Cities Index.
Agenda packet

Coachella City Council
June 4, 2025

Document
Agenda packet
Meeting
June 4, 2025
Body
Coachella City Council
Pages
120
Original file
76.6 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net. That file is the official record.

15967-02 LOS Scope.docx
The Project total addition to the existing site includes:
 15,000 SF of Production Facility (Manufacturing)
 37,800 SF Storage Facilities (Warehousing)
 3,000 SF of Research & Development

STUDY AREA
Exhibit 2 presents the study area intersection analysis locations. Study area intersections will be evaluated using the HCM 7 methodology. Count data will be collected during the AM and PM peak hours on a typical weekday.

ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
The analysis of peak hour operations at study area intersections will be provided for the following analysis scenarios:
 Existing (2024)
 Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project (2026) Conditions (EAP)  Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative (2026) Conditions (EAPC) EAP traffic conditions will be utilized to determine direct Project traffic impacts, while the EAPC (2026) analysis will be utilized to determine the Project’s cumulatively considerable impacts (subject to payment of fees/fair share).

AMBIENT GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
An ambient growth rate of 2.0 percent per year is proposed for the study area intersections which will be compounded for each year to the Project’s Opening Year of 2026 (in addition to cumulative development traffic overlays). The growth rate is consistent with the growth rate utilized by the County of Riverside.

TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted and produced by a development, and is based upon the specific land uses planned for a given project. Table 1 presents the trip generation rates and the resulting trip generation summary for the proposed Project. The trip generation rates used for this analysis are based upon information collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) as provided in their Trip Generation manual, 11th Edition, 2021. As shown in Table 1, the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 169 trip-ends per day with 21 AM peak hour trips and 20 PM peak hour trips.

1.1-3
1332
Item 3.

1.1-4
1333
Item 3.

In Out Total In Out Total
Warehousing 150 37.8 TSF 0.13 0.04 0.17 0.05 0.13 0.18 1.71 Manufacturing 140 15 TSF 0.52 0.16 0.68 0.23 0.51 0.74 4.75 Research and Development Center 760 3 TSF 0.84 0.19 1.03 0.16 0.82 0.98 11.08 In Out Total In Out Total
Warehousing 150 37.8 TSF 5 2 7 2 5 7 65
Manufacturing 140 15 TSF 8 2 10 3 8 11 71
Research and Development Center 760 3 TSF 3 1 4 0 2 2 33 16 5 21 5 15 20 169
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Excel\[15967 - Scope.xlsx]15967 - TG Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Trip Generation Results
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021). 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet
TOTAL
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
TABLE 1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates1

1.1-5
1334
Item 3.

Mr. Andrew Simmons, P.E., City of Coachella
June 24, 2024

Page 6 of 13 ends

15967-02 LOS Scope.docx

TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions, or traffic routes that will be utilized by Project traffic. The potential interaction between the planned land use and surrounding regional access routes are considered, to identify the route where the Project traffic would distribute. The trip distribution pattern is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of surrounding uses, and the proximity to the regional freeway system. Exhibit 3 illustrates the trip distribution pattern for the Project.

PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial street system improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project Only Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes and AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4.

LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The City of Coachella’s current General Plan applies LOS D as a performance threshold for roadway segments and intersections.

The following thresholds of significance will be applied to study area intersections to identify significant impacts through a comparison of Existing and EAP traffic conditions:
 If an intersection is projected to operate at an acceptable level of service (i.e., LOS D or better) under Existing traffic conditions and the addition of project traffic is expected to cause the intersection to operate at an unacceptable level of service (i.e., LOS E or F), the impact is considered significant;  If an intersection is projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F under Existing, with the addition of project traffic, the impact is considered significant.

EXISTING COUNT DATA
Intersection turning movement counts will be conducted at the study area intersection locations for weekday AM (7-9AM) and weekday PM (4-6PM). Daily (24-hour) counts will also be conducted on Tyler Street north of the project entry, and on Avenue 53 west of Tyler Street.

The traffic counts are anticipated to occur on June 5th, 2024. A seasonal adjustment factor of 10% is proposed to be applied if counts are taken during this first week of June.

CITY GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
The adopted City of Coachella General Plan Circulation Element is shown on Exhibit 5. Exhibit 6 shows the City of Coachella General Plan roadway cross-sections.

1.1-6
1335
Item 3.

1.1-7
1336
Item 3.

1.1-8
1337
Item 3.

1.1-9
1338
Item 3.

1.1-10
1339
Item 3.

SPECIAL ISSUES
The following issues will also be addressed as part of the traffic study:

Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis: Signal warrant analysis will be prepared for all unsignalized study area intersections that allow for full access (no traffic signal warrants to be performed for restricted access locations due to infeasibility of installing a signal at these types of locations).

Improvements: Based on the traffic analysis (TA) results, the TA will indicate new improvement requirements and fair share contribution for the proposed Project. Fair share tables will be included

CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT
It is requested that City staff review the list of cumulative development projects (shown on Exhibit 7 and listed on Table 2) and any additional information for projects that should be included in this traffic study that may not be reflected Exhibit 7.

Information pertaining to project location, land use, and intensity are necessary for consideration and to estimate trip generation.

If you have any questions, please contact us directly at [email protected] for John or [email protected] for Marlie.

1.1-11
1340
Item 3.

1.1-12
1341
Item 3.

TAZ Project Land Use Quantity Units1
1 Coachella Residences Single Family Residential 188 DU 2 JJWR Industrial Industrial Building
(Warehouse, office, and RV Storage) 51.50 TSF
Retail Cannabis 1.839 TSF
Bar/Pub 1.432 TSF
Supermarket 20.422 TSF
Fast-Food Restaurant 2.6 TSF
Coffee Shop w/ Restaurant 2.1 TSF
5 Placita Dolores Huerta Multifamily Residential 110 DU Resort casitas/bungalows 620 RM
Hotel 130 RM
Restaurant 3.6 TSF
Retail Cannabis 3.12 TSF
General Store 2.5 TSF
Coffee shop with drive thru 2.5 TSF
7 Rancho Flores 2 Single Family Residential 124 DU
8 Mariposa Pointe Single Family Residential 155 DU
9 Polo Community Senior & Single Family Residential 560 DU 10 Bellissima (Tract 31978) Single Family Residential 111 DU 2027 (Phase I) Land Uses:

Industrial Park 204.8 TSF
Self Storage 63.7 TSF
Fast Food Restaurant w/ DT 4.65 TSF
Service Station with Convenience Store 10 VFP
2045 (Phase I to III) Land Uses:

Industrial Park 486.9 TSF
Self Storage 128.6 TSF
Fast Food Restaurant w/ DT 4.65 TSF
Service Station with Convenience Store 10 VFP
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Excel\[15967 - Scope.xlsx]15967-C Fountainhead Plaza
(NEC 1st St. & Cesar Chavez St.)
4 6 Glenroy Hotel Project
11 Coachella
Airport Business Park2
2 For purposes of 2026 analysis conditions, the 2027 (Phase I) land uses of the Coachella Airport Business Park will be utilized. 1 DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; RM = Rooms; VFP = Vehicle Fueling Position TABLE 2: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
HOTN/Sinsemilla
Dispensary & Pub
3 1.1-13
1342
Item 3.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

1.1-14
1343
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
APPENDIX 3.1: TRAFFIC COUNTS –2024
1344
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
1345
Item 3.

T101823
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC4392
Thu, Jan 18, 24 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 8
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: STOP ALL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: 0 1 X X 1 1 0 X 0 X X X 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 2 57 0 0 39 44 60 0 1 0 0 0 203 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 1 65 0 0 39 28 58 0 4 0 0 0 195 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 3 77 0 0 51 23 70 0 0 0 0 0 224 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 4 91 0 0 89 33 69 0 2 0 0 0 288 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 2 78 0 0 81 35 35 0 1 0 0 0 232 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 1 92 0 0 57 36 35 0 1 0 0 0 222 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 1 77 0 0 54 30 43 0 0 0 0 0 205 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 66 0 0 48 25 31 0 1 0 0 0 171 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 14 603 0 0 458 254 401 0 10 0 0 0 1,740 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 2% 98% 0% 0% 64% 36% 98% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 617 / 1,004 712 / 468 411 / 0 0 / 268 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 10 338 0 0 278 127 209 0 4 0 0 0 966
APPROACH % 3% 97% 0% 0% 69% 31% 98% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.916 0.830 0.750 0.000 0.839
APP/DEPART 348 / 547 405 / 282 213 / 0 0 / 137 0
4:00 PM 4 103 0 0 128 90 61 0 2 0 0 0 388 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 1 95 0 0 125 75 45 0 0 0 0 0 341 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 4 90 0 0 138 76 56 0 0 0 0 0 364 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 2 82 0 0 111 54 44 0 1 0 0 0 294 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 3 95 0 0 124 60 46 0 1 0 0 0 329 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 1 97 0 0 100 68 46 0 3 0 0 0 315 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 2 77 0 0 111 63 59 0 0 0 0 0 312 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 1 76 0 0 107 69 46 0 0 0 0 0 299 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 18 715 0 0 944 555 403 0 7 0 0 0 2,642 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 2% 98% 0% 0% 63% 37% 98% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 733 / 1,118 1,499 / 951 410 / 0 0 / 573 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 11 370 0 0 502 295 206 0 3 0 0 0 1,387
APPROACH % 3% 97% 0% 0% 63% 37% 99% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.890 0.914 0.829 0.000 0.894
APP/DEPART 381 / 576 797 / 505 209 / 0 0 / 306 0
Grapefruit Blvd

NORTH LEG
Tyler St WEST LEG EAST LEG Tyler St

SOUTH LEG
Grapefruit Blvd

N LEG S LEG E LEG W LEG TOTAL N LEG S LEG E LEG W LEG TOTAL NL SL EL WL TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BEGIN PEAK HR 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
Coachella
Grapefruit Blvd
Tyler St
BEGIN PEAK HR 4:00 PM

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE & SCOOTER CROSSINGS

U-TURNS
Grapefruit Blvd Grapefruit Blvd Tyler St Tyler St

AM PM AM
7:30 AM
PM
4:00 PM
ALL PED + BIKE & SCOOTER
7:30 AM

3.1-1
1346
Item 3.
2,211 809 1,402 0 TOTAL 2,122
1,499 555 944 0 PM 1,118
712 254 458 0 AM 1,004
0 0 0
841 573 268
0 0 0
0 0 0
TOTAL
PM
AM
0 0 0
804 403 401
AM
PM
TOTAL
0 0 0
17 7
10 0 0 0
821 410 411
468 AM 14 603 0 617
951 PM 18 715 0 733
1,419 TOTAL 32 1,318 0 1,350
1,202 422 780 0 TOTAL 1,123
797 295 502 0 PM 576
405 127 278 0 AM 547
0 0 0
443 306 137
0 0 0
0 0 0
TOTAL
PM
AM
AM 7:30 AM
8:45 AM
0 0 0
415 206 209
#N/A
AM
PM
TOTAL
0 0 0
PM 4:00 PM
5:45 PM
7 3 4
0 0 0
422 209 213
282 AM 10 338 0 348
505 PM 11 370 0 381
787 Total 21 708 0 729
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Grapefruit Blvd
Tyler St
Tyler St

ALL HOURS
Coachella
SC4392
Grapefruit Blvd
Grapefruit Blvd
Grapefruit Blvd
Tyler St
Tyler St

PEAK HOUR

3.1-2
1347
Item 3.

File Name : 02_COA_Tyler_A53 AM
Site Code : 05124576
Start Date : 6/12/2024
Page No : 1
City of Coachella
N/S: Tyler Street
E/W: Avenue 53
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Tyler Street
Southbound
Tyler Street
Northbound
Avenue 53
Eastbound
Start Time Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 35 6 41 3 33 36 13 10 23 100
07:15 AM 12 7 19 4 31 35 22 8 30 84
07:30 AM 21 6 27 10 24 34 23 5 28 89
07:45 AM 12 5 17 9 23 32 26 9 35 84
Total 80 24 104 26 111 137 84 32 116 357
08:00 AM 20 5 25 4 23 27 15 10 25 77
08:15 AM 8 15 23 5 15 20 8 8 16 59
08:30 AM 8 6 14 4 13 17 16 5 21 52
08:45 AM 16 10 26 6 18 24 18 3 21 71
Total 52 36 88 19 69 88 57 26 83 259
Grand Total 132 60 192 45 180 225 141 58 199 616
Apprch % 68.8 31.2 20 80 70.9 29.1
Total % 21.4 9.7 31.2 7.3 29.2 36.5 22.9 9.4 32.3
Tyler Street
Southbound
Tyler Street
Northbound
Avenue 53
Eastbound
Start Time Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM
07:00 AM 35 6 41 3 33 36 13 10 23 100
07:15 AM 12 7 19 4 31 35 22 8 30 84
07:30 AM 21 6 27 10 24 34 23 5 28 89
07:45 AM 12 5 17 9 23 32 26 9 35 84
Total Volume 80 24 104 26 111 137 84 32 116 357
% App. Total 76.9 23.1 19 81 72.4 27.6
PHF .571 .857 .634 .650 .841 .951 .808 .800 .829 .893
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

3.1-3
1348
Item 3.

File Name : 02_COA_Tyler_A53 AM
Site Code : 05124576
Start Date : 6/12/2024
Page No : 2
City of Coachella
N/S: Tyler Street
E/W: Avenue 53
Weather: Clear
Tyler Street
Avenue 53
Tyler Street
Right
24 Thru
80 Out In Total
195 104 299
Left
26 Thru
111
Out In Total
112 137 249
Left
84 Right
32 Total Out In
50 116 166
Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:00 AM 07:00 AM 07:15 AM
+0 mins. 35 6 41 3 33 36 22 8 30
+15 mins. 12 7 19 4 31 35 23 5 28
+30 mins. 21 6 27 10 24 34 26 9 35
+45 mins. 12 5 17 9 23 32 15 10 25
Total Volume 80 24 104 26 111 137 86 32 118
% App. Total 76.9 23.1 19 81 72.9 27.1
PHF .571 .857 .634 .650 .841 .951 .827 .800 .843
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

3.1-4
1349
Item 3.

File Name : 02_COA_Tyler_A53 PM
Site Code : 05124576
Start Date : 6/12/2024
Page No : 1
City of Coachella
N/S: Tyler Street
E/W: Avenue 53
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Tyler Street
Southbound
Tyler Street
Northbound
Avenue 53
Eastbound
Start Time Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 22 32 54 7 33 40 12 7 19 113
04:15 PM 24 19 43 13 19 32 7 10 17 92
04:30 PM 27 21 48 15 21 36 10 11 21 105
04:45 PM 27 20 47 13 27 40 9 9 18 105
Total 100 92 192 48 100 148 38 37 75 415
05:00 PM 30 24 54 3 22 25 17 8 25 104
05:15 PM 31 34 65 10 13 23 15 5 20 108
05:30 PM 43 35 78 9 43 52 12 10 22 152
05:45 PM 26 16 42 12 35 47 15 9 24 113
Total 130 109 239 34 113 147 59 32 91 477
Grand Total 230 201 431 82 213 295 97 69 166 892
Apprch % 53.4 46.6 27.8 72.2 58.4 41.6
Total % 25.8 22.5 48.3 9.2 23.9 33.1 10.9 7.7 18.6
Tyler Street
Southbound
Tyler Street
Northbound
Avenue 53
Eastbound
Start Time Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM
05:00 PM 30 24 54 3 22 25 17 8 25 104
05:15 PM 31 34 65 10 13 23 15 5 20 108
05:30 PM 43 35 78 9 43 52 12 10 22 152
05:45 PM 26 16 42 12 35 47 15 9 24 113
Total Volume 130 109 239 34 113 147 59 32 91 477
% App. Total 54.4 45.6 23.1 76.9 64.8 35.2
PHF .756 .779 .766 .708 .657 .707 .868 .800 .910 .785
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

3.1-5
1350
Item 3.

File Name : 02_COA_Tyler_A53 PM
Site Code : 05124576
Start Date : 6/12/2024
Page No : 2
City of Coachella
N/S: Tyler Street
E/W: Avenue 53
Weather: Clear
Tyler Street
Avenue 53
Tyler Street
Right
109
Thru
130
Out In Total
172 239 411
Left
34 Thru
113
Out In Total
162 147 309
Left
59 Right
32 Total Out In
143 91 234
Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:45 PM 04:00 PM 05:00 PM
+0 mins. 27 20 47 7 33 40 17 8 25
+15 mins. 30 24 54 13 19 32 15 5 20
+30 mins. 31 34 65 15 21 36 12 10 22
+45 mins. 43 35 78 13 27 40 15 9 24
Total Volume 131 113 244 48 100 148 59 32 91
% App. Total 53.7 46.3 32.4 67.6 64.8 35.2
PHF .762 .807 .782 .800 .758 .925 .868 .800 .910
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

3.1-6
1351
Item 3.

File Name : 03_COA_Tyler_Arm AM
Site Code : 05124576
Start Date : 6/12/2024
Page No : 1
City of Coachella
N/S: Tyler Street
E/W: Armtec Entrace
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Tyler Street
Southbound
Tyler Street
Northbound
Armtec Entrace
Eastbound
Start Time Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 30 16 46 3 35 38 1 2 3 87
07:15 AM 16 4 20 0 35 35 0 0 0 55
07:30 AM 23 4 27 1 32 33 2 0 2 62
07:45 AM 22 0 22 1 33 34 0 1 1 57
Total 91 24 115 5 135 140 3 3 6 261
08:00 AM 27 1 28 0 25 25 0 0 0 53
08:15 AM 14 1 15 0 20 20 0 0 0 35
08:30 AM 10 1 11 1 14 15 1 0 1 27
08:45 AM 19 1 20 1 26 27 1 0 1 48
Total 70 4 74 2 85 87 2 0 2 163
Grand Total 161 28 189 7 220 227 5 3 8 424
Apprch % 85.2 14.8 3.1 96.9 62.5 37.5
Total % 38 6.6 44.6 1.7 51.9 53.5 1.2 0.7 1.9
Tyler Street
Southbound
Tyler Street
Northbound
Armtec Entrace
Eastbound
Start Time Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM
07:00 AM 30 16 46 3 35 38 1 2 3 87
07:15 AM 16 4 20 0 35 35 0 0 0 55
07:30 AM 23 4 27 1 32 33 2 0 2 62
07:45 AM 22 0 22 1 33 34 0 1 1 57
Total Volume 91 24 115 5 135 140 3 3 6 261
% App. Total 79.1 20.9 3.6 96.4 50 50
PHF .758 .375 .625 .417 .964 .921 .375 .375 .500 .750
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

3.1-7
1352
Item 3.

File Name : 03_COA_Tyler_Arm AM
Site Code : 05124576
Start Date : 6/12/2024
Page No : 2
City of Coachella
N/S: Tyler Street
E/W: Armtec Entrace
Weather: Clear
Tyler Street
Armtec Entrace
Tyler Street
Right
24 Thru
91 Out In Total
138 115 253
Left
5 Thru
135
Out In Total
94 140 234
Left
3 Right
3 Total Out In
29 6 35
Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:00 AM 07:00 AM 07:00 AM
+0 mins. 30 16 46 3 35 38 1 2 3
+15 mins. 16 4 20 0 35 35 0 0 0
+30 mins. 23 4 27 1 32 33 2 0 2
+45 mins. 22 0 22 1 33 34 0 1 1
Total Volume 91 24 115 5 135 140 3 3 6
% App. Total 79.1 20.9 3.6 96.4 50 50
PHF .758 .375 .625 .417 .964 .921 .375 .375 .500
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

3.1-8
1353
Item 3.

File Name : 03_COA_Tyler_Arm PM
Site Code : 05124576
Start Date : 6/12/2024
Page No : 1
City of Coachella
N/S: Tyler Street
E/W: Armtec Entrace
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Tyler Street
Southbound
Tyler Street
Northbound
Armtec Entrace
Eastbound
Start Time Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 27 1 28 0 32 32 8 2 10 70
04:15 PM 33 1 34 0 29 29 5 1 6 69
04:30 PM 39 0 39 0 34 34 3 0 3 76
04:45 PM 35 1 36 0 39 39 4 0 4 79
Total 134 3 137 0 134 134 20 3 23 294
05:00 PM 39 0 39 0 18 18 4 1 5 62
05:15 PM 36 0 36 1 27 28 1 0 1 65
05:30 PM 52 1 53 0 26 26 23 5 28 107
05:45 PM 36 0 36 0 44 44 5 0 5 85
Total 163 1 164 1 115 116 33 6 39 319
Grand Total 297 4 301 1 249 250 53 9 62 613
Apprch % 98.7 1.3 0.4 99.6 85.5 14.5
Total % 48.5 0.7 49.1 0.2 40.6 40.8 8.6 1.5 10.1
Tyler Street
Southbound
Tyler Street
Northbound
Armtec Entrace
Eastbound
Start Time Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM
05:00 PM 39 0 39 0 18 18 4 1 5 62
05:15 PM 36 0 36 1 27 28 1 0 1 65
05:30 PM 52 1 53 0 26 26 23 5 28 107
05:45 PM 36 0 36 0 44 44 5 0 5 85
Total Volume 163 1 164 1 115 116 33 6 39 319
% App. Total 99.4 0.6 0.9 99.1 84.6 15.4
PHF .784 .250 .774 .250 .653 .659 .359 .300 .348 .745
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

3.1-9
1354
Item 3.

File Name : 03_COA_Tyler_Arm PM
Site Code : 05124576
Start Date : 6/12/2024
Page No : 2
City of Coachella
N/S: Tyler Street
E/W: Armtec Entrace
Weather: Clear
Tyler Street
Armtec Entrace
Tyler Street
Right
1 Thru
163
Out In Total
148 164 312
Left
1 Thru
115
Out In Total
169 116 285
Left
33 Right
6 Total Out In
2 39 41
Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM
Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:45 PM 04:00 PM 05:00 PM
+0 mins. 35 1 36 0 32 32 4 1 5
+15 mins. 39 0 39 0 29 29 1 0 1
+30 mins. 36 0 36 0 34 34 23 5 28
+45 mins. 52 1 53 0 39 39 5 0 5
Total Volume 162 2 164 0 134 134 33 6 39
% App. Total 98.8 1.2 0 100 84.6 15.4
PHF .779 .500 .774 .000 .859 .859 .359 .300 .348
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268

3.1-10
1355
Item 3.

