRECTOR
A: 189 sq ft
WORKROOM
A: 432 sq ft
STG.
A: 50 sq ft
STORAGE
(TABLES/CHAIRS)
A: 894 sq ft
STORAGE
(UTILITIES)
A: 202 sq ft
MDP/IT/
FACP
A: 106 sq ft
BACKSTAGE
A: 377 sq ft
CIRCULATION
A: 3,877 sq ft
68 Roof Plan - Future
8/22/24 PROPOSED CAMPUS EXPANSION
KING'S SCHOOLS67-675 BOLERO RDPALM SPRINGS, CA 92264760.324.5464 A9
1 A11
4'-0"
OVERHANG
43'-2" 101'-4" 43'-2" 4'-0"
OVERHANG
3'-0"OVERHANG
102'-8" 24'-0" 20'-2" 4'-0"
OVERHANG
4'-0"
OVERHANG
12'-0"
CRICKET (TYP .)
SCUPPER/DRAIN
SCUPPER/DRAIN SCUPPER/DRAIN
SCUPPER/DRAINSCUPPER/DRAIN
SCUPPER/DRAIN
EXISTING PARKING GATE
PARAPET
SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
SLOPESLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
TPO LOW SLOPE ROOF
TPO LOW SLOPE ROOF TPO LOW SLOPE ROOF
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
TPO LOW SLOPE ROOF
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
RTU MEZZANINE
69 Elevations
5/29/25 PROPOSED CAMPUS EXPANSION
KING'S SCHOOLS67-675 BOLERO RDPALM SPRINGS, CA 92264760.324.5464 A10
23'-4"
28'-7"
11'-0"
22'-4 1/2"
28'-7"
11'-0"
28'-7"
28'-7"
23'-4"
11'-0"
WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
0' 40'20'10'
(TYP .) (TYP .)
(TYP .)
(TYP .)
(TYP .)
(TYP .)
(TYP .)
(TYP .)
(TYP .)
(TYP .)
(TYP .)
(TYP .)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
22 3
3 3
3 3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
2 2
2 2
6 6
6 6
6 6
66 6 6 6
6 6
6 6
6 STUCCO FINISH - CHABLIS (LAHARBA) OR EQUAL
STUCCO FINISH - LAUREL WOODS (SHERWIN-WILLIAMS) OR EQUAL
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF - SLATE GREY
ALUM. METAL FLASHING - LAUREL WOODS (SHERWIN-WILLIAMS) OR EQUAL
EXTERIOR HOLLOW METAL DOORS - LAUREL WOODS (SHERWIN-
WILLIAMS) OR EQUAL
WINDOWS/STOREFRONT - BRONZE ANODIZED ALUM. W/ LOW-E GLAZING (MATCH EXISTING)
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF - DRIFTWOOD OR EQUAL
70 Building Section - Future
5/29/25 PROPOSED CAMPUS EXPANSION
KING'S SCHOOLS67-675 BOLERO RDPALM SPRINGS, CA 92264760.324.5464 A11
11'-0"
23'-7"
28'-7"
11'-0"
15'-0" 5'-0"
11'-8"
RTU SCREENED BY PARAPET (TYP)
0' 40'20' 60'
ROOF STRUCTURE/
BUILT UP TPO ROOFING
71 0.52%0.52%
4.0%
2.0%
0.52%
0.52%
0.50%
1.00% 1.00%
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
1.00% 1.00%
1.26%
1.50%
3.0%
3.0%
4.0%
3.46%
(0.50%)
(0.50%)(0.50%)
(0.50%)
1.0%
(0.50%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
2%2%
2%2%
1%
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
321
320
321
322
321
320
320
322
322
322
322
321
321
321
0.50%
2.4%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%1%
1%
4.63%
4.63%
1.5%
1.5%
1.43%
4.45%
3.1%
4.0%
5.0%
2.0%
77-899 WOLF RD.
PH. (760) 777-9131
FAX (760) 777-9132
PALM DESERT, CA
LIC# 2754, EXP 04/30/26
92211
HERMANN
67675 BOLERO RD, PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264
KING'S SCHOOL EXPANSION
DESIGNGROUP
SUITE 102
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
LP-1
72 0.52%0.52%
4.0%
2.0%
0.52%
0.52%
0.50%
3.0%
3.46%
2%2%
1%
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
321
320
321
322
321
320
320
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%1%
1%
4.63%
4.63%
1.5%
1.5%
1.43%
4.45%
3.1%
4.0%
5.0%
2.0%
77-899 WOLF RD.
PH. (760) 777-9131
FAX (760) 777-9132
PALM DESERT, CA
LIC# 2754, EXP 04/30/26
92211
HERMANN
67675 BOLERO RD, PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264
KING'S SCHOOL EXPANSION
DESIGNGROUP
SUITE 102
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
LP-2
73 LP-3
77-899 WOLF RD.
PH. (760) 777-9131
FAX (760) 777-9132
PALM DESERT, CA
LIC# 2754, EXP 04/30/26
92211
HERMANN
67675 BOLERO RD, PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264
KING'S SCHOOL EXPANSION
DESIGNGROUP
SUITE 102
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
74 0.52%
0.52%
4.0%
2.0%
0.52%
0.52%
0.50%
1.00%1.00%
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
1.00%1.00%
1.26%
1.50%
3.0%
3.0%
4.0%
3.46%
(0.50%)
(0.50%)
(0.50%)(0.50%)
1.0%
(0.50%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%) (2%)
(2%)
1.50%
1.50% 1.50%
2%
2% 2%
2%
1%
2% 2%
2%
1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2%
2%
1%
321
320
321
322
321
320
320
322
322
322
322
321
321
321
0.50%
2.4%
1%
1% 1%
1% 1%
1%1%
4.63%
4.63%
1.5% 1.5%
1.43%
4.45%
3.1%
4.0%
5.0%
2.0%
MORNING FLAG
OPEN FIELD/RETENTION
PLAYGROUND
PLAYGROUND
LUNCH
PAVILION
EXIST. CLASSROOMS
EXIST. CLASSROOMS &
ADMIN
EXIST. PRE-SCHOOL
COVERED
OUTDOOR SEATING
25 STALLS
EXISTING
DUMPSTERS
OVERFLOW PARKING
4,602 sq ft
7,514 sq ft
3,762 sq ft
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG NG
NG
NG
3 3
3 3
44 4 4
5 55
DATE 9/23/24
77-899 WOLF RD.
PH. (760) 777-9131
FAX (760) 777-9132
PALM DESERT, CA
LIC# 2754, EXP 04/30/26
92211
HERMANN
67675 BOLERO RD, PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264
KING'S SCHOOL EXPANSION
DESIGN GROUP
SUITE 102
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE: 1"=30'
0' 30' 60' 90'
JOB NO. 24018
Statistics
Description Symbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/Min
Lot A 1.6 fc 3.1 fc 1.0 fc 3.1:1 1.6:1
Lot B 2.3 fc 4.1 fc 1.0 fc 4.1:1 2.3:1
75 DATE 9/23/24
77-899 WOLF RD.
PH. (760) 777-9131
FAX (760) 777-9132
PALM DESERT, CA
LIC# 2754, EXP 04/30/26
92211
HERMANN
67675 BOLERO RD, PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264
KING'S SCHOOL EXPANSION
DESIGN GROUP
SUITE 102
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE: 1"=30'
0' 30' 60' 90'
JOB NO. 24018
FIXTURE TYPE 'SA', 'SB', & 'SC'
POLE LIGHT @ 12'-0" A.F.F.
FIXTURE TYPE 'SD'
MOUNT AT CARPORT @ 9'-0" A.F.F.
76 N88° 57' 49"W 301.94'
N0° 19' 16"E 326.51'
N0° 19' 16"E 303.61'
R=45'
L=30'
24'
14'
23'
0.50%
TC 320.40
FL 319.90HP
TC 319.50
FL 319.00LP
TC 320.78
FL 320.28
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
TC 320.81
TP 320.81
TC 321.11
TP 320.61
1.47% 0.52%
(TC 320.61)
EXIST. ACPAVEMENT
(0.40%)
EXIST. SLIDING GATE
EXIST. BLOCKWALL
TC 321.08
TP 320.58
1.26%
FS 322.30
FS 322.85
3.0%
3.0%
TC 320.34
FL 319.84
TC 321.07
TP 320.57
TC 321.13
FL 320.63
FS 321.104.0%
TC 321.08
TP 320.58
(TOW 326.63)
(TF 320.60)
PROPOSED 4" AC OVER
6" AB
6.5' +/-
3'
GB
1.5%
TP 320.38
4.45%
3.1%
6'
INV. 315.50
INV 314.38
S=0.00512" PVC
PROPOSED 4" AC OVER
6" AB
PROP. 6" TYPE D CURB
PROP. 6" CURB & GUTTER
PROPOSED AC PAVEMENT
TO BE FEATHERED TO EXISTING
AC PAVEMENT
EXISTING GATE MOTOR
N89° 09' 23"W 663.83'
N0° 19' 04"E 327.53'
N88° 57' 49"W 301.94'
N88° 57' 49"W 331.95'
N0° 19' 28"E 325.30'
N0° 19' 16"E 326.51'
N0° 19' 16"E 303.61'R=45'
L=30'
19'
52'
23'
9'
10'
19'24'
9'
19' 20'10'
43'
43'
113'
12'
45'
10' 116.2'
34'
72'
6.5'
9'
92'
19'24'
12'
10'
24'
20'
27'
188'
147'
37'
10'44'
14'
75'
38'
91'
30'
23'
22'16'
50'
7'
13'
CL
9'
95'
35'
3'
23'
(TC 319.86)
(FL 319.36) (0.94%)
(TC 319.43)
(FL 318.93)
2.0%
2.0%
TC 319.98
TP 319.48TC 319.48
FL 319.33
0.52%
TC 318.91
FL 318.41
(FS 319.4)
(FS 318.6)
(FS 318.4)
(FS 318.3)
(FS 318.1)
(FS 317.4)
TC 318.60
FL 318.10
TC 319.19
FL 318.69
(FF 320.50)
(PE 320.00)
0.52%
TC 319.51
FL 319.01
4.0%
2.0%
0.52%
TC 318.91
FL 318.21
TC 318.44
INV 314.00
0.52%
0.50%
TC 320.40
FL 319.90HP
LP
LPLP
HP
TC 319.50
FL 319.00LP
TC 320.78
FL 320.28
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
TC 320.81
TP 320.81
TC 321.11
TP 320.61
1.47% 0.52%
FF 320.50
PE 320.0
(FF 320.50)
(PE 320.00)
(FF 321.80)
(PE 321.3)
(FF 322.80)
(PE 322.3)
FF 321.30
PE 320.8
FF 321.80
PE 321.3
FF 323.20
PE 322.7
(FF 322.00)
(PE 321.50)
96" CONTECH CHAMBERSTOP STONE=315.00 TOP CHAMBER=314.50BOT STONE=306.00 BOT. CHAMBER=306.50 96" CONTECH CHAMBERSTOP STONE=318.00 TOP CHAMBER=317.50BOT STONE=309.00 BOT CHAMBER=309.50 CHAMBER ONLY VOLUME = 36769 CF
CHAMBER ONLY VOLUME = 33351 CF
(TC 320.61)
EXIST. ACPAVEMENT
(0.40%)
EXIST. SLIDING GATE
EXIST.
BLOCKWALL
(TG
322.21)
TC 322.75
FL 322.25
TC 322.75
FL 322.25
TC 323.00
TP 322.50HP
TC 323.00
FL 322.50
TC 322.24
FL 321.74
1.00%
TC 323.00
FL 322.50
1.00%
(TC 323.48)
(FL 322.97)
(TC 323.71)
(TP 323.20)
TC 323.70
TP 323.20
TC 323.50
TP 323.00
TC 323.35
TP 322.85
FS 323.18FS 323.18
1.50%
1.50%
FS 323.18FS 323.18
1.50%
FS 322.40
FS 322.40FS 322.40
FS 322.17
FS 322.60
FL 322.3HPTC 321.08
TP 320.58
1.26%
FS 323.18
FS 322.30
1.50%
FS 322.85
FS 322.85
3.0%
3.0%
TC 320.34
FL 319.84
TC 321.07
TP 320.57
TC 321.13
FL 320.63
FS 321.104.0% FS 323.18
0.0' TO O.90' EXTRA DEPTH FOOTING
3.46%
TC 320.40
TP 319.90
TC 319.90
TP 319.40
25'
EXISTING 6" CURB & GUTTER
EXISTING POWER POLE (PROTECT IN PLACE)
EXISTING F.H.
EXISTING 6" CURB & GUTTER
BOLERO ROAD
(TC 323.13)
(FL 322.63)
(TC 322.97)
(FL 322.47)(0.50%)
(TC 322.42
(FL 321.92)
(TC 322.26)
(FL 321.76)(TC 321.60)
(FL 321.10)
EXISTING 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE
(PROTECT IN PLACE)
EXISTING 6' BLOCK WALL
(PROTECT IN PLACE)
(TOW 328.58)
(TF 322.60)
(TOW 328.63)
(TF 322.65)
25'
25'
REMOVE & REPLACE
PLANTER ISLAND
REMOVE & REPLACE
1' PAVEMENT
FEATHER TO JOIN
(TC 323.04)
(TP 322.45)
HP
(FS 322.46)
(FS 322.62)
(0.50%)
(TC 323.15)
(TP 322.65)
(TC 323.30)
(TP 322.80)
(0.50%)
HP
(0.50%)
EXISTING VALLEY GUTTER
(PROTECT IN PLACE)
(TC 323.90)
(TP 323.40)
HP
(TC 323.70)
(TP 323.20)HP
(FS 323.30)
(FL 322.63)
(FS 323.18)
TC 323.15
TP 322.65
1.0%
25'
TP 322.56
TC 322.80
TP 322.30
TC 322.82
TP 322.32
TC 323.01
TP 322.51
TC 323.01
TP 322.51
(0.50%)
TC 322.89
FL 322.39
TC 322.91
FL 322.41
TC 323.20
TP 322.70
TC 323.15
TP 322.65
TC 323.15
TP 322.65
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
(FS 322.76)
FS 323.18
FS 321.78
FS 321.78
2%
(FS 322.76)
(FS 322.76)
(FS 321.76)
(FS 320.46)
STEP
STEP
2%
2%
FS 321.58
FS 321.08
2%
FS 321.08
1%
FS 320.74
FS 322.50
FS 320.74
FS 321.10
HP
FS 321.10HP
FS 320.74
FS 320.74
FS 320.74
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
TC 320.61
TP 320.11 TC 320.61
TP 320.11
TC 320.61
TP 320.11
TC 320.68
TP 320.18
TC 321.17
TP 320.61
TC 321.17
TP 320.67
TC 321.23
TP 320.73
TC 321.08
TP 320.58
1%
321
320
321
322
321
320
320
322
322
322
322
321
321
321
0.50%
FL 321.8
GB
2.4%
TG 320.70INV 317.70
INV 313.50
TG 320.70
INV 318.70
TG 320.70INV 318.70
EXISTING 6' BLOCK WALL(PROTECT IN PLACE)
(TOW 326.63)
(TF 320.60)
(TOW 326.60)
(TF 320.60)
(TOW 327.26)
(TF 321.26)
(TOW 327.93)
(TF 321.93)
NYOPLAST 30"ROUND GRATE
STD. DRYWELLNYOPLAST 30"ROUND GRATE
TG 318.80
INV 316.80NYOPLAST 30"ROUND GRATE
TG 318.80INV 316.42NYOPLAST 30"ROUND GRATE
PLAYGROUND MULCH
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%1%
1%
EXIST. BLDG 1
EXIST. BLDG 2
EXIST. BLDG 2
PROP.BLDG # 4PHASE 1
PROP.BLDG # 5PHASE 1 PROP.BLDG # 6
PHASE 1
PROP.
BLDG # 7PHASE 2
EXIST.
CONC.
EXIST.
CONC.
EXIST.CONC.
EXIST.CONC.
EXIST.CONC.
EXIST.CONC.
EXIST.CONC.
EXIST.CONC.
EXIST.CONC.
EXIST.CONC.
EXIST.
CONC.
PROP.CONC.
PROP.CONC.
PROP.CONC.
PROP.CONC.
PROP.CONC.
PROP.CONC.
PROP.CONC.
PROP.CONC.
PROP.CONC.
PROP.CONC.
PROP.AC PVMNT.
PROPOSED 4" AC OVER
6" AB
PROPOSED 4" AC OVER
6" AB
PROPOSED 4" AC OVER
6" AB
PROPOSED 4" AC OVER
6" AB
EXISTING R/W
3.5' +/-
6.5' +/-
3'
3'
PROP. 6" CURB & GUTTER
TYP.
4.63%
4.63%
GB
1.5%
1.5%
TP 320.38TC 319.77
FL 319.27GB1.43%
4.45%
3.1%
EXISTING R/W
25'
TC 319.80
FL 319.30
4.0%
TC 320.40
FL 319.90
5.0%
2.0%
TC 320.12
FL 319.62
TC 319.50
FL 319.00
15.75'3'
6'
S=0.010S=0.010
TG 320.70
INV 316.14STD. DRYWELL
S=0.010
8" PVC
S=0.010
8" PVC
S=0.041
12" PVC
INV 310.50
INV 310.50 FL 317.94
S=0.3912" PVC
INV. 315.50
INV 314.38
S=0.00512" PVC
PROPOSED 4" AC OVER6" AB
PROP. 6" TYPE D CURB
PROP. 6" CURB & GUTTER
1.00% TC 323.25
TP 322.75
1.00%
TC 323.06
TP 322.56
TC 323.19
TP 322.69
TC 323.79
TP 323.29
(FL 322.80)1.00%1.00%
TC 323.65
TP 323.15
TC 323.65
TP 323.15
TC 323.79
TP 323.29
HP
HP
1.00%
TC 324.09
TP 323.59HP 1.45%
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
EXISTING PIP VINYL FENCE
EXISTING PIP VINYL FENCE
INV 310.50
S=0.025
8" PVC
L-275'
TC 323.15
TP 322.65
TC 323.06
TP 322.56
PROPOSED AC PAVEMENT
TO BE FEATHERED TO EXISTING
AC PAVEMENT
EXISTING GATE MOTOR
30'
24'
INDICATES 4" DECORATIVE CONCRETE
INDICATES FLOWLINE
INDICATES TOP OF CURB
INDICATES TOP OF PAVEMENT
FL
TC
TP
INDICATE LINEAR FEETL.F.
INDICATES INVERT ELEVATION
INDICATES TOP OF GRATE
INV.
TG
INDICATES PROPERTY LINEP/L
INDICATES FINISHED HARD SURFACEFS
INDICATES TOP OF FOOTINGTF
INDICATES TOP OF WALLTW
INDICATES PLANTERP
INDICATES FINISHED DIRTFG
INDICATES BLOCK WALL
INDICATES BOTTOMBTM
PER LANDSCAPE PLAN
INDICATES 4" AC OVER 6" AB
INDICATES EXISTING CONTOUR
INDICATES PROPOSED CONTOUR
(50)
INDICATES EXISTING GRADEEG
LEGEND
INDICATES 6" PAVERS
50 K.A.C.
C.A.C.
K.A.C.
LOCATION:
BENCHELEV.DESIGN BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:DWG. NO.OF SHEETS
R.C.E. 50083
1 Christiansen & Company
Land Development - Design - Engineering
Est. 2007
5225 Canyon Crest Drive, Ste 251
Riverside, California 92507
Ph: 951-323-4713 Fax: 951-405-8410
email:[email protected]
APPROVED DATE REVISION
CORRECTED APPROVED "AS BUILT"BYBY
DATE DATE
C2NDITI2NAL USE 3ER0IT 3LAN
.IN*'S SCH22L E;3ANSI2N
K.A.C.
C.A.C.
K.A.C.
LOCATION:
BENCHMARK:ELEV.PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF:DESIGN BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,FILE NO.
DWG. NO.OF SHEETS
SHEET
KEITH A. CHRISTIANSEN
DATE
R.C.E. 50083
1 PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
2 Christiansen & Company
Land Development - Design - Engineering
Est. 2007
5225 Canyon Crest Drive, Ste 251
Riverside, California 92507
Ph: 951-323-4713 Fax: 951-405-8410
email:[email protected]
APPROVED DATE
CORRECTED APPROVED "AS BUILT"BYBY
DATE DATE
116363.23
BRONZE DISC. IN CONCRETE MONUMENT AT THE
BENCHMARK: FD. CATHEDRAL CITY
NE COR. OF DATE PALM DR. & RAMON RD. APPROX.
A3N 681310019 681310040
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DATE PALM/RAMON
20 FEET FROM EDGES OF PAVEMENT.
IN THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
KING'S SCHOOL EXPANSION
PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
SEE THIS
SHEET
SEE SHEET 2
SEE SHEET 2
SEE SHEET 2
SEE SHEET 2
APN 681-310-019, -040KING'S SCHOOL EXPANSION
67-675 BOLERO ROAD - CATHEDRAL CITY, CA. 92234
OWNER / MAINTENANCE ENTITY:
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE:
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE:
LIQUEFACTION: NO LIQUEFACTION AREA
FEMA FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION: ZONE X (FLOOD HAZARD IS UNDETERMINED, BUT POSSIBLE) PER FIRM MAP NO. 06065C1579G / DATED: AUGUST 28, 2008
NOTE:
REVISIONS: NO. DATE:DESCRIPTION:
EXISTING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
RR (RESORT RESIDENTIAL)
RR (RESORT RESIDENTIAL)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
EXISTING GROSS ACREAGE:
PROPOSED NET ACREAGE:
EXISTING BUILDINGS TO REMAIN, (16853 SF)
ASPHALT CONCRETE, GUTTERS (118048 SF)
ACREAGE:
5.18 ACRES
5.18 ACRES
0.39 ACRES
0.83 ACRES
2.71 ACRES
1.25 ACRES
PRIVATE
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 681-310-019 & 040
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE: SCHEDULE "A"
SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY:
ADDRESS:
DATE OF TOPOGRAPHY:
INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS, INC.
7117 ARLINGTON AVENUE, SUITE "A"
RIVERSIDE, CA 92503
OCTOBER 1, 2023
TELEPHONE: (951) 687-4252
EXHIBIT PREPARER:
ADDRESS:
CONTACT:
CHRISTIANSEN & COMPANY
5225 CANYON CREST DRIVE, SUITE 251
RIVERSIDE, CA 92507
KEITH CHRISTIANSENTELEPHONE: (951)323-4713
CONTACT:
LAND OWNER:
ADDRESS:
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
CONTACT:
DATA TABLE
KING'S SCHOOLS OF THE DESERT
67-675 BOLERO ROAD
CATHEDRAL CITY, CA 92234
DON DeLAIRTELEPHONE:(760) 324-5464
EXHIBIT DATE: JUNE 20, 2024
ARCHITECT:
ADDRESS:
CONTACT:
BGW ARCHITECT'S
2327 GRANT AVE.
OGDEN, UT 84401
DAVID TYSONTELEPHONE: (800)522-7137
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
ADDRESS:
CONTACT:
HERMANN DESIGN GROUP
77-899 WOLF ROAD, STE. 102
PALM DESERT, CA 92211
CHRIS HERMANNTELEPHONE: (760)777-9131
GEO/INFILTRATION:
ADDRESS:
CONTACT:
email:[email protected]
email:[email protected]
email:[email protected]
email:[email protected]
email:
PRIVATE
PRIVATE
PRIVATE
PRIVATE
EXISTING EASEMENT NOTES:
1 2
AREAS:
UTILITY PURVEYORS:
WATER -CVWDPH: 760-398-2651
SEWER -
ELECTRIC - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISONPH: 760-202-4252
GAS -SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY PH: 800-427-2200
TELEPHONE -FRONTIERPH: 760-864-1726
CABLE -SPECTRUMPH: 760-346-3714
GEOTECHNICAL:
ADDRESS:
CONTACT:
email:
1. THIS MAP INCLUDES THE ENTIRE CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND DIVIDER.
2. THERE ARE NO KNOWN WELL SON PROPERTY OR WITHIN 200 FEET OF PROPERTY.
3. THERE ARE NO EXISTING DWELLINGS, BUILDINGS, OR OTHER STRUCTURES KNOWN ON THIS PROPERTY.
4. SUBDIVISION WILL SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH CITY/COUNTY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PER A SEPARATE WQMP REPORT.
KING'S SCHOOLS OF THE DESERT
67-675 BOLERO ROAD
CATHEDRAL CITY, CA 92234
DON DeLAIRTELEPHONE:(760) 324-5464
email:[email protected]
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, (36185 SF)
RR (RESORT RESIDENTIAL)
RR (RESORT RESIDENTIAL)
email:
email:
SLADDEN ENGINEERING
45090 GOLF CENTER PARKWAY
INDIO, CA 92201
BRETT ANDERSONTELEPHONE: (760)863-0713
email:[email protected]
SLADDEN ENGINEERING
45090 GOLF CENTER PARKWAY
INDIO, CA 92201
BRETT ANDERSONTELEPHONE: (760)863-0713
email:[email protected]
LANDSCAPE (54350 SF)
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
3 10'
5 30'
290
FILL (CY) CUT (CY)
EXPORT
RAW
SHRINKAGE (20%)
OVEREXCAVATION (3.0')
EARTHWORK ESTIMATE
SUBSIDENCE (0.15)
ITEM
DISTURBED AREA:
164555 S.F. = 3.78 ACRES
1190 900 TOTAL
900 3640
-730
-915
-805
(INCL. CHAMBER EXCAVATION)
INDE; 0A3
18'5'2' 18' 7'
50'
C/L
EXIST. 6" C&G
EXIST. AC PAVEMENT
EXIST. 6" C&G
EXIST. SIDEWALK
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
KING'S SCHOOL
EXIST.
SOUTHERLY R/W
EXIST.
NORTHERLY R/W
SECTI2N "AA"
N.T.S.
2' +/- 15.75' 3'
EXIST.
BLDG.
PROP.. 6" C&G
PROP. 4" AC OVER
PROP. 6" TYPE
2%
2%
P/L
SECTI2N "BB"
N.T.S.
"D" CURB
6" A.B.
681-310-009
681-310-037
681-310-041
CARE< RD.
MB 14/652
ZONING: RR
MB 14/652
ZONING: RR
MB 14/652
ZONING: RR
2%
X
X
X
EXIST. 6'CHAIN LINKFENCE
25' DRIVE AISLE3'
PROP.. 6" C&G
PROP. 4" AC OVER
PROP. 6" TYPE
2%-4.5%
2%
P/L
SECTI2N "CC"
N.T.S.
"D" CURB
6" A.B.
X
X
X
EXIST. 6'CHAIN LINKFENCE
19' PARKING
1.5%
6.5'
SIDEWALK
2%
1%
BALL COURT
0.5' +/-24'3'
EXIST.
6' BLOCK WALL
PROP.. 6" C&G
PROP. 4" AC OVER
PROP. 6" TYPE
2%
2%
P/L
SECTI2N "DD"
N.T.S.
"D" CURB
6" A.B.
2%
3'
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
14'22'
EXIST.
6' BLOCK WALLP/L
SECTI2N "EE"
N.T.S.
3.5'
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
0.5' +/-
EXIST.
6' BLOCK WALL
PROP. 4" AC OVER
PROP. 6" TYPE
1%
SECTI2N "FF"
N.T.S.
"D" CURB
6" A.B.
2%
1'
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
TO
6.5'
2% -20%
SWALE
FL PER PLAN
2% -20%
2%
PROPOSED
GYMNASIUM
PHASE 2
10 PORTOLA DR.
PUEBLO VISTA DR.
GOLF CLUB DR.
GOLF CLUB DR.
HWY 111
CREE RD.
CAREY RD.
JONES RD.
SAN DOMINGO DR.
BOLERO RD.
SAGUARO DR.
ENCINO DR.
JU NIPER DR.
CLUB CIRCLE DR.
THEPALOMARESORT
PROJECTSITE
9ICINIT< 0A3
N.T.S.
THE PALOMA RESORT
CVWDPH: 760-398-2651
D D
24'
PROP. TYPE "D" CURB
PROP. 6" TYPE
2%
DECORATIVE
CONCRETE
PROPOSED BOLLARD
TO PROTECT CORNEROF BUILDING
77 N89° 09' 23"W 663.83'
N0° 19' 04"E 327.53'
N88° 57' 49"W 301.94'
N88° 57' 49"W 331.95'
N0° 19' 28"E 325.30'
N0° 19' 16"E 326.51'
N0° 19' 16"E 303.61'
19'
52'
23'
9'
10'
19'24'9'19' 20'10'
43'
43'
113'
12'
45'
10'116.2'
34'
72'6.5'
9'
92'
19'24'
12'
10'
24'
20'
27'
188'
147'
37'
10'44'
14'
75'38'
91'30'
23'
22'16'
50'
7'13'
CL
9'
95'35'3'
(TC 319.86)(FL 319.36)(0.94%)(TC 319.43)(FL 318.93)
2.0%2.0%TC 319.98TP 319.48TC 319.48FL 319.330.52%
TC 318.91FL 318.41
(FS 319.4)
(FS 318.6)
(FS 318.4)
(FS 318.3)
(FS 318.1)
(FS 317.4)
TC 318.60FL 318.10TC 319.19FL 318.69(FF 320.50)(PE 320.00)
0.52%
TC 319.51FL 319.01
4.0%
2.0%0.52%
TC 318.91FL 318.21TC 318.44INV 314.00
0.52%
0.50%TC 320.40FL 319.90HPLP
LPLP
HP
FF 320.50PE 320.0
(FF 320.50)(PE 320.00)(FF 321.80)(PE 321.3)
(FF 322.80)(PE 322.3)
FF 321.30PE 320.8FF 321.80PE 321.3
FF 323.20PE 322.7
(FF 322.00)(PE 321.50)
96" CONTECH CHAMBERSTOP STONE=315.00 TOP CHAMBER=314.50BOT STONE=306.00 BOT. CHAMBER=306.50 96" CONTECH CHAMBERSTOP STONE=318.00 TOP CHAMBER=317.50BOT STONE=309.00 BOT CHAMBER=309.50 CHAMBER ONLY VOLUME = 17141 CF
CHAMBER ONLY VOLUME = 18950 CF
(TG322.21)TC 322.75FL 322.25
TC 322.75FL 322.25
TC 323.00TP 322.50HP
TC 323.00FL 322.50TC 322.24FL 321.741.00% TC 323.00FL 322.501.00% (TC 323.48)(FL 322.97)
(TC 323.71)(TP 323.20)TC 323.70TP 323.20TC 323.50TP 323.00TC 323.35TP 322.85 FS 323.18FS 323.181.50%
1.50%FS 323.18FS 323.18
1.50%FS 322.40FS 322.40FS 322.40FS 322.17
FS 322.60
FL 322.3HPTC 321.08TP 320.581.26%
FS 323.18
FS 322.30
1.50%FS 322.85
FS 322.853.0%
3.0%TC 320.34FL 319.84TC 321.07TP 320.57
TC 321.13FL 320.63
FS 321.104.0%
FS 323.18
0.0' TO O.90' EXTRA DEPTH FOOTING
3.46%
TC 320.40TP 319.90TC 319.90TP 319.40
25'
EXISTING 6" CURB & GUTTER
EXISTING POWER POLE (PROTECT IN PLACE)
EXISTING F.H.
