Agenda packet — Rancho Mirage City Council, July 20, 2023 (part 3 of 6)

14747-04 VMT.docx
inconsistent with the intent of SB 743. VMT screening criteria for development projects include the following:
 Small Projects with low trip generation based on the County Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Tables resulting in a 3,000 metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent per year screening level threshold. Specific examples include retail buildings with area less than or equal to 60,000 sf,
 Projects Near High Quality Transit within a half mile of an existing major transit stop which maintains a service interval frequency of 15 minutes or less during peak commute periods,
 Map Based Screening within an area of development under threshold as shown on screening map allowed by the Engineering Department, and STEP 1: HIGH QUALITY TRANSIT SCREENING
Consistent with guidance identified in the City Guidelines, projects located within a high quality transit area (i.e., within ½ mile of an existing “major transit stop”1 or an existing stop along a “high- quality transit corridor”2) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. However, the presumption may not be appropriate if a project:
 Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
 Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking);  Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization); or  Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate or high-income residential units.

Southern California Councils of Governments (SCAG) provides TPA data through their graphical information system (GIS). This data was utilized to locate if the Project site and its proximity to a TPA. Results as shown in Attachment B, identify the Project Site is not located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop, or along a high-quality transit corridor.

TPA screening criteria is not met.

1 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.”).
2 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.”). 6-450

Mr. Ryan Stendell
City of Rancho Mirage
May 16, 2022

Page 3 of 4 ends

14747-04 VMT.docx
STEP 2: LOW VMT AREA SCREENING
As noted in the Technical Advisory, “Residential and office projects that locate in areas with low VMT and that incorporate similar features (density, mix of uses, and transit accessibility) will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT.”
City Guidelines state that the map-based screening method eliminates the need for complex analyses for projects in low VMT areas, but the screening is limited to residential and office projects.

For the residential portion of the Project, the Riverside County screening map for residential land uses indicates that the Project is in a low VMT area. Therefore, further VMT analysis of the Residential portion of the Project is not necessary. The nature of the non-residential Project land uses excludes the Golf Practice Facility and Hotel land uses from low VMT area screening.

Low VMT Area screening criteria is met for residential land uses.

STEP 3: PROJECT TYPE SCREENING
The City Guidelines state that local serving retail projects with area less than 60,000 SF may be presumed to have a less than significant impact, subject to discretionary approval by the City.

The combination of land uses on-site that includes golf, tennis facilities with hotel uses could potentially serve travelers from other areas, rather than being locally serving.

The Project Type screening threshold is not met.

PROJECT VMT ASSESSMENT
RIVTAM is a useful tool to estimate VMT as it considers interaction between different land uses based on socio-economic data such as population and employment. The City Guidelines identifies RIVTAM as the appropriate tool for conducting VMT analysis for land use projects in Riverside County.

Project VMT has been calculated using the most current version of RIVTAM. Adjustments in socio- economic data (SED) (i.e., employment) have been made to a separate TAZ within the RIVTAM model to reflect the Project’s proposed employment uses. Separate TAZs are used to isolate the Project’s VMT.

The Project is comprised of residential and non-residential use that includes retail (hotel) and golf practice facility land uses. The Project non-residential land uses have been converted to SED. It should be noted that the employment estimates have been developed from land use to employment generation factors based upon information from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) traffic generating factors, similar project representation, local knowledge, and discussions with Project team members. Approximately 220 employees represent the non- residential portion of the Project.

Adjustments to employment factors for the Project TAZ data were made to the RIVTAM base year model (2012) and the cumulative year model (2040). Each model was then run with the updated SED factors included for the Project.
6-451

Mr. Ryan Stendell
City of Rancho Mirage
May 16, 2022

Page 4 of 4 ends

14747-04 VMT.docx

PROJECT EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ON VMT
The City guidelines state that the threshold of significance for VMT impacts related to a retail project (including hotel) is a net increase in total existing VMT for the area. Consistent with Technical Advisory recommendations, it is appropriate to measure the total net change in VMT related to the implementation of a retail land use project.

Citywide VMT was extracted from the RIVTAM model for both “without Project” and “with Project” model runs. This procedure is commonly referred to as “boundary method” and includes the sum of all weekday VMT on a roadway network within a designated boundary (i.e., City of Rancho Mirage). The boundary method VMT includes all trips, including those trips that do not begin or end in the designated boundary.

The boundary method procedures are performed for 2012 and 2040 conditions, then interpolated for baseline (2022) conditions. Table 1 provides a comparison of total citywide VMT without and with the land use changes proposed by the Project for the various years. The proposed Project is forecast to result in a net decrease in citywide VMT of approximately 0.28%.

TABLE 1: RANCHO MIRAGE CITYWIDE VMT
Without Project With Project Variance
2012 VMT 758,238 751,843 -6,395
2040 VMT 874,210 879,428 +5,218
2022 Interpolated VMT 799,657 797,409 -2,248
2022 Project % Change -0.28%

To determine whether or not there is a significant impact using the boundary method, Rancho Mirage VMT with the project employment is compared to without project conditions. The project’s effect on VMT is not considered a significant impact because it results in a cumulative Citywide VMT decrease under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition.

In summary, travel demand modeling of VMT for the Project based upon City of Rancho Mirage guidelines indicates there is no Project VMT impact.

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

Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.

John Kain, AICP Marlie Whiteman, P.E.

Principal Senior Associate
6-452

REFERENCES

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

2. City of Rancho Mirage. City of Rancho Mirage Transportation Analysis Policy, Resolution No. 2021-

06. February 2021.

3. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. 11th Edition. 2021.

6-453

ATTACHMENT A

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
6-454

14747-04 VMT.docx

6-455

14747-04 VMT.docx

ATTACHMENT B

TPA MAP
6-456

14747-04 VMT.docx

The blue shaded area is the high quality transit area.

6-457

DESERT ISLAND HOTEL

APPENDIX

Appendix D
Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis, Urban
Crossroads, Inc. May 2022.

6-458

DESERT ISLAND HOTEL

FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Reference Number Agency Date
May 16, 2022 City of Rancho Mirage 14747-03 TA Report.docx PREPARED BY: Janette Cachola | [email protected] Marlie Whiteman, P.E. | [email protected]
John Kain, AICP | [email protected]

6-459

14747-03 TA Report.docx
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................... ii Appendices ......................................................................................................................................................... iv List of Exhibits ..................................................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... vi List of Abbreviated Terms ............................................................................................................................... vii 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Overview ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Analysis Scenarios ......................................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 6

1.5 Analysis Findings ........................................................................................................................... 7

1.6 Queueing Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 7 2 Methodologies .......................................................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Level of Service ............................................................................................................................. 9

2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis ...................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology ............................................................................. 11

2.4 Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) ............................................................................. 12

2.5 Deficiency Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 12 3 Area Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 13

3.1 Existing Circulation Network ....................................................................................................... 13

3.2 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Element .......................................................... 13

3.3 Transit Service ............................................................................................................................. 13

3.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................. 17

3.5 Existing (2022) Traffic Counts ..................................................................................................... 17

3.6 Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................................ 17

3.7 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis .................................................................................................. 19 4 Projected Future Traffic ......................................................................................................................... 21

4.1 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 21

4.2 Project Trip Distribution .............................................................................................................. 22

4.3 Modal Split .................................................................................................................................. 22

4.4 Project Trip Assignment .............................................................................................................. 22

4.5 Background Traffic ...................................................................................................................... 25

4.6 Cumulative Development Traffic ................................................................................................ 25 6-460

14747-03 TA Report.docx
iii

4.7 Near‐Term Conditions ................................................................................................................. 25 5 EAP (2024) Traffic Conditions ................................................................................................................ 31

5.1 Roadway Improvements ............................................................................................................. 31

5.2 EAP Traffic Volume Forecasts ..................................................................................................... 31

5.3 Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................................ 31

5.4 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis .................................................................................................. 33

5.5 Project Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements ............................................................ 33 6 EAPC (2024) Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................................. 35

6.1 Roadway Improvements ............................................................................................................. 35

6.2 EAPC (2024) Traffic Volume Forecasts ........................................................................................ 35

6.3 Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................................ 35

6.4 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis .................................................................................................. 37

6.5 Project Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements ............................................................ 37 7 References ............................................................................................................................................... 39

6-461

14747-03 TA Report.docx
iv

APPENDICES
Appendix 1.1: Approved Traffic Study Scoping Agreement
Appendix 1.2: Site Adjacent Queues
Appendix 3.1: Traffic Counts – May 2022
Appendix 3.2: Existing (2022) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 3.3: Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Appendix 5.1: EAP (2024) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 6.1: EAPC (2024) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets 6-462

14747-03 TA Report.docx
v

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1-1: Preliminary Site Plan ..................................................................................................................... 2 Exhibit 1-2: Study Area ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Exhibit 1-3: On-Site Traffic Circulation ............................................................................................................. 5 Exhibit 3-1: Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls ............................................. 14 Exhibit 3-2: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Element ...................................................... 15 Exhibit 3-3: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Roadway Cross-Sections .............................................. 16 Exhibit 3-4: Existing (2022) Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................. 18 Exhibit 4-1: Project Trip Distribution .............................................................................................................. 23 Exhibit 4-2: Project Only Traffic volumes ...................................................................................................... 24 Exhibit 4-3: Cumulative Development Location Map .................................................................................. 27 Exhibit 4-4: Cumulative Only Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 28 Exhibit 5-1: EAP (2024) Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................... 32 Exhibit 6-1: EAPC (2024) Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................... 36

6-463

14747-03 TA Report.docx
vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Intersection Analysis Locations ...................................................................................................... 6 Table 1-2: Project Access Queueing Analysis for EAPC ................................................................................. 8 Table 2-1: Signalized Intersection LOS Thresholds ...................................................................................... 10 Table 2-2: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Thresholds ................................................................................. 11 Table 3-1: Intersection Analysis for Existing (2022) Conditions ................................................................. 19 Table 4-1: Project Trip Generation Summary ............................................................................................... 22 Table 4-2: Cumulative Development land use Summary ........................................................................... 29 Table 5-1: Intersection Analysis for EAP Conditions .................................................................................... 31 Table 6-1: Intersection Analysis for EAPC (2024) Conditions ...................................................................... 35

6-464

14747-03 TA Report.docx
vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
CAMUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Caltrans California Department of Transportation
DIF Development Impact Fee
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
PHF Peak Hour Factor
Project Desert Island hotel
sf Square Feet
TA Traffic Analysis

6-465

14747-03 TA Report.docx
viii
This page intentionally left blank
6-466

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
1 1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the focused traffic analysis (TA) for Desert Island hotel (“Project”), which is located south of Frank Sinatra Drive and adjacent to Island Drive in the City of Rancho Mirage, as shown on Exhibit 1-1.

The purpose of this focused TA is to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the proposed Project, and recommend improvements to achieve acceptable circulation system operational conditions. This focused TA has been prepared based in accordance with the County of Riverside’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service & Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020), as the City of Rancho Mirage utilizes the County LOS analysis guidelines. (1) To ensure that this TA satisfies the City of Rancho Mirage’s traffic study requirements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a traffic study scoping package for review by City staff prior to the preparation of this report. The Agreement provides an outline of the Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology. The Agreement approved by the City is included in Appendix 1.1.

1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
For both Existing (2022) and Opening Year Cumulative (2024) traffic conditions the addition of Project traffic to study area intersections did not result in deficient intersection operations. The proposed Project is not anticipated to require the construction of any off-site improvements.

1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project is proposed to repurpose approximately 13.3 acres of the existing golf driving range and a portion of the existing golf course with new facilities to accommodate a 42-key boutique hotel (with tennis, pool, and yoga amenities), 11 private residences, and a golf training facility.

The existing driving range will be removed to make room for the new facilities. The existing golf maintenance structure will be replaced by a new building along with an expanded parking lot east of the main entry. The existing clubhouse will remain and continue to provide services to golfers, Desert Island residents, and the general public, with occasional events for up to 300 persons. It is anticipated that events with more than 300 persons in the existing clubhouse building would require a Temporary Use Permit, accompanied by a parking and traffic management plan if necessary. The existing golf course will continue to operate as an 18-hole facility with minor routing adjustments to 9th and 18th Fairways to accommodate the hotel.

Amenities which are complementary to the new hotel include a hotel pool, a small pool café, a tennis court for hotel guests, and a shaded yoga platform located on the island south of the lake accessed by foot from the existing bridge.

The new private duplex-style condominium residences (11 units) will be managed and maintained by the hotel operator. When not in use by individual owners, these units will be made available for rental by the hotel operator. For traffic analysis purposes, these 11 units are addressed as single family residences in order to include trip rates which are higher than those associated with multifamily units. 1 6-467

DESERT ISLAND SPECIFIC PLAN : HOTEL AMENDMENT

3 2.0 MASTER PLAN
Development Concept

2 6-468

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
3 The new golf training park will replace the current driving range. It will consist of an 18-hole tournament putting green, short game training areas, and virtual golf simulator stations. In order to evaluate the potential increase in practice golf park activity which maybe higher than the existing driving range, the employment associated with golf practice activity is estimated to increase by 10 employees.

The hotel will take primary access from the existing Desert Island main gate on Frank Sinatra Drive.

No physical changes are proposed to the existing entry gatehouse, other than to keep the gates open during operating hours to eliminate any vehicle stacking onto Frank Sinatra Drive. Likewise, the resident gate and turnaround on Island Drive will be retained in its existing condition without change.

Secondary access to Frank Sinatra will be accommodated by widening the existing gated entry at the northwest corner of the golf course from 12-feet to 24-feet to provide secondary emergency vehicle access.

Exhibit 1-3 shows the on-site traffic circulation. Southbound golf and hotel traffic will enter the project using the right-hand lane with a free-flow right turn where an attendant will greet and direct guests to the appropriate parking area. Resident traffic will use the left-hand entry lane and proceed straight to the resident gate as they always have. Traffic exiting the hotel will use the existing clubhouse driveway.

In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed project, trip-generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (11th Edition, 2021) manual for the proposed land uses (ITE Land Use Codes: 330 – Resort Hotel; 210 – Single Family Residential; 432 – Golf Practice) are used. The Project is anticipated to generate a total of 991 new trip-ends per day with 39 new AM peak hour trips and 83 new PM peak hour trips. The assumptions and methods used to estimate the Project’s trip generation characteristics are discussed in greater detail in Section

4.1 Project Trip Generation of this report.

1.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
For the purposes of this traffic study, potential deficiencies to traffic and circulation have been assessed for each of the following conditions:
 Existing (2022) Conditions
 Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) (2024) Conditions  Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2024) Conditions

1.3.1 EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS
Information for Existing (2021) conditions is disclosed to represent the baseline traffic conditions as they existed at the time this report was prepared. For a detailed discussion on the existing traffic counts, see Section 3.6 Existing Traffic Counts.

3 6-469

4 6-470

DESERT ISLAND SPECIFIC PLAN : HOTEL AMENDMENT

7 Traffic routing at the project entry is shown below. Southbound golf and hotel traffic will enter the project using the right-hand lane with a free-flow right turn where an attendant will greet and direct guests to the appropriate parking area. Resident traffic will use the left-hand entry lane and proceed straight to the resident gate as they always have. Traffic exiting the hotel will use the existing clubhouse driveway.

5 6-471

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
6 1.3.2 EAP (2024) CONDITIONS
The Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) conditions analysis determines traffic deficiencies that would occur on the existing roadway system with the addition of Project traffic. To account for background traffic growth, traffic associated with other known cumulative development projects in conjunction with an ambient growth factor from Existing conditions of 4.04% (2% per year, compounded annually over 2 years) is included for EAP (2024) traffic conditions. The ambient growth is consistent with the growth used by other projects in the area within the City of Rancho Mirage.

1.3.3 EAPC (2024) CONDITIONS
The Existing plus Project plus Ambient Growth plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2024) traffic conditions analysis determines the potential near-term cumulative circulation system deficiencies. To account for background traffic growth, traffic associated with other known cumulative development projects in conjunction with an ambient growth factor from Existing conditions of 4.04% is included for EAPC (2024) traffic conditions. The ambient growth is consistent with the growth used by other projects in the area. This comprehensive list was compiled from information provided by the City of Rancho Mirage.

1.4 STUDY AREA
The Project study area was defined in coordination with the City of Rancho Mirage. Consistent with County of Riverside traffic study guidelines, the study area includes any intersection of “Collector” or higher classification street, with “Collector” or higher classification streets, at which the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips. Exhibit 1-2 presents the study area and intersection analysis locations.

The “50 peak hour trip” criteria generally represents a minimum number of trips at which a typical intersection would have the potential to be substantively impacted by a given development proposal.

Although each intersection may have unique operating characteristics, this traffic engineering rule of thumb is a widely utilized tool for estimating a potential area of impact (i.e., study area).

To ensure that this TA satisfies the needs of the City of Palm Desert, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a Project specific traffic study scoping agreement for review by City staff prior to the preparation of this TA. The agreement provides an outline of the study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology. The agreement approved by the City of Palm Desert is included in Appendix

1.1. The following 2 study area intersections shown on Exhibit 1-2 and listed in Table 1-1 were selected for this TA based on consultation with City of Rancho Mirage.

TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
# Intersection
1 Island Dr. / Frank Sinatra Dr.
2 Bob Hope Dr. / Frank Sinatra Dr.
6 6-472

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
7 1.5 ANALYSIS FINDINGS
This section provides a summary of the analysis results for Existing (2022), EAP (2024), and EAPC (2024) conditions.

1.5.1 EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS
For Existing (2022) traffic conditions, the study intersections were found to operate at an acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS “D” or better) during AM and PM peak hours.