T101823
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC4392
Thu, Jan 18, 24 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 6
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: 1 1 X X 1 1 1 X 1 X X X 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 9 58 0 0 38 10 16 0 9 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 7 68 0 0 32 8 10 0 3 0 0 0 128 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 5 95 0 0 31 16 13 0 4 0 0 0 164 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 7 82 0 0 62 33 15 0 6 0 0 0 205 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 9 95 0 0 73 19 15 0 10 0 0 0 221 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 9 85 0 0 46 18 11 0 9 0 0 0 178 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 5 73 0 0 36 12 13 0 3 0 0 0 142 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 8 51 0 0 40 14 15 0 4 0 0 0 132 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 59 607 0 0 358 130 108 0 48 0 0 0 1,310 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 9% 91% 0% 0% 73% 27% 69% 0% 31% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 666 / 715 488 / 406 156 / 0 0 / 189 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 30 357 0 0 212 86 54 0 29 0 0 0 768
APPROACH % 8% 92% 0% 0% 71% 29% 65% 0% 35% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.930 0.784 0.830 0.000 0.869
APP/DEPART 387 / 411 298 / 241 83 / 0 0 / 116 0
4:00 PM 7 79 0 0 135 27 30 0 5 0 0 0 283 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 4 64 0 0 114 40 21 0 10 0 0 0 253 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 11 75 0 0 132 27 33 0 8 0 0 0 286 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 5 65 0 0 106 24 28 0 16 0 0 0 244 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 11 81 0 0 127 20 25 0 7 0 0 0 271 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 9 73 0 0 97 24 21 0 7 0 0 0 231 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 7 86 0 0 112 21 10 0 11 0 0 0 247 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 8 70 0 0 105 22 17 0 6 0 0 0 228 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 62 593 0 0 928 205 185 0 70 0 0 0 2,043 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 9% 91% 0% 0% 82% 18% 73% 0% 27% 0% 0% 0%
APP/DEPART 655 / 778 1,133 / 998 255 / 0 0 / 267 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 27 283 0 0 487 118 112 0 39 0 0 0 1,066
APPROACH % 9% 91% 0% 0% 80% 20% 74% 0% 26% 0% 0% 0%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.901 0.934 0.858 0.000 0.932
APP/DEPART 310 / 395 605 / 526 151 / 0 0 / 145 0
Grapefruit Blvd

NORTH LEG
Palm St WEST LEG EAST LEG Palm St

SOUTH LEG
Grapefruit Blvd

N LEG S LEG E LEG W LEG TOTAL N LEG S LEG E LEG W LEG TOTAL NL SL EL WL TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BEGIN PEAK HR 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
Coachella
Grapefruit Blvd
Palm St
BEGIN PEAK HR 4:00 PM

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE & SCOOTER CROSSINGS

U-TURNS
Grapefruit Blvd Grapefruit Blvd Palm St Palm St

AM PM AM
7:30 AM
PM
4:00 PM
ALL PED + BIKE & SCOOTER
7:30 AM

3.1-11
1356
Item 3.
1,621 335 1,286 0 TOTAL 1,493
1,133 205 928 0 PM 778
488 130 358 0 AM 715
0 0 0
456 267 189
0 0 0
0 0 0
TOTAL
PM
AM
0 0 0
293 185 108
AM
PM
TOTAL
0 0 0
118
70 48
0 0 0
411 255 156
406 AM 59 607 0 666
998 PM 62 593 0 655
1,404 TOTAL 121 1,200 0 1,321
903 204 699 0 TOTAL 806
605 118 487 0 PM 395
298 86 212 0 AM 411
0 0 0
261 145 116
0 0 0
0 0 0
TOTAL
PM
AM
AM 7:30 AM
8:45 AM
0 0 0
166 112
54 #N/A
AM
PM
TOTAL
0 0 0
PM 4:00 PM
5:45 PM
68 39 29
0 0 0
234 151
83 241 AM 30 357 0 387
526 PM 27 283 0 310
767 Total 57 640 0 697
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Grapefruit Blvd
Palm St
Palm St

ALL HOURS
Coachella
SC4392
Grapefruit Blvd
Grapefruit Blvd
Grapefruit Blvd
Palm St
Palm St

PEAK HOUR

3.1-12
1357
Item 3.

T101823
DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC4392
Thu, Jan 18, 24 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 4
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: X X X 1 X 0 1 2 X X 2 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 0 0 10 0 9 4 44 0 0 90 21 178 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 8 0 5 3 44 0 0 57 12 129 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 9 0 12 6 35 0 0 98 8 168 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 15 0 22 3 50 0 0 87 19 196 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 11 0 13 4 37 0 0 102 14 181 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 18 0 13 6 43 0 0 56 14 150 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 10 0 9 8 36 0 0 44 10 117 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 9 0 13 9 34 0 0 48 10 123 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 0 0 0 90 0 96 43 323 0 0 582 108 1,242 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 48% 0% 52% 12% 88% 0% 0% 84% 16%
APP/DEPART 0 / 151 186 / 0 366 / 413 690 / 678 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 53 0 60 19 165 0 0 343 55 695
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 47% 0% 53% 10% 90% 0% 0% 86% 14%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.764 0.868 0.858 0.886
APP/DEPART 0 / 74 113 / 0 184 / 218 398 / 403 0
4:00 PM 0 0 0 22 0 13 14 73 0 0 47 25 194 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 27 0 13 9 74 0 0 25 20 168 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 25 0 20 16 83 0 0 48 25 217 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 13 0 12 12 61 0 0 53 27 178 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 23 0 8 11 60 0 0 59 17 178 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 25 0 8 7 71 0 0 39 21 171 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 15 0 14 5 57 0 0 52 19 162 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 19 0 8 8 51 0 0 35 15 136 0 0 0 0 0
VOLUMES 0 0 0 169 0 96 82 530 0 0 358 169 1,404 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 64% 0% 36% 13% 87% 0% 0% 68% 32%
APP/DEPART 0 / 251 265 / 0 612 / 699 527 / 454 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 0 0 0 87 0 58 51 291 0 0 173 97 757
APPROACH % 0% 0% 0% 60% 0% 40% 15% 85% 0% 0% 64% 36%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.000 0.806 0.864 0.844 0.872
APP/DEPART 0 / 148 145 / 0 342 / 378 270 / 231 0
Palm St

NORTH LEG
Airport Blvd WEST LEG EAST LEG Airport Blvd

SOUTH LEG
Palm St

N LEG S LEG E LEG W LEG TOTAL N LEG S LEG E LEG W LEG TOTAL NL SL EL WL TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0
BEGIN PEAK HR 0 0 0 2 2
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

AM PM AM
7:30 AM
PM
4:00 PM
ALL PED + BIKE & SCOOTER
7:30 AM
BEGIN PEAK HR 4:00 PM

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BICYCLE & SCOOTER CROSSINGS

U-TURNS
Palm St Palm St Airport Blvd Airport Blvd

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected]
Coachella
Palm St
Airport Blvd

3.1-13
1358
Item 3.
451 192 0 259 TOTAL 402
265 96 0 169 PM 251
186 96 0 90 AM 151
690 527
1,217
1,132
454 678
108 169 277
582 358 940
TOTAL
PM
AM
0 0 0
125
82 43
AM
PM
TOTAL
853 530 323
0 0 0
413 699
1,112
978 612 366
0 AM 000 0
0 PM 000 0
0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0
258 118 0 140 TOTAL 222
145 58 0 87 PM 148
113 60 0 53 AM 74
398 270 668
634 231 403
55 97
152
343 173 516
TOTAL
PM
AM
AM 7:30 AM
8:45 AM
0 0 0
70 51 19
#N/A
AM
PM
TOTAL
456 291 165
PM 4:00 PM
5:45 PM
0 0 0
218 378 596
526 342 184
0 AM 000 0
0 PM 000 0
0 Total 0 0 0 0
Palm St
Palm St
Palm St
Airport Blvd
Airport Blvd

PEAK HOUR
AimTD LLC

TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Palm St
Airport Blvd
Airport Blvd

ALL HOURS
Coachella
SC4392

3.1-14
1359
Item 3.

CITY: Coachella PROJECT:

AM Period EB WB PM Period EB WB
0:00 6 3 12:00 44 58
0:15 3 6 12:15 48 45
0:30 1 5 12:30 42 36
0:45 3 13 1 15 28 12:45 49 183 49 188 371
1:00 3 2 13:00 61 63
1:15 1 3 13:15 50 62
1:30 1 5 13:30 65 74
1:45 2 7 4 14 21 13:45 73 249 67 266 515
2:00 3 3 14:00 75 67
2:15 4 4 14:15 67 71
2:30 1 0 14:30 94 74
2:45 1 9 0 7 16 14:45 98 334 84 296 630
3:00 1 3 15:00 107 78
3:15 4 2 15:15 97 73
3:30 17 9 15:30 81 63
3:45 14 36 12 26 62 15:45 71 356 58 272 628
4:00 9 13 16:00 95 72
4:15 9 9 16:15 101 45
4:30 10 25 16:30 108 73
4:45 33 61 33 80 141 16:45 74 378 80 270 648
5:00 27 26 17:00 83 76
5:15 43 27 17:15 96 60
5:30 28 49 17:30 72 71
5:45 63 161 62 164 325 17:45 70 321 50 257 578
6:00 52 71 18:00 59 41
6:15 75 91 18:15 63 52
6:30 59 100 18:30 59 40
6:45 52 238 119 381 619 18:45 48 229 30 163 392
7:00 54 111 19:00 30 27
7:15 52 69 19:15 41 27
7:30 44 106 19:30 29 21
7:45 65 215 106 392 607 19:45 34 134 25 100 234
8:00 48 116 20:00 26 31
8:15 61 70 20:15 19 18
8:30 46 54 20:30 27 19
8:45 43 198 58 298 496 20:45 26 98 14 82 180
9:00 34 52 21:00 21 20
9:15 24 57 21:15 28 24
9:30 37 51 21:30 25 15
9:45 32 127 37 197 324 21:45 14 88 18 77 165
10:00 36 53 22:00 16 13
10:15 49 33 22:15 14 11
10:30 34 39 22:30 12 11
10:45 28 147 39 164 311 22:45 10 52 12 47 99
11:00 37 46 23:00 10 6
11:15 33 47 23:15 3 9
11:30 37 43 23:30 9 8
11:45 42 149 43 179 328 23:45 7 29 8 31 60
Total Vol. 1361 1917 3278 2451 2049 4500
EB WB Combined
3812 3966 7778
Split % 41.5% 58.5% 42.1% 54.5% 45.5% 57.9%
Peak Hour 5:45 6:15 6:15 14:30 14:30 14:30
Volume 249 421 661 396 309 705
P.H.F. 0.83 0.88 0.97 0.93 0.92 0.95
Thursday, January 18, 2024 SC4392
ADT3 Airport Blvd between Project Dwy and Palm St. Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 Daily Totals
AM PM
[email protected] Tell. 714 253 7888

3.1-15
1360
Item 3.

CITY: Coachella PROJECT:

AM Period EB WB PM Period EB WB
0:00 8 3 12:00 42 46
0:15 2 8 12:15 51 43
0:30 1 6 12:30 34 34
0:45 2 13 1 18 31 12:45 39 166 38 161 327
1:00 2 1 13:00 52 50
1:15 1 3 13:15 46 60
1:30 0 3 13:30 62 55
1:45 2 5 3 10 15 13:45 63 223 59 224 447
2:00 2 2 14:00 67 55
2:15 4 4 14:15 62 63
2:30 1 0 14:30 93 70
2:45 1 8 0 6 14 14:45 96 318 71 259 577
3:00 1 3 15:00 98 72
3:15 3 4 15:15 89 68
3:30 10 9 15:30 85 62
3:45 9 23 11 27 50 15:45 58 330 54 256 586
4:00 7 12 16:00 87 60
4:15 5 9 16:15 83 38
4:30 10 24 16:30 99 68
4:45 23 45 30 75 120 16:45 73 342 65 231 573
5:00 18 25 17:00 71 67
5:15 29 29 17:15 78 47
5:30 19 49 17:30 62 66
5:45 54 120 57 160 280 17:45 59 270 43 223 493
6:00 46 64 18:00 47 46
6:15 61 84 18:15 49 48
6:30 46 105 18:30 50 27
6:45 44 197 121 374 571 18:45 33 179 22 143 322
7:00 48 99 19:00 23 24
7:15 47 62 19:15 33 28
7:30 41 110 19:30 14 16
7:45 53 189 109 380 569 19:45 27 97 17 85 182
8:00 41 115 20:00 15 25
8:15 49 69 20:15 16 14
8:30 44 53 20:30 23 18
8:45 43 177 61 298 475 20:45 21 75 15 72 147
9:00 35 43 21:00 15 17
9:15 23 54 21:15 25 19
9:30 33 48 21:30 19 12
9:45 25 116 31 176 292 21:45 11 70 17 65 135
10:00 36 45 22:00 14 16
10:15 47 31 22:15 12 10
10:30 33 27 22:30 11 11
10:45 26 142 34 137 279 22:45 4 41 11 48 89
11:00 32 36 23:00 8 5
11:15 30 44 23:15 3 8
11:30 35 40 23:30 5 9
11:45 34 131 36 156 287 23:45 6 22 7 29 51
Total Vol. 1166 1817 2983 2133 1796 3929
EB WB Combined
3299 3613 6912
Split % 39.1% 60.9% 43.2% 54.3% 45.7% 56.8%
Peak Hour 5:45 6:15 6:15 14:30 14:30 14:30
Volume 207 409 608 376 281 657
P.H.F. 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.96 0.98 0.97
Thursday, January 18, 2024 SC4392
ADT4 Airport Blvd between Palm St and Polk St. Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 Daily Totals
AM PM
[email protected] Tell. 714 253 7888

3.1-16
1361
Item 3.

CITY: Coachella PROJECT:

AM Period NB SB PM Period NB SB
0:00 8 16 12:00 78 81
0:15 5 13 12:15 79 75
0:30 3 6 12:30 77 70
0:45 1 17 4 39 56 12:45 68 302 70 296 598
1:00 5 4 13:00 70 88
1:15 2 5 13:15 86 102
1:30 3 4 13:30 96 95
1:45 3 13 2 15 28 13:45 84 336 92 377 713
2:00 1 2 14:00 98 114
2:15 1 3 14:15 119 95
2:30 5 4 14:30 110 121
2:45 1 8 1 10 18 14:45 123 450 120 450 900
3:00 6 2 15:00 139 127
3:15 1 2 15:15 143 124
3:30 10 11 15:30 117 143
3:45 11 28 15 30 58 15:45 115 514 152 546 1060
4:00 10 11 16:00 109 162
4:15 21 10 16:15 85 154
4:30 24 11 16:30 108 159
4:45 46 101 24 56 157 16:45 93 395 130 605 1000
5:00 30 39 17:00 106 147
5:15 38 57 17:15 94 121
5:30 65 73 17:30 96 133
5:45 70 203 90 259 462 17:45 87 383 127 528 911
6:00 76 89 18:00 63 126
6:15 81 71 18:15 56 109
6:30 90 69 18:30 65 74
6:45 88 335 79 308 643 18:45 40 224 84 393 617
7:00 74 48 19:00 57 65
7:15 78 40 19:15 43 71
7:30 108 47 19:30 19 69
7:45 97 357 95 230 587 19:45 29 148 52 257 405
8:00 110 92 20:00 32 68
8:15 96 64 20:15 22 61
8:30 86 48 20:30 24 48
8:45 66 358 54 258 616 20:45 25 103 44 221 324
9:00 62 46 21:00 16 53
9:15 46 50 21:15 25 37
9:30 64 59 21:30 28 43
9:45 59 231 53 208 439 21:45 17 86 32 165 251
10:00 60 42 22:00 14 33
10:15 69 41 22:15 7 30
10:30 56 43 22:30 8 28
10:45 51 236 51 177 413 22:45 7 36 18 109 145
11:00 65 68 23:00 6 18
11:15 71 57 23:15 8 18
11:30 72 53 23:30 4 13
11:45 70 278 67 245 523 23:45 5 23 8 57 80
Total Vol. 2165 1835 4000 3000 4004 7004
NB SB Combined
5165 5839 11004
Split % 54.1% 45.9% 36.4% 42.8% 57.2% 63.6%
Peak Hour 7:30 5:30 7:30 14:45 15:45 15:15
Volume 411 323 709 522 627 1065
P.H.F. 0.93 0.90 0.88 0.96 0.97 0.98
Thursday, January 18, 2024 SC4392
ADT5 Grapefruit Blvd between Palm St and Ave 54. Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 Daily Totals
AM PM
[email protected] Tell. 714 253 7888

3.1-17
1362
Item 3.

CITY: Coachella PROJECT:

AM Period NB SB PM Period NB SB
0:00 15 13 12:00 81 68
0:15 9 4 12:15 70 62
0:30 0 3 12:30 87 70
0:45 2 26 5 25 51 12:45 57 295 72 272 567
1:00 6 4 13:00 71 86
1:15 0 2 13:15 76 86
1:30 2 2 13:30 79 81
1:45 2 10 2 10 20 13:45 75 301 89 342 643
2:00 1 1 14:00 83 93
2:15 2 2 14:15 93 87
2:30 3 2 14:30 99 104
2:45 1 7 2 7 14 14:45 104 379 93 377 756
3:00 5 3 15:00 109 112
3:15 1 5 15:15 118 114
3:30 4 10 15:30 109 109
3:45 5 15 15 33 48 15:45 104 440 129 464 904
4:00 11 6 16:00 107 130
4:15 10 9 16:15 96 125
4:30 11 11 16:30 94 138
4:45 25 57 24 50 107 16:45 84 381 112 505 886
5:00 21 31 17:00 98 125
5:15 30 56 17:15 98 103
5:30 32 78 17:30 79 111
5:45 41 124 93 258 382 17:45 77 352 107 446 798
6:00 49 80 18:00 71 105
6:15 60 65 18:15 51 85
6:30 63 67 18:30 57 71
6:45 65 237 75 287 524 18:45 46 225 70 331 556
7:00 59 40 19:00 50 57
7:15 66 43 19:15 38 54
7:30 80 51 19:30 19 59
7:45 95 300 91 225 525 19:45 26 133 56 226 359
8:00 80 82 20:00 27 58
8:15 93 58 20:15 12 39
8:30 78 54 20:30 27 47
8:45 66 317 49 243 560 20:45 18 84 38 182 266
9:00 54 40 21:00 11 45
9:15 50 62 21:15 20 30
9:30 54 56 21:30 24 30
9:45 38 196 47 205 401 21:45 19 74 31 136 210
10:00 48 45 22:00 20 26
10:15 59 35 22:15 5 26
10:30 55 34 22:30 8 18
10:45 53 215 51 165 380 22:45 6 39 13 83 122
11:00 54 63 23:00 7 13
11:15 72 64 23:15 4 14
11:30 61 48 23:30 4 8
11:45 61 248 68 243 491 23:45 4 19 5 40 59
Total Vol. 1752 1751 3503 2722 3404 6126
NB SB Combined
4474 5155 9629
Split % 50.0% 50.0% 36.4% 44.4% 55.6% 63.6%
Peak Hour 7:30 5:30 7:45 14:45 15:45 15:45
Volume 348 316 631 440 522 923
P.H.F. 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.97
Thursday, January 18, 2024 SC4392
ADT6 Grapefruit Blvd between Avenue 54 and Tyler St. Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 Daily Totals
AM PM
[email protected] Tell. 714 253 7888

3.1-18
1363
Item 3.

CITY: Coachella PROJECT:

AM Period NB SB PM Period NB SB
0:00 19 21 12:00 108 89
0:15 9 10 12:15 99 92
0:30 0 4 12:30 106 100
0:45 5 33 4 39 72 12:45 82 395 105 386 781
1:00 8 5 13:00 92 125
1:15 0 5 13:15 108 115
1:30 5 4 13:30 121 105
1:45 6 19 6 20 39 13:45 116 437 124 469 906
2:00 6 3 14:00 119 132
2:15 3 4 14:15 137 123
2:30 14 6 14:30 156 158
2:45 4 27 16 29 56 14:45 141 553 153 566 1119
3:00 9 6 15:00 144 179
3:15 3 11 15:15 163 186
3:30 8 14 15:30 157 190
3:45 12 32 29 60 92 15:45 166 630 220 775 1405
4:00 17 7 16:00 164 218
4:15 17 8 16:15 140 200
4:30 20 19 16:30 146 214
4:45 38 92 29 63 155 16:45 126 576 165 797 1373
5:00 39 38 17:00 141 184
5:15 56 63 17:15 143 168
5:30 52 93 17:30 136 174
5:45 80 227 118 312 539 17:45 122 542 176 702 1244
6:00 86 97 18:00 115 164
6:15 95 89 18:15 77 136
6:30 117 100 18:30 90 111
6:45 116 414 123 409 823 18:45 73 355 107 518 873
7:00 117 83 19:00 84 92
7:15 123 67 19:15 49 87
7:30 147 74 19:30 38 95
7:45 160 547 122 346 893 19:45 41 212 83 357 569
8:00 113 116 20:00 40 83
8:15 127 93 20:15 31 75
8:30 120 84 20:30 32 73
8:45 97 457 73 366 823 20:45 31 134 55 286 420
9:00 76 64 21:00 14 71
9:15 79 82 21:15 31 48
9:30 71 74 21:30 31 45
9:45 63 289 84 304 593 21:45 25 101 48 212 313
10:00 69 73 22:00 28 32
10:15 88 55 22:15 9 38
10:30 79 55 22:30 16 33
10:45 77 313 74 257 570 22:45 10 63 26 129 192
11:00 72 86 23:00 9 22
11:15 100 92 23:15 6 22
11:30 91 61 23:30 10 19
11:45 92 355 107 346 701 23:45 9 34 8 71 105
Total Vol. 2805 2551 5356 4032 5268 9300
NB SB Combined
6837 7819 14656
Split % 52.4% 47.6% 36.5% 43.4% 56.6% 63.5%
Peak Hour 7:00 7:45 7:30 15:15 15:45 15:45
Volume 547 415 952 650 852 1468
P.H.F. 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.98 0.97 0.95
Thursday, January 18, 2024 SC4392
ADT7 Grapefruit Blvd between Tyler St and 52nd Ave. Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 Daily Totals
AM PM
[email protected] Tell. 714 253 7888

3.1-19
1364
Item 3.