EXISTING 6" CURB & GUTTER
BOLERO ROAD(TC 323.13)(FL 322.63)(TC 322.97)(FL 322.47)(0.50%)(TC 322.42(FL 321.92)(TC 322.26)(FL 321.76)(TC 321.60)(FL 321.10) EXISTING 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE(PROTECT IN PLACE)
EXISTING 6' BLOCK WALL(PROTECT IN PLACE)
(TOW 328.58)(TF 322.60)
(TOW 328.63)(TF 322.65)25'25'
REMOVE & REPLACEPLANTER ISLANDREMOVE & REPLACE1' PAVEMENTFEATHER TO JOIN(TC 323.04)(TP 322.45) HP
(FS 322.46)(FS 322.62)
(0.50%)(TC 323.15)(TP 322.65)(TC 323.30)(TP 322.80)(0.50%)HP(0.50%)
EXISTING VALLEY GUTTER(PROTECT IN PLACE)
(TC 323.90)(TP 323.40)HP
(TC 323.70)(TP 323.20)HP
(FS 323.30)
(FL 322.63)
(FS 323.18)
TC 323.15TP 322.651.0%25'TP 322.56TC 322.80TP 322.30TC 322.82TP 322.32TC 323.01TP 322.51TC 323.01TP 322.51(0.50%)TC 322.89FL 322.39TC 322.91FL 322.41 TC 323.20TP 322.70TC 323.15TP 322.65TC 323.15TP 322.65
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)(2%)
(2%)(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)1.50%
1.50%
1.50%
(FS 322.76)
FS 323.18
FS 321.78
FS 321.78
2%
(FS 322.76) (FS 322.76)
(FS 321.76)
(FS 320.46)
STEPSTEP
2%
2%FS 321.58
FS 321.08
2%
FS 321.08
1%FS 320.74
FS 322.50
FS 320.74
FS 321.10HP
FS 321.10HP
FS 320.74FS 320.74
FS 320.74
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
1%
2%
2%
2%2%
TC 320.61TP 320.11TC 320.61TP 320.11TC 320.61TP 320.11TC 320.68TP 320.18TC 321.17TP 320.61TC 321.17TP 320.67TC 321.23TP 320.73 TC 321.08TP 320.581%
321
320
321322
321320
320
322
322
322
322321
321
321
0.50%
FL 321.8GB2.4%
TG 320.70INV 317.70INV 313.50
TG 320.70INV 318.70
TG 320.70INV 318.70
EXISTING 6' BLOCK WALL(PROTECT IN PLACE)(TOW 326.63)(TF 320.60)(TOW 326.60)(TF 320.60)(TOW 327.26)(TF 321.26)(TOW 327.93)(TF 321.93)NYOPLAST 30"ROUND GRATE STD. DRYWELL
NYOPLAST 30"ROUND GRATE
TG 318.80INV 316.80NYOPLAST 30"ROUND GRATE
TG 318.80INV 316.42NYOPLAST 30"ROUND GRATE
PLAYGROUND MULCH
1%
1%
1%1%
1%1%
1%
EXIST. BLDG 1EXIST. BLDG 2EXIST. BLDG 2
PROP.BLDG # 4PHASE 1
PROP.BLDG # 5PHASE 1PROP.BLDG # 6PHASE 1
PROP.BLDG # 7PHASE 2
EXIST.CONC. EXIST.CONC.
EXIST.CONC.
EXIST.CONC.
EXIST.CONC.
EXIST.CONC.
EXIST.CONC.EXIST.CONC.
EXIST.CONC.
EXIST.CONC.
EXIST.CONC.
PROP.CONC.
PROP.CONC.
PROP.CONC.
PROP.CONC.
PROP.CONC.
PROP.CONC.
PROP.CONC.
PROP.CONC.
PROP.CONC.
PROP.CONC.
PROP.AC PVMNT.
PROPOSED 4" AC OVER6" AB
PROPOSED 4" AC OVER6" AB
PROPOSED 4" AC OVER6" AB
PROPOSED 4" AC OVER6" AB
EXISTING R/W
3.5' +/-6.5' +/-3'
3'
PROP. 6" CURB & GUTTERTYP.
4.63%
4.63%
GB1.5%
1.5%TP 320.38TC 319.77FL 319.27GB
1.43%
4.45%
3.1%
EXISTING R/W25'
TC 319.80FL 319.304.0%
TC 320.40FL 319.905.0%
2.0%TC 320.12FL 319.62TC 319.50FL 319.00
15.75'3'
S=0.010
S=0.010
TG 320.70INV 316.14STD. DRYWELLS=0.0108" PVCS=0.0108" PVCS=0.04112" PVC INV 310.50
INV 310.50FL 317.94
S=0.3912" PVC
INV 314.38PROPOSED 4" AC OVER6" ABPROP. 6" TYPE D CURB
PROP. 6" CURB & GUTTER
1.00%TC 323.25TP 322.751.00%TC 323.06TP 322.56TC 323.19TP 322.69 TC 323.79TP 323.29
(FL 322.80)1.00%1.00%TC 323.65TP 323.15
TC 323.65TP 323.15TC 323.79TP 323.29HPHP1.00%TC 324.09TP 323.59HP 1.45%
1.00%
1.00%1.00%
EXISTING PIP VINYL FENCEEXISTING PIP VINYL FENCE
INV 310.50
S=0.0258" PVCL-275'
TC 323.15TP 322.65TC 323.06TP 322.56
30'24'
RELOCATE EXIST. TRANSFORMER10' EAST AND 3' SOUTH
K.A.C.C.A.C.K.A.C. LOCATION:BENCHELEV.DESIGN BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DWG. NO.OF SHEETS R.C.E. 50083Christiansen & CompanyLand Development - Design - EngineeringEst. 2007 5225 Canyon Crest Drive, Ste 251Riverside, California 92507Ph: 951-323-4713 Fax: 951-405-8410email:[email protected] APPROVEDDATE REVISION
CORRECTEDAPPROVEDBYBY
DATEDATE
K.A.C.C.A.C.K.A.C. LOCATION:BENCHMARK:ELEV.PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF:DESIGN BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,FILE NO.DWG. NO.OF SHEETSSHEET KEITH A. CHRISTIANSENDATER.C.E. 500832 PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLANAPN 681-310-019, -0402 Christiansen & CompanyLand Development - Design - EngineeringEst. 2007 5225 Canyon Crest Drive, Ste 251Riverside, California 92507Ph: 951-323-4713 Fax: 951-405-8410email:[email protected]'S SCHOOL EXPANSIONAPPROVEDDATE
CORRECTEDAPPROVEDBYBY
DATEDATE116363.23BRONZE DISC. IN CONCRETE MONUMENT AT THE BENCHMARK: FD. CATHEDRAL CITY NE COR. OF DATE PALM DR. & RAMON RD. APPROX. 67-675 BOLERO ROAD - CATHEDRAL CITY, CA. 92234STATE OF CALIFORNIADATE PALM/RAMON20 FEET FROM EDGES OF PAVEMENT.
SEE SHEET 1
"AS BUILT"
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLYACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR WILL BEREQUIRED TO ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITECONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT,INCLUDING THE SAFETY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY; THAT THIS REQUIREMENTSHALL BE MADE TO APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMALWORKING HOURS, AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR FURTHER AGREES TO DEFENDINDEMNIFY AND HOLD DESIGN PROFESSIONAL HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALLLIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORKON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTING LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE PRIVATE ENGINEERING NOTE:
OF DESIGN PROFESSIONAL.UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES & USES:THE ENGINEER PREPARINGTHESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZEDIN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PREPARER OF THESE PLANS.CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE"AS BUILT"THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZEDIN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PREPARER OF THESE PLANS.CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE 2 10'
4UNDISCLOSED WIDTHLOCATED ON R/W
61'
A
A
BB
DDC
C
EE
FF
P/L
P/L
P/L
P/LP/L
681-311-163
681-311-162
681-311-161
681-311-160
681-311-159681-311-158
681-311-157
681-311-156681-310-009681-310-037681-310-038
681-310-036
MB 14/652 MB 14/652MB 14/652
TR. 28087MB 338/39-40
ZONING: RR ZONING: RR ZONING: RRTHE PALOMA RESORT
310'
PROPOSED BOLLARDTO PROTECT CORNEROF BUILDING
78 CHAIR
Steve Manos
Lake Elsinore
VICE CHAIR
Steve Sanchez
La Quinta
COMMISSIONERS
John Lyon
Riverside
Michael Lewis
Palm Springs
Richard Stewart
Moreno Valley
Michael Geller
Riverside
Vernon Poole
Murrieta
STAFF
Director
Paul Rull
Simon A. Housman
Jackie Vega
Yesenia Casas
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon St.,14th Floor.
Riverside, CA 92501
(951) 955-5132
www.rcaluc.org
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
December 15, 2025
Dom Camps, Project Planner
Cathedral City, Community Development Department
68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234
RE: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
File No.: ZAP1110PS25
Related File Nos.: ZOA25-0001 (Zoning Ordinance Amendment), CUP25- 0003 (Conditional Use Permit)
Compatibility Zones: Zones D and E
APNs: 681-310-019 and 681-310-040
Dear Mr. Camps:
On December 15, 2025, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found City of Cathedral City Case Nos . ZOA25-0001 (Zoning Ordinance Amendment), CUP25 -0003 (Conditional Use Permit), a proposal to construct a 27,121 square foot gymnasium building with classrooms and three classroom buildings totaling 9,049 square feet on an existing school site on 5.26-acres, located at 67675 Bolero Road, westerly of San Domingo Drive, and northerly of Carey Road, and also proposes to amend the zoning ordinance to amend the sites zoning for Resort Residential (RR) to allow schools , CONSISTENT with the 2005 Palm Springs International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, pursuant to Section 3.3.6 of the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, based on the following findings, and subject to the conditions included herein:
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed enrollment level would not exceed the actual enrollment that existed at the time of Compatibility Plan adoption; therefore, the project would not increase the average intensity of the site. The same is true for King’s Schools. King’s Schools remains consistent with its approved CUP (93-199) from 1994, including the addition of a gymnasium. Just like ACES, King’s modernization retains the same use—K– 8 education—with no expansion of grade levels or daily population. Modernization replaces aging facilities without altering the character of the campus or surrounding land uses.
2. Since no information is available regarding the single- acre intensity that existed at the time of Plan adoption, there is no evidence that the project would result in an increase in single-acre intensity. The same is true for King’s Schools and our over 30 years of operating. The methodology calculation of 1,159 persons on a single acre is theoretical, not based on actual school operations. The staff report states that “there is no cap on the number of non-students (guests, family members) that could be allowed on campus, and could potentially be clustered and concentrated in specific areas like the proposed gymnasium area, which the Compatibility Plan references.” which assumes a scenario that is not reflective of school operations in which King’s Schools would routinely allow uncontrolled public access or large gatherings on campus, which are not based on actual operations. As previously mentioned, the proposal is not altering enrollment or
79 2
school based activities.
3. The proposed capacity of the school would not exceed the peak number of students accommodated at the facility at or slightly after the time of Compatibility Plan adoption.
Operations remain unchanged from the past 30 years—just as the ACES modernization did. PE moves indoors during extreme heat and accommodates approximately 30– 40 students at a time. Class sizes are capped at 28 students, and total campus enrollment is approximately 300 students.
4. Although Building E has the capacity to accommodate approximately 747 people, the use of the assembly area within the building would be rare and for limited periods of time. As stated, capacity at the school would not change. There would be no increase in the number of students, thus the same is true for King’s Schools gymnasium but only reduced due to the significantly lower student count at King’s Schools.
5. There are no other viable sites of residential fee land located outside a flood zone that could accommodate 600 students within the service area for this elementary school.
King’s Schools is a small private school that owns no other land, and we have operated on our site for over 30 years. We don’t have the resources or ownership of land like a public school district. ACES was a long-standing neighborhood school embedded within a fully built-out residential area and therefore had no realistic relocation options. The same is true for King’s Schools.
6. The project site is located in an area where average aircraft noise is below 60 CNEL, thus limiting noise impacts and potential nuisance complaints. King’s Schools campus is primarily Zone D but does have a small portion of Zone E. The entire ACES campus is in Zone D. As the staff report states: “ The site is located outside the Palm Springs Airport Compatibility Plan 55 CNEL contour relative to aircraft noise contour. Therefore, no special measures to mitigate aircraft noise are required at this location.”
7. The purpose of the rebuilding is to provide for a safer school for the students. The same is true for King’s Schools. Currently the campus has very old portable buildings that will be replaced with new structures meeting all building code requirements. Due to other safety factors, such as weather, providing indoor spaces during extreme heat provides a safer environment for students. It also provides improved safety oversight and accessibility to physical activity.
8. All proposed buildings would be constructed of reinforced masonry block, and the Cathedral City Fire Department has prepared a letter that notes that the proposed new buildings and site improvements would include automatic fire sprinklers, integrated fire alarms, and additional fire lanes and fire hydrants that do not exist at the current facility; thus, potential fire hazards to facility occupants would be reduced. The student population is unchanged and remains fully consistent with historical operations. As with ACES, our modernization improves safety by bringing older buildings into compliance with current building standards, public safety access and fire hydrant placement.
9. The project site is not located beneath or near the extended centerline of the runway at Palm Springs International Airport or within the general traffic pattern envelope, wherein approximately 80% of aircraft overflights are expected to occur. King’s Schools lies west of the primary Runway 31 approach centerline, with substantial separation created by Tahquitz Creek Golf Course and the Whitewater Wash. While the campus is primarily within Zone D, a small portion of the site is located within Zone E, the least restrictive compatibility zone under the ALUCP.
80 3
10. Approximately 25% of the project site would consist of ALUC -qualifying open area, which substantially exceeds the minimum Compatibility Zone D requirement of 10% open area. This additional open area provides a potential location for emergency landings for small aircraft, which may assist in offsetting the risk of an emergency landing within the more intensely used portions of the site. The ALUCP open- area requirement applies only to sites 10 acres or larger; King’s is 5.26 acres. However, King’s Schools has significant surrounding open area being surrounded by the Tahquitz Creek Golf Course and the Whitewater Wash, which the Commission previously recognized as acceptable forced- landing buffers. King’s Schools is also a significant distance further from the airport compared to ACES.
11. The nearby golf course and Whitewater Wash east of the project site constitute alternative potential emergency landing locations. As mentioned above, the project site is surrounded by the Tahquitz Creek Golf Course and the Whitewater Wash. It can be concluded that these constitute alternative potential emergency landing locations.
12. Based on the above findings, ALUC concludes that Agua Caliente Elementary School constitutes a nonconforming nonresidential development pursuant to Section 3.3.2(b) of the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and that the usage intensity is not being increased above the levels existing at the time of adoption of the 2005 Palm Springs International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. As a site that has been historically operating as a school (even before King’s formation in 1994) and as a school that is not increasing the enrollment, it can be concluded that the usage intensity is not being increased.
13. The above findings constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting a policy exception for the proposed action. As a private school, King’s Schools has no feasible alternative.
As demonstrated above, the criteria found for ACES can be found here and the proposed project would cause even less of an impact in many cases. Simply put, our student population is significantly less than ACES and we are a much greater distance away from the airport.
14. Exterior noise levels from aircraft at this location average less than 60 CNEL, and not more than 20% of aircraft utilizing Palm Springs International Airport overfly the site; therefore, the project will not result in excessive aircraft -generated noise exposure for the proposed use. The same is true for King’s Schools. The site is located outside the Palm Springs Airport Compatibility Plan 55 CNEL contour relative to aircraft noise contour. Therefore, no special measures to mitigate aircraft noise are required at this location.
15. Based on Findings No. 7 through 11 above, and with the project being subject to the conditions included herein, the project will not expose persons on the ground to an excessive safety hazard or risk, nor will it result in hazards to aircraft in flight. The same is true for King’s Schools. We have no objection to 5 conditions listed in the staff report under the heading conditions (in the event of an overrule).
CONDITIONS:
1. Any outdoor lighting installed shall be hooded or shielded to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky. Outdoor lighting shall be downward facing.
2. The following uses are prohibited:
81 4
(a) Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA -approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator.
(b) Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an airport.
(c) Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area. (Such uses include landscaping utilizing water features, aquaculture, outdoor production of cereal grains, sunflower, and row crops, composting operations, wastewater management facilities, artificial marshes, trash transfer stations that are open on one or more sides, recycling centers containing putrescible wastes, construction and demolition debris facilities, fly ash disposal, and incinerators.)
(d) Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation.
(e) Any use which results in a hazard to flight, including physical (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of aircraft operations.
3. The attached “Notice of Airport in Vicinity” shall be provided to all prospective purchasers and occupants of the property.
4. Any proposed stormwater basins or facilities shall be designed and maintained to provide for a maximum 48-hour detention period following the design storm, and remain totally dry between rainfalls. Vegetation in and around the basins that would provide food or cover for birds would be incompatible with airport operations and shall not be utilized in project landscaping. Trees shall be spaced so as to prevent large expanses of contiguous canopy, when mature. Landscaping in and around the basin(s) shall not include trees or shrubs that produce seeds, fruits, or berries.
Landscaping in the stormwater basin, if not rip -rap, should be in accordance with the guidance provided in ALUC “LANDSCAPING NEAR AIRPORTS” brochure, and the “AIRPORTS, WILDLIFE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT” brochure available at RCALUC.ORG
which list acceptable plants from Riverside County Landscaping Guide or other alternative landscaping as may be recommended by a qualified wildlife hazard biologist.
A notice sign, in a form similar to that attached hereto, shall be permanently affixed to the stormwater basin with the following language: “There is an airport nearby. This stormwater basin is designed to hold stormwater for only 48 hours and not attract birds.
Proper maintenance is necessary to avoid bird strikes”. The sign will also include the name, telephone number or other contact information of the person or entity responsible to monitor the stormwater basin.
5. The project has been evaluated to construct a 27,121 square foot gymnasium building with classrooms and three new classroom buildings totaling 9,049 square feet on an existing school site totaling 5.26-acres. Any increase in building area, change in use to 82 5
any higher intensity use, change in building location, or modification of the tentative parcel map lot lines and areas will require an amended review to evaluate consistency with the ALUCP compatibility criteria, at the discretion of the ALUC Director.
Supporting documentation was provided to the Airport Land Use Commission and is available online at www.rcaluc.org, click Agendas, click 12 -15-25 Agenda, Bookmark Agenda Item 3.3. As noted above, the applicant submitted a supplemental 3.3.6 findings letter dated December 11, 2025, and is as an attachment to this letter.
I
f you have any questions, please contact me at (951) 955-6893.
Sincerely,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
______________________________________
Paul Rull, ALUC Director
Attachments: Notice of Airport in Vicinity
cc: King’s School of the Desert (applicant)
William Karg (representative)
Don DeLair (property owner)
Harry Barrett, Airport Manager, Palm Springs International Airport ALUC Case File
\\tlma-22fsp02\ALUC\AIRPORT CASE FILES\Palm Springs\ZAP1110PS25\ZAP1110PS25.LTR.doc 83 THERE IS AN AIRPORT NEARBY .
THIS STORM WATER BASIN IS DESIGNED TO HOLD
STORM WATER FOR ONLY 48 HOURS AND
NOT TO ATTRACT BIRDS
PROPER MAINTENANCE IS NECESSARY TO AVOID
BIRD STRIKES
N O T I C E
IF THIS BASIN IS OVERGROWN, PLEASE CONTACT:
Name: _____________________ Phone: ____________________ 84 NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN
VICINITY
This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence
area. For that reason, the property may be subject to
some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated
with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances [can vary from person to person. You may
wish to consider what airport annoyances ], if any, are associated with the property before you complete your
purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to
you. Business & Profession s Code Section 11010 (b)
(13)(A)
85 December 11, 2025
Airport Land Use Commission
Riverside County
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Re: King’s Schools Campus Modernization and Expansion Project Request for Consistency Determination under the ALUCP
ALUC Case No. ZAP1110PS25
Dear Chair and Members of the Commission:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional clarity regarding the King’s Schools modernization project and its relationship to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The purpose of this correspondence is to present, in a structured and transparent format, how King’s Schools satisfies the same 14 findings the Commission applied in approving the modernization of Agua Caliente Elementary School (ACES) pursuant to Sections 3.3.2(b) and 3.3.6 (Attachment A).
King’s Schools has been operating a school on this site for over 30 years, and our property was operated as a school prior to King’s Schools. There are no feasible alternatives available to the school. We are a small private school of 300 students, and this modernization project doesn’t increase enrollment or intensify the use of our campus. We have been operating under a conditional use permit (CUP) 93-199 since 1994. Our CUP 93-199 provided for a gymnasium and additional school facilities. Our modernization project is consistent with CUP 93-199, but does provide for new breakout classrooms that will service our students with learning accommodation by allowing students to take tests and other assignments outside their main classroom. It also provides for dedicated Spanish and Art classrooms. Currently, these functions are required to be mobile and go to each grades main classroom. The proposed modernization simply replaces aging facilities with safer, modern structures for the same students we serve today, without increasing population, altering use, or introducing new hazards.
To ensure a clear and consistent comparison, this document follows the sequence of findings used when ACES was approved pursuant to Sections 3.3.2(b) and 3.3.6. Our intent is not to challenge the regulatory framework, but to demonstrate that King’s Schools operates in a manner fully consistent with the ALUCP, with the standards applied to ACES, and we have no feasible alternative.
The following project description and findings are copied from the minutes where ACES was found consistent based on findings that King’s Schools meets as well.
86
December 11, 2025
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Palm Springs Unified School District proposes to replace existing buildings at Agua Caliente Elementary School with five new buildings at different areas within the school’s existing campus. Outdoor recreation areas would also be provided. The project would facilitate an increase in the capacity of the school to allow for the enrollment of up to 828 students (originally estimated at 850-875). The project description in the Draft EIR referenced the addition of up to 120 students and associated faculty at the pre-kindergarten level (included among the 875).
The purpose of the proposal is to rebuild the school to modernize it and make it safer for the students. The school is the central focus of the neighborhood in which it is located.
King’s Schools Project: A proposal to construct a new gymnasium building with classrooms and three classroom buildings on an existing school site on 5.26-acres. The proposal also includes a clean-up item to the City’s the zoning ordinance to amend allowable uses for Resort Residential (RR) to permit schools since the School has been at the approved location for many years with an approved CUP (dating back to before their current General Plan update). The purpose of the proposal is to modernize, improve safety and improve operations for students. It’s important to note that unlike for ACES, capacity is not increasing and enrollment would not be increased. The gymnasium is proposed in a location where students already gather for facilities, but would provide safer conditions.
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed enrollment level would not exceed the actual enrollment that existed at the time of Compatibility Plan adoption; therefore, the project would not increase the average intensity of the site.
King’s Schools:
The same is true for King’s Schools. King’s Schools remains consistent with its approved CUP (93-199) from 1994, including the addition of a gymnasium. Just like ACES, King’s modernization retains the same use—K–8 education—with no expansion of grade levels or daily population. Modernization replaces aging facilities without altering the character of the campus or surrounding land uses.
2. Since no information is available regarding the single-acre intensity that existed at the time of Plan adoption, there is no evidence that the project would result in an increase in single-acre intensity.
King’s Schools:
The same is true for King’s Schools and our over 30 years of operating. The methodology calculation of 1,159 persons on a single acre is theoretical, not based on actual school operations. The staff report states that “there is no cap on the number of non-students (guests, family members) that could be allowed on campus, and could potentially be clustered and concentrated in specific areas like the proposed gymnasium area, which the Compatibility Plan references.” which assumes a scenario that is not reflective of school operations in which King’s Schools would routinely allow uncontrolled public access or large gatherings 87
December 11, 2025
on campus, which are not based on actual operations. As previously mentioned, the proposal is not altering enrollment or school based activities.
3. The proposed capacity of the school would not exceed the peak number of students accommodated at the facility at or slightly after the time of Compatibility Plan adoption.
King’s Schools:
Operations remain unchanged from the past 30 years—just as the ACES modernization did.
PE moves indoors during extreme heat and accommodates approximately 30–40 students at a time. Class sizes are capped at 28 students, and total campus enrollment is approximately 300 students.
4. Although Building E has the capacity to accommodate approximately 747 people, the use of the assembly area within the building would be rare and for limited periods of time.
King’s Schools:
As stated, capacity at the school would not change. There would be no increase in the number of students, thus the same is true for King’s Schools gymnasium but only reduced due to the significantly lower student count at King’s Schools.
5. There are no other viable sites of residential fee land located outside a flood zone that could accommodate 600 students within the service area for this elementary school.
King’s Schools:
King’s Schools is a small private school that owns no other land, and we have operated on our site for over 30 years. We don’t have the resources or ownership of land like a public school district. ACES was a long-standing neighborhood school embedded within a fully built-out residential area and therefore had no realistic relocation options. The same is true for King’s Schools.
6. The project site is located in an area where average aircraft noise is below 60 CNEL, thus limiting noise impacts and potential nuisance complaints.
King’s Schools:
King’s Schools campus is primarily Zone D but does have a small portion of Zone E. The entire ACES campus is in Zone D. As the staff report states: “ The site is located outside the Palm Springs Airport Compatibility Plan 55 CNEL contour relative to aircraft noise contour.
Therefore, no special measures to mitigate aircraft noise are required at this location.”
7. The purpose of the rebuilding is to provide for a safer school for the students.
King’s Schools:
The same is true for King’s Schools. Currently the campus has very old portable buildings that will be replaced with new structures meeting all building code requirements. Due to other safety factors, such as weather, providing indoor spaces during extreme heat provides 88
December 11, 2025
a safer environment for students. It also provides improved safety oversight and accessibility to physical activity.
8. All proposed buildings would be constructed of reinforced masonry block, and the Cathedral City Fire Department has prepared a letter that notes that the proposed new buildings and site improvements would include automatic fire sprinklers, integrated fire alarms, and additional fire lanes and fire hydrants that do not exist at the current facility; thus, potential fire hazards to facility occupants would be reduced.
King’s Schools:
The student population is unchanged and remains fully consistent with historical operations. As with ACES, our modernization improves safety by bringing older buildings into compliance with current building standards, public safety access and fire hydrant placement.
9. The project site is not located beneath or near the extended centerline of the runway at Palm Springs International Airport or within the general traffic pattern envelope, wherein approximately 80% of aircraft overflights are expected to occur.
King’s Schools:
King’s Schools lies west of the primary Runway 31 approach centerline, with substantial separation created by Tahquitz Creek Golf Course and the Whitewater Wash. While the campus is primarily within Zone D, a small portion of the site is located within Zone E, the least restrictive compatibility zone under the ALUCP.
10. Approximately 25% of the project site would consist of ALUC-qualifying open area, which substantially exceeds the minimum Compatibility Zone D requirement of 10% open area. This additional open area provides a potential location for emergency landings for small aircraft, which may assist in offsetting the risk of an emergency landing within the more intensely used portions of the site.
King’s Schools:
The ALUCP open-area requirement applies only to sites 10 acres or larger; King’s is 5.26 acres. However, King’s Schools has significant surrounding open area being surrounded by the Tahquitz Creek Golf Course and the Whitewater Wash, which the Commission previously recognized as acceptable forced-landing buffers. King’s Schools is also a significant distance further from the airport compared to ACES.
11. The nearby golf course and Whitewater Wash east of the project site constitute alternative potential emergency landing locations.
King’s Schools:
As mentioned above, the project site is surrounded by the Tahquitz Creek Golf Course and the Whitewater Wash. It can be concluded that these constitute alternative potential emergency landing locations.
12. Based on the above findings, ALUC concludes that Agua Caliente Elementary School constitutes a nonconforming nonresidential development pursuant to Section 3.3.2(b) of the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility 89
December 11, 2025
Plan and that the usage intensity is not being increased above the levels existing at the time of adoption of the 2005 Palm Springs International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
King’s Schools:
As a site that has been historically operating as a school (even before King’s formation in 1994) and as a school that is not increasing the enrollment, it can be concluded that the usage intensity is not being increased.
13. The above findings constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting a policy exception for the proposed action.
King’s Schools:
As a private school, King’s Schools has no feasible alternative. As demonstrated above, the criteria found for ACES can be found here and the proposed project would cause even less of an impact in many cases. Simply put, our student population is significantly less than ACES and we are a much greater distance away from the airport.
14. Exterior noise levels from aircraft at this location average less than 60 CNEL, and not more than 20% of aircraft utilizing Palm Springs International Airport overfly the site; therefore, the project will not result in excessive aircraft-generated noise exposure for the proposed use.
King’s Schools:
The same is true for King’s Schools. The site is located outside the Palm Springs Airport Compatibility Plan 55 CNEL contour relative to aircraft noise contour. Therefore, no special measures to mitigate aircraft noise are required at this location.