1.5.2 EAP 2024 CONDITIONS
For EAP (2024) traffic conditions, the study intersections were found to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS “D” or better) during AM and PM peak hours.

1.5.3 EAPC 2024 CONDITIONS
For EAPC (2024) traffic conditions, the study intersections were found to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS “D” or better) during AM and PM peak hours.

The intersection of Island Drive / Frank Sinatra Drive (#1) is anticipated to meet warrants under EAPC (2024) conditions. It should be noted that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. Meeting this condition does not require that a traffic control signal be installed, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified. It should also be noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with LOS. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above acceptable LOS or operate below acceptable LOS and not meet a signal warrant which is the case for Island Drive / Frank Sinatra Drive (#1).

1.6 QUEUEING ANALYSIS
A queuing analysis was conducted along the Project Driveway, intersection of Island Drive and Frank Sinatra Drive for EAPC (2024) traffic conditions to determine the turn pocket lengths and lane geometric necessary to accommodate near-term 95th percentile queues and recommend storage lengths for the turning movements shown on Exhibit 1-4. The analysis was conducted for the weekday AM and weekday PM peak hours using the SimTraffic modeling software. The EAPC (2024) queuing results are provided in Table 1-2 and Appendix 1.2 of this TA.

SimTraffic is designed to model networks of signalized and unsignalized intersections, with the primary purpose of checking and fine-tuning signal operations. SimTraffic uses the input parameters from Synchro (Version 11) to generate random simulations. The 95th percentile queue is not necessarily ever observed; it is simply based on statistical calculations (or Average Queue plus 1.65 standard deviations). The random simulations generated by SimTraffic have been utilized to determine the 95th percentile queue lengths observed for each turn lane. 7 6-473

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
8 TABLE 1-2: PROJECT ACCESS QUEUEING ANALYSIS FOR EAPC
ID Intersection Movement
# of
Lanes
EAPC (2024) Storage
Length2
(ft.)
95th Percentile
Queue Length1
AM PM
Peak
Hour Volume AM PM
1 Island Dr. / Frank Sinatra
Dr.

NBL 1 78 69 AM 78 30 49 3 43 3
NBR 1 46 39 AM 46 75 52 55
WBL 1 40 32 AM 40 95 44 40

1 Queue length calculated using SimTraffic.
2 Existing/Proposed length of storage.
3 Review of SimTraffic simulation results indicate that the turn lane queue is anticipated to clear in a timely manner and that the provided pocket length is adequate to accommodate the 95th percentile queue.

8 6-474

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
9 2 METHODOLOGIES
This section of the report presents the methodologies used to perform the traffic analyses summarized in this report. The methodologies described are consistent with City of Rancho Mirage’s Traffic Study Guidelines.

2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE
Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described using the term "Level of Service" (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on several factors, such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are typically defined ranging from LOS A, representing completely free-flow conditions, to LOS F, representing breakdown in flow resulting in stop-and-go conditions.

LOS E represents operations at or near capacity, an unstable level where vehicles are operating with the minimum spacing for maintaining uniform flow.

2.2 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The definitions of LOS for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control. The LOS is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway. The 6th Edition Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. (2) The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control.

2.2.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Rancho Mirage requires signalized intersection operations analysis based on the methodology described in the HCM. (2) Intersection LOS operations are based on an intersection’s average control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. For signalized intersections LOS is related to the average control delay per vehicle and is correlated to a LOS designation as described on Table 2-1.

The traffic modeling and signal timing optimization software package Synchro (Version 11) has been utilized to analyze signalized intersections. Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program that is based on the signalized intersection capacity analysis as specified in the HCM. Macroscopic level models represent traffic in terms of aggregate measures for each movement at the study intersections. Equations are used to determine measures of effectiveness such as delay and queue length. The level of service and capacity analysis performed by Synchro takes into consideration optimization and coordination of signalized intersections within a network.

The peak hour traffic volumes have been adjusted using a peak hour factor (PHF) to reflect peak 15- minute volumes. Customary practice for LOS analysis is to use a peak 15-minute rate of flow.

However, flow rates are typically expressed in vehicles per hour. The PHF is the relationship between the peak 15-minute flow rate and the full hourly volume (e.g., PHF = [Hourly Volume] / [4 x Peak 15- minute Flow Rate]). The use of a 15-minute PHF produces a more detailed analysis as compared to 9 6-475

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
10 analyzing vehicles per hour. Existing PHFs have been used for all analysis scenarios. Per the HCM, PHF values over 0.95 often are indicative of high traffic volumes with capacity constraints on peak hour flows while lower PHF values are indicative of greater variability of flow during the peak hour. (2)
TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS

2.2.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Rancho Mirage requires the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using the methodology described in the HCM. (2) The LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (see Table 2-2). At two-way or side-street stop-controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled movement and for the left turn movement from the major street, as well as for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. Delay for the intersection is reported for the worst individual movement at a two-way stop-controlled intersection. For all-way stop controlled intersections, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole (average delay).

Description Average Control Delay
(Seconds), V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of Service,
V/C ≤ 1.01
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length.0 to 10.00 A
Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths.10.01 to 20.00 B
Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.

20.01 to 35.00 C
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

35.01 to 55.00 D
Operations with high delay values indicating poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.

Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.

55.01 to 80.00 E
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers
occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.

80.01 and up F
Source: HCM, 6th Edition
1 If V/C is greater than 1.0 then LOS is F per HCM.
10 6-476

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
11 TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS

2.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The term "signal warrants" refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or determine the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. This TA uses the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest edition of the Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). (3) The signal warrant criteria for Existing study area intersections are based upon several factors, including volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, and location of school areas. The CA MUTCD indicates that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or more of the signal warrants are met. (3) Specifically, this TA utilizes the Peak Hour Volume-based Warrant 3 as the appropriate representative traffic signal warrant analysis for existing traffic conditions and for all future analysis scenarios for existing unsignalized intersections. Warrant 3 is appropriate to use for this TA because it provides specialized warrant criteria for intersections with rural characteristics. For the purposes of this study, the speed limit was the basis for determining whether Urban or Rural warrants were used for a given intersection. Urban warrants have been used as posted speed limits on the major roadways with unsignalized intersections are 40 miles per hour or below and rural warrants have been used on roadways with speeds greater than 40 miles per hour.

Future intersections that do not currently exist have been assessed regarding the potential need for new traffic signals based on future average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, using the Caltrans planning level ADT-based signal warrant analysis worksheets. Similarly, the speed limit has been used as the basis for determining the use of Urban and Rural warrants. Traffic signal warrant analyses were performed for the intersection of Island Drive / Frank Sinatra Drive (#1).

The Existing conditions traffic signal warrant analysis is presented in the subsequent section, Section 3 Area Conditions of this report. The traffic signal warrant analyses for future conditions are presented in Section 5 EAP (2024) Traffic Conditions and Section 6 EAPC (2024) Traffic Conditions of this report. It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. Meeting this threshold condition does not require that a traffic Description Average Control Delay
(Seconds), V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of Service,
V/C ≤ 1.01
Little or no delays.0 to 10.00 A
Short traffic delays.10.01 to 15.00 B
Average traffic delays.15.01 to 25.00 C
Long traffic delays.25.01 to 35.00 D
Very long traffic delays.35.01 to 50.00 E
Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded.> 50.00 F Source: HCM, 6th Edition
1 If V/C is greater than 1.0 then LOS is F per HCM.
11 6-477

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
12 control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified. It should also be noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with LOS. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above acceptable LOS or operate below acceptable LOS and not meet a signal warrant.

2.4 MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)
Minimum Acceptable LOS and associated definitions of intersection deficiencies has been obtained from each of the applicable surrounding jurisdictions.

The City of Rancho Mirage’s General Plan recommends a LOS standard of LOS D. If during the LOS evaluations an intersection or roadway segment is found to not meet the requisite LOS standard as established by the City’s General Plan, improvement modifications will be evaluated to bring the forecasted deficiency to within acceptable LOS thresholds. It is assumed that for purposes of this Project that most facilities are built to ultimate and only in limited instances would additional improvements be needed. Improvements could include signal timing changes or other that could be achieved within the existing curb to curb distance of the intersection or roadway segment.

2.5 DEFICIENCY CRITERIA
This section outlines the methodology used in this analysis related to identifying circulation system deficiencies. To determine whether the addition of project traffic at a study intersection or roadway segment results in a traffic deficiency, the following thresholds will be utilized:
 A traffic deficiency occurs at a signalized study area intersection if the addition of project traffic results in the intersection operations to go from LOS “D” or better (i.e., acceptable) to LOS “E” or “F.”  A traffic deficiency occurs at an unsignalized study area intersection if the addition of project traffic results in the intersection operations to go from LOS “D” or better (i.e., acceptable) to LOS “E” or “F.”  A traffic deficiency occurs at a study area roadway segment if the addition of project traffic results in the roadway segment operations to go from LOS “D” or better (i.e., acceptable) to LOS “E” or “F.”

12 6-478

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
13 3 AREA CONDITIONS
This section provides a summary of the existing circulation network, the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Network, and a review of existing peak hour intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.

3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
Pursuant to the agreement with City of Rancho Mirage staff (Appendix 1.1), the study area includes 2 existing intersections as shown previously on Exhibit 1-2. Exhibit 3-1 illustrates the study area intersections located near the proposed Project and identifies the number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls.

3.2 CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT As noted previously, the Project site is located within the City of Rancho Mirage. The roadway classifications and planned (ultimate) roadway cross-sections of the major roadways within the study area, as identified on the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Element, are described subsequently. Exhibit 3-2 shows the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Element and Exhibit 3-3 illustrates the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan roadway cross-sections.

The study area roadway that is classified as a Major Arterial is identified as having a 120-foot right-of- way and 106-foot curb-to-curb measurement. Major Arterials include three lanes of travel in each direction and a 16-foot curbed and/or landscaped median. The following study area roadway within the City of Rancho Mirage is classified as a Major Arterial:
 Bob Hope Drive, north of Frank Sinatra Drive.

The study area roadway that is classified as a Minor Arterial is identified as having a 110-foot right-of- way and 86-foot curb-to-curb measurement. Minor Arterial includes two lanes of travel in each direction and a 16-foot curbed and/or landscaped median. The following study area roadway within the City of Rancho Mirage is classified as a Modified Major Arterial II:
 Bob Hope Drive, south of Frank Sinatra Drive
 Frank Sinatra Drive

3.3 TRANSIT SERVICE
The City of Rancho Mirage is currently served by the SunLine Transit Agency (STA), a public transit agency serving various jurisdictions throughout Coachella Valley. Route 4 runs along Bob Hope Drive within the study area. Transit service is reviewed and updated by STA periodically to address ridership, budget and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate. It should also be noted that SunDial service provides special services for the disabled and seniors (60+). Route 4 runs along Bob Hope Drive within the study area.
13 6-479

14 6-480

26 26
Exhibit 8 Circulation Roadway Plan Exhibit 9 Designated Truck Routes !!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
ST111
Gerald Ford Dr
Country Club Dr
30th Ave
Ramon Rd
Dinah Shore Dr
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
d
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
Frank Sinatra Dr
Mo
r
n
i
n
g
s
i
d
e

D
r
Ra
t
t
l
e
r

R
d
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
Rancho Las Palmas Dr
Conceptual
Alignment
Conceptual
Alignment
0 0.5 1
MilesN
!!Critical Intersections
City Roadways
Major Arterial (6D)
Minor Arterial (4D)
Minor Arterial (4D)
(Conceptual Alignment)
Major Collector (4D)
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
6D - Six-lane Divided Roadway
4D - Four-land divided Roadway
Sources: Riverside County, 2016; Esri World
Imagery, 2017.

ST111
Gerald Ford Dr
Country Club Dr
Ramon Rd
Dinah Shore Dr
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
d
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
Frank Sinatra Dr
Mo
r
n
i
n
g
s
i
d
e

D
r
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
0 0.5 1
MilesN
Designated Truck Routes
Time Restricted Truck Routes
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Sources: Riverside County, 2016;
Esri World Imagery, 2017.
15 6-481

16 6-482

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
17 3.4 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
Existing on-street bike lanes are located on both sides of the roadways along Bob Hope Drive and Frank Sinatra Drive. Sidewalks exist on the south side of Frank Sinatra Drive and east side for Bob Hope Drive, south of Frank Sinatra Drive.

3.5 EXISTING (2022) TRAFFIC COUNTS
The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected in May 2022. The following peak hours were selected for analysis:
 Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM)  Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM) The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix 3.1.

The weekday AM and PM peak hour count data are representative of typical peak hour traffic conditions in the study area. There were no observations made in the field that would indicate atypical traffic conditions on the count dates, such as construction activity that would prevent or limit roadway access and detour routes. These raw turning volumes have been flow conserved between intersections with limited access, no access and where there are currently no uses generating traffic.

Existing weekday ADT volumes are shown on Exhibit 3-4. Where actual 24-hour tube count data was not available, Existing ADT volumes were based upon factored intersection peak hour counts collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. using the following formula for each intersection leg:

Weekday PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) x 12.195 = Leg Volume A comparison of the PM peak hour and daily traffic volumes of various roadway segments within the study area indicated that the peak-to-daily relationship is approximately 8.20 percent. As such, the above equation utilizing a factor of 12.195 estimates the ADT volumes on the study area roadway segments assuming a peak-to-daily relationship of approximately 8.20 percent (i.e., 1/0.0820 = 12.195) and was assumed to sufficiently estimate average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for planning-level analyses. Existing weekday peak hour intersection volumes are also shown on Exhibit 3-4.

3.6 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis of this report. The intersection operations analysis results are summarized on Table 3-1, which indicates that all existing study area intersections are currently operating at acceptable LOS during the peak hours. The intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 3.2 of this TA.

17 6-483

18 6-484

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
19 TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS Intersection Approach Lanes2 Delay3 Level of
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service # Intersection Control1 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 Island Dr. / Frank Sinatra Dr. CSS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 23.7 18.6 C C 2 Bob Hope Dr. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 d 2 2 1 31.2 27.2 C C

1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-street Stop
2 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.

L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane 3 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.

3.7 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants for Existing traffic conditions are based on existing peak hour intersection turning volumes. The unsignalized intersection of Island Drive / Frank Sinatra Drive (#1) does not currently warrant a traffic signal for Existing traffic conditions. Existing conditions traffic signal warrant analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix 3.3. 19 6-485

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
40 This page intentionally left blank
20 6-486

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
21 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
This section presents the traffic volumes estimated to be generated by the Project, as well as the Project’s trip assignment onto the study area roadway network.

The Project is proposed to repurpose approximately 13.3 acres of the existing golf driving range and a portion of the existing golf course with new facilities to accommodate a 42-key boutique hotel (with tennis, pool, and yoga amenities), 11 private residences, and a golf training facility.

The new golf training park will replace the current driving range. It will consist of an 18-hole tournament putting green, short game training areas, and virtual golf simulator stations. In order to evaluate the potential increase in practice golf park activity which maybe higher than the existing driving range, the employment associated with golf practice activity is estimated to increase by 10 employees.

It is anticipated that the Project would be fully developed by year 2024. The Project will take primary access from the existing Desert Island Main gate on Frank Sinatra Drive.

Regional access to the Project site is available from the I-10 Freeway via Bob Hope Drive.

4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the specific land uses being proposed for a given development.

In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed project, trip-generation statistics published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) for the proposed land uses (ITE Land 21 6-487

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
22 Use Codes: 330 – Resort Hotel; 210 – Single Family Residential; 432 – Golf Practice) are used. (4) Table 4-1 presents the trip generation rates and the resulting trip generation summary for the proposed Project. As shown in Table 4-1, the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 991 new trip-ends per day with 39 new AM peak hour trips and 83 new PM peak hour trips.

TABLE 4-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates1
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Resort Hotel 330 42 OCC RM 0.27 0.10 0.37 0.20 0.27 0.47 7.87 Single Family Units 210 11 DU 0.18 0.52 0.70 0.59 0.35 0.94 9.43 Golf Practice 432 10 EMP 1.00 0.64 1.64 2.74 2.74 5.48 55.57

Trip Generation Results
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Resort Hotel 330 42 OCC RM 11 4 15 8 11 19 331
Single Family Units 210 11 DU 2 6 8 6 4 10 104
Golf Practice 432 10 EMP 10 6 16 27 27 54 556
TOTAL 23 16 39 41 42 83 991
1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021). 2 Occ. RM = Occupied Room; DU = Dwelling Unit; EMP = Employee

4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The Project trip distribution and assignment process represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the Project site. 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 4-1 trip distribution patterns for the Project.

4.3 MODAL SPLIT
The potential for Project trips (non-truck) to be reduced by the use of public transit, walking or bicycling have not been included as part of the Project’s estimated trip generation. Essentially, the Project’s traffic projections are "conservative" in that these alternative travel modes would reduce the forecasted traffic volumes.

4.4 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project weekday ADT and weekday peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4-2.

22 6-488

23 6-489

24 6-490

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
25 4.5 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
Future year traffic forecasts have been based upon background (ambient) growth at 2% per year for 2024 traffic conditions. The total ambient growth is 4.04% for 2024 traffic conditions. The ambient growth factor is intended to approximate regional traffic growth. This ambient growth rate is added to existing traffic volumes to account for area-wide growth not reflected by cumulative development projects. Ambient growth has been added to daily and peak hour traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, in conjunction with traffic generated by the development of future projects that have been approved but not yet built and/or for which development applications have been filed and are under consideration by governing agencies. Opening Year Cumulative (2024) traffic volumes are provided in Section 4.6 of this report. The traffic generated by the proposed Project was then manually added to the base volume to determine EAP/EAPC forecasts.