Page 1 ends

City of Coachella
Avenue 53
W/ Tyler Street
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
COA003
Site Code: 051-24576
Counts Unimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 6/12/24 Eastbound Hour Totals Westbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Wed Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 1 5 5 12
12:15 0 7 2 9
12:30 0 4 2 20
12:45 1 6 2 22 1 9 10 50 12 72
01:00 0 4 0 16
01:15 0 7 1 9
01:30 1 7 2 22
01:45 1 6 2 24 0 15 3 62 5 86
02:00 0 6 2 19
02:15 2 4 0 30
02:30 0 10 3 32
02:45 4 8 6 28 2 28 7 109 13 137
03:00 3 8 1 23
03:15 6 11 1 30
03:30 2 4 1 16
03:45 2 5 13 28 1 17 4 86 17 114
04:00 2 10 1 30
04:15 1 4 1 23
04:30 7 8 0 29
04:45 8 9 18 31 1 20 3 102 21 133
05:00 14 7 2 18
05:15 13 8 8 28
05:30 9 7 6 24
05:45 8 10 44 32 2 13 18 83 62 115
06:00 8 9 3 30
06:15 4 10 4 11
06:30 10 7 4 14
06:45 9 8 31 34 7 20 18 75 49 109
07:00 7 6 8 19
07:15 8 8 7 14
07:30 10 7 13 15
07:45 10 12 35 33 12 14 40 62 75 95
08:00 7 6 6 30
08:15 6 7 16 18
08:30 6 11 7 13
08:45 7 5 26 29 10 16 39 77 65 106
09:00 3 5 9 7
09:15 5 3 5 10
09:30 1 2 5 17
09:45 6 3 15 13 12 5 31 39 46 52
10:00 4 4 9 8
10:15 6 4 15 9
10:30 3 2 8 8
10:45 5 2 18 12 10 5 42 30 60 42
11:00 6 5 11 4
11:15 2 1 5 4
11:30 9 0 8 1
11:45 7 3 24 9 12 4 36 13 60 22
Total 234 295 234 295 251 788 251 788 485 1083
Combined
Total 529 529 1039 1039 1568
AM Peak - 04:45 - - - 07:30 - - - - -
Vol. - 44 - - - 47 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.786 0.734
PM Peak - - 02:30 - - - 02:15 - - - -
Vol. - - 37 - - - 113 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.841 0.883
Percentag
e

44.2% 55.8% 24.2% 75.8%
ADT/AADT ADT 1,568 AADT 1,568

3.1-20
1365
Item 3.

Page 1 ends

City of Coachella
Tyler Street
B/ Avenue 53 - Armtec Entrance
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
COA002
Site Code: 051-24576
Counts Unimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 6/12/24 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Wed Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 8 40 6 25
12:15 2 27 2 30
12:30 3 42 3 32
12:45 0 17 13 126 3 30 14 117 27 243
01:00 0 24 1 38
01:15 2 32 2 39
01:30 2 38 2 36
01:45 2 35 6 129 3 33 8 146 14 275
02:00 8 26 1 43
02:15 1 46 6 26
02:30 16 79 9 42
02:45 3 49 28 200 19 45 35 156 63 356
03:00 6 42 9 46
03:15 2 40 13 51
03:30 5 45 9 54
03:45 2 48 15 175 18 47 49 198 64 373
04:00 8 39 6 31
04:15 5 34 9 35
04:30 4 36 13 39
04:45 6 43 23 152 24 38 52 143 75 295
05:00 21 22 36 38
05:15 37 28 33 37
05:30 26 50 30 53
05:45 27 47 111 147 38 38 137 166 248 313
06:00 29 37 28 44
06:15 30 35 35 35
06:30 31 24 26 30
06:45 44 20 134 116 48 20 137 129 271 245
07:00 41 19 44 18
07:15 35 20 19 28
07:30 34 25 28 25
07:45 34 15 144 79 23 22 114 93 258 172
08:00 27 28 29 26
08:15 24 23 16 26
08:30 16 18 15 23
08:45 26 13 93 82 20 27 80 102 173 184
09:00 25 11 18 17
09:15 19 14 26 24
09:30 27 15 15 25
09:45 23 9 94 49 25 10 84 76 178 125
10:00 22 9 23 14
10:15 22 5 22 21
10:30 17 8 20 10
10:45 22 3 83 25 26 3 91 48 174 73
11:00 19 6 23 14
11:15 20 6 21 8
11:30 27 4 19 6
11:45 29 4 95 20 21 10 84 38 179 58
Total 839 1300 839 1300 885 1412 885 1412 1724 2712
Combined
Total 2139 2139 2297 2297 4436
AM Peak - 06:45 - - - 06:15 - - - - -
Vol. - 154 - - - 153 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.875 0.797
PM Peak - - 02:15 - - - 03:00 - - - -
Vol. - - 216 - - - 198 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.684 0.917
Percentag
e

39.2% 60.8% 38.5% 61.5%
ADT/AADT ADT 4,436 AADT 4,436

3.1-21
1366
Item 3.

Page 1 ends

City of Coachella
Tyler Street
S/ Grapefruit Boulevard
24 Hour Directional Volume Count
COA001
Site Code: 051-24576
Counts Unimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
email: [email protected]
Start 6/12/24 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Wed Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 5 42 5 29
12:15 3 29 4 30
12:30 2 44 8 44
12:45 1 30 11 145 1 38 18 141 29 286
01:00 1 22 1 43
01:15 2 42 4 43
01:30 2 36 1 62
01:45 3 47 8 147 3 48 9 196 17 343
02:00 6 23 5 57
02:15 1 31 5 56
02:30 11 69 8 52
02:45 3 37 21 160 16 55 34 220 55 380
03:00 4 44 4 68
03:15 6 36 8 63
03:30 9 50 7 67
03:45 3 44 22 174 15 53 34 251 56 425
04:00 8 44 3 52
04:15 9 25 3 50
04:30 18 32 7 44
04:45 26 41 61 142 11 52 24 198 85 340
05:00 27 35 13 54
05:15 46 32 18 66
05:30 38 53 17 79
05:45 42 52 153 172 30 43 78 242 231 414
06:00 43 31 30 63
06:15 42 48 31 38
06:30 44 32 21 42
06:45 53 26 182 137 44 31 126 174 308 311
07:00 53 26 39 37
07:15 54 28 21 33
07:30 49 29 30 31
07:45 49 21 205 104 17 28 107 129 312 233
08:00 37 29 21 46
08:15 26 31 26 41
08:30 27 22 15 32
08:45 41 25 131 107 24 43 86 162 217 269
09:00 33 14 28 25
09:15 24 14 25 29
09:30 34 16 19 44
09:45 31 12 122 56 28 14 100 112 222 168
10:00 30 9 27 15
10:15 33 9 32 29
10:30 26 7 27 15
10:45 31 3 120 28 36 8 122 67 242 95
11:00 23 3 28 11
11:15 25 8 20 12
11:30 36 5 23 10
11:45 38 4 122 20 25 10 96 43 218 63
Total 1158 1392 1158 1392 834 1935 834 1935 1992 3327
Combined
Total 2550 2550 2769 2769 5319
AM Peak - 06:45 - - - 06:15 - - - - -
Vol. - 209 - - - 135 - - - - -
P.H.F. 0.968 0.767
PM Peak - - 02:30 - - - 02:45 - - - -
Vol. - - 186 - - - 253 - - - -
P.H.F. 0.674 0.930
Percentag
e

45.4% 54.6% 30.1% 69.9%
ADT/AADT ADT 5,319 AADT 5,319

3.1-22
1367
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
APPENDIX 3.2: EXISTING (2024) CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
1368
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
1369
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2024) AM Peak Hour
1: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Tyler St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 222 4 10 338 278 127
Future Volume (vph) 222 4 10 338 278 127
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Link Speed (mph) 50 45 40
Link Distance (ft) 455 1162 502
Travel Time (s) 13.8 17.6 7.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

3.2-1
1370
Item 3.

HCM 6th AWSC Existing (2024) AM Peak Hour
1: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Tyler St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 15.7
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 222 4 10 338 278 127
Future Vol, veh/h 222 4 10 338 278 127
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 264 5 12 402 331 151
Number of Lanes 100111
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 0
Conflicting Approach Right NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 14.9 18.3 13.9

HCM LOS B C B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 3% 98% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 97% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 2% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 348 226 278 127
LT Vol 10 222 0 0
Through Vol 338 0 278 0
RT Vol 0 4 0 127
Lane Flow Rate 414 269 331 151
Geometry Grp 4a 2 5 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.645 0.471 0.551 0.222
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.601 6.304 5.989 5.278
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 642 570 602 679
Service Time 3.648 4.357 3.737 3.026
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.645 0.472 0.55 0.222
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 18.3 14.9 15.9 9.5
HCM Lane LOS C B C A
HCM 95th-tile Q 4.7 2.5 3.3 0.8

3.2-2
1371
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2024) AM Peak Hour
2: Tyler St. & Ave. 53
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 97 39 30 129 94 43
Future Volume (vph) 97 39 30 129 94 43
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 70 50
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Link Speed (mph) 35 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 743 558 590
Travel Time (s) 14.3 7.4 13.8
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

3.2-3
1372
Item 3.

HCM 6th TWSC Existing (2024) AM Peak Hour
2: Tyler St. & Ave. 53
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 97 39 30 129 94 43
Future Vol, veh/h 97 39 30 129 94 43
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 5 5 0 0 5
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 70 - - 50
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 109 44 34 145 106 48
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 329 63 159 0 - 0
Stage 1 111 -----
Stage 2 218 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.93 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.83 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 2.219 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 653 989 1419 - - -
Stage 1 902 -----
Stage 2 818 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 631 980 1412 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 631 -----
Stage 1 876 -----
Stage 2 814 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 11 1.4 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1412 - 631 980 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 - 0.173 0.045 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 - 11.9 8.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q (veh) 0.1 - 0.6 0.1 - -

3.2-4
1373
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2024) AM Peak Hour
3: Tyler St. & Armtec Entrance
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 3 3 6 156 105 28
Future Volume (vph) 3 3 6 156 105 28
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 50
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Link Speed (mph) 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 583 1051 558
Travel Time (s) 13.3 14.3 7.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

3.2-5
1374
Item 3.

HCM 6th TWSC Existing (2024) AM Peak Hour
3: Tyler St. & Armtec Entrance
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 3 6 156 105 28
Future Vol, veh/h 3 3 6 156 105 28
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 5 5 0 0 5
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 100 - - 50
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 4 8 208 140 37
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 374 80 182 0 - 0
Stage 1 145 -----
Stage 2 229 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.93 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.83 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 2.219 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 613 965 1392 - - -
Stage 1 868 -----
Stage 2 808 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 603 956 1385 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 653 -----
Stage 1 858 -----
Stage 2 804 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 9.7 0.3 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1385 - 653 956 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - 0.006 0.004 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 - 10.5 8.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q (veh) 0 - 0 0 - -

3.2-6
1375
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2024) AM Peak Hour
4: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 54 29 30 357 212 86
Future Volume (vph) 54 29 30 357 212 86
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 100 0 245 205
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 35 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 682 483 791
Travel Time (s) 13.3 7.3 12.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 6
Detector Phase 4 4 5 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 23.0 23.0 11.0 37.0 26.0 26.0
Total Split (%) 38.3% 38.3% 18.3% 61.7% 43.3% 43.3%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 4: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Palm St.

3.2-7
1376
Item 3.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing (2024) AM Peak Hour 4: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 54 29 30 357 212 86
Future Volume (veh/h) 54 29 30 357 212 86
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 62 33 34 410 244 99
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 118 105 64 1466 1258 1062
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.78 0.67 0.67
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1579
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 62 33 34 410 244 99
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1579
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 1.2 1.1 3.6 2.9 1.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 1.2 1.1 3.6 2.9 1.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 118 105 64 1466 1258 1062
V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.31 0.53 0.28 0.19 0.09
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 549 489 193 1466 1258 1062
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.1 26.7 28.4 1.8 3.7 3.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.6 1.7 6.6 0.5 0.3 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 30.7 28.4 35.0 2.3 4.0 3.6
LnGrp LOS C C D A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 95 444 343
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.9 4.8 3.9
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 51.5 8.5 6.7 44.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.5 18.5 6.5 21.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 4.0 3.1 4.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.3 0.2 0.0 1.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 7.1
HCM 6th LOS A

3.2-8
1377
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2024) AM Peak Hour
5: Airport Bl. & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 19 165 343 64 56 60
Future Volume (vph) 19 165 343 64 56 60
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 140 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35
Link Distance (ft) 684 1384 682
Travel Time (s) 10.4 21.0 13.3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 6 4
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 5 2 6 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 10.0 37.0 27.0 23.0 23.0
Total Split (%) 16.7% 61.7% 45.0% 38.3% 38.3%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 5: Airport Bl. & Palm St.

3.2-9
1378
Item 3.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing (2024) AM Peak Hour 5: Airport Bl. & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 19 165 343 64 56 60
Future Volume (veh/h) 19 165 343 64 56 60
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 21 185 385 72 63 67
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 44 1925 1322 245 549 489
Arrive On Green 0.02 0.54 0.44 0.44 0.31 0.31
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 3083 554 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 21 185 227 230 63 67
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1777 1767 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.7 1.5 4.9 5.0 1.5 1.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.7 1.5 4.9 5.0 1.5 1.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 44 1925 785 781 549 489
V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.11 0.14
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 163 1925 785 781 549 489
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.9 6.6 10.7 10.7 14.9 15.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.9 0.1 0.9 1.0 0.4 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.4 1.7 1.7 0.6 2.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 36.8 6.7 11.6 11.7 15.3 15.6
LnGrp LOS D A B B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 206 457 130
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.8 11.7 15.4
Approach LOS A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.0 23.0 6.0 31.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.5 18.5 5.5 22.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 3.8 2.7 7.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 0.3 0.0 2.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 11.8
HCM 6th LOS B

3.2-10
1379
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2024) PM Peak Hour
1: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Tyler St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 206 3 11 370 502 295
Future Volume (vph) 206 3 11 370 502 295
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Link Speed (mph) 50 45 40
Link Distance (ft) 455 1162 502
Travel Time (s) 13.8 17.6 7.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

3.2-11
1380
Item 3.

HCM 6th AWSC Existing (2024) PM Peak Hour
1: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Tyler St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 27.9
Intersection LOS D
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 206 3 11 370 502 295
Future Vol, veh/h 206 3 11 370 502 295
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 231 3 12 416 564 331
Number of Lanes 100111
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 0
Conflicting Approach Right NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 15.4 21.4 34.2

HCM LOS CCD
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 3% 99% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 97% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 1% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 381 209 502 295
LT Vol 11 206 0 0
Through Vol 370 0 502 0
RT Vol 0 3 0 295
Lane Flow Rate 428 235 564 331
Geometry Grp 4a 2 5 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.698 0.448 0.936 0.485
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.87 6.862 5.977 5.266
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 616 524 604 683
Service Time 3.918 4.912 3.727 3.015
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.695 0.448 0.934 0.485
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 21.4 15.4 46.7 12.9
HCM Lane LOS C C E B
HCM 95th-tile Q 5.6 2.3 12.3 2.7

3.2-12
1381
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2024) PM Peak Hour
2: Tyler St. & Ave. 53
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 78 37 39 131 152 154
Future Volume (vph) 78 37 39 131 152 154
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 70 50
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Link Speed (mph) 35 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 743 558 590
Travel Time (s) 14.3 7.4 13.8
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

3.2-13
1382
Item 3.

HCM 6th TWSC Existing (2024) PM Peak Hour
2: Tyler St. & Ave. 53
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 78 37 39 131 152 154
Future Vol, veh/h 78 37 39 131 152 154
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 5 5 0 0 5
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 70 - - 50
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 79 79 79 79 79 79
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 99 47 49 166 192 195
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 466 106 392 0 - 0
Stage 1 197 -----
Stage 2 269 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.93 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.83 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 2.219 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 540 928 1165 - - -
Stage 1 817 -----
Stage 2 775 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 512 919 1159 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 512 -----
Stage 1 779 -----
Stage 2 771 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 12.2 1.9 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1159 - 512 919 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 - 0.193 0.051 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 - 13.7 9.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q (veh) 0.1 - 0.7 0.2 - -

3.2-14
1383
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2024) PM Peak Hour
3: Tyler St. & Armtec Entrance
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 38 7 1 132 188 1
Future Volume (vph) 38 7 1 132 188 1
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 50
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Link Speed (mph) 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 583 1051 558
Travel Time (s) 13.3 14.3 7.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

3.2-15
1384
Item 3.

HCM 6th TWSC Existing (2024) PM Peak Hour
3: Tyler St. & Armtec Entrance
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 38 7 1 132 188 1
Future Vol, veh/h 38 7 1 132 188 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 5 5 0 0 5
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 100 - - 50
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 51 9 1 176 251 1
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 439 136 257 0 - 0
Stage 1 256 -----
Stage 2 183 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.93 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.83 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 2.219 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 561 888 1306 - - -
Stage 1 764 -----
Stage 2 848 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 555 880 1300 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 616 -----
Stage 1 759 -----
Stage 2 844 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 11 0.1 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1300 - 616 880 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.082 0.011 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.8 - 11.4 9.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q (veh) 0 - 0.3 0 - -

3.2-16
1385
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2024) PM Peak Hour
4: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 112 39 27 283 487 118
Future Volume (vph) 112 39 27 283 487 118
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 100 0 245 205
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 35 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 682 483 791
Travel Time (s) 13.3 7.3 12.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 6
Detector Phase 4 4 5 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 22.5 22.5 9.5 37.5 28.0 28.0
Total Split (%) 37.5% 37.5% 15.8% 62.5% 46.7% 46.7%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 4: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Palm St.

3.2-17
1386
Item 3.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing (2024) PM Peak Hour 4: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 112 39 27 283 487 118
Future Volume (veh/h) 112 39 27 283 487 118
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 120 42 29 304 524 127
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 173 154 57 1409 1209 1020
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.75 0.65 0.65
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1579
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 120 42 29 304 524 127
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1579
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 1.5 1.0 2.9 8.3 1.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 1.5 1.0 2.9 8.3 1.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 173 154 57 1409 1209 1020
V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.27 0.51 0.22 0.43 0.12
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 534 476 148 1409 1209 1020
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.2 25.1 28.6 2.2 5.2 4.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.8 0.9 6.9 0.4 1.1 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 1.4 0.5 0.3 2.1 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 31.1 26.1 35.5 2.5 6.4 4.3
LnGrp LOS C C D A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 162 333 651
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.8 5.4 6.0
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 49.7 10.3 6.4 43.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.0 18.0 5.0 23.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 5.9 3.0 10.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.6 0.3 0.0 2.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 9.2
HCM 6th LOS A

3.2-18
1387
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2024) PM Peak Hour
5: Airport Bl. & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 51 291 173 100 87 58
Future Volume (vph) 51 291 173 100 87 58
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 140 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35
Link Distance (ft) 684 1384 682
Travel Time (s) 10.4 21.0 13.3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 6 4
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 5 2 6 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 12.0 37.0 25.0 23.0 23.0
Total Split (%) 20.0% 61.7% 41.7% 38.3% 38.3%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 5: Airport Bl. & Palm St.

3.2-19
1388
Item 3.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing (2024) PM Peak Hour 5: Airport Bl. & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 51 291 173 100 87 58
Future Volume (veh/h) 51 291 173 100 87 58
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 59 334 199 115 100 67
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 93 1925 913 504 549 489
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.54 0.41 0.41 0.31 0.31
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 2297 1216 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 59 334 159 155 100 67
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1777 1643 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 2.9 3.4 3.7 2.5 1.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 2.9 3.4 3.7 2.5 1.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 93 1925 737 681 549 489
V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.17 0.22 0.23 0.18 0.14
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 223 1925 737 681 549 489
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.9 7.0 11.3 11.4 15.2 15.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.0 0.2 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.0 2.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 34.9 7.2 12.0 12.1 15.9 15.6
LnGrp LOS C A B B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 393 314 167
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.3 12.0 15.8
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.0 23.0 7.6 29.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.5 18.5 7.5 20.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 4.5 3.9 5.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.0 0.4 0.0 1.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 12.4
HCM 6th LOS B

3.2-20
1389
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
APPENDIX 3.3: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

1390
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

1391
Item 3.

California MUTCD 2016 Edition
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = EXISTING (2024) AM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name = Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 753 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 1
Minor Street Name = Tyler St. High Volume Approach (VPH) = 226 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1
Intersection ID: #1
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)

WARRANTED FOR A SIGNAL
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane 753
226
0 100200300400500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach (VPH)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)Major Street ApproachesMinor Street Approaches F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Signal Warrants\Existing\01R_AM.xls\Fig 4C-4 (Rural Peak) California MUTCD 2016 Edition(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = EXISTING (2024) PM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name = Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 1,178 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 1
Minor Street Name = Tyler St. High Volume Approach (VPH) = 209 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1
Intersection ID: #1
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)

WARRANTED FOR A SIGNAL
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane 1178
209
0 100200300400500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach (VPH)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) Major Street ApproachesMinor Street Approaches F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Signal Warrants\Existing\01R_PM.xls\Fig 4C-4 (Rural Peak)

3.3-1
1392
Item 3.

California MUTCD 2016 Edition
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = EXISTING (2024) AM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name = Tyler St. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 296 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 1
Minor Street Name = Avenue 53 High Volume Approach (VPH) = 136 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1
Intersection ID: #2
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane 0 100200300400500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach (VPH)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)Major Street ApproachesMinor Street Approaches F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Signal Warrants\Existing\02R_AM.xls\Fig 4C-4 (Rural Peak) California MUTCD 2016 Edition(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = EXISTING (2024) PM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name = Tyler St. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 476 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 1
Minor Street Name = Avenue 53 High Volume Approach (VPH) = 115 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1
Intersection ID: #2
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane 476
115
0 100200300400500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach (VPH)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) Major Street ApproachesMinor Street Approaches F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Signal Warrants\Existing\02R_PM.xls\Fig 4C-4 (Rural Peak)

3.3-2
1393
Item 3.