15. Based on Findings No. 7 through 11 above, and with the project being subject to the conditions included herein, the project will not expose persons on the ground to an excessive safety hazard or risk, nor will it result in hazards to aircraft in flight.
King’s Schools:
The same is true for King’s Schools. We have no objection to 5 conditions listed in the staff report under the heading conditions (in the event of an overrule).
In summary, the evidence demonstrates that King’s Schools satisfies all 14 ALUC findings, just as ACES did during its modernization review. The long-standing use of this property as a school, the absence of any enrollment growth, the operational realities of classroom and gymnasium use, and the substantial adjacent open areas all support a finding of consistency.
We respectfully request that the Commission consider these facts, the consistency with ACES precedent, and the detailed operational data provided herein. Our school community has been part of Cathedral City for more than 30 years, and this modernization simply replaces aging, outdated buildings with safer, code-compliant facilities for the same students we serve today.
90
December 11, 2025
King’s Schools remains committed to working collaboratively with the Commission, City staff, and our surrounding community to maintain a safe and compatible campus that honors both aviation safety goals and the educational mission that has defined this property for nearly 70 years.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to our region. We remain available to provide additional information or clarification at your request. We value the Commission’s role in ensuring aviation safety and appreciate the opportunity to demonstrate the project’s consistency with the ALUCP.
Respectfully submitted,
Don DeLair
Founding Headmaster
91 ATTACHMENT A
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION MINUTE ORDER APRIL 14, 2016
RIVERSIDE MEETING
92 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
MINUTE ORDER APRIL 14, 2016
RIVERSIDE MEETING
A regular scheduled meeting of the Airport Land Use Commission was held on April 14, 2016 at the Riverside County Administrative Center, Board Chambers.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Simon Housman, Chairman
Rod Ballance, Vice Chairman
Arthur Butler
Glen Holmes
John Lyon
Steve Manos
Russell Betts, Alternate for Greg Pettis
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Greg Pettis
STAFF PRESENT: Ed Cooper, ALUC Director
John Guerin, Principal Planner
Paul Rull, Urban Regional Planner IV
Russell Brady, Contract Planner
Barbara Santos, ALUC Commission Secretary
Raymond Mistica, ALUC Counsel
OTHERS PRESENT: Julie Arthur, Palm Springs Unified School District
93 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
MINUTE ORDER APRIL 14, 2016
RIVERSIDE MEETING
I. I. I. AGENDA ITEM 2.1: ZAP1038PS16 – Palm Springs Unified School District (Representative: John Vega) - Environmental Impact Report State Clearingh ouse No. 2015031105. Palm Springs Unified School District proposes to replace existing buildings at Agua Caliente Elementary School located at 30-800 San Luis Rey Drive inside San Gabriel Drive Circle in Cathedral City with five new buildings at different areas within the school’s existing campus. The project would facilitate an increase in the capacity of the school so as to allow for an enrollment of up to 850 students, specifically including the addition of 120 pre -kindergarten students. (Airport Comp atibility Zone D of the Palm Springs International Airport Influence Area).
II. MAJOR ISSUES
The capacity of the proposed elementary school exceeds the maximum allowable average acre criterion of 100 and single-acre criterion of 300 people for Compatibility Zone D based on the Building Code Method. Additionally, children’s school uses are a discouraged use within Compatibility Zone D.
The proposed elementary school would replace the existing elementary school on the site, but is anticipated to increas e enrollment from 599 to an enrollment capacity of 828 and so would not be subject to the provisions for continuing to operate an existing nonconforming use pursuant to Countywide Policy 3.3.2.(b).
The applicant has stated that based on School District and State requirements, total occupancy for the site would comply with the average acre criterion of 100, but Building B occupancy would exceed the single-acre criterion on its own and other single -acre areas exceed the single -acre criterion as well.
Additionally, the maximum occupancy of Building E, which is primarily for assembly purposes and does not increase the permissible total enrollment, would substantially exceed the single -acre criterion.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends a finding of INCONSISTENCY, based on the proposed project exceeding single - acre non -residential intensity criteria for Compatibility Zone D based on the Building Code Method and the project being a discouraged use within Compatibility Zone D, unless the Commission is willing to accept the applicant’s estimates for occupancy or make special circumstance findings pursuant to Countywide Policy 3.3.6.
At the request of the applicant, staff recommends that consideration of the project be CONTINUED to ALUC’s April 14, 2016 hearing to provide staff and the applicant additional time to review site design, including measures to mitigate potential hazards from aircraft.
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Palm Springs Unified School District proposes to replace existing buildings at Agua Caliente Elementary School with five new buildings at different areas within the school’s existing campus.
Outdoor recreation areas would also be provided. The project would facilitate an increase in the capacity of the school to allow for the enrollmen t of up to 828 students (originally estimated at 850 - 875). The project description in the Draft EIR referenced the addition of up to 120 students and associated faculty at the pre-kindergarten level (included among the 875).
The purpose of the proposal is to rebuild the school to modernize it and make it safer for the students.
The school is the central focus of the neighborhood in which it is located.
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed enrollment level would not exceed the actual enrollment that existed at t he time of Compatibility Plan adoption; therefore, the project would not increase the average intensity 94 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
MINUTE ORDER APRIL 14, 2016
RIVERSIDE MEETING
of the site.
2. Since no information is available regarding the single -acre intensity that existed at the time of Plan adoption, there is no evidence t hat the project would result in an increase in single -acre intensity.
3. The proposed capacity of the school would not exceed the peak number of students accommodated at the facility at or slightly after the time of Compatibility Plan adoption.
4. Although Building E has the capacity to accommodate approximately 747 people, the use of the assembly area within the building would be rare and for limited periods of time.
5. There are no other viable sites of residential fee land located outside a flood zone that could accommodate 600 students within the service area for this elementary school.
6. The project site is located in an area where average aircraft noise is below 60 CNEL, thus limiting noise impacts and potential nuisance complaints.
7. The purpose of the rebuilding is to provide for a safer school for the students.
8. All proposed buildings would be constructed of reinforced masonry block, and the Cathedral City Fire Department has prepared a letter that notes that the proposed new buildings and site improvements would include automatic fire sprinklers, integrated fire alarms, and additional fire lanes and fire hydrants that do not exist at the current facility; thus, potential fire hazards to facility occupants would be reduced.
9. The project site is not located beneath or near the extended centerline of the runway at Palm Springs International Airport or within the general traffic pattern envelope, wherein approximately 80% of aircraft overflights are expected to occur.
10. Approximately 25% o f the project site would consist of ALUC -qualifying open area, which substantially exceeds the minimum Compatibility Zone D requirement of 10% open area. This additional open area provides a potential location for emergency landings for small aircraft, which may assist in offsetting the risk of an emergency landing within the more intensely used portions of the site.
11. The nearby golf course and Whitewater Wash east of the project site constitute alternative potential emergency landing locations.
12. Based on the above findings, ALUC concludes that Agua Caliente Elementary School constitutes a nonconforming nonresidential development pursuant to Section 3.3.2(b) of the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan a nd that the usage intensity is not being increased above the levels existing at the time of adoption of the 2005 Palm Springs International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
13. The above findings constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting a pol icy exception for the proposed action.
14. Exterior noise levels from aircraft at this location average less than 60 CNEL, and not more than 20% of aircraft utilizing Palm Springs International Airport overfly the site; therefore, the project will not result in excessive aircraft-generated noise exposure for the proposed use. 95 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
MINUTE ORDER APRIL 14, 2016
RIVERSIDE MEETING
15. Based on Findings No. 7 through 11 above, and with the project being subject to the conditions included herein, the project will not expose persons on the ground to an excessive safety hazard or risk, nor will it result in hazards to aircraft in flight.
CONDITIONS:
1. Any new outdoor lighting installed shall be hooded or shielded to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky. Outdoor lighting shall be downward facing.
2. The following uses shall be prohibited:
(a) Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb followin g takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA -approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator.
(b) Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an air craft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an airport.
(c) Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of bird s, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area. (Such uses include landscaping utilizing water features, aquaculture, production of cereal grains, sunflower, and row crops, composting operations, trash transfer stations that are open on one or more sides, recycling centers containing putrescible wastes, construction and demolition debris facilities, fly ash disposal, and incinerators.)
(d) Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation.
(e) Hospitals, skilled nursing and care facilities, noise sensitive outdoor nonresidential uses and hazards to flight.
3. Building E shall not be made available to outside entities unless restricted to a maximu m of 300 persons, until such time as the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is amended to potentially allow for single-acre intensities exceeding 450 persons in Compatibility Zone D.
4. The attached notice shall be given to all prospec tive purchasers of the property and shall be recorded as a deed notice.
5. No detention basins are depicted on the site plan. Any new detention basin(s) on the site shall be designed so as to provide for a maximum 48-hour detention period following the conclusion of the storm event for the design storm (may be less, but not more), and to remain totally dry between rainfalls. Vegetation in and around the detention basin(s) that would provide food or cover for bird species that would be incompatible with airport operations shall not be utilized in project landscaping.
96 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
MINUTE ORDER APRIL 14, 2016
RIVERSIDE MEETING
6. The recreation field areas including a soccer field and baseball field as generally shown in the northern portion of the site titled ALUC Diagram, dated 3/29/16 and Planting Plan dated 10/05/15 shall be kept free of obstructions such as walls, large trees or poles (greater than 4 inches in diameter, measured 4 feet above the ground), and overhead wires excluding those trees shown on the Planting Plan and a backstop/fence for the baseball field. Small trees and shrubs that exceed 4 feet in height and/or thickness of 4 inches may be allowed along the edge of open space areas where the area abuts a wall or other similar feature, provided that they are planted within 4 feet of the wall.
V. MEETING SUMMARY
The following staff presented the subject proposal:
ALUC Staff Planner: Russell Brady at (951) 955-0549, or e-mail at [email protected]
The following spoke neither for or against the project, but added information to the decision making process:
Julie Arthur, Palm Springs Unified School District, 980 E. Tahquitz Canyon , Ste 202, Palm Springs, CA 92262
No one spoke in favor or opposition to the project
VI. ALUC COMMISSION ACTION
The ALUC Commission by a unanimous vote of 7-0 found the project CONSISTENT pursuant to Policy 3.3.2. (b), based on the findings that: the proposed enrollment level would not exceed the actual enrollment that existed at the time of Compatibility Plan adoption, and that, therefore, the average intensity would not be increased; and that, since no information is available regarding the existing single-acre intensity at the time of Plan adoption, there is no evidence that the proposal would result in an increase in single-acre intensity; and pursuant to Policy 3.3.6, based on the findings presented in the staff report.
VII. CD
The entire discussion of this agenda item can be found on CD and referenced by the meeting time listed below. For a copy of the CD, please contact Barbara Santos, ALUC Commission Secreta ry, at (951) 955-5132 or E-mail at [email protected].
ITEM 2.1: TIME 9:01 A.M.
97 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
MINUTE ORDER APRIL 14, 2016
RIVERSIDE MEETING
I. I. I. AGENDA ITEM 3.1: ZAP1183MA16 – Jason Radwan (Representative: Blue Peak Engineering) – City of Perris Planning Case No. 15 -05196 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 37043). Tentative Parcel Map No. 37043 is a proposal to subdivide a 3.3 gross acre parcel into two commercial parcels. The proposed area of parcel 1 is 2.9 net acres and contains existi ng parking stalls and storage units as part of the existing commercial shopping center. The proposed area of Parcel 2 is 0.4 net acres and contains a Del Taco restaurant and drive -thru (currently under construction) and existing parking stalls. The project site is southerly of Ramona Expressway and easterly of Perris Boulevard, within the City of Perris. (Airport Compatibility Zone C1 of the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Influence Area).
II. MAJOR ISSUES
None
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends a finding of CONSISTENCY for the Tentative Parcel Map, subject to the conditions included herein.
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Tentative Parcel Map No. 37043 is a proposal to subdivide a 3.3 gross acre parcel into two commercial parcels. The proposed area of parcel 1 is 2.9 net acres and contains existing parking stalls and storage units as part of an existing commercial shopping center. The proposed area of Parcel 2 is 0.4 net acres and contains a Del Taco restaurant and drive -thru (currently under construction) and existing parking stalls. The Del Taco restaurant was previously reviewed by ALUC staff under ZAP1116MA15 and approved by the Airport Land Use Commission in May 2015.
CONDITIONS:
1. Any outdoor lighting installed shall be hooded or shielded to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky. Outdoor lighting shall be downward facing.
2. The following uses shall be prohibited:
(a) Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA -approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator.
(b) Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an airport.
(c) Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area. (Such uses include landscaping utilizing water features, aquaculture, produc tion of cereal grains, sunflower, and row crops, composting operations, trash transfer stations that are open on one or more sides, recycling centers containing putrescible wastes, construction and demolition debris facilities, fly ash disposal, and incinerators.)
(d) Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation.
98 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
MINUTE ORDER APRIL 14, 2016
RIVERSIDE MEETING
(e) Noise sensitive outdoor nonresidential uses and hazards to flight.
3. The attached notice shall be given to all prospective purchasers and/or tenants of the property and shall be recorded as a deed notice.
4. Any proposed detention basin(s) on the site (including bioretention areas for water quality treatment) shall be designed so as to provide for a maxim um 48 -hour detention period following the conclusion of the storm event for the design storm (may be less, but not more), and to remain totally dry between rainfalls. Vegetation in and around the retention basin(s) that would provide food or cover for bir d species that would be incompatible with airport operations shall not be utilized in project landscaping. Trees shall be spaced so as to prevent large expanses of contiguous canopy, when mature. Landscaping in and around the retention basin(s) shall not include trees that produce seeds, fruits, or berries.
5. March Air Reserve Base must be notified of any land use having an electromagnetic radiation component to assess whether a potential conflict with Air Base radio communications could result. Sources o f electromagnetic radiation include radio wave transmission in conjunction with remote equipment inclusive of irrigation controllers, access gates, etc.
6. The use within Parcel 2 of this parcel map has already been approved as a restaurant with a drive-thru. The floor plan reviewed by ALUC provides for 867 square feet of dining area. Any future tenant improvements that would increase the dining area to more than 1,100 square feet shall be submitted to ALUC as an amended review. The previous consistency determination applies specifically to use of this building as a restaurant.
V. MEETING SUMMARY
The following staff presented the subject proposal:
ALUC Staff Planner: Paul Rull at (951) 955-6893, or e-mail at [email protected]
No one spoke in favor, neutral or opposition to the project.
VI. ALUC COMMISSION ACTION
The ALUC Commission by a unanimous vote of 7-0 found the project CONSISTENT.
VII. CD
The entire discussion of this agenda item can be found on CD and referenced by the meeting time listed below. For a copy of the CD, please contact Barbara Santos, ALUC Commission Secretary, at (951) 955-5132 or E-mail at [email protected].
ITEM 3.1: TIME 9:23 A.M.
99 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
MINUTE ORDER APRIL 14, 2016
RIVERSIDE MEETING
I. I. I. AGENDA ITEM 3.2: ZAP1185MA16 – Vogel Properties (Representative: Nick Johnson) – City of Moreno Valley Case No. PA16 -0002 (Site Plan Review). The applicant is proposing to develop a 446,350 square foot warehouse/distribution center on 19.61 acres. The building fl oor plan consists of 426,350 square feet of warehouse area, 10,000 square feet of office area, and 10,000 square feet of mezzanine area. The project site is located northerly of Harley Knox Boulevard, southerly of a straight-line westerly extension of Grove View Road and Nandina Avenue, easterly of Heacock Street, and westerly of Indian Street. (Airport Compatibility Zones B2 and C1 of the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Influence Area).
II. MAJOR ISSUES
None
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Site Plan Review be found CONSISTENT, subject to the conditions included herein.
STAFF RECOMMENDED AT HEARING
CONTINUE to 5-12-16 (applicants request)
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Site Plan Review is a proposal to develop a 446,350 s quare foot warehouse/distribution center on 19.61 acres. The building floor plan consists of 426,350 square feet of warehouse area, 10,000 square feet of office area, and 10,000 square feet of mezzanine area.
V. MEETING SUMMARY
The following staff presented the subject proposal:
ALUC Staff Planner: Paul Rull at (951) 955-6893, or e-mail at [email protected]
No one spoke in favor, neutral or opposition to the project.
VI. ALUC COMMISSION ACTION
The ALUC Commission by a unanimous vote of 7-0 CONTINUED the project to May 12, 2016.
VII. CD
The entire discussion of this agenda item can be found on CD and referenced by the meeting time listed below. For a copy of the CD, please contact Barbara Santos, ALUC Commission Secretary, at (951) 955-5132 or E-mail at [email protected].
ITEM 3.2: TIME 9:24 A.M.
100
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
MINUTE ORDER APRIL 14, 2016
RIVERSIDE MEETING
I. I. I. AGENDA ITEM 3.3: ZAP1184MA16 – MGP X Properties LLC (Representative: Romero Thorsen Design) – City of Riverside Planning Case Nos. P15-0820 (Specific Plan Amendment) and P15 -0978 (Design Review). The applicant is proposing to amend the Specific Plan Development Standards (Section IV) of the Canyon Springs Business Park Specific Plan to allow for an additional pylon sign along the 215 Freeway with a maximum height limit of 75 feet and total sign area of 760 square feet and to construct such a sign at the northwest corner of the 15.5 acre parcel that includes the Valley Gateway Plaza shopping center. The proposed sign structure will be 75 feet in height and 31.5 feet in width. The sign will be a non -LED sign and have five tenant sign panels totaling 660 square feet of sign area. The project site is located easterly of Interstate 215 and westerly of Valley Springs Parkway (Airport Compatibility Zone C1 of the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Influence Area).
II. MAJOR ISSUES
None
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission find the proposed Specific Plan Amendment CONSISTENT with the 2014 Marc h Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and find the proposed Design Review CONSISTENT, subject to the conditions included herein.
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to amend the Specific Plan Development Stand ards (Section IV) of the Canyon Springs Business Park Specific Plan to allow for an additional pylon sign along the 215 Freeway with a maximum height limit of 75 feet and total sign area of 760 square feet and to construct such a sign at the northwest corner of the 15.5 acre parcel that includes the Valley Gateway Plaza shopping center. The proposed sign structure will be 75 feet in height and 31.5 feet in width.
The sign will be a non -LED sign and will include a 100 square foot sign identifying the name of the shopping center, plus five tenant sign panels totaling 660 square feet of sign area.
CONDITIONS (applicable to the proposed Design Review):
1. Any outdoor lighting installed shall be hooded or shielded so as to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky. Outdoor lighting shall be downward facing.
2. The following uses/activities are not included in the proposed project and shall be prohibited:
(a) Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, gr een, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA -approved navigati onal signal light or visual approach slope indicator.
(b) Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an airport.
(c) Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area.
(d) Any use which would generate electrical interferenc e that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation.
101
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
MINUTE ORDER APRIL 14, 2016
RIVERSIDE MEETING
(e) The use of any structures on this site as children’s schools, day care centers, libraries, hospitals, skilled nursing and care facilities, congregate care faciliti es, places of assembly- entertainment, or places of assembly-non-entertainment, excluding such uses as may have been established prior to November 13, 2014.
3. The attached disclosure notice shall be provided to all prospective purchasers of the property and tenants of the buildings, and shall be recorded as a deed notice.
4. March Air Reserve Base must be notified of any land use having an electromagnetic radiation component to assess whether a potential conflict with Air Base radio communications could result. Sources of electromagnetic radiation include radio wave transmission in conjunction with remote equipment inclusive of irrigation controllers, access gates, etc.
V. MEETING SUMMARY
The following staff presented the subject proposal:
ALUC Staff Planner: Paul Rull at (951) 955-6893, or e-mail at [email protected]
No one spoke in favor, neutral or opposition to the project.
VI. ALUC COMMISSION ACTION
The ALUC Commission by a unanimous vote of 7-0 found the project CONSISTENT.
VII. CD
The entire discussion of this agenda item can be found on CD and referenced by the meeting time listed below. For a copy of the CD, please contact Barbara Santos, ALUC Commission Secretary, at (951) 955-5132 or E-mail at [email protected].
ITEM 3.3: TIME 9:25 A.M.
102
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
MINUTE ORDER APRIL 14, 2016
RIVERSIDE MEETING
I. 4.0 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
4.1 Director’s Approvals - Information only
4.2 Recordings of Commission Hearings and Commission Packets Now that the ALUC hearings held at the County Administrative Center are available on video at our website ( www.rcaluc.org), the Commissioners agreed that they no longer need the audio CD recordings mailed to them on an ongoing basis. The audio CD recordi ngs will be made available upon request, and will continue to be available to the public at a cost of $12.50.
4.3 Specific Delegation of Authority: Amendment to Canyon Springs Specific Plan An applicant proposing to add an additional tenant sign to a n existing pylon sign located along Highway 60 in the northeasterly portion of the Canyon Springs Specific Plan requested that the Commission delegate its authority to the ALUC Director to render a consistency finding regarding the associated Specific Plan Amendment.
The ALUC Commission by a unanimous vote of 7 -0 approved the Specific Delegation of Authority to the ALUC Director to make the requested determination.
4.4 Commissioner Reappointments
John Guerin, ALUC staff, advised that the City Selection Committee reappointed Commissioner Steve Manos at its meeting of March 14, 2016 and that the Board of Supervisors reappointed Commissioner Arthur Butler at its meeting of March 29, 2016.
Chairman Housman congratulated and thanked Commissioners Manos and Butler for their continued service.
II. 5.0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The ALUC Commission by a vote of 6 -0 approved the March 10, 2016 minutes. Abstained:
Commissioner Holmes
III. 6.0 ORAL COMMUNICATION ON ANY MATTER NOT ON THE AGENDA Russell Brady, A LUC planner, announced that this likely would be his last day presenting to the Commission and expressed his appreciation serving the Commission and for his time with ALUC for the past six plus years. Chairman Housman expressed that it has been an honor a nd pleasure working with Mr. Brady.
IV. 7.0 COMMISSIONER’S COMMENTS
7.1 March Joint Powers Authority TAC Report Update by Commissioner Ballance Nothing to report
Chairman Housman announced that the March Air Reserve Base Air Show will be held this weekend on April 16-17.
V. 8.0 ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Housman adjourned the meeting at 9:36 a.m.
103
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
MINUTE ORDER APRIL 14, 2016
RIVERSIDE MEETING
VI. CD
The entire discussion of this agenda item can be found on CD and referenced by the meeting time listed below. For a copy of the CD, please contact B arbara Santos, ALUC Commission Secretary, at (951) 955-5132 or E-mail at [email protected].
ITEM 4.0: TIME IS 9:27 A.M.
104
Outlook
KINGS SCHOOL OF THE DESERT EXPANSION PROJECT
FromJune Liu <[email protected]>
Date Tue 9/16/2025 9:36 AM
To Dominique Camps <[email protected]>
Cc Tracey Hermosillo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Palm Springs East Association
June Liu, President
6176 Driver Rd.
Palm Springs, CA 92264
September 16, 2025
Dominique Camps, Association Planner
[email protected] (Sent via email)
City of Cathedral City
68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234
RE: KINGS SCHOOL OF THE DESERT EXPANSION PROJECT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION 25-003; ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE 25-006; ZONING AMENDMENT 25-001
Dear Ms. Camps,
On behalf of the Palm Springs East Association (PSE) I am again writing to relay concerns about the Kings School expansion project. Please relay these concerns to the City Council ahead of the Public Hearing to consider this project. We are the 48 residential units along the north side of Bolero Road across from the school. Our Association met last week to discuss the project. After receiving direction from residents and the Board, as well as reviewing the Planning Commission meeting and the associated staff report, I wish to register our following concerns and requests:
1. There is confusion related to the designation of the driving path running the entire segment from Bolero Road to Carey Road. We are specifically interested in the path with the driveway off Bolero that drives along the east side of the school. This driving path has been referred to by staff as an alley, access lane, drive aisle, private access driveway, and fire lane.
We request this driving path be identified under a singular designation (i.e. access lane) for use in the Conditions and for all future staff reports (written and verbal) to end confusion.
2. There is also confusion as to how this driving path or access lane is to be utilized, and we are particularly concerned with the driveway on Bolero Road. As background, on August 26, 2025, you answered my email inquiry about the Bolero Road driveway and how this access lane is to be used by answering: “The alley/fire lane is gated and will be used for staff to access 105
the staff parking lot, service/delivery access, and for fire access. The lane will not be available for general access, student drop-off or through traffic. We do not anticipate an increase in traffic volumes.”
Furthermore, during the Planning Commission meeting of September 3, 2025 (near the 10:45 mark of the meeting) you state that the “access lane” proposed for the east side of the school off Bolero Road will not be opened to the public and will not be used for student pick up or drop off. You also state this lane is only for use by staff, service providers and fire access, and gates on both ends of the access lane are locked during non-operational hours.
Both of your statements coincide with the fact that the Proposed Site Plan (Attachment 6) specifies exit only arrows onto Bolero Road from this access lane.
However, at the 20:57 mark of the meeting, the school’s Headmaster, Don Delair, declares this access lane will serve as an additional entry point for drop off and pick up of students from Bolero Road, in totaling “three entry points for the school” (referring to their parking lot, the turn around and this newly designed lane as their three entry points).
Palm Springs East opposes any form of student drop-off or pick-up, and any general ingress and egress traffic onto Bolero Road from the access lane on the east side of the school utilizing the driveway on Bolero Road. This is due to concerns with additional traffic (currently, there is little-to-none at this driveway), excess noise and headlight beams shining into our complex from the driveway. We can support specific access lane use by staff who utilize the south parking stalls, service providers and fire access.
Thus, at the Council Meeting, there is a need for the city to clearly outline the exact uses for this access lane, and for Kings School to acknowledge these outlined Conditions. Otherwise, parents will not get the message.
3. We request a rewrite of Section 3.21 and a portion of Section 4.37 of the Conditions for clarity purposes regarding the allowed access lane uses.
As background, in Section 3.21 of the Draft Conditions it currently reads:
The alley shall be used only for staff access to the southern parking area. The alley shall be kept clear for fire access at all times, and parking in the alley shall not be permitted.
Because it is not clear what “alley” refers to, we request Section 3.21 of the Conditions be amended to read as follows:
The Bolero Road driveway to the access lane on the east side of the school shall be used for staff ingress to the south employee parking lot, suppliers and service vehicles only. The lane will not be available for general access, student drop-off or through traffic. The lane shall be kept clear for fire access at all times, and parking in the lane, other than within the 25 marked employee stalls, shall not be permitted.
4. We request a rewrite of a portion of Section 4.37 of the Conditions for clarity purposes:
As background, the portion of Section 4.37 of the Draft Conditions we refer to contains the following language which seemingly opens the access lane to all types of users and uses. It currently reads as:
i. The private access driveways and parking lot collecting drive aisles will provide ingress and egress for employees, suppliers and service vehicles.
ii. Parents, students and employee parking are allowed in designated areas 106
as generally shown on the CUP’s Plans.
We request the portion of Section 4.37 of the Conditions be amended to read as follows:
i. The Carey Road driveway to the school’s access lane will provide ingress and egress for staff access to the south parking lot, suppliers and service vehicles only.
The lane will not be available for general access or through traffic. ii. The Bolero Road driveway to the school’s access lane will provide ingress for staff access to the south parking lot, suppliers and service vehicles only. The lane will not be available for general access or through traffic. iii. Outside of (i) and (ii), parents, students and employee parking are allowed in designated areas as generally shown on the CUP’s Plans.
5. To address our concerns about the facility uses by outside users, the hours and types of uses, and the noise levels we request these Conditions be added to the CUP:
a) Use of facilities is limited to those directly sponsored and programmed by the school. No outside rentals, public use or Joint-Use programming will be allowed. b) Kings School hours of operation applicable to all facilities and grounds:
Monday through Friday: 7:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Saturdays – Indoor Facilities: 9:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m.
Saturdays – Open Field/Open Play Areas: 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Sundays: Closed
c) At no time shall the noise from school activities exceed 105 decibels. d) The inner and outer doors of the gymnasium/performing arts facility are to remain closed for the duration of the activity when noise levels are at 85 decibels or higher. e) At no time shall the noise from the school’s open areas, including the open field/retention basin, basketball courts and general outdoor recreation areas exceed 90 decibels. f) Electronic/artificial noisemakers, air horns and electronic amplifiers above 90 decibels are not allowed to be used on open field/retention basin, basketball courts and general outdoor recreation areas, as well as during sports play or competition within the gymnasium.
6. We request the installation of external light shields (available from the manufacturer) to be installed on each LED light (VALS V-Locity) in the west parking lot. Even though the lighting study concerning the Bolero Road parking lot lights demonstrates there is 0% lighting spillover beyond the parking lot, it doesn’t address the overall light visibility endured by Palm Springs East residents. With lampposts 12’ high, the 27,000 lumen LED lights will be visible to the neighbors in casting an eyesore of light where light was not seen before. This is akin to seeing sports field lighting from a distance. The lamp shields will help to mitigate the issues.
7. We request a Condition be added that caps Kings School’s enrollment at 300 students for the duration of the amended CUP given the following:
a) The city has received a letter from King School’s Headmaster Don Delair indicating the school has no plans to increase their current enrollment of 300; and b) The city has received a letter related to a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Christiansen & Company, August 18, 2025, and/or information from the city's Engineering department, which states the project design will not have an impact on traffic with the current enrollment of 300 students.
8. We request a Condition be included for the city to require the school to provide notification to residents within 500’ of the school’s boundaries for all future proposed construction projects and CUP amendments upon application to the city.
107
9. We believe the newly added uses to the school’s expanded facilities trigger a need for the city to conduct a traffic study and Environmental Impact Report that were otherwise waived.
Per Section 15162 (a) 2 and (a) 3 and (b) of the CEQA Guidelines the substantial changes and new information related to the numerous additional uses of facilities seem to apply here. With the newly built multipurpose building (with gymnasium and performing arts options), and the open field, Headmaster Don Delair has relayed to our residents that the school will be increasing the number of sporting and performing arts activities held on campus as the school focuses on these two activity offerings for their students.