The near-term traffic analysis includes the following traffic conditions, with the various traffic components:
 EAP (2024)
o Existing (2022) volumes
o Ambient growth traffic (4.04% over 2 years)
o Project Traffic
 EAPC (2024)
o Existing (2022) volumes
o Ambient growth traffic (4.04% over 2 years)
o Project Traffic
o Cumulative Development traffic

4.6 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
A cumulative project list was developed for the purposes of this analysis through consultation with planning and engineering staff from the City of Rancho Mirage. The cumulative projects listed are those that would generate traffic and would contribute traffic to study area intersections.

Exhibit 4-3 illustrates the cumulative development location map. A summary of cumulative development projects and their proposed land uses are shown on Table 4-2. If applicable, the traffic generated by individual cumulative projects was manually added to the Opening Year Cumulative forecasts to ensure that traffic generated by the listed cumulative development projects on Table 4-3 are reflected as part of the background traffic. In an effort to conduct a conservative analysis, the cumulative projects are added in conjunction with the ambient growth identified in Section 4.5 Background Traffic. Cumulative ADT and peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4-4.

4.7 NEAR-TERM CONDITIONS
The “buildup” approach has been utilized which combines existing traffic counts with a background ambient growth factor to forecast the EAP (2024) and EAPC (2024) traffic conditions. An ambient growth factor of

4.04% accounts for background (area-wide) traffic increases that occur over time up to the year 2024 from the year 2022 (2.0% per year, compounded over a 2-year period). Project traffic is added to assess EAP (2024) and EAPC (2024) traffic conditions, respectively. Traffic volumes generated by cumulative development projects are included to assess the EAPC (2024) traffic conditions. The 2024 roadway 25 6-491

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
26 networks are similar to the existing conditions roadway network with the exception of future roadways and intersections proposed to be developed by the Project. It should be noted that Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Cumulative (EAC) traffic forecasts were also developed for applicable study area intersections only to determine the change in delay and identify whether the Project has an adverse effect on a pre- project deficiency.

26 6-492

27 6-493

28 6-494

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
29 TABLE 4-2: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
TAZ Project Case Number Land Use Quantity Units1
RM1 RM 38 JV LLC DA190002 / TTM36620 Residential 82 DU
RM2 Carefield Senior Living PDP18004 / DA180003 / EA180002 Residential 84 DU RM3 ECHO at Rancho Mirage PDP18003 Residential 9 DU
RM4 Santa Barbara Cove Estates PDP18001 / TTM35573 Residential 20 DU RM6 Veneto MOD16019 Residential 34 DU
RM7 Revelle PDP13003 / FDP13004 Residential 32 DU
RM8 Bella Clancy ZTA05003 / EA050025 / MOD05016 / FDP04002 / PDP03015 Residential 20 DU
RM9 Mirada Villas FDP05004 / PDP04011 / MOD06024 / MOD11040 Residential 46 DU RM10 Estilo PDP12003 / FDP12005 Residential 39 DU
RM11 RM Five‐1 LLC/Kilani TPM37222R / EA190008 Residential 4 DU RM12 Heinrich/Steinberg TPM34232 / TPPMX34232 / TPM34233 / TPMX34233 Residential 4 DU RM13 Rancho Mirage LLC TPM34741 / EA060009 / TPMX‐34741 / PDPX34741 Residential 4 DU RM14 La Paloma Homes, Inc. TTM37637 Residential 13 DU
RM17 38 JV, LLC c/o Meriwether
Companies TTM36620 / EA130006 / SPA13001 / TTM2X36620 Residential 97 DU RM18 38 JV, LLC c/o Meriwether
Companies TTM36622 / EA130008 / TTM3X36622 Residential 10 DU RM19 GRV Mirage, LLC (ECHO) TTM35619 / EA070011 Residential 9 DU RM20 Ken Catanzarite TTM35573 Residential 20 DU
RM21 Mirage dunes Properties TTM05004 / TTM33329 / TTM2X33329 Residential 9 DU RM23 IN‐N‐OUT Burgers PDP19002 / EA190004 / CUP19007 / ZTA19002 / DA190001 Commercial 3.995 DU
RM24 DHO Medical Office Building PDP19001 / EA190001 Medical Office 13.800 TSF RM25 Chase Bank PDP18005 Bank 3.470 TSF
RM26 Section 31 Specific Plan Project SP180001 / EIR18001 / GPZMA18003 Hotel 400 Rooms
Commercial 175.000 TSF
Residential 1,932 DU
RM27 Tower Energy Group CUP18004 / TPM37486 / EA180004 Commercial 5.565 TSF RM28 Oasis Ranch LLC PDP18002 / TTM37461
Hotel 60 Rooms
Residential 108 DU
RM29 Horizon Pacific Rancho Cove
MSA Consulting PDP16003 / TTM37122
Commercial 20.000 TSF
Hotel 100 Rooms
Residential 35 DU
RM30 Ritz‐Carlton Residences ‐‐
Residential 106 DU
Commercial 6.966 TSF
RM31 Hazelden Betty Ford Center ‐‐
Office 6.399 TSF
Drug/Alcohol
Treatment
Ctr.
56 Beds
RM32 ED Rancho Mirage TTM 37856/TTM 37563/PDP19004/EA 190009 Residential 354 DU 1 DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet

29 6-495

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
40 This page intentionally left blank
30 6-496

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
31 5 EAP (2024) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the traffic forecasts for Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) conditions and the resulting intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.

5.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for EAP (2024) conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3-1, with the exception of the following:
 Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for EAP (2024) conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements at the Project’s frontage and driveways).

5.2 EAP TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus an ambient growth factor of 4.04% and the addition of Project traffic. The weekday ADT and weekday peak hour intersection turning movement volumes which can be expected for EAP (2024) traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 5-1.

5.3 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
EAP (2024) peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TA. The intersection analysis results are summarized on Table 5-1 for EAP (2024) traffic conditions, which indicate that the study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS “D” or better) under EAP (2024) traffic conditions. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAP (2024) traffic conditions are included in Appendix 5.1 of this TA.

TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP CONDITIONS
Intersection Approach Lanes2 Delay3 Level of
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service # Intersection Control1 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 Island Dr. / Frank Sinatra Dr. CSS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 27.9 22.5 D C 2 Bob Hope Dr. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 d 2 2 1 31.8 28.1 C C

31 6-497

32 6-498

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
33 5.4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
The traffic signal warrant analysis for EAP (2024) traffic conditions are based on the peak hour volume- based traffic signal warrants. The unsignalized intersection of Island Drive / Frank Sinatra Drive is not anticipated to meet peak hour volume-based warrants with the addition of Project traffic (see Appendix 3.3).

5.5 PROJECT DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
The study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of Project traffic. As such, no additional improvements aside from those that are needed to facilitate site access have been recommended.

33 6-499

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
34 This page intentionally left blank
34 6-500

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
35 6 EAPC (2024) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2024) traffic forecasts, and the resulting intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.

6.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for EAPC (2024) conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3-1, with the exception of the following:
 Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for Opening Year Cumulative conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along the Project’s frontage and driveways).  If applicable, driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by cumulative developments to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for Opening Year Cumulative conditions only.

6.2 EAPC (2024) TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus an ambient growth factor of 4.04% plus traffic from pending and approved but not yet constructed known development projects in the area. The weekday ADT and weekday peak hour volumes which can be expected for EAPC (2024) traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 6-1.

6.3 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under EAPC (2024) traffic conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with Section 6.1 Roadway Improvements. As shown on Table 6-1, the study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS “D” or better) under EAPC (2024) traffic conditions. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC (2024) traffic conditions are included in Appendix 6.1 of this TA.

TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2024) CONDITIONS Intersection Approach Lanes2 Delay3 Level of
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service # Intersection Control1 L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1 Island Dr. / Frank Sinatra Dr. CSS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 34.2 30.7 D D 2 Bob Hope Dr. / Frank Sinatra Dr. TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 d 2 2 1 34.8 30.4 C C

36 6-502

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
37 6.4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
The traffic signal warrant analysis for EAPC (2024) traffic conditions are based on the peak hour volume-based traffic signal warrants. The unsignalized intersection of Island Drive / Frank Sinatra Drive is anticipated to meet peak hour volume-based warrants for EAPC (2024) traffic conditions (see Appendix 3.3).

As mentioned previously, a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. Meeting this condition does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified. It should also be noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with LOS. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above acceptable LOS or operate below acceptable LOS and not meet a signal warrant.

6.5 PROJECT DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
The study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of Project traffic. As such, no additional improvements aside from those that are needed to facilitate site access have been recommended.

37 6-503

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
40 This page intentionally left blank
38 6-504

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
39 7 REFERENCES

1. Riverside County Transportation Department. Transportation Analysis Guideines for Level of Service & Vehicle Miles Traveled. County of Riverside : s.n., December 2020.

2. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 6th Edition. s.l. : National Academy of Sciences, 2016.

3. California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). [book auth.] California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). 2014, Updated March 30, 2021 (Revision 6).

4. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. 11th Edition, 2021.

39 6-505

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
40 This page intentionally left blank
40 6-506

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
APPENDIX 1.1: APPROVED TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT

6-507

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
6-508

14747‐02 TIA Scope.docx
April 18, 2022

Mr. Ryan Stendell
City of Rancho Mirage, Director of Public Works
69‐825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270

SUBJECT: DESERT ISLAND HOTEL FOCUSED LOS ANALYSIS AND VMT SCREENING ‐ SCOPING

AGREEMENT
Dear Mr. Ryan Stendell:

Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this scoping letter to the City of Rancho Mirage regarding the Focused Level of Service (LOS) Analysis and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening for the proposed Desert Island Specific Plan Hotel Amendment (“Project”). The Project is located south of Frank Sinatra Drive and adjacent to Island Drive in the City of Rancho Mirage. It is our understanding that the Project will repurpose approximately 13.3 acres of the existing golf driving range and a portion of the existing golf course with new facilities to accommodate a 42‐key boutique hotel (with tennis, pool, and yoga amenities), 11 private residences, and a golf training facility.

The existing driving range will be removed to make room for the new facilities. The existing golf maintenance structure will be replaced by a new building along with an expanded parking lot east of the main entry. The existing clubhouse will remain and continue to provide services to golfers, Desert Island residents, and the general public, with occasional events for up to 300 persons. It is anticipated that events with more than 300 persons in the existing clubhouse building would require a Temporary Use Permit, accompanied by a parking and traffic management plan if necessary. The existing golf course will continue to operate as an 18‐hole facility with minor routing adjustments to 9th and 18th Fairways to accommodate the hotel.

The new private duplex‐style condominium residences (11 units) will be managed and maintained by the hotel operator. When not in use by individual owners, these units will be made available for rental by the hotel operator. For traffic analysis purposes, these 11 units are addressed as single family residences in order to include trip rates which are higher than those associated with multifamily units.

The new golf training park will replace the current driving range. It will consist of an 18‐hole tournament putting green, short game training areas, and virtual golf simulator stations. In order to evaluate the potential increase in practice golf park activity which maybe higher than the existing driving range, the employment associated with golf practice activity is estimated to increase by 10 employees.

1.1-1 6-509

Mr. Ryan Stendell
City of Rancho Mirage
April 18, 2022

Page 2 ends

14747‐02 TIA Scope.docx
The remainder of this letter describes the proposed analysis methodology, Project trip generation, trip distribution, and Project traffic assignment/project trips on the surrounding roadway network. The following scoping assumptions have been prepared in accordance with the County of Riverside’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service & Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020) as the City of Rancho Mirage utilized the County guidelines.

A preliminary site plan the proposed Project is shown on Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2 depicts the location of the proposed project in relation to the existing roadway network. It is anticipated that the Project would be fully developed by year 2024. The Project will take primary access from the existing Desert Island Main gate on Frank Sinatra Drive.

TRIP GENERATION
In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed project, trip‐generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (11th Edition, 2021) manual for the proposed land uses (ITE Land Use Codes: 330 – Resort Hotel; 210 – Single Family Residential; 432 – Golf Practice) are used. Table 1 presents the trip generation rates and the resulting trip generation summary for the proposed Project. As shown in Table 1, the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 991 new trip‐ends per day with 66 new AM peak hour trips and 86 new PM peak hour trips.

TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The trip distribution pattern is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of surrounding uses, and the proximity to the regional freeway system. Exhibit 3 presents the Project distribution pattern. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project ADT and peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4.

ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
Consistent with the County’s LOS guidelines, intersection analysis will be provided for the following analysis scenarios:
 Existing (2022) Conditions
 Existing plus Ambient plus Project (EAP) (2024)
 Existing plus Ambient plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2024) The City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Element is depicted on Exhibit 5, while the accompanying roadway cross‐sections are presented on Exhibit 6.

1.1-2 6-510

Mr. Ryan Stendell
City of Rancho Mirage
April 18, 2022

Page 3 ends

14747‐02 TIA Scope.docx
STUDY AREA
The traffic impact study area was defined in conformance with the requirements of County of Riverside’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service & Vehicle Miles Traveled. Consistent with the County’s LOS guidelines, study area intersections have been identified for the Project based on the contribution of 50 or more peak hour trips. Based on this criterion, anticipated trip generation and trip distribution, the intersections of Island Drive / Frank Sinatra Drive (#1) and Bob Hope Drive / Frank Sinatra Drive (#2) will be evaluated. Exhibit 2 identifies the proposed study area intersection analysis locations.

In addition, 24‐hour roadway volumes at the following locations within the study area will be evaluated:
 Island Drive, south of Frank Sinatra Drive
 Frank Sinatra Drive, west of Island Drive
 Frank Sinatra Drive, east of Island Drive
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CRITERIA
The City of Rancho Mirage states that “While LOS C has long been considered the desirable and optimal level of traffic volume on any given roadway, it represents a standard that is progressively more difficult and less cost effective to achieve in urban areas. For peak operating periods, LOS D or a maximum volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 is now considered the generally acceptable service level.” Where the average daily traffic volume (ADT) based roadway segment analysis indicates a deficiency (unacceptable LOS), a review of the more detailed peak hour intersection analysis is undertaken. The more detailed peak hour intersection analysis explicitly accounts for factors that affect roadway capacity. While this traffic study recognizes LOS D is the City’s target LOS for roadway segments, a review of the more detailed peak hour intersection analysis is necessary to determine whether roadway widening along the segment is necessary. For the purposes of this analysis, if the peak hour intersection operations on either side of the roadway segment are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better, then additional roadway segment widening is not recommended. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, roadway segment widening is typically only recommended if the peak hour intersection analysis indicates the need for additional through lanes.

TRAFFIC COUNTS
Traffic count data will be collected in April 2022 during the AM peak period of 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and PM peak period of 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM.

1.1-3 6-511

Mr. Ryan Stendell
City of Rancho Mirage
April 18, 2022

Page 4 ends

14747‐02 TIA Scope.docx
SITE ACCESS
The hotel will take primary access from the existing Desert Island main gate on Frank Sinatra Drive. No physical changes are proposed to the existing entry gatehouse, other than to keep the gates open during operating hours to eliminate any vehicle stacking onto Frank Sinatra Drive. Likewise, the resident gate and turnaround on Island Drive will be retained in its existing condition without change.

Secondary access to Frank Sinatra will be accommodated by widening the existing gated entry at the northwest corner of the golf course from 12‐feet to 24‐feet to provide secondary emergency vehicle access.

Exhibit 7 shows the on‐site traffic circulation. Southbound golf and hotel traffic will enter the project using the right‐hand lane with a free‐flow right turn where an attendant will greet and direct guests to the appropriate parking area. Resident traffic will use the left‐hand entry lane and proceed straight to the resident gate as they always have. Traffic exiting the hotel will use the existing clubhouse driveway.

The focused traffic LOS assessment will include evaluation of peak hour queues at the Project entry.

CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
It is requested that City staff review the list of cumulative development projects (shown on Exhibit 8 and listed on Table 2) for inclusion in the traffic study. Consistent with other studies performed in the area, an ambient growth rate of 2% per year will be utilized as a minimum if necessary. The rate will be compounded over a 2‐year period (i.e., 1.022years = 1.0404 or 4.04%) for Interim Year (2024) conditions.

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
The VMT screening assessment will be prepared under separate cover in accordance with SB743 and consistent with the methodology and thresholds outlined in the County of Riverside’s December 2020 VMT methodology guidelines.

Please review this scoping agreement let us know if it is acceptable, or if the City requests any changes to this proposed scope of work. If you have any questions, please contact John Kain at (949) 375‐2435 or Marlie Whiteman (714) 585‐0574.

Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.

John Kain, AICP Marlie Whiteman, PE Principal Senior Associate

1.1-4 6-512

DESERT ISLAND SPECIFIC PLAN : HOTEL AMENDMENT

3 2.0 MASTER PLAN
Development Concept

1.1-5 6-513

1.1-6 6-514

In Out Total In Out Total
Resort Hotel 330 42 Occ. RM 0.27 0.10 0.37 0.20 0.27 0.47 7.87 Single Family Units 210 11 DU 0.18 0.52 0.70 0.59 0.35 0.94 9.43 Golf Practice 432 10 EMP 1.00 0.64 1.64 2.74 2.74 5.48 55.57 In Out Total In Out Total
Resort Hotel 330 42 Occ. RM 11 4 15 8 11 19 331
Single Family Units 210 11 DU 2686410104
Golf Practice 432 10 EMP 10 6 16 27 27 54 556
23 16 39 41 42 83 991
F:\UXRjobs\_14600‐15000\14747\02_LOS\Excel\[14747 ‐ Scope.xlsx]14747‐TG Trip Generation Results
TABLE 1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation Rates1
Land Use
ITE LU
Code Quantity
2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
2 Occ. RM = Occupied Room; DU = Dwelling Unit; EMP = Employee 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021).