California MUTCD 2016 Edition
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = EXISTING (2024) AM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name = Tyler St. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 295 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 1
Minor Street Name = Armtec Entrance High Volume Approach (VPH) = 6 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1
Intersection ID: #3
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane 0 100200300400500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach (VPH)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)Major Street ApproachesMinor Street Approaches F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Signal Warrants\Existing\03R_AM.xls\Fig 4C-4 (Rural Peak) California MUTCD 2016 Edition(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = EXISTING (2024) PM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name = Tyler St. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 322 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 1
Minor Street Name = Armtec Entrance High Volume Approach (VPH) = 45 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1
Intersection ID: #3
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane 32245
0 100200300400500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach (VPH)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) Major Street ApproachesMinor Street Approaches F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Signal Warrants\Existing\03R_PM.xls\Fig 4C-4 (Rural Peak)

3.3-3
1394
Item 3.

California MUTCD 2016 Edition
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = E+A+P (2026) AM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name = Tyler St. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 322 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 1
Minor Street Name = Avenue 53 High Volume Approach (VPH) = 143 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1
Intersection ID: #2
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane 322
143
0 100200300400500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach (VPH)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)Major Street ApproachesMinor Street Approaches F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Signal Warrants\EAP\02R_AM.xls\Fig 4C-4 (Rural Peak) California MUTCD 2016 Edition(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = E+A+P (2026) PM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name = Tyler St. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 509 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 1
Minor Street Name = Avenue 53 High Volume Approach (VPH) = 119 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1
Intersection ID: #2
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane 509
119
0 100200300400500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach (VPH)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) Major Street ApproachesMinor Street Approaches F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Signal Warrants\EAP\02R_PM.xls\Fig 4C-4 (Rural Peak)

3.3-4
1395
Item 3.

California MUTCD 2016 Edition
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = E+A+P (2026) AM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name = Tyler St. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 322 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 1
Minor Street Name = Armtec Entrance High Volume Approach (VPH) = 11 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1
Intersection ID: #3
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane 322 11
0 100200300400500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach (VPH)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)Major Street ApproachesMinor Street Approaches F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Signal Warrants\EAP\03R_AM.xls\Fig 4C-4 (Rural Peak) California MUTCD 2016 Edition(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = E+A+P (2026) PM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name = Tyler St. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 340 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 1
Minor Street Name = Armtec Entrance High Volume Approach (VPH) = 62 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1
Intersection ID: #3
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane 340
62 0
100200300400500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach (VPH)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) Major Street ApproachesMinor Street Approaches F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Signal Warrants\EAP\03R_PM.xls\Fig 4C-4 (Rural Peak)

3.3-5
1396
Item 3.

California MUTCD 2016 Edition
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = EAPC (2026) AM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS
Major Street Name = Tyler St. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 332 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 1
Minor Street Name = Avenue 53 High Volume Approach (VPH) = 148 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1
Intersection ID: #2
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane 332
148
0 100200300400500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach (VPH)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)Major Street ApproachesMinor Street Approaches F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Signal Warrants\EAPC\02R_AM.xls\Fig 4C-4 (Rural Peak) California MUTCD 2016 Edition(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = EAPC (2026) PM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS
Major Street Name = Tyler St. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 522 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 1
Minor Street Name = Avenue 53 High Volume Approach (VPH) = 121 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1
Intersection ID: #2
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane 522
121
0 100200300400500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach (VPH)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) Major Street ApproachesMinor Street Approaches F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Signal Warrants\EAPC\02R_PM.xls\Fig 4C-4 (Rural Peak)

3.3-6
1397
Item 3.

California MUTCD 2016 Edition
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = EAPC (2026) AM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS
Major Street Name = Tyler St. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 329 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 1
Minor Street Name = Armtec Entrance High Volume Approach (VPH) = 11 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1
Intersection ID: #3
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane 329 11
0 100200300400500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach (VPH)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)Major Street ApproachesMinor Street Approaches F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Signal Warrants\EAPC\03R_AM.xls\Fig 4C-4 (Rural Peak) California MUTCD 2016 Edition(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = EAPC (2026) PM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS
Major Street Name = Tyler St. Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 349 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 1
Minor Street Name = Armtec Entrance High Volume Approach (VPH) = 62 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1
Intersection ID: #3
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)

SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane 349
62 0
100200300400500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach (VPH)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) Major Street ApproachesMinor Street Approaches F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Signal Warrants\EAPC\03R_PM.xls\Fig 4C-4 (Rural Peak)

3.3-7
1398
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

3.3-8
1399
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
APPENDIX 5.1: EAP (2026) CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
1400
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

1401
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2026) AM Peak Hour
1: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Tyler St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 234 4 12 352 289 142
Future Volume (vph) 234 4 12 352 289 142
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Link Speed (mph) 50 45 40
Link Distance (ft) 455 1162 502
Travel Time (s) 13.8 17.6 7.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

5.1-1
1402
Item 3.

HCM 6th AWSC EAP (2026) AM Peak Hour
1: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Tyler St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 17.1
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 234 4 12 352 289 142
Future Vol, veh/h 234 4 12 352 289 142
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 279 5 14 419 344 169
Number of Lanes 100111
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 0
Conflicting Approach Right NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 15.9 20.5 14.8

HCM LOS C C B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 3% 98% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 97% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 2% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 364 238 289 142
LT Vol 12 234 0 0
Through Vol 352 0 289 0
RT Vol 0 4 0 142
Lane Flow Rate 433 283 344 169
Geometry Grp 4a 2 5 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.688 0.505 0.583 0.253
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.713 6.421 6.103 5.391
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 633 561 588 663
Service Time 3.766 4.48 3.86 3.147
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.684 0.504 0.585 0.255
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 20.5 15.9 17.1 10
HCM Lane LOS C C C A
HCM 95th-tile Q 5.4 2.8 3.7 1

5.1-2
1403
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2026) AM Peak Hour
2: Tyler St. & Ave. 53
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 101 42 31 137 109 45
Future Volume (vph) 101 42 31 137 109 45
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 70 50
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Link Speed (mph) 35 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 743 558 590
Travel Time (s) 14.3 7.4 13.8
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

5.1-3
1404
Item 3.

HCM 6th TWSC EAP (2026) AM Peak Hour
2: Tyler St. & Ave. 53
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 101 42 31 137 109 45
Future Vol, veh/h 101 42 31 137 109 45
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 5 5 0 0 5
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 70 - - 50
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 113 47 35 154 122 51
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 356 71 178 0 - 0
Stage 1 127 -----
Stage 2 229 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.93 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.83 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 2.219 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 629 977 1397 - - -
Stage 1 886 -----
Stage 2 808 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 607 968 1390 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 607 -----
Stage 1 859 -----
Stage 2 804 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 11.3 1.4 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1390 - 607 968 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - 0.187 0.049 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 - 12.3 8.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q (veh) 0.1 - 0.7 0.2 - -

5.1-4
1405
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2026) AM Peak Hour
3: Tyler St. & Armtec Entrance
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 7 4 10 162 109 41
Future Volume (vph) 7 4 10 162 109 41
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 50
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Link Speed (mph) 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 583 1051 558
Travel Time (s) 13.3 14.3 7.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

5.1-5
1406
Item 3.

HCM 6th TWSC EAP (2026) AM Peak Hour
3: Tyler St. & Armtec Entrance
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 4 10 162 109 41
Future Vol, veh/h 7 4 10 162 109 41
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 5 5 0 0 5
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 100 - - 50
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 9 5 13 216 145 55
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 397 83 205 0 - 0
Stage 1 150 -----
Stage 2 247 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.93 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.83 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 2.219 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 594 960 1365 - - -
Stage 1 863 -----
Stage 2 793 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 582 951 1359 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 638 -----
Stage 1 850 -----
Stage 2 789 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 10 0.4 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1359 - 638 951 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - 0.015 0.006 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 - 10.7 8.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q (veh) 0 - 0 0 - -

5.1-6
1407
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2026) AM Peak Hour
4: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 56 31 34 373 221 89
Future Volume (vph) 56 31 34 373 221 89
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 100 0 245 205
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 35 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 682 483 791
Travel Time (s) 13.3 7.3 12.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 6
Detector Phase 4 4 5 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 23.0 23.0 11.0 37.0 26.0 26.0
Total Split (%) 38.3% 38.3% 18.3% 61.7% 43.3% 43.3%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 4: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Palm St.

5.1-7
1408
Item 3.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAP (2026) AM Peak Hour 4: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 56 31 34 373 221 89
Future Volume (veh/h) 56 31 34 373 221 89
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 64 36 39 429 254 102
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 120 107 71 1463 1249 1054
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.78 0.67 0.67
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1579
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 64 36 39 429 254 102
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1579
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 1.3 1.3 3.9 3.1 1.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 1.3 1.3 3.9 3.1 1.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 120 107 71 1463 1249 1054
V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.34 0.55 0.29 0.20 0.10
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 549 489 193 1463 1249 1054
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.1 26.7 28.3 1.8 3.8 3.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.6 1.8 6.5 0.5 0.4 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 1.2 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 30.6 28.5 34.8 2.4 4.2 3.7
LnGrp LOS C C C A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 100 468 356
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.9 5.1 4.1
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 51.4 8.6 6.9 44.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.5 18.5 6.5 21.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.9 4.1 3.3 5.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.4 0.2 0.0 1.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 7.4
HCM 6th LOS A

5.1-8
1409
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2026) AM Peak Hour
5: Airport Bl. & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 21 172 358 67 58 65
Future Volume (vph) 21 172 358 67 58 65
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 140 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35
Link Distance (ft) 684 1384 682
Travel Time (s) 10.4 21.0 13.3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 6 4
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 5 2 6 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 10.0 37.0 27.0 23.0 23.0
Total Split (%) 16.7% 61.7% 45.0% 38.3% 38.3%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 5: Airport Bl. & Palm St.

5.1-9
1410
Item 3.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAP (2026) AM Peak Hour 5: Airport Bl. & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 21 172 358 67 58 65
Future Volume (veh/h) 21 172 358 67 58 65
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 24 193 402 75 65 73
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 49 1925 1313 243 549 489
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.54 0.44 0.44 0.31 0.31
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 3084 553 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 24 193 237 240 65 73
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1777 1767 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 1.6 5.2 5.3 1.6 2.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 1.6 5.2 5.3 1.6 2.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 49 1925 780 776 549 489
V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.10 0.30 0.31 0.12 0.15
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 163 1925 780 776 549 489
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.8 6.7 10.9 10.9 14.9 15.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.4 0.1 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.4 1.8 1.8 0.6 2.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 36.2 6.8 11.9 11.9 15.3 15.7
LnGrp LOS D A B B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 217 477 138
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.0 11.9 15.5
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.0 23.0 6.1 30.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.5 18.5 5.5 22.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 4.0 2.8 7.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 0.3 0.0 2.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 12.0
HCM 6th LOS B

5.1-10
1411
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2026) PM Peak Hour
1: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Tyler St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 223 4 11 385 522 310
Future Volume (vph) 223 4 11 385 522 310
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Link Speed (mph) 50 45 40
Link Distance (ft) 455 1162 502
Travel Time (s) 13.8 17.6 7.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

5.1-11
1412
Item 3.

HCM 6th AWSC EAP (2026) PM Peak Hour
1: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Tyler St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 34
Intersection LOS D
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 223 4 11 385 522 310
Future Vol, veh/h 223 4 11 385 522 310
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 251 4 12 433 587 348
Number of Lanes 100111
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 0
Conflicting Approach Right NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 16.6 24.4 43.4

HCM LOS C C E
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 3% 98% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 97% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 2% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 396 227 522 310
LT Vol 11 223 0 0
Through Vol 385 0 522 0
RT Vol 0 4 0 310
Lane Flow Rate 445 255 587 348
Geometry Grp 4a 2 5 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.742 0.493 0.997 0.523
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.006 6.96 6.12 5.408
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 601 518 592 665
Service Time 4.06 5.014 3.878 3.166
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.74 0.492 0.992 0.523
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 24.4 16.6 60.9 14
HCM Lane LOS C C F B
HCM 95th-tile Q 6.5 2.7 14.7 3.1

5.1-12
1413
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2026) PM Peak Hour
2: Tyler St. & Ave. 53
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 81 38 42 146 161 160
Future Volume (vph) 81 38 42 146 161 160
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 70 50
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Link Speed (mph) 35 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 743 558 590
Travel Time (s) 14.3 7.4 13.8
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

5.1-13
1414
Item 3.

HCM 6th TWSC EAP (2026) PM Peak Hour
2: Tyler St. & Ave. 53
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 81 38 42 146 161 160
Future Vol, veh/h 81 38 42 146 161 160
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 5 5 0 0 5
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 70 - - 50
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 79 79 79 79 79 79
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 103 48 53 185 204 203
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 505 112 412 0 - 0
Stage 1 209 -----
Stage 2 296 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.93 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.83 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 2.219 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 511 920 1145 - - -
Stage 1 806 -----
Stage 2 754 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 482 911 1140 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 482 -----
Stage 1 765 -----
Stage 2 750 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 12.8 1.9 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1140 - 482 911 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.047 - 0.213 0.053 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 - 14.5 9.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q (veh) 0.1 - 0.8 0.2 - -

5.1-14
1415
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2026) PM Peak Hour
3: Tyler St. & Armtec Entrance
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 51 11 2 137 196 5
Future Volume (vph) 51 11 2 137 196 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 50
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Link Speed (mph) 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 583 1051 558
Travel Time (s) 13.3 14.3 7.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

5.1-15
1416
Item 3.

HCM 6th TWSC EAP (2026) PM Peak Hour
3: Tyler St. & Armtec Entrance
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 51 11 2 137 196 5
Future Vol, veh/h 51 11 2 137 196 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 5 5 0 0 5
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 100 - - 50
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 68 15 3 183 261 7
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 460 141 273 0 - 0
Stage 1 266 -----
Stage 2 194 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.93 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.83 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 2.219 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 544 882 1289 - - -
Stage 1 755 -----
Stage 2 838 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 537 874 1283 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 603 -----
Stage 1 750 -----
Stage 2 834 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 11.3 0.1 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1283 - 603 874 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.113 0.017 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.8 - 11.7 9.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q (veh) 0 - 0.4 0.1 - -

5.1-16
1417
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2026) PM Peak Hour
4: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 117 44 29 294 508 123
Future Volume (vph) 117 44 29 294 508 123
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 100 0 245 205
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 35 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 682 483 791
Travel Time (s) 13.3 7.3 12.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 6
Detector Phase 4 4 5 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 22.5 22.5 9.5 37.5 28.0 28.0
Total Split (%) 37.5% 37.5% 15.8% 62.5% 46.7% 46.7%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 4: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Palm St.

5.1-17
1418
Item 3.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAP (2026) PM Peak Hour 4: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 117 44 29 294 508 123
Future Volume (veh/h) 117 44 29 294 508 123
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 126 47 31 316 546 132
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 181 161 60 1400 1197 1010
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.75 0.64 0.64
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1579
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 126 47 31 316 546 132
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1579
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 1.6 1.0 3.1 8.9 2.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 1.6 1.0 3.1 8.9 2.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 181 161 60 1400 1197 1010
V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.29 0.52 0.23 0.46 0.13
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 534 476 148 1400 1197 1010
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.1 25.0 28.5 2.3 5.5 4.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.6 1.0 6.8 0.4 1.3 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 1.5 0.5 0.4 2.3 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 30.7 25.9 35.3 2.7 6.7 4.5
LnGrp LOS C C D A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 173 347 678
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.4 5.6 6.3
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 49.4 10.6 6.5 42.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.0 18.0 5.0 23.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.1 6.1 3.0 10.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.7 0.3 0.0 3.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 9.4
HCM 6th LOS A

5.1-18
1419
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2026) PM Peak Hour
5: Airport Bl. & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 56 304 180 104 91 61
Future Volume (vph) 56 304 180 104 91 61
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 140 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35
Link Distance (ft) 684 1384 682
Travel Time (s) 10.4 21.0 13.3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 6 4
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 5 2 6 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 12.0 37.0 25.0 23.0 23.0
Total Split (%) 20.0% 61.7% 41.7% 38.3% 38.3%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 5: Airport Bl. & Palm St.

5.1-19
1420
Item 3.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAP (2026) PM Peak Hour 5: Airport Bl. & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 56 304 180 104 91 61
Future Volume (veh/h) 56 304 180 104 91 61
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 64 349 207 120 105 70
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 97 1925 906 502 549 489
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.54 0.41 0.41 0.31 0.31
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 2293 1220 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 64 349 165 162 105 70
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1777 1642 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 3.0 3.6 3.9 2.6 1.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 3.0 3.6 3.9 2.6 1.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 97 1925 732 677 549 489
V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.18 0.23 0.24 0.19 0.14
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 223 1925 732 677 549 489
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.8 7.0 11.4 11.5 15.3 15.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.3 0.2 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 0.8 1.3 1.3 1.1 2.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 35.1 7.2 12.2 12.3 16.0 15.6
LnGrp LOS D A B B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 413 327 175
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.5 12.2 15.9
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.0 23.0 7.8 29.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.5 18.5 7.5 20.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 4.6 4.1 5.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.1 0.4 0.0 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 12.6
HCM 6th LOS B

5.1-20
1421
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
APPENDIX 6.1: EAPC (2026) CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

1422
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

1423
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak Hour
1: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Tyler St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 236 9 15 401 363 147
Future Volume (vph) 236 9 15 401 363 147
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Link Speed (mph) 50 45 40
Link Distance (ft) 455 1162 502
Travel Time (s) 13.8 17.6 7.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

6.1-1
1424
Item 3.

HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak Hour
1: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Tyler St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 23.9
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 236 9 15 401 363 147
Future Vol, veh/h 236 9 15 401 363 147
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 281 11 18 477 432 175
Number of Lanes 100111
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 0
Conflicting Approach Right NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 17.8 30.3 21.7

HCM LOS CDC
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 4% 96% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 96% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 4% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 416 245 363 147
LT Vol 15 236 0 0
Through Vol 401 0 363 0
RT Vol 0 9 0 147
Lane Flow Rate 495 292 432 175
Geometry Grp 4a 2 5 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.817 0.548 0.757 0.272
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.936 6.769 6.307 5.594
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 604 531 570 637
Service Time 4.009 4.848 4.088 3.374
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.82 0.55 0.758 0.275
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 30.3 17.8 26.3 10.5
HCM Lane LOS D C D B
HCM 95th-tile Q 8.3 3.3 6.7 1.1

6.1-2
1425
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak Hour
1: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Tyler St. WITH IMPROVEMENTS Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 236 9 15 401 363 147
Future Volume (vph) 236 9 15 401 363 147
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 45 40
Link Distance (ft) 455 1162 502
Travel Time (s) 6.2 17.6 8.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 6
Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 24.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0
Total Split (%) 40.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 45
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Tyler St.

6.1-3
1426
Item 3.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak Hour 1: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Tyler St. WITH IMPROVEMENTS Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 236 9 15 401 363 147
Future Volume (veh/h) 236 9 15 401 363 147
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 281 11 18 477 432 175
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 344 13 78 1174 1211 1022
Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65
Sat Flow, veh/h 1700 67 25 1813 1870 1579
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 293 0 495 0 432 175
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1772 0 1838 0 1870 1579
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 2.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 0.0 7.6 0.0 6.4 2.6
Prop In Lane 0.96 0.04 0.04 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 359 0 1252 0 1211 1022
V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.36 0.17
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 576 0 1252 0 1211 1022
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.9 0.0 5.1 0.0 4.9 4.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.8 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.8 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.8 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.7 0.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 27.7 0.0 6.0 0.0 5.7 4.6
LnGrp LOS C A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 293 495 607
Approach Delay, s/veh 27.7 6.0 5.4
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 43.3 16.7 43.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.5 19.5 31.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.6 11.5 8.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.9 0.5 3.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 10.3
HCM 6th LOS B

6.1-4
1427
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak Hour
2: Tyler St. & Ave. 53
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 106 42 31 139 114 48
Future Volume (vph) 106 42 31 139 114 48
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 70 50
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Link Speed (mph) 35 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 743 558 590
Travel Time (s) 14.3 7.4 13.8
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

6.1-5
1428
Item 3.

HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak Hour
2: Tyler St. & Ave. 53
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 106 42 31 139 114 48
Future Vol, veh/h 106 42 31 139 114 48
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 5 5 0 0 5
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 70 - - 50
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 119 47 35 156 128 54
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 364 74 187 0 - 0
Stage 1 133 -----
Stage 2 231 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.93 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.83 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 2.219 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 622 973 1386 - - -
Stage 1 880 -----
Stage 2 807 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 600 964 1379 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 600 -----
Stage 1 854 -----
Stage 2 803 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 11.5 1.4 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1379 - 600 964 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - 0.199 0.049 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 - 12.5 8.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q (veh) 0.1 - 0.7 0.2 - -

6.1-6
1429
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak Hour
3: Tyler St. & Armtec Entrance
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 7 4 10 164 114 41
Future Volume (vph) 7 4 10 164 114 41
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 50
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Link Speed (mph) 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 583 1051 558
Travel Time (s) 13.3 14.3 7.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

6.1-7
1430
Item 3.

HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) AM Peak Hour
3: Tyler St. & Armtec Entrance
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 4 10 164 114 41
Future Vol, veh/h 7 4 10 164 114 41
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 5 5 0 0 5
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 100 - - 50
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 9 5 13 219 152 55
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 407 86 212 0 - 0
Stage 1 157 -----
Stage 2 250 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.93 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.83 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 2.219 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 586 956 1357 - - -
Stage 1 856 -----
Stage 2 791 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 574 947 1351 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 632 -----
Stage 1 843 -----
Stage 2 787 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 10.1 0.4 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1351 - 632 947 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - 0.015 0.006 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 - 10.8 8.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q (veh) 0 - 0 0 - -

6.1-8
1431
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak Hour
4: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 92 35 37 394 250 144
Future Volume (vph) 92 35 37 394 250 144
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 100 0 245 205
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 35 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 682 483 791
Travel Time (s) 13.3 7.3 12.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 6
Detector Phase 4 4 5 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 23.0 23.0 11.0 37.0 26.0 26.0
Total Split (%) 38.3% 38.3% 18.3% 61.7% 43.3% 43.3%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 4: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Palm St.