While you stated the school would be adding one or two onsite events to their current calendar, the reality is that their onsite events will increase greatly (400+ events?) and involve expanded hours, weekdays after school, and weekends because nearly all events are currently held offsite due to lack of current campus facilities. These activities include but are not limited to conducting year-round sport games and daily practices (as broken into boys’ and girls’ teams by age); performing arts events and daily rehearsals; and expansion of the school’s special events and fundraisers. These activities bring additional traffic and noise to our neighborhood.
In closing, should the city exclude any of the above requests, we request a delay in consideration of this CUP so that we may conduct discussions with the city and school to mitigate the outlined matters.
Sincerely,
June Liu
President, Palm Springs East Association
cc: Tracey R. Hermosillo, City Clerk
[email protected]
108
Staff Report
City Council
Item No. 4.B
Meeting Date: January 14, 2026
From: Andrew Firestine, Director of Community and Economic Development Title: Adoption of Local Implementing Provisions for the Short-Term Rental Facilitator Act of 2025 (SB 346)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council introduce for first reading, read by title only, and waive further reading of an ordinance adding Section 5.96.090 to Chapter 5.96 of Title 5 of the Cathedral City Municipal Code to implement the Short-Term Rental Facilitator Act of 2025 (SB 346), and direct staff to return for second reading and adoption.
BACKGROUND:
The City regulates Short-Term Vacation Rentals (“STVRs”) through Chapter 5.96 of the Cathedral City Municipal Code (“CCMC”). Operators of permitted STVRs must obtain and maintain an STVR permit and comply with program requirements, including transient occupancy tax (“TOT”) remittance pursuant to Chapter 3.24 of the CCMC.
In 2025, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 346, adding Government Code section 50990 et seq., known as the Short-Term Rental Facilitator Act of 2025. The Act authorizes cities to adopt local provisions making the Act operative within the city’s jurisdiction. If adopted, a city may require short-term rental listing platforms and other facilitators to provide specified property identification information to the City for TOT administration and enforcement and to display City-issued permit identifiers within listings.
The proposed ordinance would formally implement the Act locally and establish reporting and listing-credential requirements for short-term rental facilitators operating within Cathedral City.
1 DISCUSSION:
The proposed ordinance adds Section 5.96.090 to the CCMC to:
Adopt and apply the Short-Term Rental Facilitator Act of 2025 within Cathedral City; Require short-term rental facilitators, upon request, to provide the City with:
The physical address and nine-digit ZIP code of each listed short-term rental; and
If needed to confirm a location, the assessor parcel number, listing URL, and limited additional identifying details; and
Require short-term rental facilitators to display the City-issued STVR permit number in each listing.
The information provided under the ordinance will support:
TOT administration and enforcement
Verification of permitted versus unpermitted listings
Improved transparency in the short-term rental marketplace Failure to comply with the reporting or display provisions may result in administrative citation under Chapter 13.58 of the CCMC.
The ordinance does not alter the City’s existing STVR permitting framework or TOT requirements. Rather, it improves the City’s ability to ensure lawful operation and equitable tax compliance among STVR operators and facilitators
FISCAL IMPACT:
The ordinance is expected to improve the accuracy and efficiency of TOT administration and compliance monitoring. Any incremental administrative workload will be absorbed within existing staff capacity. No new appropriations are required.
FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN:
n/a
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance — Adding Section 5.96.090 to CCMC Chapter 5.96 (SB 346 Implementation)
2 4913-8196-5441 v1
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CATHEDRAL CITY ADDING SECTION 5.96.090 TO
CHAPTER 5.96 OF TITLE 5 OF THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL
CITY MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT SENATE BILL
346 (THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL FACILITATOR ACT OF
2025) REGARDING SHORT-TERM RENTAL FACILITATOR
REPORTING
WHEREAS, the City of Cathedral City, California is a municipal corporation and charter city, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by California Constitution, Article XI, Section 7 to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Constitution, Article XI, Section 5 and Cathedral City City Charter Section 100, the City, as a charter city, has plenary authority to make and enforce within its limits all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs; and
WHEREAS, the City regulates Short-Term Vacation Rentals (“STVRs”) under Chapter 5.96 of Title 5 of the Cathedral City Municipal Code (“CCMC”), including requirements that STVR operators obtain and maintain an STVR permit and include the City-issued STVR permit number in advertisements; and
WHEREAS, STVR occupancies are also subject to the City’s transient occupancy tax (“TOT”), administered under Chapter 3.24 of Title 3 of the CCMC; and WHEREAS, in 2025, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 346, adding Government Code section 50990 et seq., known as the “Short-Term Rental Facilitator Act of 2025,” which authorizes a city to adopt an ordinance making the Act operative within its jurisdiction and, if adopted, authorizes the City to require short-term rental facilitators to provide specified identifying information for short-term rentals for TOT administration and enforcement and to include specified City-issued credentials in listings; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance implements the authorities provided by Senate Bill 346; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and declares that adopting local implementing provisions will enhance the City’s ability to administer and enforce its TOT program, identify unpermitted STVR activity, and ensure compliance in the STVR marketplace; and
3 4913-8196-5441 v1
WHEREAS, the City places a high value on protecting community character, land values, and the general public, health, safety and welfare, and has previously adopted numerous ordinances to help ensure such protection; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the adoption of this proposed ordinance is within the City’s power and authority to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residents; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this ordinance have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals above are each incorporated by reference and adopted as findings by the City Council.
Section 2. CCMC Amendment. Section 5.96.090 of the Cathedral City Municipal Code is hereby added to read in its entirety follows:
“Section 5.96.090 Short-term rental facilitator responsibilities.
A. Pursuant to Government Code section 50990(b), the City hereby adopts and makes applicable within the City’s jurisdictional boundaries the Short-Term Rental Facilitator Act of 2025 (Gov. Code, § 50990 et seq.). The definitions set forth in Government Code section 50991 are incorporated by this reference and apply to this section.
B. Upon request by the City, each short-term rental facilitator must report, in the form and manner prescribed by the City, the physical address, including nine- digit ZIP Code, of each short-term rental during the reporting period.
C. If the information provided under Subsection A is not sufficient for the City to identify a specific short-term rental at the provided address, the City may request (1) the assessor parcel number of the short-term rental, (2) the URL associated with the specific short-term rental listing, and (3) the information exclusively related to the identification of an accessory dwelling unit, guest house, or single unit of a timeshare or multifamily housing project located at a single address, which is located at the address or assessor parcel number requested.
D. A short-term rental facilitator must include in the listing of a short-term rental the City permit number associated with the short-term rental.
E. A short-term rental facilitator’s failure to timely and properly report the information required by this section in the form and manner prescribed by the City may result in issuance of an administrative citation under Chapter 13.58 of this code.”
4 4913-8196-5441 v1
Section 3. CEQA. Adoption of this ordinance is not subject to CEQA, as it is not a “Project” as defined by CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15060(c)(3).) This action is further exempt from CEQA under the “common sense” exemption as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3).) Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision may not affect the validity of the remaining portions. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and word not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 5. Posting. The City Clerk must, within 15 days after passage of this ordinance, cause it to be posted in at least three designated public places, shall certify to the adoption and posting of this ordinance, and must cause this ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of this City.
Section 6. Certification.
The foregoing Ordinance was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on the ____ day of _____________, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
___________________________
Raymond Gregory, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Christina Burton, City Clerk
5 4913-8196-5441 v1
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Eric S. Vail, City Attorney
6 Staff Report
City Council
Item No. 5.A
Meeting Date: January 14, 2026
From: Kevin Biersack, Financial Services Director
Title: FY 2025/2026 Budget Status Update, Quarter One
RECOMMENDATION:
This item is presented for information, discussion and direction only.
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this presentation is to update City Council on the status of the City’s General and Measure W Fund’s first quarter budget versus actual results as of September 30, 2025.
In May 2025, the City Council adopted a biennial budget for both FY 2025/2026 and FY 2026/2027 annual budgets. Quarterly budget status reports will provide transparency and allow the City Council to monitor financial performance, evaluate trends, and identify potential fiscal issues early in the biennium.
DISCUSSION:
General Fund Revenues
Tax revenues of $12.73 million are modestly below budget, driven primarily by lower-than- anticipated receipts in sales tax, transaction and use tax, property tax, and transient occupancy tax. Offsetting these shortfalls, user utility tax and cannabis tax revenues are exceeding budget projections.
1 Licenses, permits, and other non-tax revenues total $3.47 million compared to the first quarter budget of $4.36 million. Revenues from services and fees, licenses and permits, and citations are meeting or exceeding expectations, primarily due to increases in the city’s regulatory and user fees. Conversely, miscellaneous revenues, property and interest earnings, and FEMA reimbursements are below budget, primarily due to the timing of reimbursements and interest recognition occurring later in the fiscal year.
In total, General Fund revenues through the first quarter total $16.21 million, representing
91.53 percent of the adopted first quarter budget of $17.71 million. 2 .
General Fund Expenditures
At the departmental level, Police and Fire expenditures are tracking with budgeted expectations. Some departments, including City Management and Elected Officials, are above their proportional first-quarter allocations due to cashouts, legal fees, and annual assistance/license/subscriptions. Other departments, such as Public Works and General Government, are below budget due to project scheduling and expenditures anticipated later in the fiscal year. The actual expenditures by department and the corresponding budgets are provided in the table below:
By expenditure category, salary and benefit costs total approximately $10.69 million and are tracking close to budgeted levels. Operating expenditures total approximately $6.73 million 3 and are below budget, reflecting the timing of contractual services, supplies, and other operational costs.
General Fund expenditures through the first quarter total $17.42 million, or 88.63 percent of the adopted first quarter budget of $19.65 million. Overall expenditure levels are within an acceptable range for the first quarter and reflect prudent fiscal management.
General Fund Summary
For the first quarter of FY 2025/2026, total General Fund revenues versus expenditures results in a $1,212,625 deficit compared to the projected budget deficit totaling $1,946,243.
Measure W Summary
With the passage of Measure W in November 2024 and its subsequent implementation in April 2025, we now have six (6) months of Measure W activity. The FY 2025/2026 first quarter Measure W (Fund 151) results follow:
4 The Measure W revenue for last quarter of FY 2024/2025 was $1,080,102 (April – June) is
3.69% more than we received in first quarter FY 2025/2026 (July through September). For the first quarter of each fiscal year, the reduction in Transaction and Use Tax is expected/anticipated for both the General Fund and Measure W.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Currently, Financial Services anticipates the actual deficit for FY 2025/2026 to be significantly less than the budgeted deficit.
FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal C: Fiscal Stability and Sustainability
Objective: Cathedral City has economically prospered by facilitating the investment of private dollars in high quality development which benefits the community. We remain financially solvent by instituting prudent fiscal policies and transparent financial practices.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
5 Staff Report
City Council
Item No. 5.B
Meeting Date: January 14, 2026
From: John A. Corella, Director of Public Works
Title: Award a Professional Services Agreement to Iteris, Inc. to Update and Revalidate the Local Roadway Safety Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
Award a Professional Services Agreement to Iteris, Inc. in a not-to-exceed amount of $49,908.07 for the update and revalidation of the city’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), as required by the California Department of Transportation, and approve a 10% contingency for unforeseeable costs totaling $4,990.80, thereby, bringing the total Project budget to $54,898.87, and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement and required contract documents.
BACKGROUND:
A Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) provides a structured approach for identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing roadway safety improvements on local streets. While California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) addresses traffic safety at a statewide level, LRSPs allow local agencies to focus on the unique safety needs of their communities while contributing to the overall goals of the SHSP. LRSPs also support a city’s eligibility for Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding.
Cathedral City last adopted its LRSP in June 2021, which is included as Attachment 1 to this staff report. Per the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) requirements, LRSPs must be updated and revalidated at least every five (5) years to remain eligible for HSIP funding.
Cathedral City has a strong track record of securing HSIP funding, totaling nearly $9 million across multiple funding cycles, including Cycles 8 through 12. With HSIP Cycle 12 funding recently awarded in February 2025, it is critical the city update and adopt a validated LRSP by June 2026. Updating and revalidating the LRSP will ensure continued eligibility for future HSIP funding while providing a data-driven, evidence-based framework to reduce fatal and severe injury collisions throughout the city.
The LRSP update was originally included as part of the city’s broader Comprehensive Safety Action Plan project, funded through the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Safe 1 Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant, which was awarded to the city in November 2024.
The Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) encompasses the development of the LRSP, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan, and the Safe Routes to School Plan, utilizing data analysis, public outreach, and collaboration with key stakeholders, including city departments, schools, and public safety agencies such as the Police and Fire Departments.
Since the FHWA award, the city has been awaiting execution of the SS4A grant agreement.
Due to the delay in execution and the approaching LRSP deadline, staff determined it was necessary to move forward with the LRSP as a standalone project, independent of the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan, to ensure compliance with Caltrans and HSIP requirements.
DISCUSSION:
The city issued a Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQ/P) for the update and revalidation of the LRSP, seeking a qualified consultant with experience in local roadway safety planning, crash data analysis, countermeasure development, and public outreach. The LRSP update will include:
Project management and coordination with city staff and stakeholders. Development of goals and objectives tailored to Cathedral City’s traffic safety needs. Identification and engagement of key stakeholders, including city departments, advocacy groups, schools, transit providers, and the community. Analysis of five (5) years of collision data to identify high-risk intersections and corridors.
Field visits to priority locations to assess contributing factors to crashes. Development of safety countermeasures addressing engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency services.
Preparation of a Draft LRSP and Final LRSP incorporating city and stakeholder input.
The RFQ/P was published on the city website on November 16, 2025, and advertised in The Desert Sun on November 16, 2025, and December 1, 2025. Proposals were due to the city by December 16, 2025.
The city received proposals from the following companies:
Iteris, Inc. Santa Ana, CA
STC Traffic, Inc. Carlsbad, CA
Interwest Consulting Group, Inc. Irvine, CA
Minagar & Associates, Inc. Laguna Hills, CA
Proposals were evaluated following the selection process outlined in the RFQ/P. The proposals were reviewed by a panel consisting of three (3) Engineering Division staff members and a staff member from the Planning Division. The panel found all companies provided proposals that were responsive, qualified, and knowledgeable about the requirements for the project. The rating summary of the panel’s review is included in this staff report as Attachment 2.
After a thorough review of the proposals, Iteris, Inc. (Iteris) was determined to be the most 2 qualified and responsive firm based on experience, knowledge of Cathedral City roadways, and demonstrated ability to deliver a comprehensive LRSP.
Following the evaluation and scoring of the consultant companies, the cost proposal submitted by Iteris was opened and reviewed in accordance with state and federal procurement requirements to complete the RFQ/P evaluation process. Iteris submitted a cost proposal that aligns with the city’s expectations for the scope of services and current market rates.
Staff are recommending that City Council award a Professional Services Agreement to Iteris, Inc. in a not-to-exceed amount of $49,908.07 for the update and revalidation of the city’s LRSP, (City Project No. C06516) as required by Caltrans, and approve a 10% contingency for unforeseeable costs totaling $4,990.80, thereby, bringing the total Project budget to $54,898.87, and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement and required contract documents. The Agreement is attached to this staff report as Attachment 3.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The FHWA SS4A grant was awarded to the city in November 2024, and the city has been awaiting execution of the grant agreement since that time. On December 18, 2025, FHWA transmitted the final draft of the grant agreement to the city for review. While the city has no exceptions or concerns with the draft, the agreement must still undergo final processing and approval by FHWA Headquarters, and there is no established timeline for completion of that process. Given these circumstances, and the possibility that the agreement could be executed before the LRSP Update project is completed, a portion of the LRSP project costs may ultimately be eligible for reimbursement.
Notwithstanding this potential, any costs incurred prior to execution of the FHWA SS4A grant agreement are not eligible for reimbursement and must be fully funded by the city. Due to the requirement to adopt a validated LRSP by June 2026 to maintain eligibility for HSIP funding, staff recommend proceeding with the LRSP update at this time. Upon execution of the SS4A grant agreement, any remaining eligible LRSP project costs would be funded at an 80 percent federal share through the SS4A grant program, with the remaining 20 percent local match funded by Measure A, as outlined in the 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan.
Programmed Funding - 5-Year Capital Improvements Plan
The Comprehensive Safety Action Plan project, which includes the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) update as a project component, is programmed in the City’s Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan to be funded 80 percent with FHWA Street Safe for All (SS4A) grant funds and 20 percent with Measure A funds as the local match, as follows.
FHWA SS4A Grant Funding (80%) $399,760.00
Measure A (20% Local Match) $99,940.00
Total Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Project Cost $499,700.00 LRSP Update Project - Cost Summary
The not-to-exceed cost for the Professional Services Agreement with Iteris, Inc. to update and revalidate the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) is $49,908.07. Staff are proposing a 10 percent contingency to address unforeseen costs, bringing the total project budget to $54,898.87.
3 Iteris, Inc. (Selected Consultant) Cost $49,908.07
10% Contingency $4,990.80
Total LRSP Update Project Cost $54,898.87
Staff are proposing to fund the LRSP Update project using the Measure A funds programmed as the local match for the SS4A grant funding. Measure A funding in the amount of $45,041.13 will remain available to support the other components to complete the SS4A - Comprehensive Safety Action Plan project (CSAP).
Measure A Funds (20% Local Match) $99,940.00
LRSP Update Project Budget ($54,898.87)
Measure A Fund Balance for SS4A Project $45,041.13
Funding Scenarios for the LRSP Update Project
Scenario 1
If the FHWA SS4A grant agreement is not executed during the LRSP project timeline, the full cost of the LRSP Update project in the amount of $54,898.87 will be funded entirely with Measure A funds.
Scenario 2
If the FHWA SS4A grant agreement is executed during the LRSP project timeline, the costs incurred prior to grant agreement execution would remain ineligible for reimbursement and would be fully funded by the city. Any remaining project costs would be reimbursed at an 80% federal share, with a 20% local match.
Scenario 3
If the FHWA SS4A grant agreement is executed before any LRSP project costs are incurred, the entire project would be eligible for the 80/20 federal-to-local funding split, as shown below.
LRSP Total Project Cost $54,898.87
FHWA-SS4A Grant Reimbursement (80%) ($43,919.09)
Measure A – (20% Local Match) $10,979.78
Accordingly, the city’s financial responsibility for the LRSP Update project may range from $10,979.78 to $54,898.87, depending on the timing of execution of the FHWA SS4A grant agreement. For purposes of this staff report and budget authorization, staff are presenting the most conservative estimate and assume the full project cost will be funded using Measure A funds. If the grant agreement is approved during the Iteris engagement, Finaicial Services will make the appropriate adjustments to reduce Measure A (Fund 243) costs and increase Capital Improvement Project (CIP) grant funding (Fund 331).
FISCAL YEAR DESCRIPTION
GENERAL
LEDGER
ACCOUNT
CODES
PROJECT
CODE AMOUNT ONE TIME or
ONGOING
2025-2026 Measure A
Funds
243-100-150-
156-8600-8601 C0XXXX $54,898.87 ONE TIME
2025-2026 Total $54,898.87
4 FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal B- Community Investment
Objective: Cathedral City roads, gateways, public spaces, and other infrastructure are well planned, designed, constructed and maintained.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: June 2021 Local Roadway Safety Plan
Attachment 2: Proposal Evaluation Summary
Attachment 3: PSA with Iteris, Inc.
5 LOCAL ROAD
SAFETY PLAN
June 2021 Final Report
Cathedral City
6 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
City of Cathedral City Team
John Corella, City Engineer / Public Works Director
Crystal Sandoval, Assistant Civil Engineer
Carlos Rodriguez, Public Works Supervisor
NAI Consulting
Alexander Klan, Assistant Project Manager
Josh Nickerson, Senior Engineer
Safety Partners
Cathedral City Police Department
Jeffrey Barnett, Police Officer / Traffic Division
Lianna Quintero, Crime Analyst – CCIA
Cathedral City Fire Department
John Muhr, Fire Chief
LRSP Consultant Team
STC Traffic
Jason Stack, Principal Manager
Nick Minicilli, Project Manager
Ashley Adamos, Project Engineer
Ivan Gonzalez, Associate Engineer
Brandon Ramirez, Engineering Intern
7 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Cathedral City At A Glance ............................................................................................... 2
1.2 Local Road Safety Plan Process ........................................................................................ 4
1.3 Vision, Mission, and Goals................................................................................................ 5
1.4 Safety Partners ................................................................................................................. 5 2 Collision Analysis ................................................................................................................. 8
2.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Annual Trends .................................................................................................................. 8
2.3 California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Traffic Rankings ................................................. 9
2.4 Location Type ................................................................................................................. 11
2.5 Severity ........................................................................................................................... 12
2.6 Crash Type ...................................................................................................................... 14
2.7 Primary Collision Factor ................................................................................................. 16
2.8 Roadway User Involvement ........................................................................................... 19
2.9 Nighttime Crashes .......................................................................................................... 23
2.10 Property Damage Collisions ........................................................................................ 25
2.11 Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) Scoring .................................................... 27
2.12 Roadway Characteristics Screening ............................................................................ 38 3 Countermeasure Toolbox ................................................................................................. 40
3.1 Engineering ..................................................................................................................... 40
3.2 Enforcement ................................................................................................................... 44
3.3 Education ........................................................................................................................ 46
3.4 Emergency Response ..................................................................................................... 47
3.5 Emerging Technologies .................................................................................................. 48 4 Priority Projects ................................................................................................................. 50
4.1 Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Upgrades ................................................................... 50
4.2 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons ............................................................................................ 50
4.3 Pedestrian Crosswalk Upgrades ..................................................................................... 50 8 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - iii
4.4 Funding Set-Asides ......................................................................................................... 52 5 Implementation and Evaluation ...................................................................................... 55
5.1 Implementation .............................................................................................................. 55
5.2 Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 56
5.3 Future LRSP Updates ...................................................................................................... 56
9 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - iv
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A …………………………………………………….. California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Rankings Appendix B ……………………………………………………………………….. Priority Location Collision Summaries Appendix C ………………………………………………….…………………….. Roadway Characteristics Data Table Appendix D ………………….………………………………………………….. Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox Appendix E …………………………………………..………………………………………….. Priority Project Summaries
10 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 1-2 Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1-3 Safety Partners Feedback by Topic ................................................................................ 7 Figure 2-1 Annual Citywide Crash Incidence (2015-2019) .............................................................. 9 Figure 2-2 Citywide Collisions by Location Type ........................................................................... 12 Figure 2-3 Citywide Collisions by Crash Severity (2015-2019) ..................................................... 13 Figure 2-4 Citywide Collisions by Crash Type (2015-2019) ........................................................... 14 Figure 2-5 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019) ...................................... 17 Figure 2-6 Citywide Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2015-2019) ................................ 19 Figure 2-7 Roadway User Involvement by Severity (2015-2019) ................................................. 20 Figure 2-8 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2015-2019) ......... 21 Figure 2-9 Citywide Collisions Involving Pedestrians and Bicyclists Under 15 (2015-2019) ........ 22 Figure 2-10 Crash Severity by Time Period (2015-2019) .............................................................. 23 Figure 2-11 Citywide Nighttime Crashes (2015-2019) .................................................................. 24 Figure 2-12 Property Damage Collisions by Crash Type (2015-2019) .......................................... 26 Figure 2-13 Property Damage Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019) ...................... 27 Figure 2-14 Citywide EPDO Scoring .............................................................................................. 28 Figure 2-15 Signalized Intersections EPDO Scoring ...................................................................... 30 Figure 2-16 Priority Signalized Intersections ................................................................................ 31 Figure 2-17 Unsignalized Intersections EPDO Scoring .................................................................. 33 Figure 2-18 Priority Unsignalized Intersections ............................................................................ 34 Figure 2-19 Roadway Segments EPDO Scoring ............................................................................. 36 Figure 2-20 Priority Roadway Segments ....................................................................................... 37 Figure 3-1 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019) ...................................... 45 Figure 3-2 Connect Cathedral City Feedback Map ....................................................................... 46
11 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Cathedral City OTS Crash Rankings (2015-2017) .......................................................... 10 Table 2-2 CA OTS Local Crash Rankings (2017) ............................................................................. 10 Table 2-3 Citywide Collisions by Location Type (2015-2019) ....................................................... 11 Table 2-4 Citywide Collisions by Location Type (2015-2019) ....................................................... 12 Table 2-5 Citywide Crash Severity by Location Type (2015-2019) ............................................... 13 Table 2-6 Citywide Collisions by Crash Type (2015-2019) ............................................................ 14 Table 2-7 Citywide Crash Type by Severity (2015-2019) .............................................................. 15 Table 2-8 Citywide Crash Type by Location (2015-2019) ............................................................. 15 Table 2-9 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019) ....................................... 16 Table 2-10 Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Severity (2015-2019) ....................... 18 Table 2-11 Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Location (2015-2019) ....................... 18 Table 2-12 Citywide Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2015-2019) ............................... 19 Table 2-13 Roadway User Involvement by Severity (2015-2019) ................................................ 20 Table 2-14 Crash Severity and Roadway User Involvement by Location (2015-2019)................. 21 Table 2-15 Citywide Nighttime Collision Severity by Location (2015-2019) ................................ 23 Table 2-16 Property Damage Collisions by Roadway User (2015-2019) ...................................... 25 Table 2-17 Property Damage Collisions by Crash Type (2015-2019)............................................ 25 Table 2-18 Property Damage Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019) ....................... 26 Table 2-19 Crash Weights by Severity and Location Type ............................................................ 29 Table 2-20 Top Two Quintile Signalized Intersections by EPDO Score (2015-2019) .................... 29 Table 2-21 Top Quintile Unsignalized Intersections by EPDO Score (2015-2019) ....................... 32 Table 2-22 Top Two Quintile Roadway Segments by EPDO Score (2015-2019)........................... 35 Table 3-1 Signalized Intersection Countermeasures .................................................................... 41 Table 3-2 Non-Signalized Intersection Countermeasures ............................................................ 42 Table 3-3 Roadway Countermeasures .......................................................................................... 43 Table 4-1 Priority Projects ............................................................................................................. 51 Table 4-2 HSIP Cycle 10 Application Categories ........................................................................... 52 Table 5-1 Example Countermeasure Deployment History Database ........................................... 56
12 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - vii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ABC ….…………….…………………………………………………………..…………………… Alcoholic Beverage Control APP ….…..…….…………………………………………………………..…………………… Alcoholic Policing Partnership BCR ….………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………… Benefit Cost Ratio CalSTA ….…………….……………………………………..…………………… California State Transportation Agency Caltrans ….…………………………………………………………………… California Department of Transportation CHP ……..……………………………………………………………………………………………… California Highway Patrol CON ….…………….………………………………………………………………………………..…………………… Construction CRF ….…………….…………………………………………………………..……..…………………… Crash Reduction Factor CVAG ….…………….……………………………..…………………… Coachella Valley Association of Governments DLA ….…………….…………………………………………………………..………………………… District Local Assistance DUI ….…………….…………………………………………………………..…………………… Driving Under the Influence DVMT ….………………………………………………………………………………………… Daily Vehicle Miles Travelled EPDO …….….…………………………………………………………………………… Equivalent Property Damage Only F+SI ….…………….…………………………………………………………..………………….……… Fatal and Severe Injury FHWA ….……….……………………………………………………..…………………… Federal Highway Administration GIS …….……………………………………………………………………………………… Geographic Information System GPS ….…………….…………………………………………………………..……………………… Global Positioning System HAWK ……………….…………………………………………………………..…………………… Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon HSIP ……………………….……………………………………………………… Highway Safety Improvement Program HSM ……………………….……………………………………………………………………………… Highway Safety Manual I ….…………….…………………………………………………………..………………………………….………………… Interstate IISNS ….…………….………………………………………….………………… Internally Illuminated Street Name Sign IR ….…………….…………………………………………………………..………………………………….………………… Infrared K-12 ….…………….……..…………………..………………………………….………………… Kindergarten to 12th Grade 13 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - viii
LED ….…………………………………………………..………………………………….………………… Light-Emitting Diode LRSM ……………………….………………………………………………………………………… Local Road Safety Manual LRSP ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Local Road Safety Plan LSEV ….…………….………………………..………………………………….………………… Low-Speed Electric Vehicles NHTSA ….…………….……………………………………………… National Highway Traffic Safety Administration OTS …………………………………………………………………………………….…………………… Office of Traffic Safety PCF ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Primary Collision Factor PDO ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Property Damage Only PE ….………………...……………………………..………………………………….………………… Preliminary Engineering ROW …..…………………………………………………………..………………………………….………………… Right-Of-Way RRFB ….…………….………………….…………………………….………………… Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon SA …….……….…………………………………………………………..………………………………….………………… Set-Aside SHSP ….…………….……………………..………………………………….………………… Strategic Highway Safety Plan SSARP ….…………….…………………………………….………………… Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program SWITRS ………………………………….……………………………… Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System TIMS ……………….……………………………………………………………… Transportation Injury Mapping System TNC ….………………………..……………………………………….………………… Transportation Network Company TSM ….…………….……….……………………..………………………………….………………… Traffic Safety Marketing USDOT ….…………….………………………………………………… United States Department of Transportation V2I ….…………….…….………………………..………………………………….………………… Vehicle-to-Infrastructure V2P ….…………….…….………………………..………………………………….……..……………… Vehicle-to-Pedestrian V2V ….…………….…….………………………..…………………………………….…….………………… Vehicle-to-Vehicle
14 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - ix
The Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) was prepared within the governance of United States Code Title 23, Section 148 – Highway Safety Improvement Program (h) (4):
“DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN REPORTS, SURVEYS, AND INFORMATION.- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section, shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.” [23 U.S.C. §148(h) (4)] United States Code Title 23, Section 409 – Discovery and Admission of Evidence of Certain Reports and Surveys: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in s uch reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.” [23 U.S.C. §409]
15 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 1
1 INTRODUCTION
The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) began promoting certain infrastructure-oriented safety treatments and strategies based on proven effectiveness and benefits in 2008. This initiative became the Proven Safety Countermeasures List which seeks to encourage widespread implementation by State, Tribal, and Local transportation agencies to reduce crashes that result in fatalities and serious injuries. The Proven Safety Counte rmeasures List was last updated in 2017 and included the addition of Local Road Safety Plans (LRSP).