ITE LU
Code Quantity
2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
TOTAL
Land Use

1.1-7 6-515

1.1-8 6-516

1.1-9 6-517

26 26
Exhibit 8 Circulation Roadway Plan Exhibit 9 Designated Truck Routes !!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
ST111
Gerald Ford Dr
Country Club Dr
30th Ave
Ramon Rd
Dinah Shore Dr
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
d
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
Frank Sinatra Dr
Mo
r
n
i
n
g
s
i
d
e

D
r
Ra
t
t
l
e
r

R
d
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

ST111
Gerald Ford Dr
Country Club Dr
Ramon Rd
Dinah Shore Dr
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
d
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
Frank Sinatra Dr
Mo
r
n
i
n
g
s
i
d
e

D
r
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
0 0.5 1
MilesN
Designated Truck Routes
Time Restricted Truck Routes
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Sources: Riverside County, 2016;
Esri World Imagery, 2017.

1.1-10 6-518

1.1-11 6-519

DESERT ISLAND SPECIFIC PLAN : HOTEL AMENDMENT

1.1-12 6-520

1.1-13 6-521

TAZ Project Case Number Land Use Quantity Units1
RM1 RM 38 JV LLC DA190002 / TTM36620 Residential 82 DU
RM2 Carefield Senior Living PDP18004 / DA180003 / EA180002 Residential 84 DU RM3 ECHO at Rancho Mirage PDP18003 Residential 9 DU
RM4 Santa Barbara Cove Estates PDP18001 / TTM35573 Residential 20 DU RM6 Veneto MOD16019 Residential 34 DU
RM7 Revelle PDP13003 / FDP13004 Residential 32 DU
RM8 Bella Clancy ZTA05003 / EA050025 / MOD05016 / FDP04002 / PDP03015 Residential 20 DU RM9 Mirada Villas FDP05004 / PDP04011 / MOD06024 / MOD11040 Residential 46 DU RM10 Estilo PDP12003 / FDP12005 Residential 39 DU
RM11 RM Five‐1 LLC/Kilani TPM37222R / EA190008 Residential 4 DU RM12 Heinrich/Steinberg TPM34232 / TPPMX34232 / TPM34233 / TPMX34233 Residential 4 DU RM13 Rancho Mirage LLC TPM34741 / EA060009 / TPMX‐34741 / PDPX34741 Residential 4 DU RM14 La Paloma Homes, Inc.TTM37637 Residential 13 DU
RM17 38 JV, LLC c/o Meriwether Companies TTM36620 / EA130006 / SPA13001 / TTM2X36620 Residential 97 DU RM18 38 JV, LLC c/o Meriwether Companies TTM36622 / EA130008 / TTM3X36622 Residential 10 DU RM19 GRV Mirage, LLC (ECHO)TTM35619 / EA070011 Residential 9 DU RM20 Ken Catanzarite TTM35573 Residential 20 DU
RM21 Miragedunes Properties TTM05004 / TTM33329 / TTM2X33329 Residential 9 DU RM24 DHO Medical Office Building PDP19001 / EA190001 Medical Office 13.800 TSF Hotel 400 Rooms
Commercial 175.000 TSF
Residential 1,932 DU
RM27 Tower Energy Group CUP18004 / TPM37486 / EA180004 Commercial 5.565 TSF Hotel 60 Rooms
Residential 108 DU
Commercial 20.000 TSF
Hotel 100 Rooms
Residential 35 DU
Residential 106 DU
Commercial 6.966 TSF
Office 6.399 TSF
Drug/Alcohol
Treatment Ctr.56 Beds
F:\UXRjobs\_14600‐15000\14747\02_LOS\Excel\[14747 ‐ Scope.xlsx]Cumulatives 1 DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet
RM31 Hazelden Betty Ford Center ‐‐
RM29 Horizon Pacific Rancho Cove
MSA Consulting PDP16003 / TTM37122
RM30 Ritz‐Carlton Residences ‐‐
TABLE 2: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
RM26 Section 31 Specific Plan Project SP180001 / EIR18001 / GPZMA18003 RM28 Oasis Ranch LLC PDP18002 / TTM37461

1.1-14 6-522

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx

APPENDIX 1.2: SITE ADJACENT QUEUES

6-523

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
6-524

Queuing and Blocking Report EAPC (2024) AM Peak Hour
EAPC (2024) AM Peak Hour
Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn SimTraffic Report Intersection: 1: Island Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Movement WB NB NB
Directions Served L L R
Maximum Queue (ft)38 42 42
Average Queue (ft)19 22 23
95th Queue (ft)44 49 52
Link Distance (ft)160
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)90 30
Storage Blk Time (%)10 4
Queuing Penalty (veh)4 1

1.2-1 6-525

Queuing and Blocking Report EAPC (2024) PM Peak Hour
EAPC (2024) PM Peak Hour
Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn SimTraffic Report Intersection: 1: Island Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Movement WB NB NB
Directions Served L L R
Maximum Queue (ft)37 34 48
Average Queue (ft)15 18 27
95th Queue (ft)40 43 55
Link Distance (ft)160
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)90 30
Storage Blk Time (%)7 6
Queuing Penalty (veh)4 1

1.2-2 6-526

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
APPENDIX 3.1: TRAFFIC COUNTS – MAY 2022
6-527

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
6-528

File Name : 01_RNM_Island_Frank AM
Site Code : 05122394
Start Date : 5/3/2022
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Island Drive
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
Island Drive
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 3 114 117 1 1 2 65 1 66 185
07:15 AM 8 110 118 0 1 1 109 0 109 228
07:30 AM 9 143 152 3 2 5 123 5 128 285
07:45 AM 10 168 178 3 5 8 162 4 166 352
Total 30 535 565 7 9 16 459 10 469 1050
08:00 AM 13 128 141 4 9 13 143 12 155 309
08:15 AM 3 143 146 4 3 7 110 2 112 265
08:30 AM 6 109 115 4 6 10 113 3 116 241
08:45 AM 6 132 138 3 7 10 113 0 113 261
Total 28 512 540 15 25 40 479 17 496 1076
Grand Total 58 1047 1105 22 34 56 938 27 965 2126
Apprch %5.2 94.8 39.3 60.7 97.2 2.8
Total %2.7 49.2 52 1 1.6 2.6 44.1 1.3 45.4
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
Island Drive
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru 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 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 9 143 152 3 2 5 123 5 128 285
07:45 AM 10 168 178 3 5 8 162 4 166 352
08:00 AM 13 128 141 4 9 13 143 12 155 309
08:15 AM 3 143 146 4 3 7 110 2 112 265
Total Volume 35 582 617 14 19 33 538 23 561 1211
% App. Total 5.7 94.3 42.4 57.6 95.9 4.1
PHF .673 .866 .867 .875 .528 .635 .830 .479 .845 .860
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

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

3.1-1 6-529

File Name : 01_RNM_Island_Frank AM
Site Code : 05122394
Start Date : 5/3/2022
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Island Drive
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
F
r
a
n
k

S
i
n
a
t
r
a

D
r
i
v
e

F
r
a
n
k

S
i
n
a
t
r
a

D
r
i
v
e

Island Drive
Th
r
u
58 2

Le
f
t
35 Ou
t
To
t
a
l
In
55 7

61 7

11 7
4 Left
14 Right
19 Out TotalIn
58 33 91
Th
r
u
53 8

Ri
g
h
t
23 To
t
a
l
Ou
t
In
59 6

56 1

11 5
7 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 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:
07:30 AM 08:00 AM 07:30 AM
+0 mins.9 143 152 4 9 13 123 5 128
+15 mins.10 168 178 4 3 7 162 4 166
+30 mins.13 128 141 4 6 10 143 12 155
+45 mins.3 143 146 3 7 10 110 2 112
Total Volume 35 582 617 15 25 40 538 23 561
% App. Total 5.7 94.3 37.5 62.5 95.9 4.1
PHF .673 .866 .867 .938 .694 .769 .830 .479 .845
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

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

3.1-2 6-530

File Name : 01_RNM_Island_Frank PM
Site Code : 05122394
Start Date : 5/3/2022
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Island Drive
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
Island Drive
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 9 134 143 0 2 2 134 1 135 280
04:15 PM 11 135 146 1 6 7 140 1 141 294
04:30 PM 3 164 167 2 9 11 117 1 118 296
04:45 PM 5 132 137 5 2 7 114 2 116 260
Total 28 565 593 8 19 27 505 5 510 1130
05:00 PM 4 118 122 2 7 9 151 2 153 284
05:15 PM 6 121 127 0 1 1 116 1 117 245
05:30 PM 4 98 102 1 1 2 77 0 77 181
05:45 PM 2 72 74 3 3 6 108 1 109 189
Total 16 409 425 6 12 18 452 4 456 899
Grand Total 44 974 1018 14 31 45 957 9 966 2029
Apprch %4.3 95.7 31.1 68.9 99.1 0.9
Total %2.2 48 50.2 0.7 1.5 2.2 47.2 0.4 47.6
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
Island Drive
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru 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 04:15 PM
04:15 PM 11 135 146 1 6 7 140 1 141 294
04:30 PM 3 164 167 2 9 11 117 1 118 296
04:45 PM 5 132 137 5 2 7 114 2 116 260
05:00 PM 4 118 122 2 7 9 151 2 153 284
Total Volume 23 549 572 10 24 34 522 6 528 1134
% App. Total 4 96 29.4 70.6 98.9 1.1
PHF .523 .837 .856 .500 .667 .773 .864 .750 .863 .958
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

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

3.1-3 6-531

File Name : 01_RNM_Island_Frank PM
Site Code : 05122394
Start Date : 5/3/2022
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Island Drive
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
F
r
a
n
k

S
i
n
a
t
r
a

D
r
i
v
e

F
r
a
n
k

S
i
n
a
t
r
a

D
r
i
v
e

Island Drive
Th
r
u
54 9

Le
f
t
23 Ou
t
To
t
a
l
In
54 6

57 2

11 1
8 Left
10 Right
24 Out TotalIn
29 34 63
Th
r
u
52 2

Ri
g
h
t
6 To
t
a
l
Ou
t
In
55 9

52 8

10 8
7 Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 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:
04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:15 PM
+0 mins.9 134 143 1 6 7 140 1 141
+15 mins.11 135 146 2 9 11 117 1 118
+30 mins.3 164 167 5 2 7 114 2 116
+45 mins.5 132 137 2 7 9 151 2 153
Total Volume 28 565 593 10 24 34 522 6 528
% App. Total 4.7 95.3 29.4 70.6 98.9 1.1
PHF .636 .861 .888 .500 .667 .773 .864 .750 .863
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

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

3.1-4 6-532

File Name : 02_RNM_Bob_Frank AM
Site Code : 05122394
Start Date : 5/3/2022
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 3 123 22 148 28 95 5 128 9 50 7 66 11 35 21 67 409 07:15 AM 10 156 12 178 31 88 13 132 8 55 12 75 5 58 39 102 487 07:30 AM 13 210 24 247 50 118 10 178 11 92 19 122 7 67 45 119 666 07:45 AM 23 227 28 278 78 137 18 233 21 78 11 110 8 91 68 167 788 Total 49 716 86 851 187 438 46 671 49 275 49 373 31 251 173 455 2350 08:00 AM 19 170 31 220 61 96 12 169 15 78 12 105 19 89 45 153 647 08:15 AM 23 166 19 208 42 105 14 161 14 76 10 100 12 64 34 110 579 08:30 AM 22 220 26 268 43 75 11 129 18 82 18 118 9 62 38 109 624 08:45 AM 19 170 18 207 32 81 11 124 32 98 19 149 13 72 46 131 611 Total 83 726 94 903 178 357 48 583 79 334 59 472 53 287 163 503 2461 Grand Total 132 1442 180 1754 365 795 94 1254 128 609 108 845 84 538 336 958 4811 Apprch %7.5 82.2 10.3 29.1 63.4 7.5 15.1 72.1 12.8 8.8 56.2 35.1 Total %2.7 30 3.7 36.5 7.6 16.5 2 26.1 2.7 12.7 2.2 17.6 1.7 11.2 7 19.9 Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru 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 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 13 210 24 247 50 118 10 178 11 92 19 122 7 67 45 119 666 07:45 AM 23 227 28 278 78 137 18 233 21 78 11 110 8 91 68 167 788 08:00 AM 19 170 31 220 61 96 12 169 15 78 12 105 19 89 45 153 647 08:15 AM 23 166 19 208 42 105 14 161 14 76 10 100 12 64 34 110 579 Total Volume 78 773 102 953 231 456 54 741 61 324 52 437 46 311 192 549 2680 % App. Total 8.2 81.1 10.7 31.2 61.5 7.3 14 74.1 11.9 8.4 56.6 35 PHF .848 .851 .823 .857 .740 .832 .750 .795 .726 .880 .684 .895 .605 .854 .706 .822 .850 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

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

3.1-5 6-533

File Name : 02_RNM_Bob_Frank AM
Site Code : 05122394
Start Date : 5/3/2022
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Bob Hope Drive
F
r
a
n
k

S
i
n
a
t
r
a

D
r
i
v
e

F
r
a
n
k

S
i
n
a
t
r
a

D
r
i
v
e

Bob Hope Drive
Right
102
Thru
773
Left
78 InOut Total
424 953 1377
Ri
g
h
t
54 Th
r
u
45 6

Le
f
t
23 1

Ou
t
To
t
a
l
In
44 1

74 1

11 8
2 Left
61 Thru
324
Right
52 Out TotalIn
1196 437 1633
Le
f
t
46 Th
r
u
31 1

Ri
g
h
t
19 2

To
t
a
l
Ou
t
In
61 9

54 9

11 6
8 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 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:
07:45 AM 07:30 AM 08:00 AM 07:30 AM
+0 mins.23 227 28 278 50 118 10 178 15 78 12 105 7 67 45 119 +15 mins.19 170 31 220 78 137 18 233 14 76 10 100 8 91 68 167 +30 mins.23 166 19 208 61 96 12 169 18 82 18 118 19 89 45 153 +45 mins.22 220 26 268 42 105 14 161 32 98 19 149 12 64 34 110 Total Volume 87 783 104 974 231 456 54 741 79 334 59 472 46 311 192 549 % App. Total 8.9 80.4 10.7 31.2 61.5 7.3 16.7 70.8 12.5 8.4 56.6 35 PHF .946 .862 .839 .876 .740 .832 .750 .795 .617 .852 .776 .792 .605 .854 .706 .822 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

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

3.1-6 6-534

File Name : 02_RNM_Bob_Frank PM
Site Code : 05122394
Start Date : 5/3/2022
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 27 119 15 161 11 81 21 113 56 198 27 281 19 81 32 132 687 04:15 PM 15 130 23 168 11 99 19 129 35 201 32 268 13 115 25 153 718 04:30 PM 20 95 17 132 11 78 15 104 55 210 55 320 22 85 17 124 680 04:45 PM 13 116 16 145 5 69 10 84 50 196 43 289 13 88 17 118 636 Total 75 460 71 606 38 327 65 430 196 805 157 1158 67 369 91 527 2721 05:00 PM 21 98 21 140 19 65 22 106 53 203 49 305 17 114 22 153 704 05:15 PM 18 116 10 144 16 72 9 97 37 190 32 259 17 86 17 120 620 05:30 PM 15 102 6 123 13 66 14 93 26 136 47 209 11 52 17 80 505 05:45 PM 12 104 10 126 13 47 9 69 18 136 21 175 13 70 21 104 474 Total 66 420 47 533 61 250 54 365 134 665 149 948 58 322 77 457 2303 Grand Total 141 880 118 1139 99 577 119 795 330 1470 306 2106 125 691 168 984 5024 Apprch %12.4 77.3 10.4 12.5 72.6 15 15.7 69.8 14.5 12.7 70.2 17.1 Total %2.8 17.5 2.3 22.7 2 11.5 2.4 15.8 6.6 29.3 6.1 41.9 2.5 13.8 3.3 19.6 Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
Frank Sinatra Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru 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 04:15 PM
04:15 PM 15 130 23 168 11 99 19 129 35 201 32 268 13 115 25 153 718 04:30 PM 20 95 17 132 11 78 15 104 55 210 55 320 22 85 17 124 680 04:45 PM 13 116 16 145 5 69 10 84 50 196 43 289 13 88 17 118 636 05:00 PM 21 98 21 140 19 65 22 106 53 203 49 305 17 114 22 153 704 Total Volume 69 439 77 585 46 311 66 423 193 810 179 1182 65 402 81 548 2738 % App. Total 11.8 75 13.2 10.9 73.5 15.6 16.3 68.5 15.1 11.9 73.4 14.8 PHF .821 .844 .837 .871 .605 .785 .750 .820 .877 .964 .814 .923 .739 .874 .810 .895 .953 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

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

3.1-7 6-535

File Name : 02_RNM_Bob_Frank PM
Site Code : 05122394
Start Date : 5/3/2022
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: Frank Sinatra Drive
Weather: Clear
Bob Hope Drive
F
r
a
n
k

S
i
n
a
t
r
a

D
r
i
v
e

F
r
a
n
k

S
i
n
a
t
r
a

D
r
i
v
e

Bob Hope Drive
Right
77 Thru
439
Left
69 InOut Total
941 585 1526
Ri
g
h
t
66 Th
r
u
31 1