6.1-9
1432
Item 3.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak Hour 4: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 92 35 37 394 250 144
Future Volume (veh/h) 92 35 37 394 250 144
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 106 40 43 453 287 166
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 156 139 76 1426 1206 1018
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.76 0.64 0.64
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1579
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 106 40 43 453 287 166
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1579
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 1.4 1.4 4.6 3.9 2.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 1.4 1.4 4.6 3.9 2.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 156 139 76 1426 1206 1018
V/C Ratio(X) 0.68 0.29 0.57 0.32 0.24 0.16
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 549 489 193 1426 1206 1018
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.6 25.6 28.2 2.2 4.5 4.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.1 1.1 6.5 0.6 0.5 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 1.3 0.7 0.5 1.0 0.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 31.6 26.7 34.6 2.8 4.9 4.6
LnGrp LOS C C C A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 146 496 453
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.3 5.6 4.8
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 50.3 9.7 7.1 43.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.5 18.5 6.5 21.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.6 5.5 3.4 5.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.6 0.3 0.0 1.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 8.6
HCM 6th LOS A

6.1-10
1433
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) AM Peak Hour
5: Airport Bl. & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 24 199 372 104 115 66
Future Volume (vph) 24 199 372 104 115 66
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 140 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35
Link Distance (ft) 684 1384 682
Travel Time (s) 10.4 21.0 13.3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 6 4
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 5 2 6 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 10.0 36.0 26.0 24.0 24.0
Total Split (%) 16.7% 60.0% 43.3% 40.0% 40.0%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 5: Airport Bl. & Palm St.

6.1-11
1434
Item 3.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) AM Peak Hour 5: Airport Bl. & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 24 199 372 104 115 66
Future Volume (veh/h) 24 199 372 104 115 66
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 27 224 418 117 129 74
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 54 1866 1152 319 579 515
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.52 0.42 0.42 0.32 0.32
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 2838 761 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 27 224 269 266 129 74
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1777 1728 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 1.9 6.2 6.3 3.2 2.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 1.9 6.2 6.3 3.2 2.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.44 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 54 1866 746 725 579 515
V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.12 0.36 0.37 0.22 0.14
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 163 1866 746 725 579 515
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.6 7.2 11.9 11.9 14.7 14.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.1 0.1 1.4 1.4 0.9 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.6 2.2 2.2 1.3 2.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 35.7 7.4 13.3 13.4 15.6 14.9
LnGrp LOS D A B B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 251 535 203
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.4 13.3 15.4
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 36.0 24.0 6.3 29.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.5 19.5 5.5 21.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 5.2 2.9 8.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.3 0.5 0.0 2.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 13.0
HCM 6th LOS B

6.1-12
1435
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak Hour
1: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Tyler St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 229 6 15 417 531 313
Future Volume (vph) 229 6 15 417 531 313
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Link Speed (mph) 50 45 40
Link Distance (ft) 455 1162 502
Travel Time (s) 13.8 17.6 7.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

6.1-13
1436
Item 3.

HCM 6th AWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak Hour
1: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Tyler St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 39.9
Intersection LOS E
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 229 6 15 417 531 313
Future Vol, veh/h 229 6 15 417 531 313
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 257 7 17 469 597 352
Number of Lanes 100111
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 0
Conflicting Approach Right NB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 17.6 31.1 50.6

HCM LOS C D F
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 3% 97% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 97% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 3% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 432 235 531 313
LT Vol 15 229 0 0
Through Vol 417 0 531 0
RT Vol 0 6 0 313
Lane Flow Rate 485 264 597 352
Geometry Grp 4a 2 5 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.82 0.519 1.035 0.541
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.083 7.074 6.247 5.534
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 592 510 579 647
Service Time 4.143 5.134 4.016 3.302
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.819 0.518 1.031 0.544
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 31.1 17.6 71.7 14.7
HCM Lane LOS D C F B
HCM 95th-tile Q 8.4 3 16.2 3.2

6.1-14
1437
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak Hour
1: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Tyler St. WITH IMPROVEMENTS Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 229 6 15 417 531 313
Future Volume (vph) 229 6 15 417 531 313
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 45 40
Link Distance (ft) 455 1162 502
Travel Time (s) 6.2 17.6 8.6
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot Perm NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 2 6
Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 23.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0
Total Split (%) 38.3% 61.7% 61.7% 61.7% 61.7%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Tyler St.

6.1-15
1438
Item 3.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak Hour 1: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Tyler St. WITH IMPROVEMENTS Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 229 6 15 417 531 313
Future Volume (veh/h) 229 6 15 417 531 313
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 257 7 17 469 597 352
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 321 9 77 1194 1241 1048
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66
Sat Flow, veh/h 1722 47 23 1799 1870 1579
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 265 0 486 0 597 352
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1775 0 1821 0 1870 1579
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 5.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.6 0.0 7.1 0.0 9.5 5.8
Prop In Lane 0.97 0.03 0.03 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 331 0 1271 0 1241 1048
V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.48 0.34
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 547 0 1271 0 1241 1048
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.3 0.0 4.6 0.0 5.0 4.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.5 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.3 0.9
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.5 0.0 1.6 0.0 2.5 1.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 27.9 0.0 5.5 0.0 6.3 5.2
LnGrp LOS C A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 265 486 949
Approach Delay, s/veh 27.9 5.5 5.9
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 44.3 15.7 44.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.5 18.5 32.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.1 10.6 11.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.9 0.5 5.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 9.2
HCM 6th LOS A

6.1-16
1439
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak Hour
2: Tyler St. & Ave. 53
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 83 38 42 152 164 164
Future Volume (vph) 83 38 42 152 164 164
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 70 50
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Link Speed (mph) 35 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 743 558 590
Travel Time (s) 14.3 7.4 13.8
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

6.1-17
1440
Item 3.

HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak Hour
2: Tyler St. & Ave. 53
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 83 38 42 152 164 164
Future Vol, veh/h 83 38 42 152 164 164
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 5 5 0 0 5
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 70 - - 50
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 79 79 79 79 79 79
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 105 48 53 192 208 208
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 516 114 421 0 - 0
Stage 1 213 -----
Stage 2 303 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.93 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.83 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 2.219 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 504 918 1136 - - -
Stage 1 803 -----
Stage 2 748 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 475 909 1131 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 475 -----
Stage 1 761 -----
Stage 2 744 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 13 1.8 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1131 - 475 909 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.047 - 0.221 0.053 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 - 14.7 9.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q (veh) 0.1 - 0.8 0.2 - -

6.1-18
1441
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak Hour
3: Tyler St. & Armtec Entrance
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 51 11 2 143 199 5
Future Volume (vph) 51 11 2 143 199 5
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 50
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Link Speed (mph) 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 583 1051 558
Travel Time (s) 13.3 14.3 7.4
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

6.1-19
1442
Item 3.

HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2026) PM Peak Hour
3: Tyler St. & Armtec Entrance
Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 51 11 2 143 199 5
Future Vol, veh/h 51 11 2 143 199 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 5 5 0 0 5
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 100 - - 50
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 68 15 3 191 265 7
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 472 143 277 0 - 0
Stage 1 270 -----
Stage 2 202 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.63 6.93 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.83 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.519 3.319 2.219 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 535 879 1284 - - -
Stage 1 752 -----
Stage 2 831 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 529 871 1278 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 598 -----
Stage 1 747 -----
Stage 2 827 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 11.3 0.1 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1278 - 598 871 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.114 0.017 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.8 - 11.8 9.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q (veh) 0 - 0.4 0.1 - -

6.1-20
1443
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak Hour
4: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 173 47 33 329 535 163
Future Volume (vph) 173 47 33 329 535 163
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 100 0 245 205
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 35 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 682 483 791
Travel Time (s) 13.3 7.3 12.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 6
Detector Phase 4 4 5 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 22.5 22.5 9.5 37.5 28.0 28.0
Total Split (%) 37.5% 37.5% 15.8% 62.5% 46.7% 46.7%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 4: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Palm St.

6.1-21
1444
Item 3.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak Hour 4: Grapefruit Bl. (Hwy. 111) & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 173 47 33 329 535 163
Future Volume (veh/h) 173 47 33 329 535 163
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 186 51 35 354 575 175
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 247 220 66 1330 1121 946
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.71 0.60 0.60
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1578
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 186 51 35 354 575 175
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1781 1870 1870 1578
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.0 1.7 1.2 4.0 10.7 3.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.0 1.7 1.2 4.0 10.7 3.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 247 220 66 1330 1121 946
V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.23 0.53 0.27 0.51 0.18
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 534 476 148 1330 1121 946
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.8 23.0 28.4 3.1 7.0 5.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.4 0.5 6.6 0.5 1.7 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 3.1 0.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 29.2 23.5 35.0 3.6 8.6 5.8
LnGrp LOS C C C A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 237 389 750
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.0 6.4 8.0
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 47.2 12.8 6.7 40.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.0 18.0 5.0 23.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 8.0 3.2 12.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.9 0.5 0.0 3.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 11.0
HCM 6th LOS B

6.1-22
1445
Item 3.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2026) PM Peak Hour
5: Airport Bl. & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 58 319 204 161 132 64
Future Volume (vph) 58 319 204 161 132 64
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 140 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 45 45 35
Link Distance (ft) 684 1384 682
Travel Time (s) 10.4 21.0 13.3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 6 4
Permitted Phases 4
Detector Phase 5 2 6 4 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 12.0 37.0 25.0 23.0 23.0
Total Split (%) 20.0% 61.7% 41.7% 38.3% 38.3%
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 5: Airport Bl. & Palm St.

6.1-23
1446
Item 3.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2026) PM Peak Hour 5: Airport Bl. & Palm St.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 12 Report
F:\UXRjobs\_15600_16000\_15900\15967\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 58 319 204 161 132 64
Future Volume (veh/h) 58 319 204 161 132 64
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 67 367 234 185 152 74
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 100 1925 789 597 549 489
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.54 0.41 0.41 0.31 0.31
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 2015 1453 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 67 367 216 203 152 74
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1777 1598 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 3.2 4.9 5.2 3.9 2.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 3.2 4.9 5.2 3.9 2.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 100 1925 730 656 549 489
V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.19 0.30 0.31 0.28 0.15
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 223 1925 730 656 549 489
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.8 7.0 11.9 11.9 15.7 15.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.6 0.2 1.0 1.2 1.2 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.9 1.7 1.7 1.6 2.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 35.3 7.2 12.9 13.2 16.9 15.7
LnGrp LOS D A B B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 434 419 226
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.6 13.0 16.5
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.0 23.0 7.9 29.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.5 18.5 7.5 20.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 5.9 4.2 7.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.2 0.5 0.0 1.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 13.2
HCM 6th LOS B

6.1-24
1447
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
APPENDIX 7.1: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) SCREENING
1448
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
1449
Item 3.

URBAN
May 23, 2024
Mr. Andrew Simmons, P.E.

City of Coachella
53990 Enterprise Way
Coachella, CA 92236
123-13.42 PC #1
1596703 VMT.docx
A Scret.lJJA/6-
Lo') eL u S /(')Al Q cc. t. f> Tot:::,
as ?,-esen rcn
b·IB·J..lf
ARMTEC MASTER PLAN VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED {VMT) SCREENING Mr. Andrew Simmons, P.E.,
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening for the Armtec Master Plan development (Project), which is located at the southwest corner of Tyler Street and Avenue 53 in the City of Coachella.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
It is our understanding that the Project is to consist of the expansion of an existing defense technologies facility. A preliminary master plan for the proposed Project is shown on Exhibit 1.

Access to the Project is provided via the Armtec Entrance, which is a full access driveway to Tyler Street (located south of Avenue 53).

The Project total addition to the existing site includes:
• 15,000 SF of Production Facility (Manufacturing)
• 37,800 SF Storage Facilities (Warehousing) .,.
• 3,000 SF of Research & Development 1

BACKGROUND
Changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which requires all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020. To aid in this transition, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEOA (December of 2018) (Technical Advisory) (1 ). Based on OP R's Technical Advisory, the County of Riverside adopted their Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service Vehicle Miles Traveled (December of 2020) (County Guidelines) (2).

The adopted County Guidelines have been utilized to prepare this VMT screening assessment. ·.r11l •
.
• 1' ,,, , .. ,: 111 11xro l .con

7.1-1
1450
Item 3.
:..=it/,�)( '��O?iC(1 �1
:a
r·,iay 23, 20,J.

Pa.s-::: 3 of ·.l
Consistent with County Guidelines, projects should evaluate available screening criteria based on their location and project type to determine if a presumption of a less than significant transportation impact can be made. The following project screening thresholds were selected for review based on their applicability to the proposed Project:
• Small Projects Screening
• High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) Screening
• Map-Based Screening

SMALL PROJECTS SCREENING
County Guidelines identify those projects forecasted to generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions below 3,000 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCOze) per year are also assumed to cause a less than significant VMT impact. 1 The County Guidelines provides a list of land use types based on quantity (i.e., dwelling units or square footage) and provides a typical development potential to be below the 3,000 MTCOze per year. Warehouse buildings sized 208,000 square feet, industrial buildings sized 179,000 square feet and below and office buildings sized 165,000 square feet and below have been identified to meet the County threshold2 . In
addition, if project trip generation is less than 110 trips per day per the !TE Manual, the Project is presumed to cause a less-than-significant impact.

The Project warehouse quantity of 37,800 SF is approximately 18% of the 208,000 SF warehouse VMT screening criteria. The Project manufacturing quantity of 15,000 SF is approximately 8% of the 179,000 SF industrial VMT screening criteria. The Project research and development quantity of 3,000 SF is approximately 2% of the 1658,000 SF office VMT screening criteria . ./ Small Projects screening criteria is met.

HIGH QUALITY TRANSIT AREAS (HQTA) SCREENING
Projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e., within½ mile of an existing "major transit stop"3 or an existing stop along a "high-quality transit corridor"4 ) may be presumed to have a less
than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The Project is not located within½ mile of an existing major transit stop, or along a high-quality transit corridor.

HQTA screening criteria is not met.
1 County Guidelines; Page 19.
2 County Guidelines; Page 42, Table 1
3 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 ('"Major transit stop' means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.").
4 Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 ("For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.").

URBAN CROSSROADS 15967-03 VMT.docx

7.1-2
1451
Item 3.

URBAN CROSSROADS Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
EXHIBIT 1: ARMTEC MASTER PLAN
15967 - 01 - Study Area.dwg

7.1-3
1452
Item 3.

MAP-BASED SCREENING
City of CoarJ12l!.,1
fv1ay 23, 202 L
P.::1ge4,�f4
The County Guidelines note that "office projects that locate in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility}, will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT."5 County Guidelines also state that the use of map-based screening is also applicable for other employment uses, so map-based screening applies to the entire Project.

Urban Crossroads has obtained a VMT data table from County Staff for all TAZs within Riverside County that identifies VMT per employee for the purposes of identifying low VMT areas. The data utilizes the sub-regional Riverside Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM) to measure baseline VMT performance, and a comparison was made to the applicable impact threshold.

The Project's TAZ was identified in the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM) as TAZ 4831. The County's data table identifies the Project's TAZ 4831 to generate 16.70 VMT per employee. Whereas the County regional threshold is 14.2 VMT per employee6 , the Project is not
located in a low VMT area.

Map-Based screening criteria is not met.

CONCLUSION
In summary, the Project was evaluated consistent with available screening criteria as presented in the County Guidelines. The small project screening criteria is met, so a full analysis of VMT associated with site employment is not required. The Project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT.

If you have any questions, please contact us at [email protected] for John or [email protected] for Marlie.

Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.

John Kain, AICP
Principal
5 Technical Advisory; Page 12
6 County Guidelines; Pc\ge 22

URBAN I CROSSROADS
Marlie Whiteman, P.E.

Senior Associate
15967-03 VMT.docx

7.1-4
1453
Item 3.

REFERENCES

1. Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. State of California : s.n., December 2018.

2. County of Riverside. Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service Vehicle Miles Traveled.

County of Riverside : s.n., December 2020.

URBAN CROSSROADS
15967-03 VMT.docx

7.1-5
1454
Item 3.

Armtec Master Plan Traffic Analysis
15967-04 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

7.1-6
1455
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Environmental Assessment 25-01
Conditional Use Permit 389
Architectural Review 25-02
Response to Comments
The City received three comment letters to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Project. The following provides individual comments and responses. The complete comments are attached to this response in Appendix A.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Letter dated May 21, 2025
Comment 1:

This letter is in response to the notice dated April 22, 2025, soliciting comments on the draft Initial Study and Intent to Adopt Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the Armtec Expansion Master Plan (Project), located in the City of Coachella, Riverside County, California. The Project applicant, Armtec Defense Technologies proposes to construct new storage, research and development, and production facilities totaling to 37,800 square feet (sf), a 73,200-sf staging area, three retention basins, and off-site improvements adjacent to the Project site.

We offer the following comments on the draft ISMND as they relate to potential impacts on public trust resources. The primary concern and mandate of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the conservation, protection, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and threatened or endangered animals and plants listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

The comments provided herein are based on the information provided in the draft ISMND and our knowledge of sensitive and declining fish and wildlife resources.

The Project site is located within the boundary of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), and the City of Coachella (City) is a Local Permittee to the CVMSHCP. The Project site is adjacent to CVMSHCP-modeled habitat for the following Covered Species: crissal thrasher (Toxostoma crissale), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), summer tanager (Piranga rubra cooperi), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), and yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri). The Project applicant completed Phase 1 of the Project which was the construction of a solar grid in early 2025. Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the Armtec Expansion Master Plan are the subject of this draft ISMND. As stated above, Phase 2 includes construction of a 15,000-sf storage warehouse, a 73,000-sf truck staging area, a 3,000-sf research and development facility, and three retention basins, totaling 75,650 sf. Phase 3 includes the construction of a 15,000-sf production facility, a 15,000-sf storage warehouse, two 900-sf storage structures, and an expansion of an existing storage warehouse by 6,000 sf. The proposed Project also includes off-site improvements, including improving and widening Tyler Street.
1456
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 2 of 25 ends

Response 1:

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

Comment 2:

The draft ISMND states that flora and fauna were observed during the field reconnaissance of the Project site on June 6, 2024, as part of the Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Assessment. However, the draft ISMND does not indicate completion of additional biological field surveys or include a biological resources assessment. A biological resources assessment is necessary to accurately assess the Project’s potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources.

Please revise the draft ISMND to include a biological resources assessment, including impacts to Covered Species (identified above) under the CVMSHCP and their habitat.

Response 2:

The ISMND currently describes the environmental setting and general conditions of the Armtec site under the Biological Resources “Setting” section and describes the heavily disturbed nature of the Project site in the “Discussion of Impacts” section. For clarification, most onsite vegetation is limited to areas of ornamental landscaping on the southern parcel, as shown in Exhibit 2:

Project Location Map, and will not be impacted by Project improvements, which will occur in areas as shown on Exhibit 3: Armtec Expansion Master Plan and Exhibits 4: and 5: Phase 2 Preliminary Site Plan Northern Parcel/Southern Parcel. The portions of the project site where ground disturbance will occur are graded, predominantly bare soil surfaces that have been leveled and compacted, with minimal vegetation consisting of sparse, low-density patches of short grass or herbaceous growth. Furthermore, the site is heavily disturbed by existing Armtec facility operations, including daily vehicle and personnel activity, heavy machinery use, truck deliveries, and existing noise and light pollution from onsite and nearby development, which collectively deter species from occupying the site.

Moreover, as indicated in Comment 1, the site is “adjacent” to CVMSHCP-modeled habitat for the above-mentioned Covered Species, not within. As indicated in response IV. f) of the ISMND, “[t]he Project proponent will be required to pay the local development mitigation fee to mitigate impacts to covered species. Payment of the fee is a standard requirement of projects in the CVMSHCP coverage area.” Also, ISMND Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1, as amended in Response 3, requires pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl and nesting birds which provides an appropriate approach to mitigating potential impacts to these species given the existing degraded site conditions
Supplemental site photographs are provided, below, to support the conclusion that the areas of proposed improvements are void of significant biological resources and that a biological resources assessment is not required to demonstrate that the project would impact wildlife resources including Covered Species under the CVMSHCP.
1457
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 3 of 25 ends

Areas of Project Disturbance
1458
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 4 of 25 ends

Phase 2 disturbance area: northern parcel, looking south towards Armtec Phase 2 disturbance area: southern parcel, looking southwest towards Armtec Comment 3:

Nesting Birds
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq) prohibits take of individuals, parts, nests, or eggs of migratory birds. “Take” is defined in the Service’s general wildlife regulations as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect (50 C.F.R. § 10.12).” The Service’s section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit associated with the CVMSHCP constitutes a Special Purpose Permit 1459
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 5 of 25 ends

under the MBTA for the Take of Covered Species. However, only Take of migratory bird habitat is provided, and the Permit states that “[a]ny such Take will not be in violation of the MBTA.” Therefore, Take of individuals, parts, nests, or eggs, as described in the MBTA is not authorized in the Special Purpose Permit, and any Take of migratory bird habitat associated with Covered Activities will not be in violation of the MBTA.

The draft ISMND states that the Project site has low potential to provide nesting opportunities due to the disturbed nature of the vegetation and soils and concludes that the proposed Project’s potential impacts to migratory bird species are negligible. Although the Project site is disturbed, the presence of sparse vegetation, particularly cover of shrubs, is suitable habitat for groundnesting birds. Furthermore, bare ground or sparse vegetation cover constitutes suitable nesting habitat for some ground-nesting birds. The proposed ground disturbance may consequently result in unauthorized Take of migratory birds without implementation of the necessary avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. Additionally, the draft ISMND does not indicate completion of focused nesting bird surveys. Focused nesting bird surveys are necessary to accurately confirm nesting bird presence or absence on the Project site. A complete assessment of the biological resources within the Project area is required to assess the Project’s potential impacts to migratory birds. Please revise the draft ISMND to include a complete assessment of the Project’s potential impacts to nesting bird habitat, including completion of nesting bird surveys during the appropriate time of year, to determine the extent of nesting birds on the Project site.