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) established their Local Road Safety Plan program in 2019 to provide funding to local agencies for developing a framework for identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing roadway safety improvement programs. The LRSP program evolved from the state-funded Systemic Safety Analysi s Report Program (SSARP) established in 2016, in order to contribute to the success of the 2020-2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The California SHSP is a statewide traffic safety plan that provides a comprehensive framework for reducing roadway fatalities and serious injuries on California’s public roads. The California SHSP includes strategies based on the 5 E’s of traffic safety – Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies – and addresses 16 challenge areas:
• Aggressive Driving
• Aging Drivers (>65)
• Bicyclists
• Commercial Vehicles
• Distracted Driving
• Driver Licensing
• Emergency Response
• Emerging Technologies
• Impaired Driving
• Intersections
• Lane Departures
• Motorcyclists
• Occupant Protection
• Pedestrians
• Work Zones
• Young Drivers (15-20)
Cathedral City was selected as one of 250 local agencies in California (as of April 12, 2021) to receive Caltrans funding to develop a Local Road Safety Plan. Development of the Cathedral City LRSP will enable the City to meet the eligibility requirements for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding, which Caltrans will require for all future HSIP cycles. Cathedral City has been pursuing HSIP grant funding for infrastructure improvements that enhance safety for all roadway users in the City since 2011 (Cycle 4). Cathedral City has been successful in achieving over $4.7 million in HSIP grant awards.
16 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 2
1.1 Cathedral City At A Glance
The City of Cathedral City is located in the Coachella Valley , in the central portion of Riverside County, and is bounded by the Cities of Palm Springs, Desert Hot Springs, Rancho Mirage, and unincorporated Riverside County lands , as i llustrated in Figure 1-1. The City encompasses 27.7 square miles and is traversed east-west by Interstate 10 (I-10) in the northern part of the City and California State Route 111 (SR -111) / East Palm Canyon Drive in the southern part of the City .
Cathedral City operates and maintains 44 signalized intersections and 480 paved lane miles of public streets. Figure 1-2 illustrates the project study area. Cathedral City has a population of approximately of 55,000 according to 2019 Census estimates and is the second largest City in the Coachella Valley, with one of the most diverse communities.
Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map
17 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 3
Figure 1-2 Study Area
18 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 4
1.2 Local Road Safety Plan Process
The development of the Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan followed Caltrans program guidelines, which are based on the United Stated Department of Transportation (USDOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)’s cyclical six (6) step process.
1. Establish Leadership:
• Establish local partnerships with 5E’s of traffic safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies • Define LRSP Vision and Goals
2. Analyze Safety Data:
• Crash and Roadway Data Collection
• Crash Data Analysis
• Roadway Network Screening
3. Determine Emphasis Areas:
• Identify priority areas based on crash
data analysis and roadway network
screening
4. Identify Strategies:
• Identify safety countermeasures and
strategies
• Develop countermeasure toolbox
5. Prioritize and Incorporate Strategies:
• Apply countermeasures and strategies to develop safety projects • Evaluate and prioritize safety projects by benefit cost ratio • Implement roadway safety improvement projects and programs
6. Evaluate and Update
• Monitor progress of roadway safety improvement projects and programs • Evaluate success of countermeasure toolbox, projects, and programs • Review LRSP and update to reflect local changing needs and priorities
1. Establish
Leadership
2. Analyze
Safety Data
3. Determine
Emphasis
Area
4. Identify
Strategies
5. Prioritize and
Incorporate
Strategies
6. Evaluate
and Update
19 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 5
1.3 Vision, Mission, and Goals
The Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan is guided by the core principle that traffic fatalities and severe injuries are preventable . Improvements to roadway safety can be made through a data- driven approach based on alignment with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)’s Local Road Safety Plan Proven Safety Countermeasure, California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), Caltrans Local Road Safety Program (LRSP), Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), feedback from safet y partners from the 5E’s of traffic safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies), and the City’s existing roadway safety plans, policies, and efforts. The following sub -section identifies the key Vision, Missi on, and Goals set forth in the Cathedral City LRSP.
VISION Ensure roadway safety for all users of Cathedral City roads including vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists
MISSION
Implement proven safety solutions based on the 5E’s of traffic safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies) to systemically reduce roadway crashes and improve safety GOALS
• Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury crashes towards zero • Reduce collision severity through a reduction in the number of crashes that involve alcohol use, bicyclists, and pedestrians
• Reduce collision frequency and severity through a reduction in the number of broadside, rear end, and head-on crashes
• Reduce collision frequency and severity through a reduction in the number of crashes that are primarily caused by unsafe speed, automobile right-of- way violations, improper turning, and alcohol use
• Increase alternative modes of transportation including walking, biking, and low-speed electric vehicles (LSEV)
• Engage with Safety Partners to create a culture within Cathedral City that promotes and implements road safety strategies
1.4 Safety Partners
Local safety partners representing the 5E’s of traffic safety were engaged to collaboratively address roadway safety in Cathedral City. Participants included representatives from:
• Cathedral City Public Works Department
• Cathedral City Traffic Division
• Cathedral City Police Department
• Cathedral City Fire Department
• Connect Cathedral City
20 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 6
Two safety partners meetings were conducted and the crash data was reviewed for annual citywide trends in location types, severity, crash types, primary collision factors, and roadway user involvement. Priority locations for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments were presented. Feedback was obtained on areas with safety issues that did not have a high rate of reported collisions but were know n by the safety partners to have frequent “near -misses” or observance of high-risk behaviors such as vehicular speeding or pedestrian jaywalking, particularly with alcohol -involvement. Relevant roadway safety initiatives and programs were discussed including the Cathedral City Fire and Police Departments’ participation in roadway safety educational campaigns at local K -12 schools and public events; the Fire Department successfully achieving grant funding for emergency rescue equipment and to improve emergency response times; and the Police Department successfully achieving California Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) grant funding for enforcement of underage and homeless overserving and California Office of Transportation Safety (OTS) grants for reducing pedestrian and bicycle violations. Feedback on desired roadway improvements from the Fire Department included intersection upgrades, medians, lighting, crosswalks, and repairing / upgrading the City’s traff ic signal preemption system to improve response times. Feedback on desired roadway improvements from the Police department included addressing merging for the southbound right turn at the intersection of Date Palm Drive and Vista Chino, cut -through routes for Palm Springs traffic, and pedestrian alcohol-related crashes on Ramon Road.
Outreach was also conducted with the Connect Cathedral City team , which is a joint venture project between the City and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) to develop projects that support walking, biking, and the use
of low-speed electric vehicles (LSEVs) in Cathedral
City. Community feedback from project outreach
surveys and mapping was collected and
documented in the Cathedral City LRSP. This
included feedback related to high visibility pedestrian crosswalks, pedestrian hybrid beacons, the citywide bikeway network, and access point to the CV Link – the CVAG Alternative Transportation Route Path. Figure 1-2 illustrates the feedback received from the safety partners organized by site-specific topics for pedestrians, bicycles, pedestrian -bicycles, enforcement, roadway concerns, signage concerns, and other miscellaneous roadway safety concerns.
21 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 7
Figure 1-3 Safety Partners Feedback by Topic
22 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 8
2 COLLISION ANALYSIS
2.1 Methodology
Crash data was obtained from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database, the University of California, Berkeley, Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) database, and the Cathedral City Police Department’s local collision records. The most recent five (5) years of crash data were obtained from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019.
Crashes were cross -referenced and geolocated to the local street network in a Geographic Information System (GIS) to create a comprehensive data set. There were 1,126 total collisions during the study period, which includes 507 fatal and injury collisions and 619 Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions. The PDO collisions were obtained from the SWITRS database but could not be geolocated due to a lack of coordinates. These crashes were not included in the citywide network and systemic screening analysis but will be included in the analy sis of priority projects to maximize the benefit cost ratio (BCR). Data provided by the Cathedral City Police Department and from the TIMS database only included fatal and injury collisions. The crash data were analyzed to identify citywide crash patterns and trends based on the following characteristics:
• Annual Trends
• California Office of Transportation Safety (OTS) Citywide Traffic Rankings • Location Type
• Severity
• Crash Type
• Primary Collision Factor
• Roadway User Involvement
• Nighttime Crashes
• Property Damage Crashes
2.2 Annual Trends
Figure 2-1 shows the total number of crashes per year in Cathedral City from 2015 to 2019 for fatal collisions, severe injury collisions, and non-severe injury collisions. The trendline shows the total number of crashes in River side County by year. The City’s annual crash trends differ from the County’s crash trends in the years 2016 through 2017 when the total crashes decreased in Cathedral City versus increased in Riverside County and in the years 2018 and 2019 when the total crashes, particularly in non -severe injury and fatal collisions, increased in Cathedral City versus decreased in Riverside County.
23 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 9
Figure 2-1 Annual Citywide Crash Incidence (2015-2019)
2.3 California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Traffic Rankings The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) maintains a ranking system to compare traffic safety statistics among similarly sized California cities. Citywide rankings are based on population, daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT), crash records, and crash trends from data collected by SWITRS, Caltrans, the California Department of Justice, and the Department of Finance. A ranking of one (1) in a categor y indicates the worst possible traffic safety performance in relation to other similarly-sized cities. A comparison of California OTS rankings allows cities to identify local trends relative to their peers.
Cathedral City is in “Group C” which consists of cities with populations between 50,001 and 100,000 people. Table 2-1 summarizes how Cathedral City compares to other Group C peer cities from 2015 to 2017. Due to fluctuations in populations, the total number of cities in Group C will vary from year to year.
78 77 66
107 98
12 10
12 11 173 3
2 10 5
9,243
10,748 10,794 10,556 10,359
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Riverside County Crash Count
Cathedral City Crash Count
Year
Non-Severe Injury Severe Injury Fatal Riverside County
24 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 10
Table 2-1 Cathedral City OTS Crash Rankings (2015-2017) 2017 OTS CATEGORY
2015
OTS RANKING
(1=POOR)
2016
OTS RANKING
(1=POOR)
2017
OTS RANKING
(1=POOR)
Total Fatal & Injury 98/105 99/104 102/106
Alcohol Involved 64/105 65/104 57/106
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 70/105 90/104 17/106
Had Been Drinking Driver 21-34 52/105 95/104 84/106
Motorcycles 90/105 76/104 82/106
Pedestrians 80/105 90/104 82/106
Pedestrians < 15 33/105 63/104 15/106
Pedestrians 65+ 72/105 96/104 76/106
Bicyclists 99/105 91/104 98/106
Bicyclists < 15 34/105 41/104 36/106
Composite 85/105 96/104 73/106
Speed Related 99/105 99/104 99/106
Nighttime (9:00 PM – 2:59 AM) 96/105 91/104 91/106
Hit and Run 93/105 83/104 68/106
DUI Arrests 16/105 66/104 55/106
Bold = Cathedral City’s Top 3 Lowest Crash Ranking OTS Categories Table 2-2 summarizes how Cathedral City compares to Palm Desert and Indio, other local Group C peer cities in Riverside County , based on the most recent available OTS rankings from 2017 .
Data tables for the OTS rankings are provided in Appendix A.
Table 2-2 CA OTS Local Crash Rankings (2017)
2017 OTS CATEGORY
CATHEDRAL CITY
OTS RANKING
(1=POOR)
PALM DESERT
OTS RANKING
(1=POOR)
INDIO
OTS RANKING
(1=POOR)
Total Fatal & Injury 102/106 88/106 57/106
Alcohol Involved 57/106 86/106 29/106
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 17/106 20/106 55/106
Had Been Drinking Driver 21-34 84/106 89/106 59/106
Motorcycles 82/106 94/106 67/106
Pedestrians 82/106 104/106 68/106
Pedestrians < 15 15/106 89/106 52/106
Pedestrians 65+ 76/106 59/106 13/106
Bicyclists 98/106 82/106 83/106
Bicyclists < 15 36/106 68/106 67/106
Composite 73/106 88/106 50/106
Speed Related 99/106 77/106 74/106
Nighttime (9:00 PM – 2:59 AM) 91/106 105/106 61/106
Hit and Run 68/106 94/106 30/106
DUI Arrests 55/106 78/106 51/106
Bold = Cathedral City’s Top 3 Lowest Crash Ranking OTS Categories 25 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 11
Key OTS Crash Ranking findings include:
• Top 3 lowest 2015 OTS rankings for Cathedral City were: driving under the influence (DUI) arrests, collisions where a pedestrian under the age of 15 was involved, and collisions where a bicyclist under the age of 15 was involved.
• Top 3 lowest 2016 OTS rankings for Cathedral City were: collisions where a bicyclist under the age of 15 was involve d, collisions where a pedestrian under the age of 15 was involved, and collisions where alcohol was involved.
• Top 3 lowest 2017 OTS rankings for Cathedral City were: collisions where a pedestrian under the age of 15 was involved, collisions where the drive r had been drinking and was under the age of 21, and collisions where a bicyclist under the age of 15 was involved. • OTS categories for collisions where a pedestrian under the age of 15 was involved and collisions where a bicyclist under the age of 15 was i nvolved were in the top 3 lowest rankings for Cathedral City for the years 2015, 2016, and 2017. • Cathedral City performed better than both the cities of Palm Desert and Indio in 2017 OTS rankings for: total fatal and injury collisions, collisions where a pedestrian over the age of 65 was involved, collisions involving bicyclists, and speed-related collisions. • Cathedral City generally performed better than Indio in 2017 OTS rankings except for:
collisions where the driver had been drinking and under 21, collisions where a pedestrian under the age of 15 was involved, and collisions where a bicyclist under the age of 15 was involved.
2.4 Location Type
Table 2-3 and Figure 2 summarize the proportion of citywide crashes by location type, which includes signalized i ntersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments. Most crashes occurred at intersections (80%) which includes signalized intersections (39%) and unsignalized intersections (41%).
Table 2-3 Citywide Collisions by Location Type (2015-2019) LOCATION TYPE # OF COLLISIONS (%)
Signalized Intersection 198 (39%)
Unsignalized Intersection 207 (41%)
Roadway Segment 102 (20%)
Total Collisions 507
26 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 12
Figure 2-2 Citywide Collisions by Location Type
2.5 Severity
Table 2-4 and Figure 2-3 summarize the proportion of citywide fatal and injury crashes by severity for fatal, severe injury, and non -severe injury collisions including other visible injury and complaint of pain. The majority of collisions resulted in non -severe injuries (83%), followed by severe injuries (12%), and fatalities (5%).
Table 2-4 Citywide Collisions by Location Type (2015-2019) SEVERITY # OF COLLISIONS (%)
Fatal 23 (5%)
Severe Injury 62 (12%)
Other Visible Injury 153 (30%)
Complaint of Pain 269 (53%)
Total Collisions 507
39%
41%
20%
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
Roadway Segment
27 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 13
Figure 2-3 Citywide Collisions by Crash Severity (2015-2019)
Table 2-5 summarizes the proportion of crash severity by location for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments. Intersection collisions re sulted in the most fatal and severe injuries including signalized intersections (6% fatal and 10% severe injury of total collisions) and unsignalized intersections (4% fatal and 13% severe injury of total collisions).
Roadway segment collisions included 3% fatal and 15% severe injury of total collisions.
While the number of fatal and severe injury collisions that occurred at each location type is a smaller percentage in comparison with the number of overall collisions, intersections were also over-represented in the number of total fatal and severe injury collisions. Signalized intersections represented 48% fatal and 32% severe injury of total fatal and severe injury collisions.
Unsignalized intersections represented 39% fatal and 44% severe injury of total fatal and severe injury collisions. Roadway segments represented 13% fatal and 24% severe injury of total fatal and severe injury collisions.
Table 2-5 Citywide Crash Severity by Location Type (2015-2019)
SEVERITY SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
UNSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
ROADWAY
SEGMENT # OF COLLISIONS (%)
Fatal 11 (6%/48%*) 9 (4%/39%*) 3 (3%/13%*) 23 (5%)
Severe Injury 20 (10%/32%*) 27 (13%/44%*) 15 (15%/24%*) 62 (12%) Other Visible Injury 53 (27%) 69 (33%) 31 (30%) 153 (30%) Complaint of Pain 114 (58%) 102 (49%) 53 (52%) 269 (53%) Total Collisions 198 (39%/36%*) 207 (41%/42%*) 102 (20%/21%*) 507 Note: *Percentage of total fatal and severe injury collisions only by location
5%
12%
30%
53%
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
28 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 14
2.6 Crash Type
Table 2-6 and Figure 2-4 summarize the proportion of all crashes by crash type, which include head-on, sideswipe, rear end, broadside, hit object, overturned, vehicle / pedestrian, other, and not stated collisions. The three most common crash types that oc curred are broadside (31%), rear end (24%), and head-on (13%). These account for 68% of total crashes reported.
Table 2-6 Citywide Collisions by Crash Type (2015-2019) CRASH TYPE # OF COLLISIONS (%)
Head-On 65 (13%)
Sideswipe 48 (9%)
Rear End 120 (24%)
Broadside 158 (31%)
Hit Object 33 (7%)
Overturned 12 (2%)
Vehicle / Pedestrian 49 (10%)
Other / Not Stated 22 (4%)
Total Collisions 507
Figure 2-4 Citywide Collisions by Crash Type (2015-2019)
Table 2-7 summarizes the proportion of all crash types by severity. The crash types that resulted in the most fatal and severe injuries include broadside (26% fatal and 26% severe injury), rear end (17% fatal and 18% severe injury), head -on (17% fatal and 15% sever e injury), and vehicle/pedestrian collisions (13% fatal and 15% severe injury).
13%
9%
24%
31%
7%
2%
10%
4% Head-On
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle / Pedestrian
Other / Not Stated
29 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 15
Table 2-7 Citywide Crash Type by Severity (2015-2019)
CRASH TYPE FATAL SEVERE
INJURY
OTHER
VISIBLE
INJURY
COMPLAINT
OF PAIN
# OF
COLLISIONS (%)
Head-On 4 (17%) 9 (15%) 22 (14%) 30 (11%) 65 (13%)
Sideswipe - 4 (6%) 19 (12%) 25 (9%) 48 (9%)
Rear End 4 (17%) 11 (18%) 30 (20%) 75 (28%) 120 (24%)
Broadside 6 (26%) 16 (26%) 47 (31%) 89 (33%) 158 (31%)
Hit Object 5 (22%) 4 (6%) 8 (5%) 16 (6%) 33 (7%)
Overturned 1 (4%) 7 (11%) 2 (1%) 2 (1%) 12 (2%)
Vehicle / Pedestrian 3 (13%) 9 (15%) 20 (13%) 17 (6%) 49 (10%) Other / Not Stated - 2 (3%) 5 (3%) 15 (6%) 22 (4%)
Total Collisions 23 (5%) 62 (12%) 153 (30%) 269 (53%) 507 Table 2-8 summarizes the proportion of all crash types by location for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments. The majority of crashes occurred at intersections, accounting for 80% of total crashes including 39% at signalized intersections and 41% at unsignalized intersections. The most common crash types at signalized intersections were rear end (31%), broadside (30%), and head -on (13%). The most common crash types at unsignalized intersections were broadside (34%), rear end (16%), and sideswipe (12%). The most common crash types at roadway segments were broadside (27%), rear end (25%), and head -on (18%). The most common crash types observed across all three location types were typically consistent with the most common crash ty pes overall: broadside (31%), rear end (24%), and head-on (13%).
Table 2-8 Citywide Crash Type by Location (2015-2019)
CRASH TYPE SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
NON-SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
# OF
COLLISIONS (%)
Head-On 25 (13%) 22 (11%) 18 (18%) 65 (13%)
Sideswipe 15 (8%) 24 (12%) 9 (9%) 48 (9%)
Rear End 62 (31%) 33 (16%) 25 (25%) 120 (24%)
Broadside 59 (30%) 71 (34%) 28 (27%) 158 (31%)
Hit Object 5 (3%) 13 (6%) 15 (15%) 33 (7%)
Overturned 1 (1%) 9 (4%) 2 (2%) 12 (2%)
Vehicle / Pedestrian 20 (10%) 26 (13%) 3 (3%) 49 (10%)
Other / Not Stated 11 (6%) 9 (4%) 2 (2%) 22 (4%)
Total Collisions 198 (39%) 207 (41%) 102 (20%) 507
30 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 16
2.7 Primary Collision Factor
Table 2-9 and Figure 2-5 summarize the Primary Collision Factor (PCF) of crashes by the California vehicle code violation categories. PCF violation categories that represented less than 3% of citywide collisions were graphically combined into a single category on Figure 5. The top primary collision factors were unsafe speed (21%), automobile right -of-way (19%), improper turning (14%), and driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (14%). These account for 68% of total crashes reported.
Table 2-9 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019) PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR VIOLATION CATEGORY # OF COLLISIONS (%) Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs 70 (14%) Unsafe Speed 107 (21%)
Following Too Closely* 8 (2%)
Wrong Side of Road 13 (3%)
Improper Passing* 1 (<1%)
Unsafe Lane Change* 2 (<1%)
Improper Turning 69 (14%)
Automobile ROW 95 (19%)
Pedestrian ROW* 9 (2%)
Pedestrian Violation 26 (5%)
Traffic Signals and Signs 53 (10%)
Lights* 1 (<1%)
Other 14 (3%)
Unsafe Starting or Backing* 4 (1%)
Unknown / Not Stated 35 (7%)
Total Collisions 507
Note: *PCF Category representing less than 3% of total crashes 31 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 17
Figure 2-5 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019)
Table 2 -10 summarizes the proportion of primary collision factor by severity. The primary collision factors that resulted in the most fatal and severe injuries in clude driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (26% fatal and 26% severe injury), unsafe speed (17% fatal and 18% severe injury), automobile right -of-way (13% fatal and 13% severe injury), and improper turning (9% fatal and 13% severe i njury). Combined, these primary collision factors account for 68% of total crashes reported.
Table 2-11 summarizes the proportion of primary collision factor violation categories by location for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roa dway segments. The top three primary collision factor violation categories at signalized intersections were unsafe speed (31%), traffic signals and signs (20%), and driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (12%). The top three at unsignalized intersections were automobile right-of-way (28%), improper turning (16%), unsafe speed (13%), driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (13%). The top three at roadway segments were driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (21%), unsafe speed (19%), and automobile right -of-way (18%). The most common primary collision factor violation categories observed across all three location types were consistent with the most common crash types overall: unsafe speed (21%), automobile right-of-way (19%), driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (14%), and improper turning (14%). Combined, these primary collision factors account for 68% of total reported crashes.
14%
21%
2%
14%
19%
5%
10%
3%
7% 5%
DUI
Unsafe Speed
Wrong Side of Road
Improper Turning
Automobile ROW
Pedestrian Violation
Traffic Signals and Signs
Other
Unknown / Not Stated
Categories < 3%
32 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 18
Table 2-10 Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Severity (2015-2019)
PRIMARY COLLISION
FACTOR VIOLATION
CATEGORY
FATAL SEVERE
INJURY
OTHER
VISIBLE
INJURY
COMPLAINT
OF PAIN
# OF
COLLISIONS (%)
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drugs 6 (26%) 16 (26%) 21 (14%) 27 (10%) 70 (14%) Unsafe Speed 4 (17%) 11 (18%) 24 (15%) 68 (25%) 107 (21%) Following Too Closely* - 1 (2%) - 7 (3%) 8 (2%)
Wrong Side of Road 2 (9%) 4 (6%) 2 (1%) 5 (2%) 13 (3%)
Improper Passing* - - - 1 (<1%) 1 (<1%)
Unsafe Lane Change* - - - 2 (<1%) 2 (<1%)
Improper Turning 2 (9%) 8 (13%) 28 (18%) 31 (12%) 69 (14%) Automobile ROW 3 (13%) 8 (13%) 31 (20%) 53 (20%) 95 (19%) Pedestrian ROW* 3 (5%) 4 (3%) 2 (1%) 9 (2%)
Pedestrian Violation 5 (22%) 3 (5%) 11 (7%) 7 (3%) 26 (5%) Traffic Signals and Signs - 2 (3%) 15 (10%) 36 (13%) 53 (10%) Lights* - - - 1 (<1%) 1 (<1%)
Other - 1 (2%) 1 (1%) 12 (4%) 14 (3%)
Unsafe Starting or Backing* - - 1 (1%) 3 (1%) 4 (1%)
Unknown / Not Stated 1 (4%) 5 (8%) 15 (10%) 14 (5%) 35 (7%) Total Collisions 23 (5%) 62 (12%) 153 (30%) 269 (53%) 507
Table 2-11 Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Location (2015-2019)
PRIMARY COLLISION
FACTOR VIOLATION
CATEGORY
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
UNSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
# OF
COLLISIONS (%)
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drugs 23 (12%) 26 (13%) 21 (21%) 70 (14%) Unsafe Speed 61 (31%) 27 (13%) 19 (19%) 107 (21%)
Following Too Closely* 1 (<1%) 4 (2%) 3 (3%) 8 (2%)
Wrong Side of Road 1 (<1%) 6 (3%) 6 (6%) 13 (3%)
Improper Passing* - - 1 (1%) 1 (<1%)
Unsafe Lane Change* - - 2 (1%) 2 (<1%)
Improper Turning 21 (11%) 34 (16%) 14 (14%) 69 (14%)
Automobile ROW 19 (10%) 58 (28%) 18 (18%) 95 (19%)
Pedestrian ROW* 4 (2%) 5 (2%) - 9 (2%)
Pedestrian Violation 11 (6%) 12 (6%) 3 (3%) 26 (5%)
Traffic Signals and Signs 40 (20%) 11 (5%) 2 (2%) 53 (10%) Lights* - - 1 (1%) 1 (<1%)
Other 2 (1%) 7 (3%) 5 (5%) 14 (3%)
Unsafe Starting or Backing* 2 (1%) 1 (<1%) 1 (1%) 4 (1%) Unknown / Not Stated 13 (7%) 16 (8%) 6 (6%) 35 (7%)
Total Collisions 198 (39%) 207 (41%) 102 (20%) 507
33 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 19
2.8 Roadway User Involvement
Table 2-12 and Figure 2-6 summarize the proportion of citywide crashes by roadway user type involved which includes automobiles, motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The majority of collisions involved motorized roadway users including automobiles (75%) and motorcycles (7%).
Non-motorized roadway users were involved in 18% of collisions including bicycles (6%) and pedestrians (12%)
Table 2-12 Citywide Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2015-2019) ROADWAY USER # OF COLLISIONS (%)
Automobiles 382 (75%)
Motorcycles 36 (7%)
Bicycles 29 (6%)
Pedestrians 60 (12%)
Total Collisions 507
Figure 2-6 Citywide Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2015-2019)
Table 2-13 and Figure 2-7 summarize the proportion of roadway user type by severity. Of the total collisions, 75% involved automobiles only and the majority resulted in non -severe injuries including other visible injuries and complaint of pain injuries. Automobile collisions repre sented 48% of total fatal and 61% of total severe injury collisions. Approximately 13% of all automobile collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury. The majority of collisions involving motorcycles resulted in severe injuries and other visible injuries. Motorcycle collisions represented 9% of total fatal and 19% of total severe injury collisions. Approximately 38% of all motorcycle collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury. The majority of collisions involving bicycles resulted in other visible injuries and complaint of pain injuries. Bicycle collisions represented 13% of total fatal and 2% of total severe injury crashes. Approximately 14% of all bicycle collisions resulted in a fatality 75%
7%
6%
12%
Automobiles
Motorcycles
Bicycles
Pedestrians
34 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 20
or severe injury. The majority of pedestrian collision s resulted in other visible injuries and complaint of pain injuries. Pedestrian collisions represented 30% of total fatal and 18% of total severe injury collisions. Approximately 30% of all pedestrian collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury.
Table 2-13 Roadway User Involvement by Severity (2015-2019)
ROADWAY USER FATAL SEVERE
INJURY
OTHER
VISIBLE
INJURY
COMPLAINT
OF PAIN
# OF
COLLISIONS (%)
Automobiles 11 (48%) 38 (61%) 98 (64%) 235 (87%) 382 (75%) Motorcycles 2 (9%) 12 (19%) 16 (10%) 6 (2%) 36 (7%)
Bicycles 3 (13%) 1 (2%) 15 (10%) 10 (4%) 29 (6%)
Pedestrians 7 (30%) 11 (18%) 24 (16%) 18 (7%) 60 (12%)
Total Collisions 23 (5%) 62 (12%) 153 (30%) 269 (53%) 507 Figure 2-7 Roadway User Involvement by Severity (2015-2019)
Figure 2-8 summarizes the proportion of roadway user types for fatal and severe injury collisions.
Although motorcycles and pedestrians make up a small percentage of total crashes (7% and 12%, respectively), they are over-represented in the number of fatal and severe injury collisions (16% and 21%, respectively), which indicates that they are vulnerable roadway users. Bicycles were 48%
61% 64%
87%
30%
18% 16%
7%
9%
19%
10%
2%13%
2%
10%
4%
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Percentage of Collisions
Crash Severity
Automobiles Pedestrians Motorcycles Bicycles
35 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 21
involved in 5% of total fatal and severe injury collisions, which was representative of the 6% of total collisions that bicycles were inv olved in. Fatal and severe injury crashes involving pedestrians are higher than the percentages of motorcycle and bicycle crashes. This may be attributed to motorcycles and bicycles being more visible to vehicles than pedestrians are due to their higher profile on local roadways.
Figure 2-8 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2015-2019)
Crashes Involving Pedestrians and Bicycles Under 15
Table 2-14 summarizes the proportion of citywide crashes that involved a pedestrian or a bicyclist under the age of 15 by severity and location. There were 19 total crashes that occurred during the study period including 10 pedestrian collisions and 9 bicycle collisions . There were no fatalities and the 3 severe injury collisions involved pedestrians. The remaining injury collisions included 8 other visible injury (4 pedestrian and 4 bicycle) and 8 complaint of pain (3 pedestrian and 5 bicycle). All the collisions occurred at intersections includin g 7 at signalized intersections and 12 at unsignalized intersections. Figure 2-9 displays where collisions involving pedestrians or bicyclists under the age of 15 occurred in relation to community centers, public schools and parks.