Le
f
t
46 Ou
t
To
t
a
l
In
65 0

42 3

10 7
3 Left
193
Thru
810
Right
179
Out TotalIn
566 1182 1748
Le
f
t
65 Th
r
u
40 2

Ri
g
h
t
81 To
t
a
l
Ou
t
In
58 1

54 8

11 2
9 Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 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:
04:00 PM 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:15 PM
+0 mins.27 119 15 161 11 81 21 113 35 201 32 268 13 115 25 153 +15 mins.15 130 23 168 11 99 19 129 55 210 55 320 22 85 17 124 +30 mins.20 95 17 132 11 78 15 104 50 196 43 289 13 88 17 118 +45 mins.13 116 16 145 5 69 10 84 53 203 49 305 17 114 22 153 Total Volume 75 460 71 606 38 327 65 430 193 810 179 1182 65 402 81 548 % App. Total 12.4 75.9 11.7 8.8 76 15.1 16.3 68.5 15.1 11.9 73.4 14.8 PHF .694 .885 .772 .902 .864 .826 .774 .833 .877 .964 .814 .923 .739 .874 .810 .895 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

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

3.1-8 6-536

Page 1 ends

City of Rancho Mirage
Frank Sinatra Drive
E/ Island Drive
24 Hour Directional Volume Count

RNM003
Site Code: 051-22394

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: (951) 268-6268
email: [email protected]

Start 03-May-22 Eastbound Hour Totals Westbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 4 139 5 114
12:15 6 108 3 95
12:30 3 129 3 126
12:45 1 126 14 502 8 100 19 435 33 937
01:00 10 128 7 87
01:15 4 131 1 102
01:30 4 129 2 100
01:45 4 130 22 518 3 125 13 414 35 932
02:00 0 131 1 122
02:15 1 117 2 118
02:30 3 143 5 124
02:45 2 137 6 528 1 135 9 499 15 1027
03:00 1 147 1 134
03:15 0 156 2 148
03:30 3 140 1 139
03:45 3 162 7 605 4 113 8 534 15 1139
04:00 1 136 5 143
04:15 6 146 7 146
04:30 8 126 15 167
04:45 21 116 36 524 18 137 45 593 81 1117
05:00 17 158 18 122
05:15 14 117 23 127
05:30 18 78 44 102
05:45 29 111 78 464 51 74 136 425 214 889
06:00 41 85 24 82
06:15 54 102 53 73
06:30 70 72 77 65
06:45 82 59 247 318 121 72 275 292 522 610
07:00 66 53 117 41
07:15 110 42 118 62
07:30 125 48 152 55
07:45 167 41 468 184 178 45 565 203 1033 387
08:00 152 40 141 42
08:15 113 39 146 33
08:30 129 37 115 29
08:45 120 32 514 148 138 37 540 141 1054 289
09:00 122 26 124 31
09:15 99 39 122 30
09:30 128 16 116 36
09:45 124 23 473 104 149 30 511 127 984 231
10:00 111 35 118 27
10:15 129 20 125 29
10:30 100 22 108 12
10:45 120 12 460 89 122 23 473 91 933 180
11:00 111 22 111 15
11:15 110 15 123 7
11:30 136 10 125 12
11:45 112 8 469 55 133 5 492 39 961 94
Total 2794 4039 2794 4039 3086 3793 3086 3793 5880 7832 Combined
Total 6833 6833 6879 6879 13712
AM Peak - 07:45 --- 07:30 -----
Vol.- 561 --- 617 -----
P.H.F. 0.840 0.867
PM Peak -- 03:00 --- 04:00 ----
Vol.-- 605 --- 593 ----
P.H.F. 0.934 0.888

Percentag
e 40.9% 59.1% 44.9% 55.1%
ADT/AADT ADT 13,712 AADT 13,712

3.1-9 6-537

Page 1 ends

City of Rancho Mirage
Frank Sinatra Drive
W/ Island Drive
24 Hour Directional Volume Count

RNM002
Site Code: 051-22394

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: (951) 268-6268
email: [email protected]

Start 03-May-22 Eastbound Hour Totals Westbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 4 137 5 110
12:15 6 103 3 93
12:30 3 123 3 116
12:45 1 115 14 478 8 94 19 413 33 891
01:00 10 119 6 85
01:15 4 124 1 92
01:30 4 128 2 98
01:45 4 127 22 498 3 121 12 396 34 894
02:00 0 122 1 121
02:15 1 110 2 114
02:30 3 140 4 118
02:45 2 125 6 497 1 136 8 489 14 986
03:00 1 142 1 134
03:15 0 144 2 150
03:30 3 135 1 133
03:45 3 152 7 573 4 112 8 529 15 1102
04:00 1 135 5 134
04:15 6 141 7 136
04:30 8 118 14 166
04:45 21 116 36 510 19 137 45 573 81 1083
05:00 17 153 14 120
05:15 14 117 21 121
05:30 19 77 43 99
05:45 29 109 79 456 48 75 126 415 205 871
06:00 41 81 23 79
06:15 53 104 51 69
06:30 70 67 73 64
06:45 79 58 243 310 112 70 259 282 502 592
07:00 66 52 115 40
07:15 109 42 110 60
07:30 128 47 146 52
07:45 166 40 469 181 171 43 542 195 1011 376
08:00 155 38 132 39
08:15 112 39 147 33
08:30 126 40 113 27
08:45 113 31 506 148 135 35 527 134 1033 282
09:00 114 26 118 26
09:15 95 39 118 29
09:30 126 16 113 37
09:45 120 23 455 104 142 29 491 121 946 225
10:00 109 36 116 28
10:15 126 19 120 29
10:30 91 22 104 12
10:45 123 12 449 89 117 24 457 93 906 182
11:00 107 22 106 15
11:15 100 15 125 7
11:30 127 10 123 12
11:45 109 8 443 55 123 5 477 39 920 94
Total 2729 3899 2729 3899 2971 3679 2971 3679 5700 7578 Combined
Total 6628 6628 6650 6650 13278
AM Peak - 07:30 --- 07:30 -----
Vol.- 561 --- 596 -----
P.H.F. 0.845 0.871
PM Peak -- 03:00 --- 04:00 ----
Vol.-- 573 --- 573 ----
P.H.F. 0.942 0.863

Percentag
e 41.2% 58.8% 44.7% 55.3%
ADT/AADT ADT 13,278 AADT 13,278

3.1-10 6-538

Page 1 ends

City of Rancho Mirage
Island Drive
S/ Frank Sinatra Drive
24 Hour Directional Volume Count

RNM001
Site Code: 051-22394

Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: (951) 268-6268
email: [email protected]

Start 03-May-22 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 0 10 0 11
12:15 0 21 0 18
12:30 0 12 0 15
12:45 0 14 0 57 0 9 0 53 0 110
01:00 0 12 1 5
01:15 0 11 0 14
01:30 0 6 0 7
01:45 0 3 0 32 0 4 1 30 1 62
02:00 0 15 0 7
02:15 0 9 0 6
02:30 0 10 1 13
02:45 0 17 0 51 0 4 1 30 1 81
03:00 0 9 0 4
03:15 0 20 0 6
03:30 0 11 0 12
03:45 0 18 0 58 0 8 0 30 0 88
04:00 0 2 0 10
04:15 0 7 0 12
04:30 0 11 1 4
04:45 1 7 1 27 0 7 1 33 2 60
05:00 0 9 3 6
05:15 0 1 2 7
05:30 0 2 2 4
05:45 1 6 1 18 4 3 11 20 12 38
06:00 1 6 2 5
06:15 4 2 5 8
06:30 1 7 5 3
06:45 4 1 10 16 10 2 22 18 32 34
07:00 2 1 4 1
07:15 1 4 8 6
07:30 5 1 14 3
07:45 8 1 16 7 14 2 40 12 56 19
08:00 13 3 25 4
08:15 7 3 5 3
08:30 10 0 9 5
08:45 10 2 40 8 6 3 45 15 85 23
09:00 11 1 9 6
09:15 8 1 8 2
09:30 10 2 11 1
09:45 8 0 37 4 10 1 38 10 75 14
10:00 10 1 10 1
10:15 8 1 10 0
10:30 11 0 6 0
10:45 7 1 36 3 15 0 41 1 77 4
11:00 8 0 9 0
11:15 16 0 4 0
11:30 19 0 12 0
11:45 11 0 54 0 18 0 43 0 97 0
Total 195 281 195 281 243 252 243 252 438 533
Combined
Total 476 476 495 495 971
AM Peak - 11:00 --- 07:15 -----
Vol.- 54 --- 61 -----
P.H.F. 0.711 0.610
PM Peak -- 00:15 --- 12:00 ----
Vol.-- 59 --- 53 ----
P.H.F. 0.702 0.736

Percentag
e 41.0% 59.0% 49.1% 50.9%
ADT/AADT ADT 971 AADT 971

3.1-11 6-539

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
40 This page intentionally left blank

3.1-12 6-540

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
APPENDIX 3.2: EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION

OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

6-541

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
6-542

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
1: Island Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 538 23 35 584 14 19
Future Volume (vph) 538 23 35 584 14 19
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)0 90 30 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft)90 90
Link Speed (mph)50 50 30
Link Distance (ft)1498 1234 212
Travel Time (s)20.4 16.8 4.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

3.2-1 6-543

HCM 6th TWSC Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
1: Island Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 538 23 35 584 14 19
Future Vol, veh/h 538 23 35 584 14 19
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 90 - 30 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 626 27 41 679 16 22

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 653 0 1062 327
Stage 1 - - - - 640 -
Stage 2 - - - - 422 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 930 - 219 669
Stage 1 - - - - 487 -
Stage 2 - - - - 629 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 930 - 209 669
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 209 -
Stage 1 - - - - 487 -
Stage 2 - - - - 601 -

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 16.2

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)209 669 - - 930 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.078 0.033 - - 0.044 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 23.7 10.6 - - 9 -
HCM Lane LOS C B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0.1 - - 0.1 -

3.2-2 6-544

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour
2: Bob Hope Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)46 319 192 231 456 54 61 324 52 78 773 102 Future Volume (vph)46 319 192 231 456 54 61 324 52 78 773 102 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft)275 50 125 205 330 150 325 150
Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
Taper Length (ft)180 140 160 160
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)50 50 50 55
Link Distance (ft)1234 2356 976 711
Travel Time (s)16.8 32.1 13.3 8.8
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)7 2 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4826
Detector Phase 744388522166
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s)10.0 37.2 37.2 10.0 40.2 40.2 10.0 37.5 37.5 10.0 33.5 33.5 Total Split (s)10.0 37.2 37.2 15.0 42.2 42.2 10.0 37.8 37.8 10.0 37.8 37.8 Total Split (%)10.0% 37.2% 37.2% 15.0% 42.2% 42.2% 10.0% 37.8% 37.8% 10.0% 37.8% 37.8% Yellow Time (s)3.6 5.2 5.2 3.6 5.2 5.2 3.6 5.5 5.5 3.6 5.5 5.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.2 6.2 4.6 6.2 6.2 4.6 6.5 6.5 4.6 6.5 6.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 100
Actuated Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Bob Hope Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

3.2-3 6-545

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing (2022) AM Peak Hour 2: Bob Hope Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 46 319 192 231 456 54 61 324 52 78 773 102 Future Volume (veh/h) 46 319 192 231 456 54 61 324 52 78 773 102 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 54 375 226 272 536 64 72 381 61 92 909 120 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 134 655 286 337 864 385 149 1610 709 159 1620 714 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.04 0.45 0.45 0.05 0.46 0.46 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1553 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1564 3456 3554 1565 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 54 375 226 272 536 64 72 381 61 92 909 120 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1553 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1564 1728 1777 1565 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 9.6 13.9 7.7 13.4 3.2 2.0 6.6 2.2 2.6 18.7 4.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 9.6 13.9 7.7 13.4 3.2 2.0 6.6 2.2 2.6 18.7 4.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 134 655 286 337 864 385 149 1610 709 159 1620 714 V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.57 0.79 0.81 0.62 0.17 0.48 0.24 0.09 0.58 0.56 0.17 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 187 1102 481 359 1279 571 187 1610 709 187 1620 714 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.9 37.2 38.9 44.2 33.7 29.9 46.7 16.8 15.6 46.7 19.9 16.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.8 4.8 11.0 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.2 1.2 1.4 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 4.0 5.4 3.7 5.5 1.2 0.9 2.5 0.8 1.1 7.1 1.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.6 38.0 43.8 55.2 34.5 30.1 47.6 17.1 15.8 48.0 21.3 16.5 LnGrp LOS D D D E C C D B B D C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 655 872 514 1121
Approach Delay, s/veh 40.8 40.6 21.2 23.0
Approach LOS DDCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.2 51.8 14.3 24.6 8.9 52.1 8.5 30.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.2 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.4 31.3 10.4 31.0 5.4 31.3 5.4 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.6 8.6 9.7 15.9 4.0 20.7 3.5 15.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.5 0.0 4.3 0.0 3.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.2
HCM 6th LOS C

3.2-4 6-546

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour
1: Island Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 524 6 23 558 10 24
Future Volume (vph) 524 6 23 558 10 24
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)0 90 30 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft)90 90
Link Speed (mph)50 50 30
Link Distance (ft)1498 1234 212
Travel Time (s)20.4 16.8 4.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

3.2-5 6-547

HCM 6th TWSC Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour
1: Island Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 524 6 23 558 10 24
Future Vol, veh/h 524 6 23 558 10 24
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 90 - 30 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 546 6 24 581 10 25

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 552 0 888 276
Stage 1 - - - - 549 -
Stage 2 - - - - 339 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1014 - 283 721
Stage 1 - - - - 542 -
Stage 2 - - - - 693 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1014 - 276 721
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 276 -
Stage 1 - - - - 542 -
Stage 2 - - - - 676 -

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 12.7

HCM LOS B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)276 721 - - 1014 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.038 0.035 - - 0.024 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 18.6 10.2 - - 8.6 -
HCM Lane LOS C B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 -

3.2-6 6-548

Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour
2: Bob Hope Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)65 402 81 46 311 66 193 810 179 69 439 77 Future Volume (vph)65 402 81 46 311 66 193 810 179 69 439 77 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft)275 50 125 205 330 150 325 150
Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
Taper Length (ft)180 140 160 160
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)50 50 50 55
Link Distance (ft)1234 2356 976 711
Travel Time (s)16.8 32.1 13.3 8.8
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)7 2 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4826
Detector Phase 744388522166
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s)10.0 37.2 37.2 10.0 40.2 40.2 10.0 37.5 37.5 10.0 33.5 33.5 Total Split (s)10.0 40.2 40.2 10.0 40.2 40.2 15.0 39.8 39.8 10.0 34.8 34.8 Total Split (%)10.0% 40.2% 40.2% 10.0% 40.2% 40.2% 15.0% 39.8% 39.8% 10.0% 34.8% 34.8% Yellow Time (s)3.6 5.2 5.2 3.6 5.2 5.2 3.6 5.5 5.5 3.6 5.5 5.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.2 6.2 4.6 6.2 6.2 4.6 6.5 6.5 4.6 6.5 6.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 100
Actuated Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Bob Hope Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

3.2-7 6-549

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing (2022) PM Peak Hour 2: Bob Hope Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 65 402 81 46 311 66 193 810 179 69 439 77 Future Volume (veh/h) 65 402 81 46 311 66 193 810 179 69 439 77 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 68 423 85 48 327 69 203 853 188 73 462 81 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 147 567 248 127 547 244 270 1923 847 150 1800 793 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.54 0.54 0.04 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1551 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1565 3456 3554 1565 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 68 423 85 48 327 69 203 853 188 73 462 81 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1551 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1565 1728 1777 1565 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 11.4 4.9 1.4 8.6 3.9 5.8 14.5 6.3 2.1 7.4 2.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 11.4 4.9 1.4 8.6 3.9 5.8 14.5 6.3 2.1 7.4 2.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 147 567 248 127 547 244 270 1923 847 150 1800 793 V/C Ratio(X) 0.46 0.75 0.34 0.38 0.60 0.28 0.75 0.44 0.22 0.49 0.26 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 187 1208 527 187 1208 539 359 1923 847 187 1800 793 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.8 40.1 37.4 47.0 39.4 37.4 45.1 13.9 12.0 46.7 14.0 12.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 2.0 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.6 3.9 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 4.9 1.8 0.6 3.6 1.5 2.5 5.2 2.1 0.9 2.7 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.6 42.1 38.2 47.7 40.5 38.0 49.0 14.6 12.6 47.6 14.3 13.1 LnGrp LOS DDDDDDDBBDBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 576 444 1244 616
Approach Delay, s/veh 42.1 40.9 19.9 18.1
Approach LOS D D B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 60.6 8.3 22.2 12.4 57.1 8.8 21.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.2 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.4 33.3 5.4 34.0 10.4 28.3 5.4 34.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 16.5 3.4 13.4 7.8 9.4 3.9 10.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.5 0.0 2.6 0.1 2.7 0.0 2.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.2
HCM 6th LOS C

3.2-8 6-550

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
APPENDIX 3.3: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

6-551

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

6-552

California MUTCD 2014 Edition
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = EXISTING (2022) AM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name =Frank Sinatra Dr.Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =1,180 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street =2
Minor Street Name =Island Dr.High Volume Approach (VPH) =33 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)

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 11 8
0 33
0 100
200
300
400
500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Mi
n
o
r