Response 3:

See Response 2, above, which details regarding the existing ground conditions of the proposed disturbance areas. These conditions demonstrate that a separate biological resources assessment is not warranted. The pre-construction survey requirements (MM BIO-1, as amended herein) provide an appropriate measure to mitigate potential impacts to biological resources, ensuring compliance with applicable regulations.

The ISMND currently includes two pre-construction burrowing owl surveys with specific timeline requirements in compliance with CDFW protocol and explicitly requires CDFW consultation if burrowing owls are detected (MM BIO-1). The City acknowledges USFW’s concern regarding the potential presence of ground nesting birds within the project area, therefore, in response to USFWS Comment 3 (and Comment 4), and in response to the CDFW comment letter received 5/22/25, we have expanded the pre-construction survey protocols in MM BIO-1 to address both burrowing owl and nesting birds by including concurrent nesting bird surveys. With the following additions in bold and removals in strikethrough, MM BIO-1 is hereby amended to read:

BIO-1 Burrowing Owl and Migratory Bird Surveys
A qualified biologist shall conduct two (2) take avoidance pre-construction burrowing owl surveys following the CDFW (2012 or current) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, combined with nesting bird surveys in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). on the northern parcel of the Project site during Phase 2.

The first shall occur between 14 and 30 days prior to ground disturbance, and the 1460
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 6 of 25 ends

second shall occur within 24 hours of ground disturbance. If the pre-construction surveys confirm burrowing owl presence, the Project applicant shall submit a Burrowing Owl Plan that includes avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to the USFWS and CDFW—collectively the Wildlife Agencies—for review and approval prior to beginning Project activities. The Project proponent shall coordinate with the Wildlife Agencies on the appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to be included in the Burrowing Owl Plan. If avoidance of burrowing owl is not possible, coordination with the Wildlife Agencies for a burrowing owl relocation plan is required pursuant Section 4.4 and Section 8.5.2 of the CVMSHCP. If burrowing owls are detected, the project proponent shall consult with CDFW to determine what course of action is needed, such as the use of exclusion devices (if applicable) to discourage owls from using burrows that are believed to be in jeopardy of being impacted by implementation of the project.

If active nests are found during the pre-construction nesting bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground. Nest buffers are species specific and shall be at least 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors. A smaller or larger buffer may be determined by the qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species and based on nest and buffer monitoring results. Construction activities may not occur inside the established buffer(s), which shall remain onsite until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance.

Mitigation Monitoring:

BIO-A Prior to the issuance of any permit to allow ground disturbance on the northern parcel of the site, the Project Proponent shall submit the pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl and nesting birds to the City.

Pre-construction surveys: No less than 14 days prior to start of Project- related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance and when there is a pause in construction of more than 30 days.

If a Burrowing Owl Plan or a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan is required, the Plan(s) shall be submitted to the City, USFWS and CDFW for approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.

Responsible Parties: Project applicant, project biologist, Planning Division.

The proposed revision to MM BIO-1 enhances the Project’s environmental safeguards, addressing USFWS concerns in Comment 3 (and Comment 4), while maintaining compliance 1461
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 7 of 25 ends

with CEQA requirements. The inclusion of nesting bird surveys does not introduce new significant environmental impacts or substantially alter the project’s scope, as it strengthens an existing mitigation measure to further minimize potential effects on nesting birds.

Comment 4:

Burrowing Owl
The Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea; burrowing owl) is protected under the MBTA and is a Covered Species under the CVMSHCP. However, the Service’s section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit for the CVMSHCP does not provide Take for burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs. Within the CVMSHCP boundary, as a Permittee, the City must ensure their activities comply with MBTA and implement the appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to avoid Take of burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs.

The draft ISMND states that the northern portion of the Project site has potential for burrowing owl presence due to its sparse vegetation. However, the draft ISMND does not indicate that focused burrowing owl surveys were completed. Pursuant to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version), for both breeding and non-breeding season surveys, a minimum of four survey visits are required to accurately assess a site for burrowing owl presence. Given the lack of multiple, focused burrowing owl surveys, the total number of burrowing owl individuals or suitable and occupied burrows within the Project area is unknown. Please revise the draft ISMND to include an accurate assessment of the Project’s potential impacts to burrowing owl, including focused survey results following the protocols outlined in the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

Additionally, Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 requires take avoidance pre-construction burrowing owl surveys and subsequent consultation with CDFW should burrowing owl presence be confirmed. MM-BIO-1 lacks further detail regarding the survey methodology for the preconstruction surveys. We recommend that MM-BIO-1 be revised to specify that the preconstruction surveys shall be completed in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. In addition, we recommend that MM-BIO-1 be revised to require that, if the preconstruction surveys confirm burrowing owl presence, the Project applicant shall submit a Burrowing Owl Plan that includes avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to the Service and CDFW—collectively the Wildlife Agencies—for review and approval prior to beginning Project activities. The Project proponent shall coordinate with the Wildlife Agencies on the appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to be included in the Burrowing Owl Plan. If avoidance of burrowing owl is not possible, coordination with the Wildlife Agencies for a burrowing owl relocation plan is required pursuant Section 4.4 and Section 8.5.2 of the CVMSHCP.

Response 4:

See Response 3, above, which revises MM BIO-1 to clarify that take avoidance pre-construction burrowing owl surveys shall follow the CDFW (2012 or current) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl 1462
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 8 of 25 ends

Mitigation, which addresses USFW’s concerns about compliance with CDFW survey protocol.

Per CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, “take avoidance surveys are intended to detect the presence of burrowing owls on a project site at a fixed period in time and inform necessary take avoidance actions.” The two pre-construction surveys, as required by amended MM BIO-1, are standard, effective measures to detect any transient or resident owls immediately prior to construction.

The USFWS’s concern for burrowing owl protection and their recommendation for a minimum of four survey visits to assess owl presence is noted. However, the revised MM BIO-1, requiring two preconstruction take surveys for burrowing owls in accordance with CDFW protocols, provides an appropriate approach to confirming owl presence given existing site conditions (see Response 2). The Armtec site’s highly disturbed conditions—due to ongoing vehicle and personnel activity, heavy machinery, truck deliveries, and noise and light pollution—render it less suitable for burrowing owls, which prefer low-disturbance habitats. The two required surveys, conducted by qualified biologists, are sufficient to detect potential owl activity prior to construction, ensuring compliance with environmental regulations while addressing site-specific conditions. No additional surveys or revisions to the ISMND are necessary.

Comment 5:

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the draft ISMND. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Lory Salazar-Velasquez.

Response 5:

The City thanks the USFWS for its participation in this process.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Letter dated May 22, 2025
Comment 1:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration from the City of Coachella (City) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
1463
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 9 of 25 ends

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

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

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: Armtec Defense Products Co.

Objective: Armtec's existing industrial and manufacturing operations currently are located on the southern parcel, and the northern parcel currently contains a ±33,900 sf ground mounted solar grid located on the eastern half of the parcel. The proposed Project is Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the three-phase Armtec Expansion Master Plan. The Project proposes the construction of a new 15,000 sf storage warehouse, a ±73,200 truck staging area and 9,900 sf retention basin on the northern parcel, and a new 3,000 SF research and development (R&D) and production facility and two retention basins totaling 65,750 sf on the southern parcel. Phase 3 includes the construction of a new 15,000 SF production facility, a new 15,000 sf storage warehouse, two new 900 sf storage structures, and a 6,000 sf expansion of an existing storage warehouse, all located on the southern parcel.

The Project proposes off-site improvements adjacent to the site, including the widening and improvements of Tyler Street. The Project proposes new interior and exterior building lighting and safety and security lighting. The Project also proposes 97,000 SF of landscaping, on- and off-site, including landscaping around new buildings and within offsite street improvements.

Location: The Project is located at 85901 Avenue 53 in City of Coachella, Riverside County, California. The Project site consists of two parcels totaling approximately 52.65 acres in size, identified by assessor's parcel numbers (APNs) 778-420-013 (14.96 acres) and 778-390-008 (37.69 acres).

Timeframe: The MND proposes a construction timeframe from June 2025 through December 2026 for Phase 2. The timing for construction of Phase 3 is currently undetermined. 1464
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 10 of 25 ends

Response 1:

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

Comment 2:

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

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

Response 2:

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

Comment 3:

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

The MND lacks a complete and appropriate assessment of biological resources within the Project site and surrounding area specifically as it relates burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and nesting birds, as discussed in the Nesting Bird and Burrowing Owl sections below. A complete and accurate assessment of the environmental setting and Project-related impacts to biological resources is needed to both identify appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and demonstrate that these measures reduce Project impacts to less than significant.
1465
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 11 of 25 ends

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

CDFW is concerned that the mitigation measures proposed in the MND are not adequate to avoid or reduce impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance. To support the City in ensuring that Project impacts to biological resources are reduced to less than significant, CDFW recommends revising the mitigation measure for burrowing owl and adding mitigation measures for nesting birds, artificial nighttime lighting, and the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP).

Response 3:

The comment is noted, but is overbroad and does not identify what information about nesting birds, burrowing owl, and additional mitigation measures they believe is missing. Further discussion is provided below under each specific subject.

Comment 4:
1) Nesting Birds
It is the Project proponent’s responsibility to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 afford protective measures as follows: section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.).

With regard to the CVMSHCP, per its associated Implementing Agreement (IA) and Permits from CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Wildlife Agencies), Take associated with Covered Activities will not be in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and will be consistent with Fish and Game Code sections 3503 and 3503.5; therefore, all Covered Activities within and outside Conservation Areas must undertake measures to avoid the take of individuals, nests, and eggs of nesting birds. The CVMSHCP includes a general conservation measure that applies to all bird species to avoid impacts to habitat for nesting birds during the nesting season (CVMSHCP Section 9.7). Per IA Section 13.2, the City is obligated to ensure the projects to which it confers Take Authorization under the CVMSHCP comply with all terms and requirements of the CVMSHCP, the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits that create the CVMSHCP, and the IA, including compliance with laws that protect nesting birds. 1466
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 12 of 25 ends
Page 120 ends

vegetation that could provide suitable habitat for nesting birds.” The MND lacks additional information on suitability of the Project site to support nesting birds (excluding burrowing owl).

CDFW is concerned about the validity of the conclusion that the site does not provide suitable habitat for nesting birds. The Project site currently contains suitable habitat for ground-nesting birds such as killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), and shrubs have the potential to establish between grading and vegetation removal activities that can provide suitable habitat for nesting birds.

CDFW recommends the MND is revised to include an accurate assessment of biological resources within the Project site as it relates to suitable habitat for nesting birds. The MND also lacks a mitigation measure for nesting birds. Given the suitability of the Project site to currently support ground-nesting birds and potentially support birds that nest in shrubs if vegetation establishes between maintenance activities, CDFW considers the MND to lack appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts to nesting birds to a level less than significant.

CDFW also recommends the completion of nesting bird surveys regardless of the time of year to ensure that impacts to nesting birds and their nests and eggs are avoided. The timing of the nesting season varies greatly depending on several factors, such as bird species, weather conditions in any given year, and long-term climate changes (e.g., drought, warming, etc.). In response to warming, birds have been reported to breed earlier, thereby reducing temperatures that nests are exposed to during breeding and tracking shifts in availability of resources (Socolar et al., 20172). CDFW staff have observed that climate change conditions may result in the nesting bird season occurring earlier and later in the year than historical nesting season dates.

CDFW recommends that disturbance of occupied nests of migratory birds and raptors within the Project site and surrounding area be avoided any time birds are nesting on-site.

To support City in reducing impacts to nesting birds to a level less than significant level, CDFW recommends that the City add Mitigation Measure BIO-[A] to a revised MND:

Mitigation Measure BIO-[A]: Nesting Birds
Regardless of the time of year, nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified avian biologist no more than 3 days prior to all vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities throughout all portions of the Project. Pre- construction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior. The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey and monitoring efforts. If active nests are found during the pre-construction nesting bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground. Nest buffers are species specific and shall be at least 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors. A smaller or larger buffer may be determined by the qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species and based on nest and buffer monitoring results. Construction activities may not occur inside the established buffers, which shall remain on-site until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the 1467
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 13 of 25 ends

Project has been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance.

Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, section 15097(f), CDFW has prepared a draft mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) in Attachment 1 for recommended revisions to MM BIO-1 and CDFW-recommended MM BIO-[A], MM BIO-[B], and MM BIO-[C].

Response 4:

The comment is noted. Most onsite vegetation is limited to areas of ornamental landscaping on the southern parcel, as shown in Exhibit 2: Project Location Map, and will not be impacted by Project improvements, as shown in Exhibit 3: Armtec Expansion Master Plan, and Exhibits 4:
and 5: Phase 2 Preliminary Site Plan Northern Parcel/Southern Parcel. For clarification, the portions of the project site where proposed improvements and ground disturbance will occur are graded, predominantly bare soil surfaces that have been leveled and compacted, with minimal vegetation consisting of sparse, low-density patches of short grass or herbaceous growth.

Furthermore, the site is heavily disturbed by existing Armtec facility operations, including daily vehicle and personnel activity, heavy machinery use, truck deliveries, and existing noise and light pollution from onsite and nearby development, which collectively deter species from occupying the site.

Please refer to the supplemental site photographs provided in Response 2 to the USFWS Comment 2 at the beginning of this document.

In response to this comment and the USFWS comment letter received 5/21/25, the City has expanded the pre-construction survey protocols in MM BIO-1 to address concerns regarding potential impacts to nesting birds and added clarifying text regarding burrowing owl survey protocols. Please see USFWS Response 3.

The proposed revision to MM BIO-1 enhances the Project’s environmental safeguards, addressing CDFW and USFWS concerns regarding nesting birds, while maintaining compliance with CEQA requirements. The inclusion of nesting bird surveys does not introduce new significant environmental impacts or substantially alter the project’s scope, as it strengthens an existing mitigation measure to further minimize potential effects on nesting birds.

Comment 5:
2) Burrowing Owl
On October 10, 2024, the Fish and Game Commission determined that western burrowing owl warrants protection as a candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.). During the candidacy period, western burrowing owl will be afforded the same protection as threatened and endangered species under CESA. If Project activities, including relocation, could result in take, appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., Incidental Take Permit under Fish and Game Code section 2081) should be obtained prior to commencement of Project activities.
1468
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 14 of 25 ends

Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests or eggs is defined by Fish and Game Code section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Take is defined in Fish and Game Code section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.” Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 afford protective measures as follows: section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.).

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

Any activity occurring within the CVMSHCP area that results in the take of burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs would be unlawful and would not be a Covered Activity under the CVMSHCP. Per IA Section 13.2, the City is obligated to ensure the projects to which it confers Take Authorization under the CVMSHCP comply with all terms and requirements of the CVMSHCP, the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits that create the CVMSHCP, and the IA, including compliance with laws that protect burrowing owls.

Page 39 ends

covered sparsely with vegetation, there is potential of burrowing owl to be present. The CVMSHCP and State law prohibit the take of burrowing owl. Should burrowing owl be found on the northern portion of the property prior to construction of Phase 2, a significant impact would occur. To assure that potential impacts are avoided, Mitigation Measure BIO.1 is provided below, which requires pre-construction surveys of the northern parcel to assure that the species is not present, and/or to protect the species should it be identified on-site.” CDFW concurs that the Project site contains suitable habitat for burrowing owl; however, the MND and its supporting documents lack additional information on burrowing owl presence, including the results of focused surveys for burrowing owl. Given the MND’s lack of findings from focused surveys for burrowing owl following the guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation3, the number and locations of suitable and occupied burrows within the Project site and surrounding areas are unknown. Given the lack of results from focused surveys following recommended protocols and the lack of survey reports, CDFW is limited in its ability to provide biological expertise to support the City in reducing impacts to burrowing owl to a level less than significant.

CDFW recommends that the MND is revised to include the results of focused surveys, including survey reports, for burrowing owl within the Project site and surrounding area following the 1469
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 15 of 25 ends

guidelines outlined in Appendix D of the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation; and to incorporate appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for burrowing owl.

The MND includes Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which indicates that a “qualified biologist shall conduct two (2) take avoidance pre-construction burrowing owl surveys on the northern parcel of the Project site during Phase 2. The first shall occur between 14 and 30 days prior to ground disturbance, and the second shall occur within 24 hours of ground disturbance. If burrowing owls are detected, the project proponent shall consult with CDFW to determine what course of action is needed, such as the use of exclusion devices (if applicable) to discourage owls from using burrows that are believed to be in jeopardy of being impacted by implementation of the project.” CDFW finds Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to be insufficient in scope and timing to reduce impacts to burrowing owl to a level less than significant. For example, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 lacks details on appropriate survey methods for burrowing owl and methods of avoiding impacts to burrowing owl if they are observed within the Project site and/or surrounding areas.

The MND also indicates that burrowing owl exclusion may be implemented by the Project.

Burrowing owl relocation is considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA and should only be considered as a last resort, after all other options have been evaluated. Burrowing owl relocation (i.e., eviction/passive and active relocation) can result in take of burrowing owl individuals, nests, and eggs, which is not authorized under the CVMSHCP. Consultation with CDFW is warranted to determine if an Incidental Take Permit is necessary to avoid a violation of Fish and Game code section 2080. CDFW recommends that the City revise Mitigation Measure BIO-1 with the following additions in bold and removals in strikethrough:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Burrowing Owl Focused and Pre-Construction Surveys Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a CVMSHCP-approved Acceptable Biologist in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version) prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities for all phases of Project construction. If burrowing owls are detected during the focused surveys, the qualified biologist and Project proponent shall begin coordination with CDFW and USFWS immediately, and shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Monitoring Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance and monitoring actions, including measures necessary to avoid take of burrowing owl individuals, nests, and eggs. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites (occupied site means at least one burrowing owl or its sign has been observed within the last three years; may be indicated by owl sign including feathers, pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near a burrow entrance or perch site), acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measures. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat or burrow(s) or burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs cannot be avoided, appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., Incidental Take Permit under Fish and Game Code section 2081) should be obtained from CDFW prior to commencement of Project activities.
1470
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 16 of 25 ends

Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of Project-related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be repeated when there is a pause in construction of more than 30 days. Preconstruction surveys should be performed by a CVMSHCP-approved Acceptable Biologist following the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Monitoring Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. A qualified biologist shall conduct two (2) take avoidance pre-construction burrowing owl surveys on the northern parcel of the Project site during Phase 2. The first shall occur between 14 and 30 days prior to ground disturbance, and the second shall occur within 24 hours of ground disturbance. If burrowing owls are detected, the project proponent shall consult with CDFW to determine what course of action is needed, such as the use of exclusion devices (if applicable) to discourage owls from using burrows that are believed to be in jeopardy of being impacted by implementation of the project.

Response 5:

See USFWS Response 3 and 4, above, which revises MM BIO-1 to clarify that take avoidance pre-construction burrowing owl surveys shall follow the CDFW (2012 or current) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, and includes protocol for determining appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures if burrowing owl is detected. MM BIO-1, as amended, sufficiently summarizes CDFWs requests made in Comment 5.

Comment 6:
3) Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Local Development Mitigation Fee
The Project is located within the CVMSHCP Plan Boundary and outside of a Conservation Area and contains habitat for Covered Species and/or conserved natural communities. Page 120 of the MND states that the “site is subject to payment of the Development Mitigation Fee to mitigate potential impacts to covered species under the CVMSHCP.” Per CVMSHCP Section 5.2.1.1 and IA Sections 12.2.1 and 13.2, the City is obligated to impose a local development mitigation fee for new development within the Plan Area that impacts vacant land containing Habitat for Covered Species and/or conserved natural communities, including small vacant lots within urban areas that contain natural open space, and to transmit collected fees to CVCC at least quarterly and prior to impacts to Covered Species and their Habitats. To document the City’s obligation to impose and transmit a Local Development Mitigation Fee for this Project, CDFW recommends the City add the following mitigation measure to a revised MND:
1471
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 17 of 25 ends

Mitigation Measure BIO-[B]: CVMSHCP Compliance
Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the City shall ensure compliance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) and its associated Implementing Agreement and shall ensure the collection of payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee and transfer of fees, at least quarterly and prior to impacts to Covered Species and their Habitats, to the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission.

Response 6:

The comment is noted. However, as allowed under CEQA, requirements of law are not mitigation measures, and are assumed to be implemented. Because the payment of the CVMSHCP fee is a requirement by the City, as stated in the Initial Study, its payment will reduce impacts to less than significant levels, and no mitigation measure is required.

Comment 7:
4) Artificial Nighttime Lighting
The Project site is located adjacent to vacant areas within the larger Armtec facility that provide suitable burrowing, nesting, roosting, foraging, and refugia habitat for birds, migratory birds that fly at night, and other nocturnal and crepuscular wildlife. The Project proposes “light and glare from interior and exterior building lighting, safety and security lighting” (page 24 of the MND).

The Project’s proposed artificial nighttime lighting has the potential to significantly and adversely affect biological resources using these vacant areas within the larger Armtec facility. Artificial lighting alters ecological processes including, but not limited to, the temporal niches of species; the repair and recovery of physiological function; the measurement of time through interference with the detection of circadian and lunar and seasonal cycles; the detection of resources and natural enemies; and navigation. Many species use photoperiod cues for communication (e.g., bird song5), determining when to begin foraging, behavioral thermoregulation, and migration.

Phototaxis, a phenomenon that results in attraction and movement towards light, can disorient, entrap, and temporarily blind wildlife species that experience it.