Table 2-14 Crash Severity and Roadway User Involvement by Location (2015-2019)
SEVERITY
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
UNSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION # OF
COLLISIONS (%) PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE
Fatal - - - - -
Severe Injury 1 (33%) - 2 (29%) - 3 (16%)
Other Visible Injury 1 (33%) 3 (75%) 3 (43%) 1 (20%) 8 (42%) Complaint of Pain 1 (33%) 1 (25%) 2 (29%) 4 (80%) 8 (42%) Total Collisions 3 (16%) 4 (21%) 7 (37%) 5 (26%) 19
21%
5%
16%
58%
Pedestrians
Bicycles
Motorcycles
Automobiles
36 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 22
Figure 2-9 Citywide Collisions Involving Pedestrians and Bicyclists Under 15 (2015-2019)
37 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 23
2.9 Nighttime Crashes
Crashes were evaluated from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM to identify nighttime crash patterns. There were 259 collisions that occurred during the study period and Figure 2-10 shows a summary of total crashes and severity by time of day. Nighttime crash frequency for all severity types was generally higher from 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM. The most severe crashes (fatal and se vere injury) generally occurred from 6:00 PM to 3:00 AM. The highest number of nighttime crashes occurred from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM. The highest number of fatal and severe injury crashes occurred from 2:00 AM to 3:00 AM. Figure 2-11 illustrates where the nighttime crashes occurred by severity and roadway user type. Table 2-15 summarizes nighttime crashes by roadway user and location.
Figure 2-10 Crash Severity by Time Period (2015-2019)
Table 2-15 Citywide Nighttime Collision Severity by Location (2015-2019)
SEVERITY SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
UNSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
# OF
COLLISIONS (%)
Fatal 5 (5%) 8 (8%) 2 (4%) 15 (6%)
Severe Injury 11 (10%) 13 (13%) 12 (21%) 36 (14%)
Other Visible Injury 27 (26%) 36 (37%) 20 (35%) 83 (32%) Complaint of Pain 62 (59%) 40 (41%) 23 (40%) 125 (48%)
Total Collisions 105 (41%) 97 (37%) 57 (22%) 259
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
Number of Crashes
Time Period
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain 38 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 24
Figure 2-11 Citywide Nighttime Crashes (2015-2019)
39 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 25
2.10 Property Damage Collisions
There were 619 property damage collisions reported in the 5-year study period from the SWITRS database. The crashes were not included in the citywide netw ork and screening analysis due to the inability to geolocate them from a lack of coordinate data. Analysis of the property damage collisions is presented for roadway user involvement, crash type, and primary collision factor.
Roadway User
Table 2 -16 summarizes the proportion of property damage crashes by roadway user involvement. Nearly all of the property damage collisions only involved automobiles (99%). This is consistent with the collision analysis results for fatal and injury crashes which indicated that motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians are more vulnerable roadway users.
Table 2-16 Property Damage Collisions by Roadway User (2015-2019) ROADWAY USER # OF COLLISIONS (%)
Automobiles 612 (99%)
Motorcycles 1 (<1%)
Bicycles 3 (<1%)
Pedestrians 3 (<1%)
Total Collisions 619
Crash Type
Table 2-17 and Figure 2-12 summarizes the proportion of property damage collisions by crash type. The three most common crash types that were rear end (31%), hit object (23%), and sideswipe (16%). Rear end collisions were also in the top three crash types for fatal and injury collisions, which also included broadside and head-on.
Table 2-17 Property Damage Collisions by Crash Type (2015-2019) CRASH TYPE # OF COLLISIONS (%)
Head-On 65 (11%)
Sideswipe 98 (16%)
Rear End 189 (31%)
Broadside 86 (14%)
Hit Object 140 (23%)
Overturned 9 (1%)
Vehicle / Pedestrian 3 (<1%)
Other / Not Stated 29 (5%)
Total Collisions 619
40 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 26
Figure 2-12 Property Damage Collisions by Crash Type (2015-2019)
Primary Collision Factor
Table 2-18 and Figure 2-13 summarizes the proportion of property damage crashes by primary collision factor. The top three were driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (36%), improper turning (23%), and unsafe speed (18%). These were consistent with the top primary collision factors identified in the analysis of fatal and injury collisions.
Table 2-18 Property Damage Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019) PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR VIOLATION CATEGORY # OF COLLISIONS (%) Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs 223 (36%) Unsafe Speed 112 (18%)
Following Too Closely* 2 (<1%)
Wrong Side of Road 8 (1%)
Improper Passing* 1 (<1%)
Unsafe Lane Change* 7 (1%)
Improper Turning 142 (23%)
Automobile ROW 21 (3%)
Pedestrian ROW* 2 (<1%)
Pedestrian Violation 1 (<1%)
Traffic Signals and Signs 30 (5%)
Other 9 (1%)
Unsafe Starting or Backing* 16 (3%)
Unknown / Not Stated 45 (7%)
Total Collisions 619
Note: *PCF Category representing less than 3% of total crashes
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Veh / Ped
Overturned
Other / Not Stated
Head-On
Broadside
Sideswipe
Hit Object
Rear End
41 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 27
Figure 2-13 Property Damage Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019)
2.11 Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) Scoring
Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scoring per the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) was utilized to analyze crash data and evaluate roadway network performance. Crashes were assigned weighting factors relative to property damage only collisions based on crash costs from the Highway S afety Improvement Program (HSIP) Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) for California Local Road Owners v1.5. The weighting factor generally reflects an order of magnitude difference between the societal costs of fatal and severe injury collisions versus non-severe injury collisions. EPDO score is calculated by multiplying each crash severity total by its associated weight and summing the results, using the following formula:
EPDO Score = (Fatal Weight x Number of Fatal Crashes) + (Severe Injury Weight x Number of Severe Injury Crashes) + (Other Visible Injury Weight x Number of Other Visible Injury Crashes) + (Complaint of Pain Injury Weight x Number of Complaint of Pain Injury Crashes) + Property Damage Only Crashes
EPDO scoring was conducted for signaliz ed intersections, non -signalized intersections, and roadway segments. EPDO scores were organized by quintile and displayed graphically by heat maps. The top quintiles identified priority locations with the highest EPDO scores and corresponds with the highe st crash frequency and severity. Appendix B provides collision summaries for the priority locations. Table 2-19 summarizes the crash cost and EPDO score associated with an individual collision by location type and severity. Figure 2-14 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for signalized intersections, non -signalized intersections, and roadway segments.
36%
23%
18%
7%
5%
3%
8% DUI
Improper Turning
Unsafe Speed
Unknown / Not Stated
Traffic Signals and Signs
Automobile ROW
Categories < 3%
42 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 28
Figure 2-14 Citywide EPDO Scoring
43 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 29
Table 2-19 Crash Weights by Severity and Location Type
LOCATION TYPE
CRASH WEIGHTS BY SEVERITY
FATAL AND
SEVERE INJURY
OTHER VISIBLE
INJURY
COMPLAINT OF
PAIN INJURY
PROPERTY
DAMAGE ONLY
EPDO
SCORE
CRASH
COST
EPDO
SCORE
CRASH
COST
EPDO
SCORE
CRASH
COST
EPDO
SCORE
CRASH
COST
Signalized
Intersection 123.7 $1.46m
10.7 $126,500 6.1 $71,900 1 $11,800 Unsignalized
Intersection 195.8 $2.31m
Roadway 169.5 $1.46m
Signalized Intersections
Figure 2-15 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for signalized intersections. The quintiles and corresponding EPDO score ranges are as follows:
• 80 – 100th Percentile: 206.6 to 649.4
• 60 – 80th Percentile: 141.0 to 206.5
• 40 – 60th Percentile: 45.9 to 140.9
• 20 – 40th Percentile: 12.3 to 45.8
• 0 – 20th Percentile: 0.0 to 12.2
The top two quintile signalized intersection locations based on EPDO scores are shown on Table 2-20 and graphically on Figure 2-16. Based on roadway classifications in the Cathedral City General Plan Circulation Element, most of the top quintile signalized intersections locations are along arterial and major highway corridors with fewer intersections on lower-order roadways.
Table 2-20 Top Two Quintile Signalized Intersections by EPDO Score (2015-2019)
RANK LOCATION TOTAL
COLLISIONS EPDO
1 Vista Chino & Landau Blvd 12 649.4
2 Date Palm Dr & Gerald Ford Dr 4 369.2
3 Date Palm Dr & Victoria Dr 10 301.6
4 Ramon Rd & Cathedral Canyon Dr / Avenida Maravilla 10 297 5 Date Palm Dr & Converse Rd 6 268
6 East Palm Canyon Dr & Perez Rd 6 263.4
7 Ramon Rd & Date Palm Dr 14 208
8 East Palm Canyon Dr & Canyon Plaza 13 206.5
9 East Palm Canyon Dr & Cathedral Canyon Dr 9 191.3
10 Ramon Rd & Whispering Palms Trail 8 176
11 Vista Chino & Avenida Quintana 8 176
12 East Ramon Rd & Landau Blvd 6 159.2
13 East Ramon Rd & Cathedral Village East 5 157.7
14 East Ramon Rd & Da Vall Dr 5 153.1
15 Dinah Shore Dr & Cathedral Canyon Dr 5 143.9
44 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 30
Figure 2-15 Signalized Intersections EPDO Scoring
45 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 31
Figure 2-16 Priority Signalized Intersections
RANK LOCATION RANK LOCATION
1 Vista Chino & Landau Blvd 9 East Palm Canyon Dr & Cathedral Canyon Dr 2 Date Palm Dr & Gerald Ford Dr 10 Ramon Rd & Whispering Palms Trail 3 Date Palm Dr & Victoria Dr 11 Vista Chino & Avenida Quintana 4 Ramon Rd & Cathedral Canyon Dr /
Avenida Maravilla 12 East Ramon Rd & Landau Blvd
5 Date Palm Dr & Converse Rd 13 East Ramon Rd & Cathedral Village East 6 East Palm Canyon Dr & Perez Rd 14 East Ramon Rd & Da Vall Dr 7 Ramon Rd & Date Palm Dr 15 Dinah Shore Dr & Cathedral Canyon Dr 8 East Palm Canyon Dr & Canyon Plaza
46 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 32
Unsignalized Intersections
Figure 2-17 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for unsignalized intersections. The quintiles and corresponding EPDO score ranges are as follows:
• 80 – 100th Percentile: 175.5 to 605.7
• 60 – 80th Percentile: 12.3 to 175.4
• 40 – 60th Percentile: 6.2 to 12.2
• 20 – 40th Percentile: 1.1 to 6.1
• 0 – 20th Percentile: 0.0 to 1.0
The top quintile unsignalized intersection locations based on EPDO scores are shown on Table 2-21 and graphically on Figure 2-18. Based on roadway classifications in the Cathedral City General Plan Circulation Element, the majority priority unsignalized intersections are primarily located on arterial and major corridors with fewer top quintile intersections located on lower - order secondary, collector, and local roadways.
Table 2-21 Top Quintile Unsignalized Intersections by EPDO Score (2015-2019)
RANK LOCATION TOTAL
COLLISIONS EPDO
1 Date Palm Dr & Varner Rd 8 605.7
2 E Palm Canyon Dr & Elks Dr 5 403.3
3 Date Palm Dr & Tachevah Dr 5 398.7
4 Ramon Rd & Avenida La Paloma 6 367.6
5 Candlewood Dr & Ramon Rd 5 361.5
6 33rd Ave & Cathedral Canyon Dr 6 234.5
7 Edom Hill Rd & Varner Rd 3 207
8 Avenida La Paz & Concepcion Rd 2 200.9
9 Avenida Maravilla & Tachevah Dr 2 200.9
10 Landau Blvd & Baristo Rd / Calle Agate 2 200.9
11 Cathedral Canyon Dr & Paseo Real 2 200.9
12 Dinah Shore Dr & Whispering Palms Trl 2 200.9
13 Perez Rd & Plaza Dr 2 200.9
14 Landau Blvd & Tachevah Dr 2 196.3
15 Perez Rd & Summit Dr 2 196.3
16 Asistencia Dr & San Luis Rey Dr 1 190.2
17 Avenida La Paloma & Baristo Rd 1 190.2
18 Avenida La Paz & Durango Rd 1 190.2
19 Avenida La Vista & Minerva Rd 1 190.2
20 Corral Rd & Monte Vista Rd 1 190.2
21 Desert Princess Dr & Landau Blvd 1 190.2
22 Mccallum Wy & Whispering Palms Trl 1 190.2
23 Pamela Ln & Travis Ave 1 190.2
24 Panorama Rd & Vista Chino 1 190.2
47 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 33
Figure 2-17 Unsignalized Intersections EPDO Scoring
48 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 34
Figure 2-18 Priority Unsignalized Intersections
RANK LOCATION RANK LOCATION
1 Date Palm Dr & Varner Rd 13 Perez Rd & Plaza Dr
2 E Palm Canyon Dr & Elks Dr 14 Landau Blvd & Tachevah Dr 3 Date Palm Dr & Tachevah Dr 15 Perez Rd & Summit Dr
4 Ramon Rd & Avenida La Paloma 16 Asistencia Dr & San Luis Rey Dr 5 Candlewood Dr & Ramon Rd 17 Avenida La Paloma & Baristo Rd 6 33rd Ave & Cathedral Canyon Dr 18 Avenida La Paz & Durango Rd 7 Edom Hill Rd & Varner Rd 19 Avenida La Vista & Minerva Rd 8 Avenida La Paz & Concepcion Rd 20 Corral Rd & Monte Vista Rd 9 Avenida Maravilla & Tachevah Dr 21 Desert Princess Dr & Landau Blvd 10 Landau Blvd & Baristo Rd / Calle Agate 22 Mccallum Wy & Whispering Palms Trl 11 Cathedral Canyon Dr & Paseo Real 23 Pamela Ln & Travis Ave 12 Dinah Shore Dr & Whispering Palms Trl 24 Panorama Rd & Vista Chino 49 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 35
Roadway Segments
Figure 2-19 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for roadway segments. The quintiles and corresponding EPDO score ranges are as follows:
• 80 – 100th Percentile: 181.6 to 352.3
• 60 – 80th Percentile: 35.2 to 181.5
• 40 – 60th Percentile: 10.8 to 35.1
• 20 – 40th Percentile: 6.2 to 10.7
• 0 – 20th Percentile: 0.0 to 6.1
The top two quintile roadway segment locations based on EPDO scores are shown on Table 2-22 and graphically on Figure 2-20. Based on roadway classifications in the Cathedral City General Plan Circulation Element, the majority of the priority roadway segments are arterial, major, and secondary corridors with fewer located on lower-order roadways.
Table 2-22 Top Two Quintile Roadway Segments by EPDO Score (2015-2019)
RANK CORRIDOR LOCATION TOTAL
COLLISIONS EPDO
1 Ramon Rd Western City Limits to Landau Blvd 5 352.3
2 Date Palm Dr Gerald Ford Dr to Converse Rd 3 340.1
3 Vista Chino Western City Limits to Desert Princess Dr/ Avenida Quintana 2 329.4
4 Varner Rd Western City Limits to Eastern City Limits 11 234.9 5 Perez Rd E Palm Canyon Dr / Hwy 111 to Cathedral Canyon Dr 6 209 6 Landau Blvd Ramon Rd to 30th Ave 3 186.1
7 Date Palm Dr Vista Chino to Varner Rd 3 186.1
8 San Luis Rey Dr Ramon Rd to Plaza Cir 4 183
9 Date Palm Dr Converse Rd to Victoria Dr 3 181.5
10 Date Palm Dr Perez Rd to Gerald Ford Dr 2 175.4
11 Date Palm Dr 30th Ave to Vista Chino 2 175.4
12 Palm Dr Paul Rd to Northern City Limits 2 170.8
13 Ramon Rd Via Campanile / Outdoor Resorts to Eastern City Limits 1 164.7
14 Date Palm Dr Dinah Shore Dr to Ortega Rd / Dave Kelley Rd 1 164.7 15 Via Estrada Date Palm Dr to N Paseo Laredo 1 164.7
16 E Palm Canyon Dr /
Hwy 111 E Canyon Pl / El Dorado to Canyon Pl 5 39.7
50 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 36
Figure 2-19 Roadway Segments EPDO Scoring
51 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 37
Figure 2-20 Priority Roadway Segments
RANK LOCATION RANK LOCATION
1 Ramon Rd: W City Limits to Landau Blvd 9 Date Palm Dr: Converse Rd to Victoria Dr 2 Date Palm Dr: Gerald Ford Dr to Converse Rd 10 Date Palm Dr: Perez Rd to Gerald Ford Dr 3 Vista Chino: W City Limits to Desert Princess
Dr / Avenida Quintana 11 Date Palm Dr: 30th Ave to Vista Chino 4 Varner Rd: W City Limits to E City Limits 12 Palm Dr: Paul Rd to N City Limits 5 Perez Rd: E Palm Canyon Dr / Hwy 111 to
Cathedral Canyon Dr 13 Ramon Rd: Via Campanile / Outdoor Resorts to E City Limits
6 Landau Blvd: Ramon Rd to 30th Ave 14 Date Palm Dr: Dinah Shore Dr to Ortega Rd / Dave Kelley Rd
7 Date Palm Dr: Vista Chino to Varner Rd 15 Via Estrada: Date Palm Dr to N Paseo Laredo 8 San Luis Rey Dr: Ramon Rd to Plaza Cir 16 E Canyon Pl / El Dorado to Canyon Pl 52 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 38
2.12 Roadway Characteristics Screening
Roadway characteristic data was obtained from the priority locations determined for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments based on EPDO scoring. Data collected was based on information provided by Cathedral City, an online field assessment of aerial imagery, and field visits. The physical roadway characteristics documented is summarized below and the data tables are provided in Appendix C.
Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
• Intersection Control
• Number of Approaches
• Presence of Marked Crosswalks
• Left Turn and Right-Turn Lane Configurations
• Intersection Geometry Complexity (Offset Approaches, Medians, Etc.) Roadway Segments
• Roadway Surface
• Roadway Geometry Complexity (Horizontal / Vertical Curves, Etc.) • Number of Lanes
• Posted Speed Limit
• Bike Lanes
• Shoulder Width
• Median Type and Width
• Number of Unsignalized and Signalized Traffic Control Devices • Roadway Safety Hardware (Guardrail, Fences, Etc.)
The roadway character istics and crash data analysis were compared to identify commonality which, for the purpose of the Cathedral City LRSP, was defined a potential connection or contributing factor for crashes and does not prove causality. Identific ation of commonality indicates a potential for higher risk crashes among locations with similar characteristics. This analysis will enable Cathedral City to proactively identify locations that may have higher risk for crashes resulting in fatal or severe injuries but are not reflected in the crash data analyzed. Future development of roadway safety projects and programs that include a combination of priority locations and other high-risk areas not identified from EPDO scoring alone will result in a wholistic approach to addressing roadway safety while maintaining high benefit cost ratios needed for competitive HSIP grant applications.
53 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 39
Based on trends that were consistently present across the priority locations, potential risk factors for intersections and roadway segments were identified and are summarized below.
Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
• Signalized intersections on arterial and major roads with high vehicle volumes • Signalized intersections on arterial-arterial, arterial-major, and arterial-secondary roads with high posted speed limits
• Adjacent driveways at signalized intersections
• Lack of medians on signalized intersection approaches • Offset or skewed intersection approaches
• Side street stop-controlled intersections
• Limited high visibility crosswalk striping
• Limited intersection lighting
Roadway Segments
• Arterial and major roadways with posted speeds of 45 mph or greater • Multilane (four or more lanes) roadways without raised medians • Limited roadway lighting
• Frequent driveway access
• Curved roadway alignment
• Narrow/lack of shoulders
• Lack of dedicated bike lanes
The potential risk factors identified for intersections and roadways will be used in combination with the citywide crash data analysis to inform the development of the countermeasure toolbox and future priority roadway safety projects and programs.
54 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 40
3 COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
Based on the results of the citywide collision analysis and roadway network screening, a countermeasure toolbox was developed based on guida nce provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)’s 20 Proven Safety Countermeasures, the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), and the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) for California Local Road owners. Countermeasures were se lected based on the 5E’s of traffic safety which include the following overarching strategies:
1. Engineering: Implementation of infrastructure-oriented safety treatments
2. Enforcement: Enforcement of actions that reduce high-risk behaviors
3. Education: Education of all roadway users on safe behaviors
4. Emergency Response: Improvement of emergency response times and actions
5. Emerging Technologies: Application of emerging technologies to roadways, vehicles, and/or roadway users
This section establishes the foundation for determining countermeasures that address the crashes that occur on the local roadway network and is focused on developing a toolbox of engineering countermeasures and improvements that are eligible for HSIP fundi ng. The Cathedral City LRSP is a living document and will be updated based on Caltrans standards for HSIP funding eligibility. Future LRSP updates will include increased development of the countermeasure toolbox for non-engineering countermeasures and strategies.
3.1 Engineering
Engineering countermeasures for infrastructure improvements were selected from the 2020 Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) for California Local Road Owners (v1.5) and are summarized based on countermeasure number, countermea sure type, countermeasure name, crash types addressed, crash reduction factor (CRF), HSIP funding eligibility percentage, and opportunity for systemic approach . The LRSM includes infrastructure improvements that are eligible for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding for signalized intersections (S), non-signalized intersections (NS), and roadway s (R). Table 3 -1 provides a summary of the countermeasures for signalized intersections, Table 3-2 provides a summary of countermeasures for unsignalized intersections, and Table 3 -3 provides a summary of countermeasures for roadways.
55 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 41
Table 3-1 Signalized Intersection Countermeasures
CM # TYPE CM NAME CRASH
TYPE
CRASH
REDUCTION
FACTOR
HSIP
FUNDING
ELIGIBILITY
SYSTEMIC
APPROACH
OPPORTUNITY
S01 Lighting Add intersection lighting (S.I.) Night 40% 100% Medium S02 Signal
Mod
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back-plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
All 15% 100% Very High
S03 Signal
Mod
Improve signal timing
(coordination, phases, red,
yellow, or operation)
All 15% 50% Very High
S04 Signal
Mod
Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone
Detection for high speed
approaches
All 40% 100% High
S05 Signal
Mod
Install emergency vehicle pre-
emption systems
Emergency
Vehicle 70% 100% High
S07 Signal
Mod
Provide protected left turn
phase (left turn lane already
exists)
All 30% 100% High
S10 Operation/
Warning
Install flashing beacons as
advance warning (S.I.) All 30% 100% Medium
S11 Operation/
Warning
Improve pavement friction (High
Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 100% Medium
S12 Geometric
Mod
Install raised median on
approaches (S.I.) All 25% 90% Medium
S13PB Geometric
Mod
Install pedestrian median fencing
on approaches
Ped and
Bike 35% 90% Low
S16 Geometric
Mod
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from signal) All Varies 100% Low
S17PB Ped and
Bike
Install pedestrian countdown
signal heads
Ped and
Bike 25% 100% Very High
S18PB Ped and
Bike Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.) Ped and
Bike 25% 100% High
S21PB Ped and
Bike
Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
Ped and
Bike 60% 100% Very High
Note: Countermeasures were selected based on applicability to citywide crash patterns and future HSIP applications. A complete list of countermeasures can be found in the Caltrans LRSM
56 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 42
Table 3-2 Non-Signalized Intersection Countermeasures
CM # TYPE CM NAME CRASH
TYPE
CRASH
REDUCTION
FACTOR
HSIP
FUNDING
ELIGIBILITY
SYSTEMIC
APPROACH
OPPORTUNITY
NS01 Lighting Add intersection lighting
(NS.I.) Night 40% 100% Medium
NS03 Control Install signals All 30% 100% Low
NS04 Control Convert intersection to
roundabout (from all way stop) All Varies 100% Low
NS05 Control
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from stop or
yield control on minor road)
All Varies 100% Low
NS06 Operation/
Warning
Install/upgrade larger or
additional stop signs or other
intersection warning/
regulatory signs
All 15% 100% Very High
NS07 Operation/
Warning
Upgrade intersection
pavement markings (NS.I.) All 25% 100% Very High
NS08 Operation/
Warning
Install Flashing Beacons at
Stop-Controlled Intersections All 15% 100% High
NS09 Operation/
Warning
Install flashing beacons as
advance warning (NS.I.) All 30% 100% High
NS12 Operation/
Warning
Improve pavement friction
(High Friction Surface
Treatments)
All 55% 100% Medium
NS14 Geometric
Mod
Install raised median on
approaches (NS.I.) All 25% 90% Medium
NS17 Geometric
Mod Install right-turn lane (NS.I.) All 20% 90% Low
NS18 Geometric
Mod
Install left-turn lane (where no
left-turn lane exists) All 35% 90% Low
NS19PB Ped and
Bike
Install raised medians / refuge
islands (NS.I.)
Ped and
Bike 45% 90% Medium
NS20PB Ped and
Bike
Install pedestrian crossing at
uncontrolled locations (new
signs and markings only)
Ped and
Bike 25% 100% High
NS21PB Ped and
Bike
Install/upgrade pedestrian
crossing at uncontrolled
locations (with enhanced
safety features)
Ped and
Bike 35% 100% Medium
NS22PB Ped and
Bike
Install Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Ped and
Bike 35% 100% Medium
NS23PB Ped and
Bike
Install Pedestrian Signal
(including Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon (HAWK))
Ped and
Bike 35% 100% Low
Note: Countermeasures were selected based on applicability to citywide crash patterns and future HSIP applications. A complete list of countermeasures can be found in the Caltrans LRSM 57 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 43
Table 3-3 Roadway Countermeasures
CM # TYPE CM NAME CRASH
TYPE
CRASH
REDUCTION
FACTOR
HSIP
FUNDING
ELIGIBILITY
SYSTEMIC
APPROACH
OPPORTUNITY
R01 Lighting Add segment lighting Night 35% 100% Medium R03
Remove/
Shield
Obstacles
Install Median Barrier All 25% 100% Medium
R04
Remove/
Shield
Obstacles
Install Guardrail All 25% 100% High
R08 Geometric
Mod Install raised median All 25% 90% Medium
R10PB Geometric
Mod
Install pedestrian median
fencing on approaches
Ped and
Bike 35% 90% Low
R11 Geometric
Mod
Install acceleration/ deceleration
lanes All 25% 90% Low
R14 Geometric
Mod
Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes
from 4 to 3 and add a two way
left-turn
and bike lanes)
All 30% 90% Medium
R15 Geometric
Mod Widen shoulder All 30% 90% Medium
R17 Geometric
Mod
Improve horizontal alignment
(flatten curves) All 50% 90% Low
R21 Geometric
Mod
Improve pavement friction (High
Friction Surface Treatments All 55% 100% High
R22 Operation/
Warning
Install/Upgrade signs with new
fluorescent sheeting (regulatory
or warning)
All 15% 100% Very High
R25 Operation/
Warning
Install curve advance warning
signs (flashing beacon) All 30% 100% High
R26 Operation/
Warning
Install dynamic/variable speed
warning signs All 30% 100% High
R28 Operation/
Warning Install edge-lines and centerlines All 25% 100% Very High R30 Operation/
Warning
Install centerline rumble strips/
stripes All 20% 100% High
R31 Operation/
Warning
Install edgeline rumble strips/
stripes All 15% 100% High
R32PB Ped and
Bike Install bike lanes Ped and
Bike 35% 90% High
R33PB Ped and
Bike Install Separated Bike Lanes Ped and
Bike 45% 90% High
R34PB Ped and
Bike
Install sidewalk/pathway (to
avoid walking along roadway)
Ped and
Bike 80% 90% Medium
58 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 44
CM # TYPE CM NAME CRASH
TYPE
CRASH
REDUCTION
FACTOR
HSIP
FUNDING
ELIGIBILITY
SYSTEMIC
APPROACH
OPPORTUNITY
R35PB Ped and
Bike
Install/upgrade pedestrian
crossing (with enhanced safety
features
Ped and
Bike 35% 90% Medium
R36PB Ped and
Bike Install raised pedestrian crossing Ped and
Bike 35% 90% Medium
R37PB Ped and
Bike
Install Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Ped and
Bike 35% 100% Medium
Note: Countermeasures were selected based on applicability to citywide crash patterns and future HSIP applications. A complete list of countermeasures can be found in the Caltrans LRSM Detailed information for each engineering countermeasure is provided in Appendix D including:
• Caltrans HSIP countermeasure reference
• Example image of the countermeasure
• Description of the countermeasure
• Description of where to use the countermeasure
• Description of why the countermeasure works
• Caltrans HSIP funding eligibility
• Crash types addressed
• Crash reduction factor
• Expected design life
• Planning-level approximate cost
3.2 Enforcement
Enforcement strategies will be further developed during future LRSP updates and will focus on actions that reduce high-risk behaviors and reflect the feedback received from the Cathedral City Police Department’s Traffic Division. Strategies that should be considered include:
California Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Grants
California Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) grants are administered through the Alcohol Policing Partnership (APP) Program and funded by the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The program is designed to put bad operators out of business, keep alcohol away from minors, and bring penalties such as fines, suspensions, or revocations against businesses that violate the law. ABC grants award funding to local law enforcement agencies to increase public safety by combating underage drinking and educating licensees about alcoholic beverage laws. ABC agents have expertise in alcoholic beverage laws and work with local police officers to help reduce alcohol -related community problems. The Cathedral City Police Department has been successful in obtaining ABC grant 59 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 45
funding to reduce the number of alcoholic beverage sales to minors, obviously intoxicated persons, illegal solicitations of alcohol, and other criminal activities such as the sale and possession of illegal drugs.
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants are administered through the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and funded by the Federal Highway Safety Program . The program seeks to prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes by addressing the behavioral factors that im pact roadway safety. OTS grants for priority program areas related to enforcement includ e: Alcohol Impaired Driving, Di stracted Driving, Drug - Impaired Driving, Police Traffic Services, and Roadway Safety and Traffic Records.
Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM)
Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) is provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) through the Un ited States Department of Transportation (USDOT). TSM provides communication resources that can be utilized by local roadway safety advocates for traffic safety campaigns and marketing tools through both traditional and online media. Enforcement-related campaigns include: Distracted Driving, Drunk Driving, Law Enforcement Appreciation, Seat Belts, and Speed Prevention.