S
t
r
e
e
t

H
i
g
h
e
r
-
V
o
lu
m
e

A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h

(
V
P
H
)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)
2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
Major Street Approaches
Minor Street Approaches
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Warrants\01 - Existing\01R_AM.xls\Fig 4C-4 (Rural Peak)

3.3-1 6-553

California MUTCD 2014 Edition
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = EXISTING (2022) PM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name =Frank Sinatra Dr.Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =1,111 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street =2
Minor Street Name =Island Dr.High Volume Approach (VPH) =34 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)

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 11 1
1 34
0 100
200
300
400
500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Mi
n
o
r

S
t
r
e
e
t

H
i
g
h
e
r
-
V
o
lu
m
e

A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h

(
V
P
H
)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)Major Street Approaches Minor Street Approaches
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Warrants\01 - Existing\01R_PM.xls\Fig 4C-4 (Rural Peak)

3.3-2 6-554

California MUTCD 2014 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 AM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS
Major Street Name =Frank Sinatra Dr.Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =1,251 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street =2
Minor Street Name =Island Dr.High Volume Approach (VPH) =51 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)

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 12 5
1 51
0 100
200
300
400
500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Mi
n
o
r

S
t
r
e
e
t

H
i
g
h
e
r
-
V
o
lu
m
e

A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h

3.3-3 6-555

California MUTCD 2014 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 PM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS
Major Street Name =Frank Sinatra Dr.Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =1,197 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street =2
Minor Street Name =Island Dr.High Volume Approach (VPH) =77 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)

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 11 9
7 77
0 100
200
300
400
500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Mi
n
o
r

S
t
r
e
e
t

H
i
g
h
e
r
-
V
o
lu
m
e

A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h

(
V
P
H
)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)Major Street Approaches Minor Street Approaches
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Warrants\02 - EAP\01R_PM.xls\Fig 4C-4 (Rural Peak)

3.3-4 6-556

S
t
r
e
e
t

H
i
g
h
e
r
-
V
o
lu
m
e

A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h

3.3-5 6-557

California MUTCD 2014 Edition
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Traffic Conditions = EAPC (FINAL) PM PEAK HOUR WARRANTS Major Street Name =Frank Sinatra Dr.Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =1,489 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street =2
Minor Street Name =Island Dr.High Volume Approach (VPH) =77 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 13 0
0 77
0 100
200
300
400
500
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Mi
n
o
r

S
t
r
e
e
t

H
i
g
h
e
r
-
V
o
lu
m
e

A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h

(
V
P
H
)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH)
1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)Major Street Approaches Minor Street Approaches
F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Warrants\03 - EAPC\01R_PM.xls\Fig 4C-4 (Rural Peak)

3.3-6 6-558

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
APPENDIX 5.1: EAP (2024) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

6-559

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

6-560

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2024) AM Peak Hour
1: Island Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 560 30 53 608 19 32
Future Volume (vph) 560 30 53 608 19 32
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)0 90 30 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft)90 90
Link Speed (mph)50 50 30
Link Distance (ft)1498 1234 212
Travel Time (s)20.4 16.8 4.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

5.1-1 6-561

HCM 6th TWSC EAP (2024) AM Peak Hour
1: Island Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 560 30 53 608 19 32
Future Vol, veh/h 560 30 53 608 19 32
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 90 - 30 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 651 35 62 707 22 37

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 686 0 1147 343
Stage 1 - - - - 669 -
Stage 2 - - - - 478 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 904 - 192 653
Stage 1 - - - - 471 -
Stage 2 - - - - 590 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 904 - 179 653
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 179 -
Stage 1 - - - - 471 -
Stage 2 - - - - 549 -

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 17.2

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)179 653 - - 904 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.123 0.057 - - 0.068 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 27.9 10.8 - - 9.3 -
HCM Lane LOS D B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0.2 - - 0.2 -

5.1-2 6-562

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2024) AM Peak Hour
2: Bob Hope Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)53 335 204 240 479 56 68 337 54 81 804 113 Future Volume (vph)53 335 204 240 479 56 68 337 54 81 804 113 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft)275 50 125 205 330 150 325 150
Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
Taper Length (ft)180 140 160 160
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)50 50 50 55
Link Distance (ft)1234 2356 976 711
Travel Time (s)16.8 32.1 13.3 8.8
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)7 2 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4826
Detector Phase 744388522166
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s)10.0 37.2 37.2 10.0 40.2 40.2 10.0 37.5 37.5 10.0 33.5 33.5 Total Split (s)10.0 37.2 37.2 15.0 42.2 42.2 10.0 37.8 37.8 10.0 37.8 37.8 Total Split (%)10.0% 37.2% 37.2% 15.0% 42.2% 42.2% 10.0% 37.8% 37.8% 10.0% 37.8% 37.8% Yellow Time (s)3.6 5.2 5.2 3.6 5.2 5.2 3.6 5.5 5.5 3.6 5.5 5.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.2 6.2 4.6 6.2 6.2 4.6 6.5 6.5 4.6 6.5 6.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 100
Actuated Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Bob Hope Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

5.1-3 6-563

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAP (2024) AM Peak Hour 2: Bob Hope Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 53 335 204 240 479 56 68 337 54 81 804 113 Future Volume (veh/h) 53 335 204 240 479 56 68 337 54 81 804 113 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 62 394 240 282 564 66 80 396 64 95 946 133 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 142 689 301 346 899 401 154 1566 689 160 1572 693 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.04 0.44 0.44 0.05 0.44 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1553 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1564 3456 3554 1565 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 62 394 240 282 564 66 80 396 64 95 946 133 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1553 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1564 1728 1777 1565 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 10.1 14.7 8.0 14.1 3.2 2.3 7.0 2.4 2.7 20.2 5.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 10.1 14.7 8.0 14.1 3.2 2.3 7.0 2.4 2.7 20.2 5.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 142 689 301 346 899 401 154 1566 689 160 1572 693 V/C Ratio(X) 0.44 0.57 0.80 0.81 0.63 0.16 0.52 0.25 0.09 0.59 0.60 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 187 1102 482 359 1279 571 187 1566 689 187 1572 693 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.8 36.6 38.4 44.1 33.2 29.1 46.7 17.6 16.3 46.8 21.2 17.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.8 4.8 12.1 0.7 0.2 1.0 0.4 0.3 1.6 1.7 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 4.2 5.7 3.8 5.8 1.2 1.0 2.7 0.8 1.1 7.8 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.6 37.3 43.3 56.1 33.9 29.3 47.7 18.0 16.6 48.3 22.9 17.6 LnGrp LOS D D D E C C D B B D C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 696 912 540 1174
Approach Delay, s/veh 40.3 40.4 22.2 24.4
Approach LOS DDCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.2 50.6 14.6 25.6 9.1 50.7 8.7 31.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.2 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.4 31.3 10.4 31.0 5.4 31.3 5.4 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 9.0 10.0 16.7 4.3 22.2 3.8 16.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.6 0.0 4.1 0.0 3.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.8
HCM 6th LOS C

5.1-4 6-564

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2024) PM Peak Hour
1: Island Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 545 16 55 581 21 56
Future Volume (vph) 545 16 55 581 21 56
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)0 90 30 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft)90 90
Link Speed (mph)50 50 30
Link Distance (ft)1498 1234 212
Travel Time (s)20.4 16.8 4.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

5.1-5 6-565

HCM 6th TWSC EAP (2024) PM Peak Hour
1: Island Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 545 16 55 581 21 56
Future Vol, veh/h 545 16 55 581 21 56
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 90 - 30 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 568 17 57 605 22 58

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 585 0 994 293
Stage 1 - - - - 577 -
Stage 2 - - - - 417 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 986 - 242 703
Stage 1 - - - - 525 -
Stage 2 - - - - 633 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 986 - 228 703
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 228 -
Stage 1 - - - - 525 -
Stage 2 - - - - 596 -

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.8 13.8

HCM LOS B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)228 703 - - 986 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.096 0.083 - - 0.058 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 22.5 10.6 - - 8.9 -
HCM Lane LOS C B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0.3 - - 0.2 -

5.1-6 6-566

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAP (2024) PM Peak Hour
2: Bob Hope Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)80 426 95 48 332 69 211 843 186 72 457 93 Future Volume (vph)80 426 95 48 332 69 211 843 186 72 457 93 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft)275 50 125 205 330 150 325 150
Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
Taper Length (ft)180 140 160 160
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)50 50 50 55
Link Distance (ft)1234 2356 976 711
Travel Time (s)16.8 32.1 13.3 8.8
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)7 2 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4826
Detector Phase 744388522166
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s)10.0 37.2 37.2 10.0 40.2 40.2 10.0 37.5 37.5 10.0 33.5 33.5 Total Split (s)10.0 40.2 40.2 10.0 40.2 40.2 14.0 39.8 39.8 10.0 35.8 35.8 Total Split (%)10.0% 40.2% 40.2% 10.0% 40.2% 40.2% 14.0% 39.8% 39.8% 10.0% 35.8% 35.8% Yellow Time (s)3.6 5.2 5.2 3.6 5.2 5.2 3.6 5.5 5.5 3.6 5.5 5.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.2 6.2 4.6 6.2 6.2 4.6 6.5 6.5 4.6 6.5 6.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 100
Actuated Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Bob Hope Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

5.1-7 6-567

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAP (2024) PM Peak Hour 2: Bob Hope Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 80 426 95 48 332 69 211 843 186 72 457 93 Future Volume (veh/h) 80 426 95 48 332 69 211 843 186 72 457 93 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 84 448 100 51 349 73 222 887 196 76 481 98 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 156 597 261 131 571 255 288 1888 831 152 1748 770 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.17 0.17 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.53 0.53 0.04 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1551 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1565 3456 3554 1565 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 84 448 100 51 349 73 222 887 196 76 481 98 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1551 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1565 1728 1777 1565 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 12.0 5.7 1.4 9.1 4.1 6.3 15.6 6.7 2.1 8.0 3.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 12.0 5.7 1.4 9.1 4.1 6.3 15.6 6.7 2.1 8.0 3.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 156 597 261 131 571 255 288 1888 831 152 1748 770 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.75 0.38 0.39 0.61 0.29 0.77 0.47 0.24 0.50 0.28 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 187 1208 527 187 1208 539 325 1888 831 187 1748 770 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.7 39.6 37.0 47.0 39.1 36.9 44.9 14.6 12.6 46.7 14.9 13.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 1.9 0.9 0.7 1.1 0.6 8.2 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 5.1 2.1 0.6 3.9 1.5 2.9 5.7 2.2 0.9 2.9 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.8 41.5 37.9 47.7 40.1 37.5 53.1 15.5 13.2 47.7 15.3 14.1 LnGrp LOS DDDDDDDBBDBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 632 473 1305 655
Approach Delay, s/veh 41.8 40.5 21.5 18.9
Approach LOS D D C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 59.6 8.4 23.0 12.9 55.7 9.1 22.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.2 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.4 33.3 5.4 34.0 9.4 29.3 5.4 34.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 17.6 3.4 14.0 8.3 10.0 4.4 11.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.6 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.1
HCM 6th LOS C

5.1-8 6-568

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
APPENDIX 6.1: EAPC (2024) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
6-569

Desert Island hotel Traffic Analysis

14747-03 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
6-570

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2024) AM Peak Hour
1: Island Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 641 30 53 681 19 32
Future Volume (vph) 641 30 53 681 19 32
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)0 90 30 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft)90 90
Link Speed (mph)50 50 30
Link Distance (ft)1498 1234 212
Travel Time (s)20.4 16.8 4.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

6.1-1 6-571

HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2024) AM Peak Hour
1: Island Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 641 30 53 681 19 32
Future Vol, veh/h 641 30 53 681 19 32
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 90 - 30 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 745 35 62 792 22 37

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 780 0 1283 390
Stage 1 - - - - 763 -
Stage 2 - - - - 520 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 833 - 157 609
Stage 1 - - - - 421 -
Stage 2 - - - - 561 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 833 - 145 609
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 145 -
Stage 1 - - - - 421 -
Stage 2 - - - - 519 -

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 19.8

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)145 609 - - 833 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.152 0.061 - - 0.074 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 34.2 11.3 - - 9.7 -
HCM Lane LOS D B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0.2 - - 0.2 -

6.1-2 6-572

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2024) AM Peak Hour
2: Bob Hope Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)79 363 231 259 502 65 92 391 74 96 898 139 Future Volume (vph)79 363 231 259 502 65 92 391 74 96 898 139 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft)275 50 125 205 330 150 325 150
Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
Taper Length (ft)180 140 160 160
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)50 50 50 55
Link Distance (ft)1234 2356 976 711
Travel Time (s)16.8 32.1 13.3 8.8
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)7 2 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4826
Detector Phase 744388522166
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s)10.0 37.2 37.2 10.0 40.2 40.2 10.0 37.5 37.5 10.0 33.5 33.5 Total Split (s)11.0 37.2 37.2 14.0 40.2 40.2 10.0 38.8 38.8 10.0 38.8 38.8 Total Split (%)11.0% 37.2% 37.2% 14.0% 40.2% 40.2% 10.0% 38.8% 38.8% 10.0% 38.8% 38.8% Yellow Time (s)3.6 5.2 5.2 3.6 5.2 5.2 3.6 5.5 5.5 3.6 5.5 5.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.2 6.2 4.6 6.2 6.2 4.6 6.5 6.5 4.6 6.5 6.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 100
Actuated Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Bob Hope Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

6.1-3 6-573

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2024) AM Peak Hour 2: Bob Hope Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 79 363 231 259 502 65 92 391 74 96 898 139 Future Volume (veh/h) 79 363 231 259 502 65 92 391 74 96 898 139 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 93 427 272 305 591 76 108 460 87 113 1056 164 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 160 761 333 325 931 415 167 1503 662 172 1509 665 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.05 0.42 0.42 0.05 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1555 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1564 3456 3554 1565 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 93 427 272 305 591 76 108 460 87 113 1056 164 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1555 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1564 1728 1777 1565 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 10.7 16.7 8.8 14.7 3.7 3.1 8.6 3.4 3.2 24.3 6.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 10.7 16.7 8.8 14.7 3.7 3.1 8.6 3.4 3.2 24.3 6.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 160 761 333 325 931 415 167 1503 662 172 1509 665 V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.56 0.82 0.94 0.63 0.18 0.65 0.31 0.13 0.66 0.70 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 221 1102 482 325 1208 539 187 1503 662 187 1509 665 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.7 35.1 37.4 45.0 32.7 28.6 46.8 19.1 17.6 46.7 23.6 18.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.7 7.0 33.9 0.7 0.2 4.4 0.5 0.4 5.3 2.7 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 4.4 6.6 5.1 6.0 1.4 1.4 3.3 1.2 1.4 9.6 2.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.0 35.7 44.5 78.9 33.4 28.8 51.1 19.7 18.0 51.9 26.3 19.4 LnGrp LOS D D D E C C D B B D C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 792 972 655 1333
Approach Delay, s/veh 40.2 47.3 24.6 27.6
Approach LOS DDCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.6 48.8 14.0 27.6 9.4 49.0 9.2 32.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.2 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.4 32.3 9.4 31.0 5.4 32.3 6.4 34.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 10.6 10.8 18.7 5.1 26.3 4.6 16.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.8 0.0 3.4 0.0 3.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.8
HCM 6th LOS C

6.1-4 6-574

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2024) PM Peak Hour
1: Island Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 685 16 55 733 21 56
Future Volume (vph) 685 16 55 733 21 56
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft)0 90 30 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft)90 90
Link Speed (mph)50 50 30
Link Distance (ft)1498 1234 212
Travel Time (s)20.4 16.8 4.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

6.1-5 6-575

HCM 6th TWSC EAPC (2024) PM Peak Hour
1: Island Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 685 16 55 733 21 56
Future Vol, veh/h 685 16 55 733 21 56
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 90 - 30 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 714 17 57 764 22 58

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 731 0 1219 366
Stage 1 - - - - 723 -
Stage 2 - - - - 496 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 869 - 173 631
Stage 1 - - - - 441 -
Stage 2 - - - - 577 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 869 - 162 631
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 162 -
Stage 1 - - - - 441 -
Stage 2 - - - - 539 -

Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 16.6

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)162 631 - - 869 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.135 0.092 - - 0.066 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 30.7 11.3 - - 9.4 -
HCM Lane LOS D B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0.3 - - 0.2 -

6.1-6 6-576

Lanes, Volumes, Timings EAPC (2024) PM Peak Hour
2: Bob Hope Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 128 478 135 79 388 93 257 959 219 92 535 142 Future Volume (vph) 128 478 135 79 388 93 257 959 219 92 535 142 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft)275 50 125 205 330 150 325 150
Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
Taper Length (ft)180 140 160 160
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph)50 50 50 55
Link Distance (ft)1234 2356 976 711
Travel Time (s)16.8 32.1 13.3 8.8
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)7 2 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4826
Detector Phase 744388522166
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s)10.0 37.2 37.2 10.0 40.2 40.2 10.0 37.5 37.5 10.0 33.5 33.5 Total Split (s)10.0 40.2 40.2 10.0 40.2 40.2 15.0 39.8 39.8 10.0 34.8 34.8 Total Split (%)10.0% 40.2% 40.2% 10.0% 40.2% 40.2% 15.0% 39.8% 39.8% 10.0% 34.8% 34.8% Yellow Time (s)3.6 5.2 5.2 3.6 5.2 5.2 3.6 5.5 5.5 3.6 5.5 5.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.2 6.2 4.6 6.2 6.2 4.6 6.5 6.5 4.6 6.5 6.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 100
Actuated Cycle Length: 100
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Bob Hope Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

6.1-7 6-577

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EAPC (2024) PM Peak Hour 2: Bob Hope Dr. & Frank Sinatra Dr.