Page 24 ends

reflective surfaces and spillage of light onto adjacent properties.” CDFW considers these plans to minimize the impacts of artificial nighttime lighting to be insufficient in slope to reduce the impacts of lighting to level less than significant. To support the City in avoiding or reducing impacts of artificial nighttime lighting on biological resources to less than significant, CDFW recommends the City add the following mitigation measure to a revised MND:

Mitigation Measure BIO-[C]: Artificial Nighttime Lighting Throughout construction and the lifetime operations of the Project, the City and Project proponent shall eliminate all nonessential lighting throughout the Project area and avoid or limit the use of artificial light at night during the hours of dawn and dusk when many wildlife species are most active. The City and Project proponent shall ensure that all 1472
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 18 of 25 ends

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

Response 7:

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but provides no substantial evidence that the Project will result in substantial lighting that exceeds current lighting levels, or that the lighting proposed for the Project will impact biological resources. The Project is the expansion of the existing Armtec facilities. Lighting conditions in this area are already affected by existing Armtec facilities, including security lighting and vehicles accessing the site, traffic on adjacent streets and surrounding residential development. As stated in the ISMND (pg 24) “[l]ighting and glare levels are not expected to exceed typical levels that currently exist on-site and within the surrounding urban environment and will be regulated by City lighting standards.” The addition of Project lighting on the existing Armtec site will not change the lighting environment for biological resources, and no mitigation is required.

Comment 8:
5) Landscaping
The MND indicates that the Project’s landscaping will include “median and landscaping improvements” associated with the widening of Tyler Street (page 5), and “97,000 SF of landscaping, on- and off-site” (page 31). No additional details are provided on landscaping plans in the MND. CDFW recommends that the MND include recommendations regarding landscaping from Section 4.0 of the CVMSHCP “Table 4-112: Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping” (pp. 4-180 to 4- 182; https://cvmshcp.org/plan-documents/). CDFW also recommends incorporation of water-wise concepts in any Project landscape design plans. In particular, CDFW recommends xeriscaping with locally native California species and installing water- efficient and targeted irrigation systems (such as drip irrigation). Native plants support butterflies, birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, bees, and other pollinators that evolved with those plants. More information on native plants suitable for the Project location and nearby nurseries is available at Calscape: https://calscape.org/. Local water agencies/cities and resource conservation cities in your area may be able to provide information on plant nurseries that carry locally native species, and some facilities display drought-tolerant locally native species demonstration gardens. Information on drought-tolerant landscaping and water-efficient irrigation systems is available on California’s Save our Water website:
https://saveourwater.com/.
1473
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 19 of 25 ends

Response 8:

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

Comment 9:

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

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

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

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

CDFW personnel are available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to avoid and minimize impacts. Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Jacob Skaggs, Senior Environmental Scientist Specialist, at [email protected].
1474
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 20 of 25 ends

Response 9:

The City will continue to assure that biologists report their findings when studies are prepared, and that CDFW fees are paid when necessary. The commenter’s opinions are noted, and as described above, MM BIO-1 has been amended to address CDFW’s concerns about burrowing owl and nesting birds. The City thanks CDFW for their participation in this process.

Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
Letter dated May 19, 2025
Comment 1:

On April 23, 2025, the Imperial Irrigation District received from the City of Coachella Development Services Department, the Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Armtec Expansion Master Plan; Environmental Assessment 25-01, Conditional Use Permit 389, Architectural Review 25-02. The project proposes 37,800 sq. ft. in new storage facilities, 3,000 sq. ft. in new research and development/small production facilities, 15,000 sq. ft. in new production facilities, a ±73,200 sq. ft. truck staging area, and three retention basins. The project also includes off-site improvements adjacent to the site, including the widening and improvements of Tyler Street. The proposed project is Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the three-phased Armtec Expansion Master Plan. Phase 1 of the Master Plan, which is not part of the project, was the construction of a ±33,900 sq. ft. ground-mounted solar grid and seven solar parking canopies on the northern parcel of the existing 52.65-acre Armtec Defense Technologies (Armtec) site located at 85901 Avenue 53 in Coachella, CA (APNs 778-420-013, 778-390-008).

IID has reviewed the project information has the following comments:

1. Based on the preliminary information provided to the IID, the district can accommodate the proposed project by the addition of new backbone line extensions, upgrades and reconfigurations to create ties with adjacent circuits in the area and extend electrical service to the proposed development. Based on current 2025 IID rates, a high-level cost estimate of these improvements amounts to $355,000 (subject to change without notice, including for adjustments in costs of materials, supply or labor). It is important to note, new backbone lines extensions, upgrades or reconfigurations to create ties with adjacent circuits in the area with existing IID facilities will be required, all of which are at the expense of the Developer. The conditions of service could change as a result of the additional studies.

2. It is important to note that a feasibility study will be developed once a customer project application and approved plans and loading calculations are received. This detailed information will allow IID to perform an accurate assessment and provide a full report of any potential impacts and mitigation measures as well as costs. The conditions of service could change as a result of the additional studies. The cost of any technical assessment shall be borne by the applicant.
1475
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 21 of 25 ends

3. IID will not begin any engineering studies to provide electrical service to the project until the applicant submits a customer project application (available for download at www.iid.com/home/showpublisheddocument/12923/638440444053700000 and detailed loading information, panel sizes, project schedule and estimated in-service date. Applicant shall bear all costs associated with additional facilities deemed necessary to provide electrical service to the project, including but not limited to distribution feeder/backbone extensions, distribution overhead and/or underground line extensions, load balancing as well as any other related upgrades and applicable permits, zoning changes, landscaping (if required by the City) and rights-of-way and easements.

4. The district's ability to provide service from existing infrastructure is based on current available capacity, which may be impacted by future development in the area. IID is unable to hold system capacity to the detriment of other customers.

5. Underground infrastructure of any additional facilities needed such as double conduit/vault systems that include trenching, conduits, pull boxes, switch boxes and pads shall be installed at the applicant's expense following IID approved plans within the public utility easement or dedicated easement, if applicable. Physical field installation of underground infrastructures should be verified and approved by an IID inspector prior to cable installation as per IID Developer's Guide (available at the district website https://www.iid.com/home/showdocument?id=14229).

6. IID Regulations governing line extensions can be found at:

No. 2 (http://www.iid.com/home/showdocument?id=2540),
No. 13 (http://www.iid.com/home/showdocument?id=2553),
No. 15 (http://www.iid.com/home/showdocument?id=2555),

7. For additional information regarding electrical service for the project, the applicant should be advised to contact the IID Energy - La Quinta Division Customer Operations, 81-600 Avenue 58 La Quinta, CA 92253, at (760) 398-5841 and speak with the project development planner assigned to the area.

8. It is important to note that IID's policy is to extend its electrical facilities only to those project that have obtained the approval of a city or county planning commission and such other governmental authority or decision-making body having jurisdiction over said developments.

9. The project proponent will be required to provide and bear all costs associated with acquisition of land, rights of way, easements, and infrastructure relocations and realignments deemed necessary to accommodate the project. Any street or road improvements imposed by the local governing authority shall also be at the project 1476
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 22 of 25 ends

proponent cost.

10. The applicant will be required to provide rights of ways and easements for any proposed power line extensions and/or any other infrastructure needed to serve a project as well as the necessary access to allow for continued operation and maintenance of any IID facilities located on adjoining properties where no public access exists.

11. Substations and switchyards shall be located on property that will transferred to IID in fee simple ownership with legal access.

12. Public utility easements over all private and public roads and additional ten (10) feet in width on both side of the private and public roads shall be dedicated to IID for the construction, operation, and maintenance of its electrical infrastructure.

13. Any construction or operation on IID property or within its existing and proposed right of way or easements including but not limited to: surface improvements such as proposed new streets, driveways, parking lots, landscape; and all water, sewer, storm water, or any other above ground or underground utilities; will require an encroachment permit, or encroachment agreement (depending on the circumstances). A copy of the IID encroachment permit application and instructions for its completion are available at https://www.iid.com/about-iid/department-directory/real-estate. The IID Real Estate Section should be contacted at (760) 339-9239 for additional information regarding encroachment permits or agreements.

Response 1:

Comment noted. The comment provides a description of the Project and relates to design and other IID processes and does not pertain to CEQA. No further response is required.

Comment 2:

14. Any new, relocated, modified or reconstructed IID facilities required for and by the project (which can include but is not limited to electrical utility substations, electrical transmission and/or distribution lines, ancillary facilities associated with the conveyance of energy service; the acquisition and dedication of real property, rights of way and/or easements for the siting and construction of electrical utility substations, electrical transmission and/or distribution lines and ancillary facilities associated with the conveyance of energy service, etc.) need to be included as part of the project's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and/or National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA documentation, environmental impact analysis and mitigation. Failure to do so will result in postponement of any construction and/or modification of IID facilities until such time as the environmental documentation is amended and environmental impacts are fully mitigated. Any mitigation necessary as a result of the construction, relocation and/or upgrade of IID facilities is the responsibility of the project proponent.
1477
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 23 of 25 ends

15. Dividing a project into two or more pieces and evaluating each piece in a separate environmental document (Piecemealing or Segmenting), rather than evaluating the whole of the project in one environmental document, is explicitly forbidden by CEQA, because dividing a project into a number of pieces would allow a Lead Agency to minimize the apparent environmental impacts of a project by evaluating individual pieces separately, each of which may have a less-than-significant impact on the environment, but which together may result in a significant impact. Segmenting a project may also hinder developing comprehensive mitigation strategies. In general, if an activity or facility is necessary for the operation of a project, or necessary to achieve the project objectives, or a reasonably foreseeable consequence of approving the project, then it should be considered an integral project component that should be analyzed within the environmental analysis. The project description should include all project components, including those that will have to be approved by responsible agencies. The State CEQA Guidelines define a project under CEQA as "the whole of the action" that may result either directly or indirectly in physical changes to the environment. This broad definition is intended to provide the maximum protection of the environment. CEQA case law has established general principles on project segmentation for different project types. For a project requiring construction of offsite infrastructure, the offsite infrastructure must be included in the project description. San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v.

County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App. 4th 713.

16. When the project goes through the CEQA compliance process, it is important to bear in mind that to address the project impacts to the electrical utility (i.e., the IID electrical grid), considered under the environmental factor "Utilities and Services" of the Environmental Checklist/Initial Study, and determine if the project would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects; a circuit study/distribution impact study, facility study, and/or system impact study must be performed.

Response 2:

The ISMND complies with CEQA in that it considers the “whole action,” both Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the Armtec Master Plan, and includes description of electricity services and infrastructure in the Utilities and Service Systems and Energy sections, including the required connections to nearby existing infrastructure. Project specific utility improvement plans will be reviewed and approved by the City in conjunction with the ISMND.

Comment 3:

17. Applicant should be advised that landscaping can be dangerous if items are planted too close to IID's electrical equipment. In the event of an outage, or equipment failure, it is vital that IID personnel have immediate and safe access to its equipment to make the needed repairs. For public safety, and that of the electrical workers, it is important to 1478
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 24 of 25 ends

adhere to standards that limit landscaping around electrical facilities. IID landscaping guidelines are available at with https://www.iid.com/power/vegetation-management Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 482-3609 or at [email protected]. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter.

Response 3:

The comment is noted but does not pertain to CEQA. No further response is required. The City thanks IID for participating in this process.
1479
Item 3.

Armtec Expansion Master Plan
Response to Comments

Page 25 of 25 ends

APPENDIX A

COMMENT LETTERS
1480
Item 3.

In Reply Refer to:
2025-0098153-CEQA-TA-ERV
May 21, 2025
Sent Electronically
Adrian Moreno
Associate Planner
City of Coachella
53990 Enterprise Way
Coachella, California 92236
Subject: Draft Initial Study and Intent to Adopt Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Armtec Expansion Master Plan, City of Coachella, Riverside County, California Dear Adrian Moreno:

This letter is in response to the notice dated April 22, 2025, soliciting comments on the draft Initial Study and Intent to Adopt Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the Armtec Expansion Master Plan (Project), located in the City of Coachella, Riverside County, California.

The Project applicant, Armtec Defense Technologies proposes to construct new storage, research and development, and production facilities totaling to 37,800 square feet (sf), a 73,200-sf staging area, three retention basins, and off-site improvements adjacent to the Project site.

We offer the following comments on the draft ISMND as they relate to potential impacts on public trust resources. The primary concern and mandate of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the conservation, protection, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and threatened or endangered animals and plants listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

The comments provided herein are based on the information provided in the draft ISMND and our knowledge of sensitive and declining fish and wildlife resources.

The Project site is located within the boundary of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), and the City of Coachella (City) is a Local Permittee to the CVMSHCP. The Project site is adjacent to CVMSHCP-modeled habitat for the following Covered Species: crissal thrasher (Toxostoma crissale), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), summer tanager (Piranga rubra cooperi), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), and yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri). The Project applicant completed Phase 1 of the Project which was the construction of a solar grid in early 2025. Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the Armtec Expansion Master Plan are the subject of this draft ISMND. As stated above, Phase 2 includes construction of a 15,000-sf storage warehouse, a 73,000-sf truck staging area, a 3,000-sf research and development facility, and three retention basins, totaling 75,650 sf. Phase 3 includes the 1481
Item 3.

Adrian Moreno (2025-0098153-CEQA-TA-ERV) 2
construction of a 15,000-sf production facility, a 15,000-sf storage warehouse, two 900-sf storage structures, and an expansion of an existing storage warehouse by 6,000 sf. The proposed Project also includes off-site improvements, including improving and widening Tyler Street.

The draft ISMND states that flora and fauna were observed during the field reconnaissance of the Project site on June 6, 2024, as part of the Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Assessment. However, the draft ISMND does not indicate completion of additional biological field surveys or include a biological resources assessment. A biological resources assessment is necessary to accurately assess the Project’s potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources.

Please revise the draft ISMND to include a biological resources assessment, including impacts to Covered Species (identified above) under the CVMSHCP and their habitat.

Nesting Birds
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq) prohibits take of individuals, parts, nests, or eggs of migratory birds. “Take” is defined in the Service’s general wildlife regulations as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect (50 C.F.R. § 10.12).” The Service’s section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit associated with the CVMSHCP constitutes a Special Purpose Permit under the MBTA for the Take of Covered Species. However, only Take of migratory bird habitat is provided, and the Permit states that “[a]ny such Take will not be in violation of the MBTA.” Therefore, Take of individuals, parts, nests, or eggs, as described in the MBTA is not authorized in the Special Purpose Permit, and any Take of migratory bird habitat associated with Covered Activities will not be in violation of the MBTA.

The draft ISMND states that the Project site has low potential to provide nesting opportunities due to the disturbed nature of the vegetation and soils and concludes that the proposed Project’s potential impacts to migratory bird species are negligible. Although the Project site is disturbed, the presence of sparse vegetation, particularly cover of shrubs, is suitable habitat for ground-nesting birds.

Furthermore, bare ground or sparse vegetation cover constitutes suitable nesting habitat for some ground-nesting birds. The proposed ground disturbance may consequently result in unauthorized Take of migratory birds without implementation of the necessary avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. Additionally, the draft ISMND does not indicate completion of focused nesting bird surveys. Focused nesting bird surveys are necessary to accurately confirm nesting bird presence or absence on the Project site. A complete assessment of the biological resources within the Project area is required to assess the Project’s potential impacts to migratory birds.

Please revise the draft ISMND to include a complete assessment of the Project’s potential impacts to nesting bird habitat, including completion of nesting bird surveys during the appropriate time of year, to determine the extent of nesting birds on the Project site.

Burrowing Owl
The Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea; burrowing owl) is protected under the MBTA and is a Covered Species under the CVMSHCP. However, the Service’s section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit for the CVMSHCP does not provide Take for burrowing owl individuals, 1482
Item 3.

Adrian Moreno (2025-0098153-CEQA-TA-ERV) 3
nests, or eggs. Within the CVMSHCP boundary, as a Permittee, the City must ensure their activities comply with MBTA and implement the appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to avoid Take of burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs.

The draft ISMND states that the northern portion of the Project site has potential for burrowing owl presence due to its sparse vegetation. However, the draft ISMND does not indicate that focused burrowing owl surveys were completed. Pursuant to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version), for both breeding and non-breeding season surveys, a minimum of four survey visits are required to accurately assess a site for burrowing owl presence. Given the lack of multiple, focused burrowing owl surveys, the total number of burrowing owl individuals or suitable and occupied burrows within the Project area is unknown. Please revise the draft ISMND to include an accurate assessment of the Project’s potential impacts to burrowing owl, including focused survey results following the protocols outlined in the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

Additionally, Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 requires take avoidance pre-construction burrowing owl surveys and subsequent consultation with CDFW should burrowing owl presence be confirmed.

MM-BIO-1 lacks further detail regarding the survey methodology for the pre-construction surveys.

We recommend that MM-BIO-1 be revised to specify that the pre-construction surveys shall be completed in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. In addition, we recommend that MM-BIO-1 be revised to require that, if the pre-construction surveys confirm burrowing owl presence, the Project applicant shall submit a Burrowing Owl Plan that includes avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to the Service and CDFW—collectively the Wildlife Agencies—for review and approval prior to beginning Project activities. The Project proponent shall coordinate with the Wildlife Agencies on the appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to be included in the Burrowing Owl Plan. If avoidance of burrowing owl is not possible, coordination with the Wildlife Agencies for a burrowing owl relocation plan is required pursuant Section 4.4 and Section 8.5.2 of the CVMSHCP.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the draft ISMND. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Lory Salazar-Velasquez. 1 Sincerely,
Brian Croft
Field Supervisor
1 [email protected].
for
1483
Item 3.

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
May 22, 2025
Sent via email
Adrian Moreno
Associate Planner
City of Coachella
53990 Enterprise Way
Coachella, CA 92236
[email protected]
Armtec Expansion Master Plan Project (PROJECT)
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
SCH# 2025041097
Dear Adrian Moreno:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration from the City of Coachella (City) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines. 1 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

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

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

1CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000. 1484
Item 3.

Adrian Moreno
City of Coachella
May 22, 2025

Page 2 ends

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

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

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

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: Armtec Defense Products Co.

Objective: Armtec's existing industrial and manufacturing operations currently are located on the southern parcel, and the northern parcel currently contains a ±33,900 sf ground mounted solar grid located on the eastern half of the parcel. The proposed Project is Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the three-phase Armtec Expansion Master Plan. The Project proposes the construction of a new 15,000 sf storage warehouse, a ±73,200 truck staging area and 9,900 sf retention basin on the northern parcel, and a new 3,000 SF research and development (R&D) and production facility and two retention basins totaling 65,750 sf on the southern parcel. Phase 3 includes the construction of a new 15,000 SF production facility, a new 15,000 sf storage warehouse, two new 900 sf storage structures, and a 6,000 sf expansion of an existing storage warehouse, all located on the southern parcel.

The Project proposes off-site improvements adjacent to the site, including the widening and improvements of Tyler Street. The Project proposes new interior and exterior building lighting and safety and security lighting. The Project also proposes 97,000 SF of landscaping, on- and off-site, including landscaping around new buildings and within offsite street improvements.

Location: The Project is located at 85901 Avenue 53 in City of Coachella, Riverside County, California. The Project site consists of two parcels totaling approximately 52.65 acres in size, identified by assessor's parcel numbers (APNs) 778-420-013 (14.96 acres) and 778-390-008 (37.69 acres).

Timeframe: The MND proposes a construction timeframe from June 2025 through December 2026 for Phase 2. The timing for construction of Phase 3 is currently undetermined.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1485
Item 3.

Adrian Moreno
City of Coachella
May 22, 2025

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

The MND lacks a complete and appropriate assessment of biological resources within the Project site and surrounding area specifically as it relates burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and nesting birds, as discussed in the Nesting Bird and Burrowing Owl sections below. A complete and accurate assessment of the environmental setting and Project-related impacts to biological resources is needed to both identify appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and demonstrate that these measures reduce Project impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
CEQA requires that an MND include mitigation measures to avoid or reduce significant impacts. CDFW is concerned that the mitigation measures proposed in the MND are not adequate to avoid or reduce impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance. To support the City in ensuring that Project impacts to biological resources are reduced to less than significant, CDFW recommends revising the mitigation measure for burrowing owl and adding mitigation measures for nesting birds, artificial nighttime lighting, and the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP).
1) Nesting Birds
1486
Item 3.

Adrian Moreno
City of Coachella
May 22, 2025

Page 4 ends

It is the Project proponent’s responsibility to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 afford protective measures as follows: section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.).

With regard to the CVMSHCP, per its associated Implementing Agreement (IA) and Permits from CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Wildlife Agencies), Take associated with Covered Activities will not be in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and will be consistent with Fish and Game Code sections 3503 and 3503.5; therefore, all Covered Activities within and outside Conservation Areas must undertake measures to avoid the take of individuals, nests, and eggs of nesting birds. The CVMSHCP includes a general conservation measure that applies to all bird species to avoid impacts to habitat for nesting birds during the nesting season (CVMSHCP Section

9.7). Per IA Section 13.2, the City is obligated to ensure the projects to which it confers Take Authorization under the CVMSHCP comply with all terms and requirements of the CVMSHCP, the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits that create the CVMSHCP, and the IA, including compliance with laws that protect nesting birds.

Page 120 ends

contain vegetation that could provide suitable habitat for nesting birds.” The MND lacks additional information on suitability of the Project site to support nesting birds (excluding burrowing owl). CDFW is concerned about the validity of the conclusion that the site does not provide suitable habitat for nesting birds. The Project site currently contains suitable habitat for ground-nesting birds such as killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), and shrubs have the potential to establish between grading and vegetation removal activities that can provide suitable habitat for nesting birds. CDFW recommends the MND is revised to include an accurate assessment of biological resources within the Project site as it relates to suitable habitat for nesting birds. The MND also lacks a mitigation measure for nesting birds. Given the suitability of the Project site to currently support ground-nesting birds and potentially support birds that nest in shrubs if vegetation establishes between maintenance activities, CDFW considers the MND to lack appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts to nesting birds to a level less than significant.

CDFW also recommends the completion of nesting bird surveys regardless of the time of year to ensure that impacts to nesting birds and their nests and eggs are avoided.

The timing of the nesting season varies greatly depending on several factors, such as 1487
Item 3.

Adrian Moreno
City of Coachella
May 22, 2025

Page 5 ends

bird species, weather conditions in any given year, and long-term climate changes (e.g., drought, warming, etc.). In response to warming, birds have been reported to breed earlier, thereby reducing temperatures that nests are exposed to during breeding and tracking shifts in availability of resources (Socolar et al., 20172). CDFW staff have observed that climate change conditions may result in the nesting bird season occurring earlier and later in the year than historical nesting season dates. CDFW recommends that disturbance of occupied nests of migratory birds and raptors within the Project site and surrounding area be avoided any time birds are nesting on-site.