Targeted Enforcement Strategies
The primary collision factor (PCF) for citywide crashes that occurred during the study period is illustrated in Figure 3-1. The most common collision factors were unsafe speed (21%), automobile right-of-way violations ( 19%), driving under the influence ( 14%), and improper turning ( 14%).
Targeted hotspot enforcement for these PCF’s is recommended.
Figure 3-1 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019)
1 1
2 4
8 9
13 14
26 35
53 69
70 95
107
0 20 40 60 80 100
Improper Passing
Lights
Unsafe Lane Change
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Following Too Closely
Pedestrian ROW
Wrong Side of Road
Other
Pedestrian Violation
Unknown / Not Stated
Traffic Signals and Signs
Improper Turning
DUI
Automobile ROW
Unsafe Speed
Primary Collision Factor
60 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 46
3.3 Education
Education strategies will focus on actions that provide education to all roadway users on safe behaviors and reflect feedback received by the community. Feedback from the community was received through Connect Cathedral City – a joint initiative between Cathedral City and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) to develop projects that support walking, biking, and the use of low -speed electric vehicles (LSEVs) in the City. Figure 3-2 illustrates the Connect Cathedral City website utilized by the community to provide feedback on pedestrian, bicycle, and LSEV facilities throughout the City.
Figure 3-2 Connect Cathedral City Feedback Map
Education strategies that should be considered include:
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants are administered through the Cal ifornia State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and funded by the Federal Highway Safety Program. The program seeks to prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes by addressing the behavioral factors that impact roadway safety. OTS g rants for priority program areas related to e ducation include: Motorcycle Safety, Occupant Protection, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, and Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing. 61 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 47
Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM)
Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) is provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) through the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). TSM provides communication resources that can be utilized by local roadway safety advocates for traffic safety campaigns and marketing tools through both traditional and online media. Education -related campaigns include: Bicycle Safety, Child Safety, Motorcycle Safety, Older Drivers, Pedestrian Safety, Seat Belts, School Bus Safety, Teen Safety, and Vehicle Safety.
3.4 Emergency Response
Emergency response strategies will focus on actions that improve emergency response times and reflect feedback received by the Cathedral City Fire Department. Historically, the Cathedral City Fire Department has conducted both in -person and online public education campaigns and has been successful in obtaining grant funding for new emergency response equipment and resources to improve response times. Additional emergency response s trategies that should be considered include:
Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) for California Local Road Owners (v1.5 ) Countermeasure S5: Install Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption Systems This countermeasure is eligible for 100% funding through the Caltrans HSIP and is used for installing and/or upgrading existing emergency vehicle preemption systems at signalized intersections to address crashes involving emergency vehicles. This countermeasure can be utilized for both traditional infrared (IR) transmitter systems that rely on line -of-sight between traffic signals and emergency response vehicles and for global positioning system (GPS) systems which can transmit emergency vehicle speed, direction, and turn signal status to traffic signals to provide more efficient clearance of intersections along the route, improve response times, and eliminate traffic operations issues on coordinated corridors due to use of illegal emitters.
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants are administered through the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and funded by the Federal Highway Safety Program. The program seeks to prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes by addressing the behavioral factors that impact roadway safety. OTS grants for pri ority program areas related to emergency response include: Emergency Medical Services, Occupant Protection, and Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing.
Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM)
Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) is provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) through the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). TSM provides communication resources that can be utilized by local roadway safety advocates for traffic safety 62 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 48
campaigns and marketing tools through both traditional and online media. Emergency response- related campaigns include: First Responder Safety, Vehicle Safety, Child Safety, and Seat Belts.
3.5 Emerging Technologies
Strategies that utilize emerging technologies will include actions that are in alignment with the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)’s Emerging Technology Challenge Area which focuses on the use of technology to prevent, identify, and respond to collisions. Emerging technology strategies will include exploring technology advancem ents that are new or underutilized to potentially reduce frequency or severity of collisions. Emerging technologies can be applied to roadways, vehicles, and / or users. Examples include autonomous and connected vehicles, future vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication that will connect all roadway users with the intent to eliminate human error and collisions, the use of Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) for cars, bikes, or scooters, advancements to safety devices in vehicles, mobile applications, improvements to emergency response from drones and roadway videos, and any other technologies that help the 5E’s of traffic safety. The CA SHSP identifies six (6) general categories for emerging technologies in transportation safety:
Alerting Drivers at Risk
Alerting drivers at risk includes technology that can alert drivers to the risk of being involved in a collision, can reduce the risk by monitoring speed or blinds spots, and alert drivers to the situation with a visual or audible alert so that drivers can act accordingly.
Assisting Drivers at Risk
Assisting drivers at risk includes technology that can assist a driver when a collision is imminent.
An example is lane keeping assist, which helps drivers stay in the designated lane by alerting them through a visual, audible, or tactile warning when they begin to depart from the lane.
Protecting Vehicle Occupants
Protecting vehicle occupants includes technology upgrades by vehicle manufacturers to improve safety features in seatbelts, airbags, and vehicle structure features. These are an important factor in injury severity and fatality during collisions.
Communicating with Drivers and the Environment
Communication between drivers and their environment i ncludes technology that supports alerting drivers to risk and then assisting them. This can fall in several categories including Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) such a blind spot detection, Vehicle -to-Infrastructure (V2I) such as a roadway conditions warning alerting drivers to a collision ahead, and Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P) such as a forward collision warning alerting a driver to a pedestrian in the crosswalk ahead.
63 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 49
Vehicle Performing as Designated
It is important that once vehicles enter the roadway they perfor m as designed for their full lifespan. This can be done through vehicle upkeep, maintenance and vehicle record keeping. A supporting technology for vehicle upkeep is many cars have an oil change indicator light, which alerts drivers to a potential need to do an oil change after so many miles.
Mobile Technology and Applications
Examples of mobile technology and applications include driving app lications which restrict texting and mobile application use and may reduce distracted driving and Transportation Network Companies (TNC) applications for rideshare companies such as Uber and Lyft which may reduce the number of impaired drivers on the road.
64 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 50
4 PRIORITY PROJECTS
Potential safety projects were evaluated based on Cathedral City roadway needs, the crash data analysis, roadway network screening, and countermeasure toolbox . T wo (2) priority projects were identified for development of a preliminary project scope, cost estimate, and benefit cost ratio (BCR) analysis utilizing the most recent Cycle 10 HSIP Analyzer. In order to supplement local funds while proactively implementing roadway safety, the priority projects were developed based on eligibility for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding. Additionally, recommendations are presented for HSIP funding set-asides.
4.1 Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Upgrades
Existing safety lighting and street name signs at traffic signals throughout Cathedral City will be upgraded to light-emitting diode (LED) and traffic signal backplates will be upgraded to include retro-reflective tape. Intersection lighting improves visibility of the intersection and helps reduce potential conflicts between all roadway users , including pedestrians and bicyclists who have a smaller intersection footprint . Retro-reflective tape improves the visibility of the illuminated signal faces, which makes them more visible in both daytime and nighttime conditions.
4.2 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
Existing pedestrian crosswalks at Cathedral Canyon Dr & Ortega Dr and 30th Ave & Avenida La Paz will be upgraded to include new pedestrian hybrid beacons (HAWK), curb extensions, curb ramps, high visibility crosswalk striping, advanced warning pavement markings and signs, and upgrades to existing roadway signing and striping.
4.3 Pedestrian Crosswalk Upgrades
Existing pedestrian crosswalks at unsignalized intersections throughout Cathedral City will be upgraded to include LED lighting, curb extensions, curb ramps, flashing stop sign beacons, high visibility striping, and upgrades to existing roadway signing and striping.
Table 4-1 provides a summary of the priority projects by HSIP LRSM (v1.5) countermeasures and BCR ranking. Appendix E provides more detailed priority project summaries which include:
• LRSM Countermeasure Description
• Project Description
• Map and Table of Project Locations
• Crash Analysis Summary by Severity, Collision Type, and Primary Collision Factor • Cost Estimate for Construction Items
• Cost Estimate for Preliminary Engineering (PE), Right -of-Way (ROW), and Construction (CON) project phases
65 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 51
• Total Expected Benefit
• Total Project Cost
• Benefit Cost Ratio
Table 4-1 Priority Projects
# PROJECT LOCATION LRSM CM BCR
1 CITYWIDE LED LIGHTING UPGRADES
1. Date Palm Dr & 30th Ave
2. Date Palm Dr & Converse Rd
3. Date Palm Dr & Dinah Shore Dr
4. Date Palm Dr & Fire Station #2
5. Date Palm Dr & Gerald Ford Dr
6. Date Palm Dr & Market Pl
7. Date Palm Dr & Mccallum Wy
8. Date Palm Dr & Ortega Rd/Dave Kelly Rd
9. Date Palm Dr & Via Oliveria/Cathedral Village S
10. Date Palm Dr & Victoria Dr
11. Date Palm Dr & Vista Chino
12. Dinah Shore Dr & Cathedral Canyon Dr
13. Dinah Shore Dr & Plumley Rd
14. E Palm Canyon Dr & Canyon Plaza
15. E Palm Canyon Dr & Cathedral Canyon Dr
16. E Palm Canyon Dr & Date Palm Dr
17. E Palm Canyon Dr & E Canyon Plaza /El Dorado
18. E Palm Canyon Dr & Officer Jermaine Gibson Ave
19. E Palm Canyon Dr & Perez Rd
20. E Palm Canyon Dr & W Bankside Dr
21. E Palm Canyon Dr & W Buddy Rodgers Ave
22. E Ramon Rd & Cathedral Canyon Dr/Avenida Maravilla
23. E Ramon Rd & Cathedral Village E
24. E Ramon Rd & Date Palm Dr
25. E Ramon Rd & Desert Vista Rd/Avenida Del Yermo
26. E Ramon Rd & Landau Blvd
27. E Ramon Rd & Via Campanile/Outdoor Resorts
28. E Ramon Rd & Whispering Palms Trail
29. Palm Dr & Paul Rd
30. Perez Rd & Cathedral Canyon Dr
31. Vista Chino & Avenida Quintana
32. Vista Chino & Avenida Maravilla
33. Vista Chino & Landau Blvd
34. E Ramon Rd & Da Vall Dr
35. Cathedral Canyon Dr & Officer David Vasquez Rd
36. Date Palm Dr & Baristo Rd
37. Date Palm Dr & Perez Rd
38. E Palm Canyon Dr & Allen Ave
39. E Palm Canyon Dr & Auto Park Dr
40. E Palm Canyon Dr & Sungate Wy
41. E Palm Canyon Dr & Van Fleet St/Monty Hall Dr
42. Gerald Ford Dd & Plumley Rd/Avenida Del Sol
43. Landau Blvd & 30th Ave
44. E Palm Canyon Dr & E Bankside Dr
S2 – Improve signal
hardware: lenses, back-
plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size,
and number
17.08 66
Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 52
# PROJECT LOCATION LRSM CM BCR
2 HAWK SIGNALS
1. 30th & Avenida La Paz
2. Cathedral Canyon Dr & Ortega Rd
NS23PB – Install Pedestrian
Signal (including Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon (HAWK))
20.06 3
PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK UPGRADES
1. Mccallum Wy & Whispering Palms Trl
2. Avenida La Vista & Minerva Rd
3. Asistencia Dr & San Luis Rey Dr
4. Avenida La Paloma & Baristo Rd
5. Vaquero Rd & Victoria Dr
6. Judy Ln & Victoria Dr
7. Avenida Maravilla & Tachevah Dr
8. Avenida La Paz & Tachevah Dr
9. Avenida La Vista & Tortuga Rd
10. Landau Blvd & Mccallum Wy
11. Terrace Rd & Cathedral Canyon Dr
NS1 – Add intersection
lighting (NS.I.)
NS21PB – Install / upgrade
pedestrian crossing at
uncontrolled locations (with
enhanced safety features)
18.93 4.4 Funding Set-Asides
The Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) includes two application categories – Benefit Cost Ratio s (BCR) and Funding Set -Asides (SA). Set-aside applications differ from the benefit cost ratio applications in that narrative responses related to crash histo ry, collision analysis, and benefit cost ratio calculations are not required. A portion of each HSIP funding cycle is dedicated set-aside applications. In the most recent call for projects, Cycle 10, up to 25% ($55 million) of the $227.6 million in total funding was available for four (4) set-aside categories, with a total of $43 million (18.9%) being selected by Caltrans for award . The HSIP Cycle 10 set-aside categories and funding limits per agency are summarized in Table 4-2 below. Agencies can submit one (1) application for each set-aside category.
Table 4-2 HSIP Cycle 10 Application Categories
# DESCRIPTION FUNDING LIMIT PER AGENCY
1 Guardrail Upgrades $1 million
2 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements $250,000
3 Installing Edgelines $250,000
4 Tribes $250,000
67 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 53
In HSIP Cycle 10, set-aside project selection was based on prioritizing based on the order below:
• Agencies who did not have any projects awarded in HSIP Cycles 8 & 9 • Agencies who did not have projects awarded under the same set-aside in HSIP Cycles 8 & 9 • Agencies who have completed a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) • Agencies who have had more Fatal & Severe Injury (F+SI) crashes with the boundaries of their jurisdiction in the last three years with data available from California Highway Patrol (CHP) Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). The applicant does not need to provide this number as the Caltrans District Local Assistance (DLA) will obtain the data from SWITRS if needed.
Guardrail Upgrades
Eligible project work under the guardrail upgrades set -aside funding category includes work related to the upgrade of existing guardrails and end treatments. New guardrail installations and bridge rail upgrades are not eligible.
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
Eligible project work under the pedestrian crossing enhancements set -aside funding category includes work consistent with the following LRSM safety countermeasures:
• S17PB: Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
• NS22PB/R37PB: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB). • NS21PB: Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
• R35PB: Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)
Work related to pedestrian crossings/signs, advanced yield lines/signs, and other signs/striping are eligible. Other work related to pedestrian crossing enhancements may be a llowed provided the cost is less than 20% of the total project cost. Agencies will be responsible to any non-safety related project costs such as decorative items.
During priority project development, several non -signalized intersections with pedestrian crosswalks throughout the City, including locations in proximity to local public K-12 schools, were identified as good candidates for pedestrian crossing upgrades but did not have sufficient crash frequency and severity to yield a competitive BCR project. It is recommended that the City pursue pedestrian crossings enhancements set-aside applications during future HSIP calls for projects to 68 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 54
upgrade these existing pedestrian crosswalks as the crash history and BCR calculation will not be required, and HSIP set-aside funding is not typically exhausted.
Installing Edgelines
Eligible project work under the installing edgelines set -aside funding category includes the installation of edgelines along roadways and other work, such as signs and other pavement striping or marking, provided the additional cost is less than 20% of the total project cost.
Tribes
In HSIP Cycle 10, $2 million was available to federally recognized tribes in California with a maximum of $250,000 awarded per tribe. No tribes set-aside applications were submitted or awarded during HSIP Cycle 10.
69 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 55
5 IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
Processes for implementing the Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan and evaluating the application of the countermeasure toolbox and priority project dep loyments were developed based on the USDOT FHWA’s Implementing A Local Road Safety Plan (July 2020) and the Caltrans LRSM v1.5 (April 2020).
5.1 Implementation
Implementation of the Cathedral City LRSP demonstrates the City’s commitment to proactively addressing roadway safety needs for all users . The FHWA outlines six steps for successful LRSP implementation which includes:
• Maintain Buy-In and Support: LRSP implementation is strengthened by the support of key City officials and safety partners from the 5E’ s of traffic safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies). • Identify Funding Mechanisms: Funding for LRSP projects will be identified through local capital improvement projects and public/private development p rojects, regional MPO grant opportunities, State grant opportunities, and Federal grant opportunities. • Identify and Prioritize Projects: Projects will be prioritized based on a combination of benefit-cost ratio analyses, crash histories, and roadway risk factors. Priority projects will be implemented based on City needs, local resources, and available grant funding opportunities through the HSIP and other roadway safety infrastructure/non - infrastructure programs. Where appropriate, private development will be leveraged to strategically implement safety countermeasures and/or components of priority projects. • Determine Project Delivery Methods: Project delivery will be determined following security of project funding and prior to design. Where appropriate, pr ojects will be bundled to decrease the City’s financial and management burdens. • Evaluate Effectiveness: LRSP countermeasure and project implementation effectiveness will be evaluated based on reductions in severity (fatalities and severe injuries) and in overall crash frequency. See section 5.2 for further details. • Continue Communication and Coordination: Active communications and coordination between key City officials, safety partners from the 5E’s of traffic safety, and the public will ensure that there is synergy in overall LRSP implementation.
70 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 56
5.2 Evaluation
Following the application of the Cathedral City countermeasure toolbox and deployment of priority projects, the City will evaluate the LRSP strategies based on Section 7 of the Caltrans LRSM of Evaluation of Improvements. An initial evaluation will be conducted shortly after project construction through a field review that ensures the project is operating as intended. A database will be developed to track countermeasure installations, SWITRS/TIMS crash history, and field assessments on an annual basis. Feedback from the public, LRSP safety partners, and Cathedral City maintenance crews will also be included in annual evaluation. A before-and-after assessment of crashes for frequency and severity should be evaluated after 3 to 5 years of data is collected – matching the initial crash data period analyzed for the ‘before’ condition during the priority project BCR scoring process – to reduce the effects of the random nature of roadway crashes.
Table 5-1 provides an example countermeasure deployment history database per the Caltrans LRSM. The database will provide Cathedral City with the necessary information to make informed decisions on whether countermeasures from the toolbox contribute to an increase in safety, whether they should be installed at other locations through the City, and which factors may have contributed to the countermeasure’s success.
Table 5-1 Example Countermeasure Deployment History Database
PROJECT LOCATION CM
INSTALLED
DATE
INSTALLED
CRASHES
BEFORE
(DURATION
AND SEVERITY)
CRASHES
AFTER
(DURATION AND
SEVERITY)
COMMENTS
5.3 Future LRSP Updates
The Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan is a living document and must be updated at least every five (5) years to remain compliant with Caltrans HSIP grant funding eligibility requirements.
However, it is recommended that the City update the LRSP every two (2) years in alignment with typical Caltrans HSIP cycles / calls-for-projects. This will ensure the most competitive benefit cost ratios (BCRs) are achieved for any HSIP grant applications that the City may pursue. More frequent updates will also allow the City to ensure the LRSP continually reflects the most recent crash data, crash trends, countermeasures, and BCR calculations. Between LRSP updates, Cathedral City staff will continue to monitor roadway crashes, identify locations with high crash frequency and severity, match locations with the countermeasure toolbox, and implement priority projects in coordination with the City’s current CIP and development opportunities. 71 Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 57
Future updates to the LRSP will include expansion of the Cathedral City Countermeasure Toolbox to the other traffic safety E’s for Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies. To maximize City resources, the toolbox in this LRSP was primarily developed for HSIP-eligible engineering infrastructure improvements that could be applied to priority locations identified through the collision analysis EPDO scoring and roadway characteristics screening.
Future updates to the LRSP will also include revisiting the Cathedral City LRSP Vision, Mission, and Goals statements based on feedback from the 5E’s safety partners and the annual / before- after evaluations of safety countermeasures, priority projects, and ongoing safety projects and programs within Cathedral City.
Guidelines for developing and implementing Local Road Sa fety Plans are continually being updated by the FHWA and Caltrans . Future updates to the LRSP should include reviewing the following resources to ensure the latest best-practices are followed:
• FHWA Local Road Safety Plan Do-It-Yourself Website
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures List
• FHWA Local and Rural Road Safety Program
• FHWA Local and Rural Road Safety Briefing Sheets
• FHWA Developing Safety Plans: A Manual for Local and Rural Roads • FHWA Implementing A Local Road Safety Plan
• National Association of County Engineers (NACE) – A Template for Local Road Safety Plans • California Strategic Highway Safety Plan
• Caltrans LRSP and HSIP Programs
• Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM)
72 Scores Iteris, Inc. STC Traffic, Inc. Minagar & Associates, Inc. Interwest Consulting Group, Inc.
Ranker #1 355 350 325 310
Ranker #2 295 275 260 185
Ranker #3 225 205 200 185
Ranker #4 310 340 285 230
AVERAGE 296.3 292.5 267.5 227.5
Rankings Iteris, Inc. STC Traffic, Inc. Minagar & Associates, Inc. Interwest Consulting Group, Inc.
Ranker #1 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Ranker #2 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Ranker #3 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Ranker #4 2.0 1.0 3.0 4.0
AVERAGE 1.3 1.8 3.0 4.0
RFQ/P - Update and Revalidate the LRSP
City Project No. C06516
Average of Total Scores
RFQ/P - Update and Revalidate the LRSP
City Project No. C06516
Average Ranking (1=Highest Ranked, 4=Lowest Ranked)
73 - 1 -
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, CALIFORNIA
AND
ITERIS, INC.
This Agreement for Professional Services (“Agreement”) is entered into as of January 14, 2025, (“Effective Date”) by and between the City of Cathedral City , a municipal corporation (“City”) and Iteris, Inc. , a Municipal Corporation (“Consultant”).
City and Consultant are sometimes hereinafter individually referred to as “Party” and hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. City has sought, b y. request for qualifications / proposals the performance of the engineering support services defined and described particularly in Section 2 of this Agreement.
B. Consultant, following submission of a proposal for the performance of the services defined and described particularly in Section 2 of this Agreement, was selected by the City to perform those services.
C. Consultant was selected by the City on the basis of Consultant’s demonstrated competence and the professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required.
D. Pursuant to the City of Cathedral City’s Municipal Code, City has authority to enter into this Professional Services Agreement and the City Manager has authority to execute this Agreement.
E. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Professional for performance of those services defined and described particularly in Section 2 of this Agreement and desire that the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.
OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by the Parties and contained here and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
74 - 2 -
SECTION 1. TERM OF AGREEMENT.
Subject to the provisions of Section 20 "Termination of Agreement" of this Agreement, the Term of this Agreement is for one (1) year commencing on the Effective Date.
SECTION 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES & SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. (a) Scope of Services. Consultant agrees to perform the services set forth in Exhibit “A” “Scope of Services” (hereinafter, the “Services”) and made a part of this Agreement by this reference.
(b) Schedule of Performance . The Services shall be completed pursuant to the schedule specified in Exhibit “A.” Should the Services not be completed pursuant to that schedule, the Consultant shall be deemed to be in Default of this Agreement. The City, in its sole discretion, may choose not to enforce the Default provisions of this Agreement and may instead allow Consultant to continue performing the Services.
SECTION 3. ADDITIONAL SERVICES.
Consultant shall not be compensated for any work rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement that are in addition to or outside of the Services unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing in accordance with Section 2 6 “Administration and Implementation” or Section 2 8 “Amendment” of this Agreement. If and when such additional work is authorized, such additional work shall be deemed to be part of the Services.
SECTION 4. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.
(a) Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the amounts specified in Exhibit “B” “Compensation” and made a part of this Agreement by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for actual expenses, shall not exceed Forty-Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eight Dollars and Seven Cents ($49,908.07), unless additional compensation is approved in writing in accordance with Section 26 “Administration and Implementation” or Section 28 “Amendment” of this Agreement.
(b) Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice for all work performed and expenses incurred during the preceding month. The invoice shall detail charges by the following categories: labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and subcontractor contracts. Subcontractor charges shall be detailed by the following categories: labor, travel, materials, equipment and supplies. If the compensation set forth in subsection (a) and Exhibit “B” include payment of labor on an hourly basis (as opposed to labor and materials being paid as a lump sum), the labor category in each invoice shall include detailed descriptions of task performed and the amount of time incurred for or allocated to that task. City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine whether the work performed and 75 - 3 -
expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. In the event that no charges or expenses are disputed, the invoice shall be approved and paid according to the terms set forth in subsection (c). In the event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City to Consultant for correction and resubmission.
(c) Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant which are disputed by City, City will use its best efforts to cause Consultant to be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt of Consultant’s correct and undisputed invoice.
(d) Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant.
SECTION 5. INSPECTION AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE.
City may inspect and accept or reject any of Consultant’s work under this Agreement, either during performance or when completed. City shall reject or finally accept the Consultant’s work within sixty (60) days after being submitted to City. The city shall reject work by a timely written explanation, otherwise Consultant’s work shall be deemed to have been accepted. City’s acceptance shall be conclusive as to such work except with respect to latent defects, fraud and such gross mistakes as amount to fraud. Acceptance of any of Consultant’s work by City shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement including, but not limited to, Section 1 6 “Indemnification” and Section 17 “Insurance.”
SECTION 6. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS.
All original maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, surveys, reports, data, notes, computer files, files and other documents prepared, developed or discovered by Consultant in the course of providing the Services pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by City without the permission of the Consultant. Upon completion, expiration or termination of this Agreement, Consultant shall turn over to City all such original maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, surveys, reports, data, notes, computer files, files and other documents.
If and to the extent that City utilizes for any purpose not related to this Agreement any maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, surveys, reports, data, notes, computer files, files or other documents prepared, developed or discovered by Consultant in the course of providing the Services pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant’s guarantees and warranties in Section 9 “Standard of Performance ; Familiarity With Work ” of this Agreement shall not extend to such use of the maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, surveys, reports, data, notes, computer files, files or other documents.
76 - 4 -
SECTION 7. CONSULTANT'S BOOKS AND RECORDS.
(a) Consultant shall maintain any and all documents and records demonstrating or relating to Consultant’s performance of the Services. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, or other documents or records evidencing or relating to work, services, expenditures and disbursements charged to City pursuant to this Agreement. Any and all such documents or records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be sufficiently complete and detailed so as to permit an accurate evaluation of the services provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement.
Any and all such documents or records shall be maintained for three (3) years from the date of execution of this Agreement and to the extent required by laws relating to audits of public agencies and their expenditures.
(b) Any and all records or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this section shall be made available for inspection, audit and copying, at any time during regular business hours, upon request by City or its designated representative. Copies of such documents or records shall be provided directly to the City for inspection, audit and copying when it is practical to do so; otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, such documents and records shall be made available at Consultant’s address indicated for receipt of notices in this Agreement. (c) Where City has reason to believe that any of the documents or records required to be maintained pursuant to this section may be lost or discarded due to dissolution or termination of Consultant’s business, City may, by written request, require that custody of such documents or records be given to the City. Access to such documents and records shall be granted to City, as well as to its successors -in-interest and authorized representatives.
SECTION 8. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
(a) Consultant is and shall at all times remain a wholly independent contractor and not an officer, employee or agent of City. Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, nor to incur any obligation, debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in writing by City. (b) The personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant’s exclusive direction and control.
Neither City, nor any elected or appointed boards, officers, officials, employees or agents of City, shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or any of Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers, employees or agents of City.
77 - 5 -
(c) Neither Consultant , nor any of Consultant’s officers, employees or agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may otherwise accrue to City’s employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may have to any such rights.
SECTION 9. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE; FAMILIARITY WITH WORK. (a) Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience and facilities necessary to properly perform the Services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent and professional manner. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all Services. In meeting its obligations under this Agreement, Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing services similar to the Services required of Consultant under this Agreement, and shall use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of Consultant’s profession commonly possess and exercise. In addition to the general standards of performance set forth this section, additional specific standards of performance and performance criteria may be set forth in Exhibit “A” “Scope of Work” that shall also be applicable to Consultant’s work under this Agreement. Where there is a conflict between a general and a specific standard of performance or performance criteria, the specific standard or criteria shall prevail over the general. (b) Consultant warrants that (1) it has thoroughly investigated and considered the work to be performed, (2) it has investigated the issues, regarding the scope of services to be provided, (3) it has carefully considered how the work should be performed, and (4) it fully understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the work under this Agreement.
SECTION 10. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS; PERMITS AND LICENSES.
Consultant shall keep itself informed of and comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, codes, ordinances, regulations and rules in effect during the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall obtain any and all licenses, permits and authorizations necessary to perform the Services set forth in this Agreement. Neither City, nor any elected or appointed boards, officers, officials, employees or agents of City, shall be liable, at law or in equity, as a result of any failure of Consultant to comply with this section.
SECTION 11. PREVAILING WAGE LAWS.
It is the understanding of City and Consultant that California prevailing wage laws do not apply to this Agreement because the Agreement does not involve any of the following services subject to prevailing wage rates pursuant to the California Labor Code or regulations promulgated thereunder: Construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work performed on public buildings, facilities, streets or sewers done under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of public f unds. In this context, 78 - 6 -
“construction" includes work performed during the design and preconstruction phases of construction including, but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work.
SECTION 12. NONDISCRIMINATION.
Consultant shall not discriminate, in any way, in the employment of persons to perform the Services in violation of any federal or state law prohibiting discrimination in employment, including based on the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, of any person, except as provided under California Government Code section 12940.
SECTION 13. UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS.
Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, et seq., as amended, and in connection therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein.
Should Consultant so employ such unauthorized aliens for the performance of the Services, and should the any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of unauthorized aliens, Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such liabilities or sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred by City.
SECTION 14. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
(a) Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant’s performance of the Services. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor without the express written consent of the City Manager. Consultant agrees to at all times avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City in the performance of this Agreement.
(b) City may determine that Consultant must disclose its financial interests by completing and filing a Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700, Statement of Economic Interests. If such a determination is made, Consultant shall file the subject Form 700 with the City Clerk’s Office pursuant to the written instructions provided by the Office of the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the request. (c) City understands and acknowledges that Consultant is, as of the date of execution of this Agreement, independently involved in the performance of non -related services for other governmental agencies and private parties. Consultant is unaware of any stated position of City relative to such projects. Any future position of City on such projects shall not be considered a conflict of interest for purposes of this section. 79 - 7 -
(d) City understands and acknowledges that Consultant will, perform non - related services for other governmental agencies and private parties following the completion of the Services under this Agreement. Any such future service shall not be considered a conflict of interest for purposes of this section.
SECTION 15. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION; RELEASE OF INFORMATION. (a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written authorization from the City Manager, except as may be required by law.
(b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not, without prior written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney of City, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
(c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City shall have the right to reim bursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and fees, including attorney’s fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant’s conduct.