Desert Island Hotel Focused Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc.

F:\UXRjobs\_14600-15000\14747\02_LOS\Synchro\01 - Existing Lanes.syn Synchro 11 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 128 478 135 79 388 93 257 959 219 92 535 142 Future Volume (veh/h) 128 478 135 79 388 93 257 959 219 92 535 142 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 135 503 142 83 408 98 271 1009 231 97 563 149 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 187 662 289 156 630 281 336 1788 787 161 1608 708 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.19 0.19 0.05 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.50 0.50 0.05 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1553 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1565 3456 3554 1565 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 135 503 142 83 408 98 271 1009 231 97 563 149 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1553 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1565 1728 1777 1565 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.8 13.4 8.2 2.4 10.7 5.4 7.7 19.7 8.6 2.8 10.3 5.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.8 13.4 8.2 2.4 10.7 5.4 7.7 19.7 8.6 2.8 10.3 5.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 187 662 289 156 630 281 336 1788 787 161 1608 708 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.76 0.49 0.53 0.65 0.35 0.81 0.56 0.29 0.60 0.35 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 187 1208 528 187 1208 539 359 1788 787 187 1608 708 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.6 38.6 36.4 46.7 38.2 36.1 44.2 17.2 14.5 46.8 17.8 16.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.4 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.7 10.9 1.3 0.9 2.0 0.6 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 5.7 0.1 1.0 4.5 2.0 3.6 7.4 2.9 1.2 3.9 2.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.9 40.4 37.7 47.8 39.4 36.8 55.1 18.5 15.4 48.7 18.4 17.2 LnGrp LOS E DDDDDEBBDBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 780 589 1511 809
Approach Delay, s/veh 42.9 40.1 24.6 21.8
Approach LOS DDCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.3 56.8 9.1 24.8 14.3 51.7 10.0 23.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.2 4.6 6.5 4.6 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.4 33.3 5.4 34.0 10.4 28.3 5.4 34.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 21.7 4.4 15.4 9.7 12.3 5.8 12.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.4 0.0 3.2 0.0 3.3 0.0 2.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.4
HCM 6th LOS C

6.1-8 6-578

DESERT ISLAND HOTEL

APPENDIX

Appendix E
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Letter, September 2022

6-579

Dear Pilar Lopez,
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the Desert Island Hotel project. The project area is not located within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation. However, it is within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area. For this reason, the ACBCI THPO requests the following:
[VIA EMAIL TO:[email protected]]
City of Rancho Mirage
Pilar Lopez
68-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, California 92270
September 07, 2022
Re: Desert Island Hotel
Again, the Agua Caliente appreciates your interest in our cultural heritage. If you have questions or require additional information, please call me at (760)699-6956. You may also email me at [email protected].

Cordially,
Lacy Padilla
Operations Manager
Tribal Historic Preservation Office

AGUA CALIENTE BAND

OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
03-008-2022-004
*Copies of any cultural resource documentation (report and site records) generated in connection with this project.
6-580

DESERT ISLAND HOTEL

APPENDIX

Appendix F
Comment Letters Received from Initial Circulation of Draft IS/MND, May 2023

6-581

P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101

VIA E-MAIL
May 23, 2023
Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, California 92270
Em: [email protected]

RE: City of Rancho Mirage’s Desert Island Hotel Project.

Dear Pilar Lopez,
On behalf of the Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest Mountain States Carpenters” or “SWMSRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments for the City of Rancho Mirage’s (“City”) Desert Island Hotel Project (“Project”).

As defined in the Project’s Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND), “The project will repurpose approximately 17.2 acres of the existing Desert Island community with a new 34-key boutique hotel, 11 private residences, hotel grounds for guest use with tennis, pool, café, cabana and yoga amenities, along with additional onsite parking. A new golf training park, and golf maintenance building will replace the existing driving range and old maintenance building that will be eliminated to make room for the new facilities. The proposed hotel is intended for use as a high-end venue with guests booking multi-day overnight stays. The proposed residences will be privately owned, but fully managed and maintained by the hotel operator. The proposed hotel and residences will be located west of the existing clubhouse.” IS/ND, p. 7.

The Southwest Mountain States Carpenters is a labor union representing 63,000 union carpenters in 10 states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. Individual members of SWMSRCC live, work, and recreate in the City and A-1
Comment Letter A
6-582

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 2 of 22 ends

surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.

The Southwest Mountain States Carpenters expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearing and proceeding related to this Project. Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (b); Pub. Res. Code, § 21177, subd. (a); see Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199-1203; see also Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121. The Southwest Mountain States Carpenters incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding environmental and land use documents submitted prior to approval of the Project. See Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).

Moreover, the Southwest Mountain States Carpenters requests that the City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”) (Gov.

Code, §§ 65000–65010). California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and California Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.

I. THE CITY SHOULD REQUIRE THE USE OF A LOCAL
WORKFORCE TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY’S ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT.

The City should require the Project to be built using a local workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor-Management Apprenticeship Program approved by the State of California, have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state-approved apprenticeship training program, or who are registered apprentices in a state-approved apprenticeship training program.

Community benefits such as local hire can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less A-1
A-2
6-583

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 3 of 22 ends

of the Project site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

March 8, 2021, SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.

Workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
[L]abor should be considered an investment rather than a cost —and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well-trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.1
Furthermore, workforce policies have significant environmental benefits given that they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount and length of job commutes and the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In fact, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program” can result in air pollutant reductions.2

1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10.

A-2
6-584

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 4 of 22 ends

Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits.

As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:

People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.3
Moreover, local hire mandates and skill-training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”). As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan have noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions given that the skill requirements of available local jobs must match those held by local residents.4 Some municipalities have even tied local hire and other workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. Cervero and Duncan note that:

In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing. The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.

Recently, the State of California verified its commitment towards workforce development through the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, otherwise known as Assembly Bill No. 2011 (“AB2011”). AB2011 amended the

3 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf
4 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf.

A-2
6-585

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 5 of 22 ends

Planning and Zoning Law to allow ministerial, by-right approval for projects being built alongside commercial corridors that meet affordability and labor requirements.

The City should consider utilizing local workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and to mitigate greenhouse gas, improve air quality, and reduce transportation impacts.

II. THE CITY SHOULD IMPOSE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE PROJECT’S CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO PREVENT
COMMUNITY SPREAD OF COVID-19 AND OTHER INFECTIOUS
DISEASES.

Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High-risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health Administration. Several construction sites have been identified as sources of community spread of COVID-19.5 Southwest Mountain States Carpenters recommend that the Lead Agency adopt additional requirements to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities. SWMSRCC requests that the Lead Agency require safe on-site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the Project Site.

In particular, based upon Southwest Mountain States Carpenters’ experience with safe construction site work practices, SWMSRCC recommends that the Lead Agency require that while construction activities are being conducted at the Project Site:

Construction Site Design:
• The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry points.
• Entry points will have temperature screening technicians taking temperature readings when the entry point is open. • The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details
regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics for conducting temperature screening.

5 Santa Clara County Public Health (June 12, 2020) COVID-19 CASES AT

CONSTRUCTION SITES HIGHLIGHT NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, available at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/ covid19/Pages/press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-sites.aspx.

A-2
A-3
6-586

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 6 of 22 ends

• A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior to the first day of temperature screening.
• The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6-foot social distancing position for when you approach the screening area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site map for additional details.
• There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing you through temperature screening.
• Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction site.

Testing Procedures:
• The temperature screening being used are non-contact
devices.
• Temperature readings will not be recorded.
• Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.
• Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before
temperature screening.
• Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or does not answer the health screening questions will be
refused access to the Project Site.
• Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate
[ZONE 2]
• After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel, deliveries, and visitors.

A-3
6-587

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 7 of 22 ends

• If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be taken to verify an accurate reading.
• If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature, DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be allowed to enter the Project Site. DHS will also instruct the individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her human resources (HR) representative and provide them with a copy of Annex A.

Planning
• Require the development of an Infectious Disease
Preparedness and Response Plan that will include basic
infection prevention measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment), policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no more than 10
people including all-hands meetings and all-hands lunches) communication and training and workplace controls that
meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Cal/OSHA, California Department of
Public Health or applicable local public health agencies.6 The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Agency should require that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.

6 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building Trades Unions (April 27 2020) NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available at https://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/NABTU_ CPWR_Standards_COVID-19.pdf; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2020) Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic, available at https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building-and-safety/docs/pw_guidelines-construction-sites.pdf .

A-3
6-588

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 8 of 22 ends

Southwest Mountain States Carpenters has also developed a rigorous Infection Control Risk Assessment (“ICRA”) training program to ensure it delivers a workforce that understands how to identify and control infection risks by implementing protocols to protect themselves and all others during renovation and construction projects in healthcare environments.7
ICRA protocols are intended to contain pathogens, control airflow, and protect patients during the construction, maintenance and renovation of healthcare facilities.

ICRA protocols prevent cross contamination, minimizing the risk of secondary infections in patients at hospital facilities.

The City should require the Project to be built using a workforce trained in ICRA protocols.

III. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act.

The California Environmental Quality Act is a California statute designed to inform decision-makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project. 14 California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”), § 15002, subd. (a)(1).8 At its core, its purpose is to “inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made.” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.

CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage, when possible, by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subds. (a)(2)-(3); see also Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Comes (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); Citizens of Goleta Valley v.

Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal.3d at p. 400. The EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the

7 For details concerning Southwest Carpenters’ ICRA training program, see https://icrahealthcare.com/ .
8 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq., are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. Cal. Pub. Res. Code, § 21083. The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 217.

A-3
A-4
6-589

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 9 of 22 ends

environment and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns” specified in Public Resources Code section 21081. See CEQA Guidelines, § 15092, subds. (b)(2)(A)-(B).

While the courts review an EIR using an ‘abuse of discretion’ standard, the reviewing court is not to uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal.3d at pp. 391, 409 fn. 12) (internal quotations omitted). A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference. Id. Drawing this line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts. Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley Jets, prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (internal quotations omitted).

The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for agencies and developers to overcome. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 80 (quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 449-450). The EIR’s function is to ensure that government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the public is assured those consequences have been considered. Id. For the EIR to serve these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is made. Id.

A strong presumption in favor of requiring preparation of an EIR is built into CEQA.

This presumption is reflected in what is known as the “fair argument” standard under which an EIR must be prepared whenever substantial evidence in the record supports A-4
6-590

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 10 of 22 ends

a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602; Friends of “B” St. v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.3d 988, 1002.

The fair argument test stems from the statutory mandate that an EIR be prepared for any project that “may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC, § 21151; see No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.App.3d 68, 75; accord Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 877, 884. Under this test, if a proposed project is not exempt and may cause a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR. PRC, §§ 21100 (a), 21151; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064 (a)(1), (f)(1).

An EIR may be dispensed with only if the lead agency finds no substantial evidence in the initial study or elsewhere in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Parker Shattuck Neighbors v. Berkeley City Council (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 768, 785. In such a situation, the agency must adopt a negative declaration. PRC, § 21080, subd. (c)(1); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063 (b)(2), 15064(f)(3).
“Significant effect upon the environment” is defined as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” PRC, § 21068; CEQA Guidelines, § 15382. A project may have a significant effect on the environment if there is a reasonable probability that it will result in a significant impact. No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at p. 83 fn. 16; see Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 309. If any aspect of the project may result in a significant impact on the environment, an EIR must be prepared even if the overall effect of the project is beneficial. CEQA Guidelines, § 15063(b)(1); see County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1580.

This standard sets a “low threshold” for preparation of an EIR. Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 207; Nelson v. County of Kern (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 252; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928; Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 580; Citizen Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754; Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 310. If substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR even if other substantial evidence before it indicates the project will have no significant effect. See Jensen, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 886; Clews Land & Livestock v. City of San Diego (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 161, 183; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of A-4
6-591

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 11 of 22 ends

Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491; Friends of “B” St., 106 Cal.App.3d 988; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(f)(1).

B. The Project Would be Approved in Violation of CEQA as the Negative Declaration Fails to Support Its Findings With Substantial Evidence; The Negative Declaration Is Also Inadequate and Lacking as a Matter of Law.

Under PRC § 21080(c)-(d), an Agency may prepare a negative declaration in very limited cases:
(c) If a lead agency determines that a proposed project, not otherwise exempt from this division, would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall adopt a negative declaration to that effect. The negative declaration shall be prepared for the proposed project in either of the following circumstances:
(1) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (2) An initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but (A) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (B) there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.
(d) If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report shall be prepared.

As such, the City here must prepare an EIR if the Project may have impacts and can dispose of an EIR only in case “clearly no significant effects” will occur. The Project does not meet this stringent fair argument standard.

Also, a lead agency must provide substantial evidence to support its findings, which must be based upon facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, and expert opinion, rather than mere speculation. CEQA Guidelines § 15384, subd. (a); Save Our Big Trees v.

A-4
A-5
6-592

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 12 of 22 ends

City of Santa Cruz (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 694, 710-711 citing Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 386.

Here, despite the mass and scale of the Project extending on 17.2 acres of land, the Project’s ND (Negative Declaration) concludes the Project will have no significant impacts. Such findings, however, fall short of the low bar of the fair argument to support an ND. Specifically, there is a fair argument that the Project, with its mass and scale and proposed density and intensity, may have impacts on traffic, aesthetics, hazards and hazardous materials, biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water, land use and planning, and public service impacts, and therefore requires an EIR to study and mitigated those, as required by CEQA.
i. There is a fair argument that the Project may have traffic impacts.

The ND erroneously concludes the Project will not have a significant environmental impact to traffic and congestion, but renders such conclusion without providing substantial evidence to support its finding. The City should conduct a project-specific analysis in the EIR and mitigate the traffic and congestion impacts in order to comply with CEQA’s mandates. As stated earlier, while the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” (Berkeley Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355, [quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of University of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391 409, fn. 12].) The ND states that the “hotel will take primary access from the existing Desert Island main gate on Frank Sinatra Drive. Currently, the main gate remains closed to the public, however, to eliminate potential vehicle stacking on Frank Sinatra Drive, the project proposes to keep the gates open during operating hours. Additionally, the resident gate and turnaround on Island Drive will be retained in its existing condition without change. Secondary access to Frank Sinatra Drive will be accommodated by widening the existing gated entry at the northwest corner of the golf course from 12- feet to 24 feet to provide secondary emergency vehicle access.” ND, page 9. This shows that the City is aware that there may be significant traffic and congestion impacts and is mitigating the impacts by opening the main gate to eliminate vehicle stacking and widening the secondary access to Frank Sinatra Drive in order to allow for easier traffic circulation. The City should be required to provide a comprehensive analysis on mitigating traffic and congestion in order to determine whether such A-5
A-6
6-593

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 13 of 22 ends

measures are sufficient to address the inevitable traffic and congestion impacts. It must also address and study the impacts of that very mitigation measure of “opening the main gate to eliminate vehicle stacking and widening the secondary access to Frank Sinatra Drive.”
In addition, it is likely that such mitigation measures posed by the City here are insufficient. For example, it is very likely that the resident gate and turnaround on Island Drive may require expansion or some other change, as the City claims “it will be retained in its existing condition without change.” Id. There are no guarantees that would be the case. As such, the City should require respective conditions of approval or restrictive covenants in all land use documents, include leases, to ensure that the resident gate and turnaround on Island Drive will indeed be retained in its existing condition; the City should also impose a condition of approval that – in the event a change is proposed later – then a new discretionary approval would be required.

As a result, the ND erroneously concludes the Project will not have significant traffic impacts, but renders such conclusion without providing substantial evidence to support the finding. The ND’s no impact findings are also fatally lacking, as a matter of law, for failure to account for the traffic impacts of the mitigation measures and for relying on unsupported speculations that no further expansion will take place, including as a result of the dramatic increase in the intensity and density of land uses the Project proposes.
ii. There is a fair argument that the Project may have aesthetics impacts.

The ND concedes that “[t]he subjective value of views is generally affected by the presence and intensity of neighboring man-made improvements, such as structures, overhead utilities, and landscaping, often in relation to the aesthetic quality offered by a natural background that may include open space, mountain ranges, or a natural landmark feature. The proximity and massing of structures, landscaping and other visual barriers interact with the visibility of surrounding environments to restrict or enhance the value of local scenic views. The evaluation of scenic vistas takes into consideration the physical compatibility of proposed projects in relation to land uses, transportation corridors, or other vantage points, where the enjoyment of unique vistas may exist, such as residential areas or scenic roads.” Id. at 14.

The City claims that the Project will not result in any significant environmental impact to aesthetics because the Desert Island Specific Plan contemplated the Project.

A-6
A-7
6-594

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 14 of 22 ends

However, a closer read of the Desert Island Specific Plan will show that this is not factually accurate. The Desert Island Specific Plan contemplated the construction of two additional residential towers along with tennis and clubhouse expansions. Id. The Project here far exceeds that scope. The Project includes the development of a 34-key boutique hotel with 11 private residences, outdoor gatherings areas, a pool, a yoga facility, a new golf training park, a maintenance building with parking. Id. Moreover, the proposed hotel will include four (4) one-story buildings. Because such developments, and their consequential environmental impacts, were not contemplated or studied in the Desert Island Specific Plan, the City must conduct a comprehensive environmental assessment to account for these new and additional developments and draft an EIR to mitigate such impacts. Because the proposed Project was, in fact, not contemplated by the Desert Island Specific Plan, the City’s argument that there is no impact to aesthetics fails as wholly unsupported.