To support City in reducing impacts to nesting birds to a level less than significant level, CDFW recommends that the City add Mitigation Measure BIO-[A] to a revised MND:

Mitigation Measure BIO-[A]: Nesting Birds
Regardless of the time of year, nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified avian biologist no more than 3 days prior to all vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities throughout all portions of the Project. Preconstruction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior. The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey and monitoring efforts. If active nests are found during the pre-construction nesting bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground. Nest buffers are species specific and shall be at least 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors. A smaller or larger buffer may be determined by the qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species and based on nest and buffer monitoring results. Construction activities may not occur inside the established buffers, which shall remain on-site until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the Project has been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance.

Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, section 15097(f), CDFW has prepared a draft mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) in Attachment 1 for recommended revisions to MM BIO-1 and CDFW-recommended MM BIO-[A], MM BIO-[B], and MM BIO-[C].

2 Socolar JB, Epanchin PN, Beissinger SR and Tingley MW (2017). Phenological shifts conserve thermal niches.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(49): 12976-12981. 1488
Item 3.

Adrian Moreno
City of Coachella
May 22, 2025

Page 6 ends

2) Burrowing Owl
On October 10, 2024, the Fish and Game Commission determined that western burrowing owl warrants protection as a candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.). During the candidacy period, western burrowing owl will be afforded the same protection as threatened and endangered species under CESA. If Project activities, including relocation, could result in take, appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., Incidental Take Permit under Fish and Game Code section 2081) should be obtained prior to commencement of Project activities.

Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests or eggs is defined by Fish and Game Code section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Take is defined in Fish and Game Code section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.” Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 afford protective measures as follows: section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.).

With regard to the CVMSHCP, the CDFW Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Permit #2835-2008-001-06 does not provide Take Authorization for burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs. To the contrary, section 3.5.6 of the NCCP Permit states burrowing owl “pairs or individuals will not be Taken” and reiterates that the “HCP/NCCP does not authorize Take of [burrowing owl] nests [or] eggs[.]” Therefore, throughout the CVMSHCP area—both within and without Conservation Areas— Permittees must ensure that activities occurring within their jurisdictions do not result in the take, possession, or destruction of burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs. Any activity occurring within the CVMSHCP area that results in the take of burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs would be unlawful and would not be a Covered Activity under the CVMSHCP. Per IA Section 13.2, the City is obligated to ensure the projects to which it confers Take Authorization under the CVMSHCP comply with all terms and requirements of the CVMSHCP, the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits that create the CVMSHCP, and the IA, including compliance with laws that protect burrowing owls.

Page 39 ends

vacant and covered sparsely with vegetation, there is potential of burrowing owl to be present. The CVMSHCP and State law prohibit the take of burrowing owl. Should 1489
Item 3.

Adrian Moreno
City of Coachella
May 22, 2025

Page 7 ends

burrowing owl be found on the northern portion of the property prior to construction of Phase 2, a significant impact would occur. To assure that potential impacts are avoided, Mitigation Measure BIO.1 is provided below, which requires pre-construction surveys of the northern parcel to assure that the species is not present, and/or to protect the species should it be identified on-site.” CDFW concurs that the Project site contains suitable habitat for burrowing owl; however, the MND and its supporting documents lack additional information on burrowing owl presence, including the results of focused surveys for burrowing owl. Given the MND’s lack of findings from focused surveys for burrowing owl following the guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation3, the number and locations of suitable and occupied burrows within the Project site and surrounding areas are unknown. Given the lack of results from focused surveys following recommended protocols and the lack of survey reports, CDFW is limited in its ability to provide biological expertise to support the City in reducing impacts to burrowing owl to a level less than significant. CDFW recommends that the MND is revised to include the results of focused surveys, including survey reports, for burrowing owl within the Project site and surrounding area following the guidelines outlined in Appendix D of the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation; and to incorporate appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for burrowing owl.

The MND includes Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which indicates that a “qualified biologist shall conduct two (2) take avoidance pre-construction burrowing owl surveys on the northern parcel of the Project site during Phase 2. The first shall occur between 14 and 30 days prior to ground disturbance, and the second shall occur within 24 hours of ground disturbance. If burrowing owls are detected, the project proponent shall consult with CDFW to determine what course of action is needed, such as the use of exclusion devices (if applicable) to discourage owls from using burrows that are believed to be in jeopardy of being impacted by implementation of the project.” CDFW finds Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to be insufficient in scope and timing to reduce impacts to burrowing owl to a level less than significant. For example, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 lacks details on appropriate survey methods for burrowing owl and methods of avoiding impacts to burrowing owl if they are observed within the Project site and/or surrounding areas.

The MND also indicates that burrowing owl exclusion may be implemented by the Project. Burrowing owl relocation is considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA and should only be considered as a last resort, after all other options have been evaluated. Burrowing owl relocation (i.e., eviction/passive and active relocation) can result in take of burrowing owl individuals, nests, and eggs, which is not authorized under the CVMSHCP. Consultation with CDFW is warranted to determine if an Incidental Take Permit is necessary to avoid a violation of Fish and Game code section

3 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. State of California, Natural Resources Agency. Available for download at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843&inline 1490
Item 3.

Adrian Moreno
City of Coachella
May 22, 2025

Page 8 ends

2080. CDFW recommends that the City revise Mitigation Measure BIO-1 with the following additions in bold and removals in strikethrough:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Burrowing Owl Focused and Pre-Construction Surveys Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a CVMSHCP-approved Acceptable Biologist in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version) prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities for all phases of Project construction. If burrowing owls are detected during the focused surveys, the qualified biologist and Project proponent shall begin coordination with CDFW and USFWS immediately, and shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Monitoring Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance and monitoring actions, including measures necessary to avoid take of burrowing owl individuals, nests, and eggs.

The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites (occupied site means at least one burrowing owl or its sign has been observed within the last three years; may be indicated by owl sign including feathers, pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near a burrow entrance or perch site), acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measures. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat or burrow(s) or burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs cannot be avoided, appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., Incidental Take Permit under Fish and Game Code section 2081) should be obtained from CDFW prior to commencement of Project activities.

Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of Project-related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be repeated when there is a pause in construction of more than 30 days. Preconstruction surveys should be performed by a CVMSHCP-approved Acceptable Biologist following the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Monitoring Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. A qualified biologist shall conduct two (2) take avoidance pre-construction burrowing owl surveys on the northern parcel of the Project site during Phase 2. The first shall occur between 14 and 30 days prior to ground disturbance, and the second shall occur within 24 hours of ground disturbance. If burrowing owls are detected, the project proponent shall consult with CDFW to determine what course of action is needed, such as the use of exclusion devices (if 1491
Item 3.

Adrian Moreno
City of Coachella
May 22, 2025

Page 9 ends

applicable) to discourage owls from using burrows that are believed to be in jeopardy of being impacted by implementation of the project.
3) Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Local Development Mitigation Fee
The Project is located within the CVMSHCP Plan Boundary and outside of a Conservation Area and contains habitat for Covered Species and/or conserved natural communities. Page 120 of the MND states that the “site is subject to payment of the Development Mitigation Fee to mitigate potential impacts to covered species under the CVMSHCP.” Per CVMSHCP Section 5.2.1.1 and IA Sections 12.2.1 and 13.2, the City is obligated to impose a local development mitigation fee for new development within the Plan Area that impacts vacant land containing Habitat for Covered Species and/or conserved natural communities, including small vacant lots within urban areas that contain natural open space, and to transmit collected fees to CVCC at least quarterly and prior to impacts to Covered Species and their Habitats. To document the City’s obligation to impose and transmit a Local Development Mitigation Fee for this Project, CDFW recommends the City add the following mitigation measure to a revised MND:

Mitigation Measure BIO-[B]: CVMSHCP Compliance
Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the City shall ensure compliance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) and its associated Implementing Agreement and shall ensure the collection of payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee and transfer of fees, at least quarterly and prior to impacts to Covered Species and their Habitats, to the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission. 4) Artificial Nighttime Lighting
The Project site is located adjacent to vacant areas within the larger Armtec facility that provide suitable burrowing, nesting, roosting, foraging, and refugia habitat for birds, migratory birds that fly at night, and other nocturnal and crepuscular wildlife. The Project proposes “light and glare from interior and exterior building lighting, safety and security lighting” (page 24 of the MND). The Project’s proposed artificial nighttime lighting has the potential to significantly and adversely affect biological resources using these vacant areas within the larger Armtec facility. Artificial lighting alters ecological processes including, but not limited to, the temporal niches of species; the repair and recovery of physiological function; the measurement of time through interference with the detection of circadian and lunar and seasonal cycles; the detection of resources and natural 1492
Item 3.

Adrian Moreno
City of Coachella
May 22, 2025

Page 10 ends

enemies; and navigation.
4 Many species use photoperiod cues for communication (e.g., bird song5), determining when to begin foraging,
6 behavioral thermoregulation,7 and
migration.
8 Phototaxis, a phenomenon that results in attraction and movement towards light, can disorient, entrap, and temporarily blind wildlife species that experience it. 10

Page 24 ends

prohibiting reflective surfaces and spillage of light onto adjacent properties.” CDFW considers these plans to minimize the impacts of artificial nighttime lighting to be insufficient in slope to reduce the impacts of lighting to level less than significant. To support the City in avoiding or reducing impacts of artificial nighttime lighting on biological resources to less than significant, CDFW recommends the City add the following mitigation measure to a revised MND:

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

The City and Project proponent shall ensure use of LED lighting with a correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvins or less, proper disposal of hazardous waste, and recycling of lighting that contains toxic compounds with a qualified recycler. 5) Landscaping
The MND indicates that the Project’s landscaping will include “median and landscaping improvements” associated with the widening of Tyler Street (page 5), and “97,000 SF of landscaping, on- and off-site” (page 31). No additional details are provided on landscaping plans in the MND. CDFW recommends that the MND include recommendations regarding landscaping from Section 4.0 of the CVMSHCP “Table 4-

4 Gatson, K. J., Bennie, J., Davies, T., Hopkins, J. 2013. The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biological Reviews, 88.4: 912-927. 5 Miller, M. W. 2006. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American robins. The Condor 108:130– 139.
6 Stone, E. L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2009. Street lighting disturbs commuting bats. Current Biology 19:1123–1127. 7 Beiswenger, R. E. 1977. Diet patterns of aggregative behavior in tadpoles of Bufo americanus, in relation to light and temperature. Ecology 58:98–108.
8 Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution - Review. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:191–198.
1493
Item 3.

Adrian Moreno
City of Coachella
May 22, 2025

Page 11 ends

112: Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping” (pp. 4-180 to 4- 182; https://cvmshcp.org/plan-documents/). CDFW also recommends incorporation of water-wise concepts in any Project landscape design plans. In particular, CDFW recommends xeriscaping with locally native California species and installing waterefficient and targeted irrigation systems (such as drip irrigation). Native plants support butterflies, birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, bees, and other pollinators that evolved with those plants. More information on native plants suitable for the Project location and nearby nurseries is available at Calscape: https://calscape.org/. Local water agencies/cities and resource conservation cities in your area may be able to provide information on plant nurseries that carry locally native species, and some facilities display drought-tolerant locally native species demonstration gardens.

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts to biological resources. CDFW concludes that the MND does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, impacts to biological resources. CDFW recommends that revised and additional mitigation measures and analysis as described in this letter be added to a revised MND.
1494
Item 3.

Adrian Moreno
City of Coachella
May 22, 2025

Page 12 ends

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

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

Heather Brashear, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisor), CDFW [email protected]
Peter Satin, Coachella Valley Association of Governments [email protected]
Mary Beth Woulfe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
[email protected]
Lory Salazar-Velasquez, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
[email protected]
Noelle Ronan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
[email protected]
Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento [email protected]
ATTACHMENT 1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) Mitigation Measures Timing and
Methods
Responsible
Parties
Mitigation Measure BIO-[A]: Nesting Birds Timing: No more than 3 days prior
to all vegetation
removal or
Implementation:

City and Project
proponent
1495
Item 3.

Adrian Moreno
City of Coachella
May 22, 2025

Page 13 ends

Regardless of the time of year, nesting bird
surveys shall be performed by a qualified
avian biologist no more than 3 days prior to
all vegetation removal or ground-disturbing
activities throughout all portions of the
Project. Pre-construction surveys shall
focus on both direct and indirect evidence of
nesting, including nest locations and
nesting behavior. The qualified avian
biologist will make every effort to avoid
potential nest predation as a result of survey
and monitoring efforts. If active nests are
found during the pre-construction nesting
bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall
establish an appropriate nest buffer to be
marked on the ground. Nest buffers are
species specific and shall be at least 300
feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors.

A smaller or larger buffer may be determined
by the qualified biologist familiar with the
nesting phenology of the nesting species
and based on nest and buffer monitoring
results. Construction activities may not
occur inside the established buffers, which
shall remain on-site until a qualified
biologist determines the young have fledged
or the nest is no longer active. Active nests
and adequacy of the established buffer
distance shall be monitored daily by the
qualified biologist until the qualified
biologist has determined the young have
fledged or the Project has been completed.

The qualified biologist has the authority to
stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of
disturbance.
ground-disturbing
activities.

Methods: See
Mitigation
Measure
Monitoring and
Reporting: City and
Project proponent
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Burrowing Owl
Focused and Pre-Construction Surveys
Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been
confirmed on the site; therefore, focused
burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted
by a CVMSHCP-approved Acceptable
Biologist in accordance with the Staff Report
Timing: Focused
surveys: Prior to
vegetation
removal or
ground-disturbing
activities. Preconstruction
surveys: No less
than 14 days prior
Implementation:

City and Project
proponent
Monitoring and
Reporting: City and
Project proponent
1496
Item 3.

Adrian Moreno
City of Coachella
May 22, 2025

Page 14 ends

on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most
recent version) prior to vegetation removal
or ground-disturbing activities for all phases
of Project construction. If burrowing owls
are detected during the focused surveys, the
qualified biologist and Project proponent
shall begin coordination with CDFW and
USFWS immediately, and shall prepare a
Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Monitoring
Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for
review and approval prior to commencing
Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan
shall describe proposed avoidance and
monitoring actions, including measures
necessary to avoid take of burrowing owl
individuals, nests, and eggs. The Burrowing
Owl Plan shall include the number and
location of occupied burrow sites (occupied
site means at least one burrowing owl or its
sign has been observed within the last three
years; may be indicated by owl sign
including feathers, pellets, prey remains,
eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near
a burrow entrance or perch site), acres of
burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted,
details of site monitoring, and details on
proposed buffers and other avoidance
measures. If impacts to occupied burrowing
owl habitat or burrow(s) or burrowing owl
individuals, nests, or eggs cannot be
avoided, appropriate CESA authorization
(i.e., Incidental Take Permit under Fish and
Game Code section 2081) should be
obtained from CDFW prior to
commencement of Project activities. Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days
prior to the start of Project-related activities
and within 24 hours prior to ground
disturbance, in accordance with the Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or
most recent version). Preconstruction
surveys should be repeated when there is a
to start of Project-
related activities
and within 24
hours prior to
ground
disturbance and
when there is a
pause in
construction of
more than 30
days.

Methods: See
Mitigation
Measure
1497
Item 3.

Adrian Moreno
City of Coachella
May 22, 2025

Page 15 ends

pause in construction of more than 30 days.

Preconstruction surveys should be
performed by a CVMSHCP-approved
Acceptable Biologist following the
recommendations and guidelines provided
in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation. If the preconstruction surveys
confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat,
Project activities shall be immediately
halted. The qualified biologist shall
coordinate with CDFW and prepare a
Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Monitoring
Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW and
USFWS for review and approval prior to
commencing Project activities.

Mitigation Measure BIO-[B]: CVMSHCP
Compliance
Prior to construction and issuance of any
grading permit, the City shall ensure
compliance with the Coachella Valley
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(CVMSHCP) and its associated
Implementing Agreement and shall ensure
the collection of payment of the CVMSHCP
Local Development Mitigation Fee and
transfer of fees, at least quarterly and prior
to impacts to Covered Species and their
Habitats, to the Coachella Valley
Conservation Commission.

Timing: Prior to
construction and
issuance of any
grading permit.

Methods: See
Mitigation
Measure
Implementation:

City
Monitoring and
Reporting: City
Mitigation Measure BIO-[C]: Artificial
Nighttime Lighting
Throughout construction and the lifetime
operations of the Project, the City and
Project proponent shall eliminate all
nonessential lighting throughout the Project
area and avoid or limit the use of artificial
light at night during the hours of dawn and
dusk when many wildlife species are most
Timing:

Throughout
construction and
lifetime operations
of the Project.

Methods: See
Mitigation
Measure
Implementation:

City and Project
Proponent
Monitoring and
Reporting: City and
Project proponent
1498
Item 3.

Adrian Moreno
City of Coachella
May 22, 2025

Page 16 ends

active. The City and Project proponent shall
ensure that all lighting for the Project is fully
shielded, cast downward and directed away
from surrounding open-space and
agricultural areas, reduced in intensity to the
greatest extent possible, and does not result
in lighting trespass including glare into
surrounding areas or upward into the night
sky (see the International Dark-Sky
Association standards at
http://darksky.org/). The City and Project
proponent shall ensure use of LED lighting
with a correlated color temperature of 3,000
Kelvins or less, proper disposal of
hazardous waste, and recycling of lighting
that contains toxic compounds with a
qualified recycler.
1499
Item 3.
vvww.iid.com
Acmt't,tyy4sasyice. Since'i91]
May 19, 2025
Mr. Adrian Moreno
Associate Planner
Development Services Department
City of Coachella
53990 Enterprise Way
Coachella, CA 92236
SUBJECT: NOItoAdoptanMNDfortheArmtecExpansionMasterPlan;EA25-01,CUP389, AR 25-02
Dear Mr. Moreno:

On April 23, 2025, the Imperial migation District received from the City of Coachella Development Services Department, the Notice oflntent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Armtec Expansion Master Plan; Environmental Assessment 25-01, Conditional Use Permit 389, Architectural Review 25-02. The project proposes 37,800 sq. ft. in new storage facilities, 3,000 sq. ft. in new research and development/small production facilities, 15,000 sq. ft. in new production facilities, a *73,200 sq. ft. truck staging area, and three retention basins. The project also includes off-site improvements adjacent to the site, including the widening and improvements of Tyler Street. The proposed project is Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the three-phased Armtec Expansion Master Plan. Phase I oT the Master Plan, which is not part or the project, was the construction of a i33,900 sq. ft. ground-mounted solar grid and seven solar parking canopies on the northern parcel of the existing 52.65-acre Armtec Defense Technologies (Armtec) site located at 85901 Avenue 53 in Coachella, CA (APNs 778-420-013, 778-390-008). 11Dhas reviewed the project information has the following comments:

1. Based on the preliminary information provided to the 11D, the district can accommodate the proposed project by the addition of new backbone line extensions, upgrades and reconfigurations to create ties with adjacent circuits in the area and extend electrical service to the proposed development. Based on current 2025 11Drates, a high-level cost estimate of these improvements amounts to $355,000 (subject to change without notice, including for adjustments in costs of materials, supply or labor). It is important to note, new backbone lines extensions, upgrades or reconfigurations to create ties with adjacent circuits in the area with existing IID facilities will be required, all or which are at the expense of the Developer. The conditions of service could change as a result of the additional studies.

2. It is important to note that a feasibility study will be developed once a customer project application and approved plans and loading calculations are received. This detailed information will allow 11Dto perform an accurate assessment and provide a full report of any potential impacts and mitigation measures as well as costs. The conditions of service could change as a result of the additional studies. The cost of any technical assessment shall be borne by the applicant.

IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT P.0.BOX937 IMPERIAL,CA92251 1500
Item 3.

Adrian Moreno
May 19, 2025

Page 2 ends

3. 11Dwill not begin any engineering studies to provide electrical service to the project until the applicant submits a customer project application (available for download at www.iid.com/home/showpublisheddocumenUl2923/638440444053700000 and detailed loading information, panel sizes, project schedule and estimated in-service date. Applicant shall bear all costs associated with additional facilities deemed necessary to provide electrical service to the project, including but not limited to distribution feeder/backbone extensions, distribution overhead and/or underground line extensions, load balancing as well as any other related upgrades and applicable permits, zoning changes, landscaping (if required by the City) and rights-of-way and easements.

4. The district's ability to provide service from existing infrastructure is based on current available capacity, which may be impacted byfuture development in the area. IID is unable to hold system capacity to the detriment of other customers

5. Underground infrastructure of any additional facilities needed such as double conduiUvault systems that include trenching, conduits, pull boxes, switch boxes and pads shall be installed at the applicant's expense following IID approved plans within the public utility easement or dedicated easement, if applicable. Physical field installation of underground infrastructures should be verified and approved by an 11D inspector prior to cable installation as per IID Developer's Guide (available at the district website https://www.iid.com/home/showdocument?id=14229).

6. 11DRegulations governing line extensions can be found at:

No. 2 (http://www.iid.com/home/showdocument?id=2540),
No. 13 (http://www.iid.com/home/showdocument?id=2553),
No. 15 (http://www.iid.com/home/showdocument?id=2555),

7. For additional information regarding electrical service for the project, the applicant should be advised to contact the 11DEnergy - La Quinta Division Customer Operations, 81-600 Avenue 58 La Quinta, CA 92253, at (760) 398-5841 and speak with the project development planner assigned to the area.

8. ltisimportanttonotethatllD'spolicyistoextenditselectricalfacilitiesonlytothoseproject that have obtained the approval of a city or county planning commission and such other governmental authority or decision-making body having jurisdiction over said developments.

9. The project proponent will be required to provide and bear all costs associated with acquisition of land, rights of way, easements, and infrastructure relocations and realignments deemed necessary to accommodate the project. Any street or road improvements imposed by the local governing authority shall also be at the project proponent cost.

10. The applicant will be required to provide rights of ways and easements for any proposed power line extensions and/or any other infrastructure needed to serve a project as well as the necessary access to allow for continued operation and maintenance of anyllD Facilities located on adjoining properties where no public access exists. 1501
Item 3.

Adrian Moreno
May 19, 2025

Page 3 ends
← All documents from this meeting