(d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant , its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
SECTION 16. INDEMNIFICATION.
(a) Indemnification by Consultant. As provided under Civil Code Section 2782.8, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City and any and all of its officials, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all claims. actions and proceedings (whether at law or equity, administrative or judicial), demands, orders, judgments, losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs, (collectively "Claims") to the extent same arise out 80 - 8 -
of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, its officers, agents, employees or sub -Consultants (or any entity or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of professional services under this Agreement. In the event Claims are found by the trier of fact to have been caused by the joint or concurrent negligence of the City , its contractors and other professionals, and Consultant, damages and expenses from both indemnity and duty to defend obligations shall be borne by each party in proportion to its negligence. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event one or more defendants are unable to pay its share of defense costs due to bankruptcy or dissolution of the business, Consultant shall meet and confer with other parties regarding unpaid defense costs. The provisions of this section pertaining to Consultant’s duty to defend shall not apply if there is a project -specific general liability policy of insurance that insures all project participants for general liability exposure on a primary basis and also covers all professionals involved with the project for their legal liability arising out of their professional services on a primary basis.
(b) Indemnification from Subcontractors . Consultant agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this section from each and every sub-Consultant, subcontractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Consultant in the performance of this Agreement naming the Indemnified Parties as additional indemnitees. In the event Consultant fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as required here, Consultant agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms of this section. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder. This obligation to indemnify and defend City as set forth herein is binding on the successors, assigns or heirs of Consultant and shall survive the termination of this Agreement or this section. (c) City's Negligence. The provisions of this section do not apply to Claims occurring as a result of City’s sole negligence. The provisions of this section shall not release City from liability arising from gross negligence or willful acts or omissions of City or any and all of its officials, employees and agents.
SECTION 17. INSURANCE.
Consultant agrees to obtain and maintain in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement the insurance policies set forth in Exhibit “C” “Insurance” and made a part of this Agreement. All insurance policies shall be subject to approval by City as to form and content. These requirements are subject to amendment or waiver if so approved in writing by the City Manager. Consultant agrees to provide City with copies of required policies upon request.
SECTION 18. ASSIGNMENT.
The expertise and experience of Consultant are material considerations for this Agreement. City has an interest in the qualifications and capability of the persons and entities who will fulfill the duties and obligations imposed upon Consultant under this 81 - 9 -
Agreement. In recognition of that interest, Consultant shall not assign or transfer this Agreement or any portion of this Agreement or the performance of any of Consultant’s duties or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City.
Any attempted assignment shall be ineffective, null and void, and shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement entitling City to any and all remedies at law or in equity, including termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 20 “Termination of Agreement.” City acknowledges, however, that Consultant, in the performance of its duties pursuant to this Agreement, may utilize subcontractors.
SECTION 19. CONTINUITY OF PERSONNEL.
Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant’s staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the Services. Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant’s staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the Services prior to and during any such performance.
SECTION 20. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT.
(a) City may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, at any time by giving thirty (30) days written notice of termination to Consultant. In the event such notice is given, Consultant shall cease immediately all work in progress. (b) Consultant may terminate this Agreement for cause at any time upon thirty (30) days written notice of termination to City.
(c) If either Consultant or City fail to perform any material obligation under this Agreement, then, in addition to any other remedies, either Consultant, or City may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice. (d) Upon termination of this Agreement by either Consultant or City, all property belonging exclusively to City which is in Consultant’s possession shall be returned to City. Consultant shall furnish to City a final invoice for work performed and expenses incurred by Consultant, prepared as set forth in Section 4 “Compensation and Method of Payment” of this Agreement. This final invoice shall be reviewed and paid in the same manner as set forth in Section 4 “Compensation and Method of Payment” of this Agreement.
SECTION 21. DEFAULT.
In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the default. This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be extended, though not reduced, if circumstances warr ant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the City shall hold all invoices and shall, 82 - 10 -
when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City may take necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under Section 20 “Termination of Agreement.” Any failure on the part of the City to give notice of the Consultant’s default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of the City’s legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 22. EXCUSABLE DELAYS.
Consultant shall not be liable for damages, including liquidated damages, if any, caused by delay in performance or failure to perform due to causes beyond the control of Consultant. Such causes include, but are not limited to, acts of God, acts of the public enemy, acts of federal, state or local governments, acts of City, court orders, fires, floods, epidemics, strikes, embargoes, and unusually severe weather. The term and price of this Agreement shall be equitably adjusted for any delays due to such causes.
SECTION 23. COOPERATION BY CITY.
All public information, data, reports, records, and maps as are existing and available to City as public records, and which are necessary for carrying out the Services shall be furnished to Consultant in every reasonable way to facilitate, without undue delay, the Services to be performed under this Agreement.
SECTION 24. NOTICES.
All notices required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered, or sent by telecopier or certified mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested, addressed as follows:
To City: City of Cathedral City
Attn: City Manager
68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234
To Consultant: Iteris, Inc.
Attn: Viggen Davidian, PE, Vice Present
1700 Carnegie Avenue, Suite 100
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Notice shall be deemed effective on the date personally delivered or transmitted by facsimile or, if mailed, three (3) days after deposit of the same in the custody of the United States Postal Service.
SECTION 25. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE.
83 - 11 -
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant represents and warrants that he/she/they has/have the authority to so execute this Agreement and to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
SECTION 26. ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION.
This Agreement shall be administered and executed by the City Manager or his or her designated representative. The City Manager shall have the authority to issue interpretations and to make amendments to this Agreement, including amendments that commit additional funds, consistent with Section 2 8 “Amendment” and the City Manager’s contracting authority under the Cathedral City Municipal Code.
SECTION 27. BINDING EFFECT.
This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Parties.
SECTION 28. AMENDMENT.
No amendment to or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by the City. The City Manager shall have the authority to approve any amendment to this Agreement if the total compensation under this Agreement, as amended, would not exceed the City Manager’s contracting authority under the Cathedral City Municipal Code. All other amendments shall be approved by the City Council. The Parties agree that the requirement for written modifications cannot be waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.
SECTION 29. WAIVER.
Waiver by any Party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant.
Waiver by any Party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision nor a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement. Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement.
SECTION 30. LAW TO GOVERN; VENUE.
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed according to the laws of the State of California. In the event of litigation between the Parties, venue in state trial courts shall lie exclusively in the County of Riverside, California. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in Riverside.
SECTION 31. ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES.
In the event litigation or other proceeding is required to enforce or interpret any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing Party in such litigation or other proceeding 84 - 12 -
shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled.
SECTION 32. ENTIRE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement, including the attached Exhibits "A" through "C", is the entire, complete, final and exclusive expression of the Parties with respect to the matters addressed therein and supersedes all other agreements or understandings, whether oral or written, or entered into between Consultant and City prior to the execution of this Agreement. No statements, representations or other agreements, whether oral or written, made by any Party which are not embodied herein shall be valid and binding.
SECTION 33. SEVERABILITY.
If any term, condition or covenant of this Agreement is declared or determined by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and the Agreement shall be read and construed without the invalid, void or unenforceable provision(s).
SECTION 34. ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE.
The Parties agree that, in accordance with the City’s Electronic Signature Use Policy, adopted on August 10, 2023, and as amended thereafter, the Parties may use electronic signatures to execute this Agreement. Any use of electronic signatures to execute this Agreement shall comply with the City’s Electronic Signature Use Policy, and such signatures shall have the same force and effect as if this Agreement were executed by hand. Contractor acknowledges that it has had an opportunity to request and review the City’s Electronic Signature Use Policy, and Contractor agrees to comply with the Electronic Signature Use Policy. Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless from any claim, damage, or liability associated with transmitting an electronic signature or an electronically signed record by electronic transmission.
SECTION 35. FEDERAL FUNDS.
In the event the S ervices are funded either in whole or in part by the Federal Highway Administration Safe Streets and Roads for All Grant Program (SS4A Grant), Consultant shall comply with the requirements of Exhibit “D”, Federal High way Administration SS4A Grant Provisions.
SECTION 36. CONFLICTING TERMS.
Except as otherwise stated herein, if the terms of this Agreement conflict with the terms of any Exhibit hereto, or with the terms of any document incorporated by reference into this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall control. 85 - 13 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year first-above written.
Iteris, Inc.
___________________________
By: Viggen Davidian, PE
Its: Vice President
___________________________
By:________________________
Its:________________________
CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY
__________________________
Anne V. Ambrose
Interim City Manager
ATTEST:
__________________________
Christina Burton
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
__________________________
Eric S. Vail
City
Attorney
NOTE: CONSULTANT’S SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND
APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS MAY BE
REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT’S
BUSINESS ENTITY
86 A-1
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
87 SCOPE OF WORK iv
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS/PROPOSALS FOR THE UPDATE AND REVALIDATION OF THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP), City Project No. C06516 City of Cathedral City
Iteris, Inc. | 7
iv. SCOPE OF WORK
The following section outlines Iteris’ approach to completing the work in alignment with the requirements of the RFP.
TASK 1: PROJECT MANAGEMENT/ADMINISTRATION
This task includes the initial kick -off of the project, and subsequent, regular progress meetings with the City, along with our plan for preparing deliverables of the highest quality.
1. Kick-off Meeting and Coordination Meetings
As illustrated on Figure 5 , o ur team will conduct a project kickoff meeting with the City of Cathedral staff. The outcomes of the kick-off will be included in the Project Management Plan to outline the detailed work plan and schedule.
2. Quality Control Plan
Iteris’ ability to implement high -quality deliverables is a result of the firm’s adherence to a Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) program that ensures accuracy, product
usability, and an overall commitment to product excellence and client satisfaction. Iteris has a very detailed and thorough QA/QC process, which is presented in section H. As Project Manager, Mr. Kaushik will ensure Iteris’ commitment to these objectives by identifying goals at the outset of the project and monitoring the product implementation and delivery process.
3. Progress Meetings/Reports
Iteris will conduct ongoing monthly meetings over the duration of the project as well and may conduct more frequent
meetings (bi -weekly) during certain stages of the project as needed. Iteris will develop meeting agendas and circulate meeting notes for each meeting.
Deliverables
• Meeting Agendas and Minutes
• Detailed Work Plan and Schedule
• Monthly Progress Reports including supporting data
• Quality Control Plan
TASK 2: STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
Meaningful stakeholder engagement is central to the success of an LRSP. Early engagement is critical to building trust and support, both of which are essential for implementing
effective and lasting safety improvements. This is not a one- time activity, but a continuous and evolving process that begins at project initiation and extends through completion.
Stakeholder outreach will be strategically carried out at key phases of the project, as outlined in the subtasks below:
At the onset of the project, the project team will collaborate closely with the Cathedral City staff to identify and map key stakeholders.
An
ticipated participants include: Cathedral City Public Works Department, Cathedral City Traffic Division , Cathedral City Police Department , Cathedral City Fire Department , and Connect Cathedral City. This list will be confirmed and expanded based on staff guidance to ensure all relevant voices are included.
As a part of this phase, stakeholder’s inputs will be gathered, used as a part of the technical analysis. Preliminary strategies will be developed and reviewed with the stakeholders. Based on their further input, the strategies will be refined to devise with the final recommendations.
Deliverables
• Stakeholder Engagement Plan and Schedule
• Consolidation of Feedback
TASK 3: BACKGROUND REVIEW, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES
For this task, Iteris will work in close collaboration with Cathedral City staff to develop a detailed and comprehensive data collection plan. Iteris will utilize the most recent 5 -year collision dataset provided by the City to conduct a
comprehensive citywide safety analysis. The plan identify data requirements, define methodologies, and set clear timelines.
Iteris will work with the City to define the documents to be reviewed, to develop the “State of the System”, which may include:
State Plans/Policies:
• California Systematic Safety Analysis Report Program
Guidelines
• California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)
• California Complete Streets Implementation Action Plan Figure 5 –Iteris PM Deepak Kaushik convening a
Stakeholder Meeting
88 SCOPE OF WORK iv
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS/PROPOSALS FOR THE UPDATE AND REVALIDATION OF THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP), City Project No. C06516 City of Cathedral City
Iteris, Inc. | 8
• Caltrans Main Street, California, A Guide to Improving Community and Transportation Vitality
• C
altrans Complete Intersections
• Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual
• Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM)
with current amendments
• Caltrans Local Assistance Programs Procedures (LPP),
with current amendments
• US Department of Transportation Systematic Safety
Project Selection Tool
City Plans/Policies:
• Current Local Road Safety Plan (2021)
• General Plan
• North City Specific Plan
• North City Extended Specific Plan
• Citywide Design Guidelines
These documents will be summarized for their relevance to the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) and placed in a repository for reference as needed in subsequent tasks. Of note will be any already identified safety issues within the documentation, such as previously prepared safety studies or analysis. The document will include intersection and corridor level
implemented and planned improvements obtained from the
background review.
Plan Vision and Goals
Having a vision statement and list of goals that define specific and measurable actions would ensure efforts invested in creating a safety plan that would ultimately produce tangible results. We will draft LRSP goals in coordination with City staff for review by stakeholders which could include:
• Update the LRSP with the crashes from the last 5 years. • Reduce fatal and injury crashes on key roadways in the City.
• Incorporate data- driven, and systemic approach to
advance LRSP safety of local City roadways.
• Identify Priority safety corridors and 30 high priority intersections.
• Incorporate results from LRSP into normal funding circles of City business operations, such as roadway
infrastructure maintenance and capital improvements.
• Develop LRSP safety improvement projects to leverag
e
f
unding opportunities.
• Create ongoing process and/or procedures for
identifying and analyzing high collision locations.
• Regular outreach to schools and key communities to
generate on-going safety awareness to achieve a safety - first mindset.
• Generate comprehensive solutions based on 4 -
E
a
pproach for each Emphasis Areas (engineering,
enforcement, education, and emergency services).
A
final Vision and Goals will be developed for review by staff and used to inform the performance measures used to
prioritize countermeasures.
TASK 4: ANALYZE SAFETY DATA
Following the completion of data collection, Iteris will lead a thorough and multidisciplinary analysis of the gathered datasets to identify key transportation safety issues and opportunities across the Cathedral City.
The Iteris Team will use appropriate tools, including GIS, traffic operational tools, and manuals including Caltrans Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Highway Design Manual, Highway Safety Manual, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to
conduct necessary safety analysis. The team will conduct a detailed analysis to identify the gaps in data, understand the needs, understand the safety concerns, and areas of
improvement.
89 SCOPE OF WORK iv
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS/PROPOSALS FOR THE UPDATE AND REVALIDATION OF THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP), City Project No. C06516
City of Cathedral City
Iteris, Inc. | 9
90 SCOPE OF WORK iv
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS/PROPOSALS FOR THE UPDATE AND REVALIDATION OF THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP), City Project No. C06516 City of Cathedral City
Iteris, Inc. | 10
The analysis will include the following components:
Crash Analysis and Safety Trends
Ccrash data from the City will be analyzed to identify collision hotspots, high-risk travel behaviors, and trends over time. The analysis will include:
• Crash type, severity, and contributing factors (e.g., speeding, failure to yield, DUI).
• Driver state, surface conditions, lighting conditions, and weather conditions
• Weekly and Monthly distribution
• Identification of corridors and intersections with high concentrations of serious injuries and fatalities.
• Evaluation of vulnerable road users (pedestrians,
bicyclists, and motorcyclists) and overrepresented crash locations.
The data will be clearly organized in spreadsheet format to facilitate analysis and application in subsequent project tasks.
It is assumed that the City will provide any available crash data, traffic volume counts, design standards and specifications, and related plans for inclusion in analysis. In addition, any other data including Federal Railroad Administration highway/rail grade crossing incidents and trespasser data will be collected and analyzed.
This task will be coordinated closely with City staff in case field data review/collection is necessary to further refine collision factors or safety countermeasure identification. Below are the components of this data collection effort:
• Trend analysis of five -year collision data to identify recurrent collision locations which may be
appropriate for safety countermeasures.
• Geospatial analysis using the collision location and
the City’s GIS layers to correlate conditions to
collision factors to identify potential safety
countermeasures. These include pavement
age/condition, striping, roadway width, shoulder
width, bike lane, sidewalk, traffic control (e.g., signal, stop), speed limits, right -of-way, degree of curv
e
(
horizontal, vertical), elevation, and location.
• Traffic volumes, speed limits, and speed data
available will be collected from the City.
• Grade crossing and rail collision history analysis
Cathedral City - Crash And Outcome Analysis
Iteris has reviewed Cathedral City’s crash data obtained from TIMS for a 2 -year period from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2023, to understand the types of crashes.
A r
eview of collision data indicates that broadside crashes represent the largest share of reported collisions (33.9%).
Rear-end crashes account for 15.7%, followed by hit -object (14.0%), sideswipe (11.2%), and head-on collisions (10.8%).
Less frequent crash types include vehicle/pedestrian (6.3%), overturned (4.5%), and other crash types (3.5%).
This distribution highlights the need to focus safety strategies on intersection operations and visibility improvements, given the high proportion of broadside and rear-end collisions.
Top 10 High Collision Corridors by Primary Collision
Factor (PCF)
An analysis of collision records from January 2021 through December 2023 was conducted to identify the top ten high- collision corridors and the most prevalent Primary Collision Factor (PCF) categories contributing to crashes on each roadway. The stacked bar chart illustrates the proportional distribution of five major PCF categories —Unsafe Speed, Improper Turning, Automobile Right -of-Way, Traffic Signals & Signs, and Other PCF Categories—across these corridors.
U
nsafe Speed is a major contributing factor on several
corridors, most notably on Varner Road (47%), Palm Drive (40%), and Whispering Palms Trail (25%), suggesting these locations may benefit from targeted speed management
interventions.
Improper Turning contributes significantly on corridors such as Landau Boulevard (25%), Palm Drive (20%), and Dinah Shore Drive (20%), highlighting the need for improved intersection design, turn controls, or driver visibility enhancements.
Automobile Right -of-Way violations are particularly high on Cathedral Canyon Drive (50%), indicating substantial conflicts at intersections or mid-block access points. Vista Chino (28%), Whispering Palms Trail (25%), and Landau Boulevard (25%) also show elevated occurrences within this category.
Compliance issues related to Traffic Signals and Signs appear prominently on corridors including Cathedral Canyon Drive (25%), Ramon Road (20%), and Dinah Shore Drive (20%),
suggesting potential needs for signal timing adjustments, enhanced visibility, or pavement marking improvements.
O
verall, the data reveals that “Other PCF Categories”
consistently account for a substantial share of collisions across most corridors, ranging from 13% to as high as 50%. This indicates a broad range of contributing behaviors and
conditions beyond the primary four violation types.
T
his corridor -level PCF assessment helps identify not only where collisions are occurring but why they are occurring.
These insights will directly inform the development of targeted safety countermeasures and project prioritization within the City’s Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) and future safety funding applications.
91 SCOPE OF WORK iv
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS/PROPOSALS FOR THE UPDATE AND REVALIDATION OF THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP), City Project No. C06516 City of Cathedral City
Iteris, Inc. | 11
PEDESTRIAN COLLISION CONTEXT
An analysis of pedestrian -involved collisions reveals clear patterns in how and where these incidents occur. Nearly half of all pedestrian collisions (44%) happened while individuals were crossing in a marked crosswalk at an intersection , underscoring the need for enhanced intersection safety
measures such as improved signal timing, high -visibility crosswalks, and turning -movement controls Another 39% of collisions involved pedestrians crossing outside of a
crosswalk, indicating challenges related to midblock activity, desire lines, and gaps in pedestrian infrastructure. This trend highlights opportunities to evaluate corridor- level
improvements such as additional crossings, median refuges, traffic calming, and access management.
Collisions involving pedestrians walking within the roadway or shoulder accounted for 11% , suggesting potential issues related to incomplete sidewalks, narrow shoulders, or poor nighttime visibility. The remaining 6% involved pedestrians who were not in the roadway , reflecting isolated
circumstances but still signaling a need for context- specific safety enhancements.
O
verall, as illustrated on Figure 7, these findings point to the importance of a Safe System approach focused on safer
intersections, enhanced midblock facilities, continuous pedestrian infrastructure, and targeted education and
enforcement strategies. This can be used to help prioritize Action Plan improvements in areas where vulnerable
populations are most impacted by traffic safety concerns Deliverables
• High-Injury Network segments
• Collision Mapping
• Gap Closures
TASK 5: FIELD VISITS
Following the completion of the data analysis, our team will conduct comprehensive field visits to validate the findings and gain a deeper understanding of the on-the-ground conditions.
These visits will allow us to observe traffic operations, user behavior, roadway geometry, signage, lighting, and any
existing countermeasures already in place. By comparing field observations with analytical results, we can identify potential gaps, confirm safety and operational issues, and better understand contextual factors that may not be fully captured in the data. The insights gathered during these field visits will directly inform the selection and refinement of
countermeasures, ensuring that our recommendations are
both context-sensitive and feasible for implementation.
Deliverables
• Summary of Field Notes, Photographs and Videos
TASK 6: DEVELOP COUNTERMEASURES
With the completion of Task 4 and 5, we would have a good grasp of top collision locations, roadways and major collision trends and issues, as well as hot spots of pedestrian and bicycle collisions. While to this point all the information derived has been data driven, it is vitally important to provide a forum to hear from stakeholders on their experience of safety issues in the field.
Stakeholders will be given the opportunity to identify areas of concern. They could point out emphasis areas or address concerns.
An emphasis area is an area to improve safety through a comprehensive 4 -E approach to inform the selection of
strategies consistent with trends, primary collision factors, any deficiencies observed in the field, etc. identified during the data analysis stage conducted in Task 4.
Figure 7 – Pedestrian Crashes
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to safety
improvements. Our team will work closely with the
City to understand its specific needs, evaluate
previously implemented countermeasures, and
identify appropriate implementation strategies and
funding opportunities. As potential countermeasures
are developed, we will ensure they are context-
sensitive and tailored to local conditions rather than
applied solely based on data outputs. This approach
ensures that recommended strategies are practical,
community-aligned, and effective in improving
safety outcomes.
Iteris will develop prioritization based on the goals
and objectives discussed during the project
initiation
Figure 7 – Pedestrian Crashes
92 SCOPE OF WORK iv
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS/PROPOSALS FOR THE UPDATE AND REVALIDATION OF THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP), City Project No. C06516 City of Cathedral City
Iteris, Inc. | 12
Iteris w ill w ork with t he C ity to id entify any previously identified or implemented countermeasures.
Listing the location, type of treatment, date of installation, status and any evaluation will assist in the identification of potentially successful and effective countermeasures in other par
ts of the City.Priority locations for safety improvements will be determined through a cost -benefit analysis of crash frequency, risk factors and clarity, socio economic factors, effectiveness of countermeasures, and stakeholder
involvement. Data items collected will be analyzed to
dete
rmine the risk factors associated with nominal safety
design (i.e. horizontal and vertical curves, roadway width, vehicle factors, environmental conditions, traffic signals, or lack thereof, and striping). The list of locations and potential associated countermeasures will be developed using the
crash
and roadway data. Using proven countermeasures from
various sources including FHWA’s Everyday Counts or Crash Reduction Factors (CRF) provided in the Caltrans Local
Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM), the Iteris T eam
will
incorporate context relevan t countermeasures and create a prioritized list of locations and low -cost infrastructure improvement countermeasures. This could include
modifications to existing facilities, and/or recommendations for new treatment measures. If multiple performance
measures are identified for a location, a benefit/cost (B/C) analysis may be conducted to further inform prioritization.
Field
review of proposed countermeasures may be conducted
to ensure the appropriateness/feasibility of the
recommendations. In addition, crash concentrations and
characteristics (system -wide and spot locations) will be used to
identify countermeasures appropriate to address future
collisions based on collision history. Potential safety mitigation toolbox and crash reduction factors would be summarized in a matrix. Iteris will work with City staff and stakeholders to iden
tify these strategies which could for m the basis for
system-wide improvement strategies.
Identify potential funding sources for countermeasures
The pr im
ary grant programs related t o s afety a re Highway
Safety I mprovement P rogram (HSIP), C ongestion M itigation and Air Q uality I mprovement ( CMAQ), S ection 130, S afe Streets fo r A ll I mplementation g rants, a nd S tate and Community Highway Safety Grant P rogram, c ommonly
referred t o as Se ction 402. As in dicated e arlier, consistency with Caltrans proven countermeasures will help improve grant application scores for future HSIP funding applications.
For the identified countermeasures, a matrix of eligibility for funding programs will be made and inform an
implementation strategy to maximize external funds
available for safety projects.
PRIORITIZE AND INCORPORATE
STRATEGIES
The prioritization of any opportunity to improve the safety of Emphasis Areas would be based on collaborative input from the Working Group (Iteris, City, stakeholders).
It is assumed that the emphasis is on implementation of LRSP strategies to address unique roadway safety needs,
practical approach to addressing safety needs and enable the City to provide streamline responses to safety challenges.
Prioritization will build on the safety analysis sand stakeholder engagement to identify high-r isk locations as well as those which will be most effectively addressed by safety feasible countermeasures and cost effectiveness. To effectively
prioritize and improve safety with limited funds,
the countermeasures will be categorized as short-
term, interim/mid-t erm and long-t erm improvements based on ease of implementation, timeframe, and funding
requirements.
Another level of prioritization based on stakeholder input, cost of implementation and available funding, benefit-t o-cost ratio and performance measures will be used for final
prioritization. The Iteris Team will develop a strategy for implementing preferred countermeasures, as well as a
procedure for the City to monitor safety outcomes to evaluate which measures have been effective. This task will include identifying potential funding sources for the City’s Capital Improvement Program including Pavement Management
Programs, safety grant funding measures.
Deliverables
• List (Microsoft Excel Format) of proposed
countermeasures as related to types of collisions,
data, and prioritized list.
• Recommendations Summary Categorized as Short-,
Mid- and Long-Term Strategies
TASK 7: LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
The Iteris Team will prepare a draft and final LRSP utilizing the results of Tasks 2 through 6.
The report is expected to include the following sections:
1. Introduction – Safety Vision and recommendations
2. Background –What is the problem we are trying to
solve?
3. Comprehensive Safety Analysis
4. Safety Planning Process and Partners to describe the plan development
93 SCOPE OF WORK iv
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS/PROPOSALS FOR THE UPDATE AND REVALIDATION OF THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP), City Project No. C06516 City of Cathedral City
Iteris, Inc. | 13
5. Emphasis Areas – Problem identification,
countermeasure development and implementation
approach
6. Evaluation and Implementation Plan
T
he LRSP will create the framework for the identification of safety issues, identification of effective safety
countermeasures, and defining a roadmap for implementation in the future as new data becomes available. Following receipt of the City’s comments on the draft project report, the Iteris Team will work with City staff to address any comments
received prior to the production of the final LRSP. The LRSP is intended as a framework document and therefore will be
developed as a resource for the City to st ructure its funding allocation and grant pursuit for roadway safety projects in the City. The Iteris Team will furnish the City with all data associated with the LRSP for future use as necessary within the plan.
Assisting the City with Public Hearing
Iteris recognizes that the LRSP will be a public-facing document and will work closely with City staff to incorporate Cathedral City’s branding, colors, and imagery to ensure the final plan reflects the identity of the community. Our marketing and graphic design staff will help produce a document that is both technically robust and visually engaging.
I
teris will also assist City staff in preparing and delivering presentations for Stakeholder groups and City Council as part of the plan adoption process. Any concerns or comments
raised during the public hearings will be documented,
reviewed with City staff, and incorporated as appropriate into refinements of the LRSP.
Deliverables
• Draft and Final Local Roadway Safety Plan
94 SCHEDULE v
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS/PROPOSALS FOR THE UPDATE AND REVALIDATION OF THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP), City Project No. C06516 City of Cathedral City Iteris, Inc. | 14
v. SCHEDULE
95 B-1
EXHIBIT "B"
COMPENSATION
96 I
SAMPLE COST PROPOSAL
Sample Only - Required Cost Proposal Template To Be Determined By Agency SAMPLE COST PROPOSAL 1
COST-PLUS-FIXED FEE OR LUMP SUM OR FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACTS (DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES)
Note: Mark-ups are Not Allowed ☐ Prime Consultant ☐ Subconsultant ☐ 2nd Tier Subconsultant Consultant __________________________________________________________ Project No. _______________________ Contract No. ____________________ Date ____________________
DIRECT LABOR
Classification/Title Name Hours Actual Hourly Rate Total ____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
________
________
________
________
LABOR COSTS
a) Subtotal Direct Labor Costs _______________
b) Anticipated Salary Increases (see page 2 for calculation) _______________ c) TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS [(a) + (b)] _______________
INDIRECT COSTS
d) Fringe Benefits (Rate: _____ ) e) Total Fringe Benefits [(c) x (d)] _______________ f) Overhead (Rate: _____ ) g) Overhead [(c) x (f)] _______________ h) General and Administrative (Rate: ___ __ ) i) Gen & Admin [(c) x (h)] _______________ j) TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS [(e) + (g) + (i)] _______________ FIXED FEE k) TOTAL FIXED FEE [(c) + (j)] x fixed fee ______ ] ______________ Description of Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
l) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
m) SUBCONSULTANTS’ COSTS (Add add iti
l) CONSULTANT’S OTHER DI RECT COSTS (ODC) – ITEMIZE (Add additional pages if necessary) onal pages i f necessary)
Subconsultant 1:
Subconsultant 2:
Subconsultant 3:
Subconsultant 4:
m) TOTAL SUBCONSULTANTS’ COSTS
n) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS INCLUDING SUBCONSULTANTS [(l)+(m)] ___________________ TOTAL COST [(c) + (j) + (k) + (n)] _____________________ NOTES:
1. Key personnel must be marked with an asterisk (*) and employees that are subject to prevailing wage requirements must be marked with two asterisks (**). All costs must comply with the Federal cost principles. Subconsultants will provide their own cost proposals.
2. The cost proposal format shall not be amended. Indirect cost rates shall be updated on an annual basis in accordance with the consultant’s annual accounting period and established by a cognizant agency or accepted by Caltrans.
3. Anticipated salary increases calculation (page 2) must accompany.