Also, the ND states that “Existing sources of light and glare surrounding the project are primarily attributed to the existing residential buildings southeast of the project and the clubhouse east of the project. The lighting utilized for the residential buildings typically consists of low-intensity, wall-mounted or postmounted, downward-oriented fixtures illuminating sidewalks, doorways, outdoor areas, signs, landscaping, and parking lots.” Id. at 31.

As such, the proposed Project will contribute greatly to the light impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. This is because the “Project development includes a 34- key hotel with supporting amenities, 11 residential units, a golf training facility, a maintenance building, overflow parking area, and associated infrastructure.” Id.

Although the ND declares that the Project will utilize low-intensity and non-reflective lights, there is no guarantee for such optimism and no analysis that evaluates what the overall cumulative impacts will be from using such lights; neither is there any enforceable mitigation measure by which to gauge that such lights will be used so as not to impact the adjacent residential community or migratory birds.

In addition, the ND concedes that the current topography remains relatively flat:
“The approximately 17.2-acre project site has been previously developed, and currently operates as a part of the Desert Island golf course and overflow parking area. The site exhibits a predominantly flat topography with parking stalls, landscaped golf features, developed drive aisles, clubhouse, and maintenance building.” Id. at 15.

A-7
6-595

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 15 of 22 ends

The proposed developments here will significantly change the flat topography and obstruct views of scenic vistas.

For these reasons, a comprehensive environmental assessment must be conducted and the City should draft an EIR to study and mitigate the Project’s reasonably foreseeable and in fact inevitable environmental impacts to aesthetics. iii. There is a fair argument that the Project may have hazards and hazardous materials impacts.

The ND lacks an adequate analysis of whether the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, including both during the construction and operation of the Project. The IS/MND also lacks the necessary analysis to adequately determine whether the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidence conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

The Project’s construction will involve the management and use of oils, fuels and other potentially flammable substances. ND, page 74. The ND does not state the quantities or nature of these products, but rather states that it “would be limited to what is necessary to carry out construction of the project.” Id. The Project anticipates the transportation of hazardous materials to the Project site as well as the storage of the same in designated controlled areas at the Project site. Id.

The ND does not state where such hazardous materials will be stored or what protocols will be followed in the transportation or storage of such materials, but rather states that “the risk involved with handling these materials is considerably reduced” if the materials are “handled properly by trained individuals and consistent with the manufacturer’s instructions.” Id. at 74. As such, the ND concedes that there may be a risk in handling and transportation of such materials, but fails to provide any discussion about what those risks are, who those risks can affect, any potential environmental impacts that may result from such risks, and enforceable and binding ways to mitigate damages resulting therefrom.

Further, the ND states that “perimeter controls (fencing with wind screen), linear sediment barriers (gravel bags, fiber rolls, or silt fencing), and access restrictions (gates) would help prevent temporary impacts.” Id. at 74. However, it is not clear where such controls will be placed, in what quantities, what impacts such controls will be reducing, A-7
A-8
6-596

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 16 of 22 ends

and whether such controls are effective at reducing the environmental impacts anticipated during the Project’s construction. The ND states that “[w]ith such standard measures in place, less than significant impacts are anticipated during construction.” Id.

Apart from being unsupported, the ND’s reliance on standard or regulatory measures is legally improper in an ND context. CEQA expressly prohibits the City’s blanket inference that compliance with regulations will necessarily and automatically reduce impacts to the level of insignificance, especially for purposes of fair argument in NDs, as here. “Compliance with the threshold does not relieve a lead agency of the obligation to consider substantial evidence indicating that the project’s environmental effects may still be significant.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b)(2) (emph. added). In fact, the City’s above-noted reasoning and reliance on thresholds or regulatory compliance has been rejected since 2002:
“In the wake of our decision in Communities for a Better Environment, however, such thresholds cannot be used to determine automatically whether a given effect will or will not be significant. . . . notwithstanding compliance with a pertinent threshold of significance, the agency must still consider any fair argument that a certain environmental effect may be significant.” Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1108–1109 (“Amador”), referencing Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110-114, which invalidated the proposed Guidelines 15064(h) for fair argument. (Emph. added).

In addition, for impacts during the Project’s operations, the ND states that the hazardous materials that would be used “involve the handling and application of cleaning agents, building maintenance products, paints and solvents, and similar items [that will] be stored on-site.” Id. The ND circumvents any discussion about the quantity, nature, use, handling, and storage of such materials, and merely states “[t]hese potentially hazardous materials would not be present in significant quantities to pose a significant hazard to public health and safety or the environment.” Id.

In rendering its less than significant finding, the ND relies on regulatory compliance without conducting any fact specific analysis. It states, “By following the appropriate federal, state, and regional regulatory standards, less than significant impacts are A-8
6-597

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 17 of 22 ends

expected pertaining to significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Less than significant impacts are expected.” Id. As noted earlier, such reliance on regulatory compliance is legally improper for purposes of the ND.

The ND has provided little to no information to adequately conclude that there will be a “less than significant impact” with respect to hazards and hazardous materials and deferring such critical analysis to after the Project is approved violates CEQA. See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 645 (mitigation measures requiring future surveys and management plans for listed wildlife species improperly deferred analysis and rendered an EIR inadequate); see also Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal. App. 4th 260 (found an impermissible deferral of mitigation to address a protected species, the Quino checkerspot butterfly).

In sum, the City should be required to provide specific information on hazards and hazardous materials before the Project can proceed and before its ND could be issued. The ND fails to describe: (i) the nature, quantity, and types of hazardous materials that will be transported to and used at the Project site; (ii) the types of risks associated with the handling of such materials; or (iii) any potential mitigation measures to prevent or lower risks from such hazardous materials to human health and the environment. Without an adequate analysis of what the Project operations will entail, including what measures the Applicant will propose to protect employees, visitors, and the natural environment from foreseeable spills and accidents in the transport, handling, and use of such hazardous materials, the City lacks substantial evidence to support its hazard findings in the ND and there is a fair argument that the Project, on the known facts, may indeed have hazards impacts, requiring an EIR. iv. There is a fair argument the Project may have impacts to biological resources.

The ND claims that “given the project sites current use as a golf course, and its proximity to other existing development, the project site would not be expected to be a part of or contain migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites. The project is site not located near any existing drainages that would support wildlife corridors nor is it located in a known wildlife corridor. Therefore, the proposed project will not interfere with movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species and no impacts are expected.” Id. at 45.

A-8
A-9
6-598

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 18 of 22 ends

However, Coachella Valley is known to have migratory birds fly through. “When snow birds return to the desert from northern climes, migratory birds are arriving here from all over the Americas. We have a rare inland climate that supports active bird populations throughout the winter months. This is the payoff for living here, because while everywhere else it's dormant and cold, the birds and bees also enjoy the winter sun and warm days.”9
Because the Coachella Valley is known for having migratory birds pass through, a comprehensive environmental analysis should be conducted to determine the Project’s light and noise impacts to these migratory species and an EIR should be drafted to include mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. v. There is a fair argument the Project may have impacts to geology and soils.

The ND provides: “Seismically induced ground shaking is anticipated in the entire Coachella Valley, due to the multiple northwest-southeast trending faults in the region.

Although these faults produced the unique topography in the Coachella Valley (high mountain ranges and a low valley floor), the major faults, such as the San Andreas Fault, have the potential to produce strong shaking during a seismic event. The strength of ground shaking is accredited to the distance from the fault; where the intensity of the seismic shaking decreases the further it is from the causative fault. The Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update Safety Element indicates that ground shaking during an earthquake is the most significant seismic hazard that will impact Rancho Mirage.” Id. at page 62.

In fact, the approximately 17.2-acre Project property proposes the development of a 34-key boutique hotel, 11 private duplex-style residences, outdoor gathering areas and amenities, expanded onsite parking, a golf training park, a new maintenance building, and associated improvements. The ND’s admissions of seismic impacts potential along with the mass of the Project creates a fair argument that the Project may exacerbate the impacts on the environment.

Yet, the ND does not provide any analysis on the safety of the Project site against strong seismic ground shaking, and instead relies on regulatory compliance in

9 Desert Sun (2017) “Many birds visit the Coachella Valley in the winter. Make your backyard a wildlife oasis” available at, https://www.desertsun.com/story/life/home-garden/maureen- gilmer/2017/11/17/many-birds-visit-coachella-valley-winter-make-your-backyard-wildlife- oasis/862734001/.

A-9
A-10
6-599

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 19 of 22 ends

rendering a less than significant impact. It reads: “To ensure the safety of the project site against strong seismic ground shaking, structures shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the most current edition of the California Building Code (CBC).

The project shall comply with the most current seismic design coefficients and ground motion parameters and all applicable provisions of the CBC.” Id. Yet, as mentioned earlier, the City’s reliance on regulatory compliance is legally improper. Moreover, there is no evidence that the CBC was enacted to reduce and mitigate the impacts of any project on the environment to the level of insignificance, required for an ND here.

Moreover, not only does the ND erroneously conclude that the Project’s impacts are “less than significant,” it defers any analysis of such impacts for after the Project is approved. The ND has provided little to no information to adequately conclude that there will be a “less than significant impact” on seismically induced ground shaking and deferring such critical analysis to after the Project is approved does not comport with CEQA. See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 645 (mitigation measures requiring future surveys and management plans for listed wildlife species improperly deferred analysis and rendered an EIR inadequate); see also Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal. App. 4th 260 (found an impermissible deferral of mitigation to address a protected species, the Quino checkerspot butterfly).

The City should be required to provide such information and study/mitigate the Project’s geology impacts before issuing an ND and before the Project can proceed. vi. There is a fair argument the Project may have hydrology and water impacts.

CEQA requires the City to quantify and analyze the Project’s impact on water resources. The City should analyze whether the Project will need to rely upon groundwater resources, and if so, the amount of groundwater it will be relying on in order to supply the Project. This Project lies within the Indio Subbasin, which is governed by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”), a state law requiring that groundwater basins are managed to achieve sustainability. The Coachella Valley Water District submitted the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (“Alternative Plan”) as an alternative to SGMA’s required Groundwater Sustainability Plan, which was approved by the Department of Water Resources in 2019.

Coachella Valley Water District claims that recharge of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin is “possible due to a supply of imported water from the State A-10
A-11
6-600

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 20 of 22 ends

Water Project and the Colorado River.”10 However, State Water Project and Colorado River water resources are decreasing given the current state of our climate. On March 28, 2022, the California Governor called on all water agencies to move to Level 2 of their Water Shortage Contingency Plans and take conservation actions to reduce water use. Negative Declaration, page 83. The Director of California’s Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) stated, “[w]e are experiencing climate change whiplash in real time” and “[w]hile we had hoped for more rain and snow, DWR has been preparing for a third consecutive year of drought” by reducing State Water Project allocation to 5% of requested supplies for 2022, which is 10% less than the 15% allocation previously set by DWR.11 The Colorado River is also in an extreme state of drought, with water supply at historically low levels. The U.S. Department of Interior stated that “[p]rolonged drought and low runoff conditions accelerated by climate change have led to historically low water levels in Lakes Powell and Mead,”12 and in August 2021, federal officials cut Colorado River water allocations to several southwestern states.13 Without a detailed assessment of the Project’s water demands, it is unclear whether it will be able to meet or significantly impact the Alternative Plan’s goal to reliably meet current and future water demands in a sustainable yet cost-effective manner. vii. The Project is not consistent with the City’s land use and planning policies, suggesting that the Project may have land use impacts.

The project is located within the Desert Island and Desert Island Specific Plan area.

As stated above, the City claims that the Project will not result in any significant environmental impacts because the Desert Island Specific Plan contemplated the Project. However, a closer read of the Desert Island Specific Plan will show that this

10 Coachella Valley Water District (2022) Groundwater Replenishment and Imported Water, available at http://www.cvwd.org/162/Groundwater-Replenishment-Imported-Water . 11 California Department of Water Resources (2022) Historically Dry Conditions Impact Planned State Water Project Deliveries, available at https://water.ca.gov/news/news- releases/2022/march-22/swp-allocation-
march#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWhile%20we%20had%20hoped%20for,deliveries%20for%2 0millions%20of%20Californians.%E2%80%9D
12 U.S. Department of Interior Press Releases (2022) Interior Department Announces Actions To Protect Colorado River System, Sets 2023 Operating Conditions for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, available at https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-announces- actions-protect-colorado-river-system-sets-2023.
13 UCLA Newsroom (2022) Megadrought in Southwestern North America Is Region’s Driest In At Least 1,200 Years, available at https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/megadrought- southwestern-north-america.

A-11
A-12
6-601

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 21 of 22 ends

is not factually accurate. The Desert Island Specific Plan contemplated the construction of two additional residential towers along with tennis and clubhouse expansions. Id. However, the Project here involves more than what was contemplated by the Specific Plan. The Project incudes the development of a 34-key boutique hotel with 11 private residences, outdoor gatherings areas, tennis, pool, and yoga facilities, a new golf training park, expanded onsite parking, and a maintenance building with parking. Id. Moreover, the proposed hotel will include four (4) one-story buildings.

The existing driving range and maintenance building will be removed to make room for the new facilities. The new hotel, in conjunction with the existing clubhouse, are intended to be used as a high-end wedding venue with guests booking overnight stays.

Because such developments are not contemplated in the Desert Island Specific Plan, the Project is inconsistent with the City’s land use and planning policies. viii. The ND fails to support its public services impacts with substantial evidence.

The ND states that the “hotel will take primary access from the existing Desert Island main gate on Frank Sinatra Drive. Currently, the main gate remains closed to the public, however, to eliminate potential vehicle stacking on Frank Sinatra Drive, the project proposes to keep the gates open during operating hours. Additionally, the resident gate and turnaround on Island Drive will be retained in its existing condition without change. Secondary access to Frank Sinatra Drive will be accommodated by widening the existing gated entry at the northwest corner of the golf course from 12- feet to 24 feet to provide secondary emergency vehicle access.” ND, page 9.

As stated above, this demonstrates that the City is aware that there may be a significant impact to public services access such as emergency vehicles/services, and is mitigating the impacts by opening the main gate to eliminate vehicle stacking and widening the secondary access to Frank Sinatra Drive in order to allow for easier traffic circulation.

The City should be required to provide a comprehensive analysis on mitigating any impacts to public and emergency services impacts in order to determine whether such measures proposed here are sufficient.

In addition, it is likely that such mitigation measures posed by the City here are insufficient. For example, it is very likely that the resident gate and turnaround on Island Drive may require expansion or some other change, as the City claims “it will be retained in its existing condition without change.” Id. As a result, the ND erroneously A-12
A-13
6-602

City of Rancho Mirage – Desert Island Hotel Project
May 22, 2023

Page 22 of 22 ends

concludes the Project will not have significant public services impacts, but renders such conclusion without providing substantial evidence to support the finding.

The ND’s findings are also fatally lacking, as a matter of law, for failure to account for the public services impacts, including as a result of the dramatic increase in the intensity and density of land uses the Project proposes.

IV. CONCLUSION.

In view of the above-noted concerns, SWMSRCC respectfully requests that the City conduct a comprehensive environmental review of the Project and draft an EIR to assess and mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts in order to comply with CEQA.

Sincerely,

____________________________
Armita A. Ariano
Attorneys for Southwest Mountain
States Regional Council of Carpenters

Attached:

March 8, 2021, SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C).

A-13
A-14
6-603

EXHIBIT A
6-604

1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
March 8, 2021

Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101

Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts.

Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3

1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home . 2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home . 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 6-605

2 Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT, including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip length (see excerpt below):
“VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5
Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following equation (see excerpt below):
“Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:

Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6 Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise.

Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project- specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the

4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23. 6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/ , p. 1, 9. 6-606

3 number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively.”10 Finally, the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home-to-work vehicle trips.11 The operational home-to-work vehicle trip lengths are:
“[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings” (emphasis added). 12 Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions. The below table shows the CalEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Minimum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90

9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6 , p. 15. 11 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6 , p. 14. 12 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6 , p. 21. 13 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86. 6-607

4 As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8- miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7- miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location.

Practical Application of a Local Hire Requirement and Associated Impact To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction-related GHG emissions, we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan (“Project”) located in the City of Claremont (“City”). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units, 100,000-SF of retail space, 45,000-SF of office space, as well as a 50-room hotel, on the 24-acre site. The Project location is classified as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles-South Coast County. As a result, the Project has a default worker trip length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions, we prepared an updated model, reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were to be implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17% (see table below and Attachment C).

Local Hire Provision Net Change
Without Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 120.77 With Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 100.80 % Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
As demonstrated above, by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths, the Project could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly, any local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project-level GHG emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction-related GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project’s urbanization level and location.

14 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85. 6-608

5 Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,

Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
6-609

Location Type Location Name Rural H-W
(miles)
Urban H-W
(miles)
Air Basin Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mountain 16.8 10.8
Air Basin North Central 17.1 12.3
Air Basin North Coast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Northeast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Sacramento 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Salton Sea 14.6 11
Air Basin San Diego 16.8 10.8
Air Basin San Francisco

10.8 10.8
Air Basin San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Central 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Amador County 16.8 10.8
Air District Antelope Valley 16.8 10.8
Air District Bay Area AQMD 10.8 10.8
Air District Butte County 12.54 12.54
Air District Calaveras

16.8 10.8
Air District Colusa County 16.8 10.8
Air District El Dorado

16.8 10.8
Air District Feather River 16.8 10.8
Air District Glenn County 16.8 10.8
Air District Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air District Imperial County 10.2 7.3
Air District Kern County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lassen County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mariposa

16.8 10.8
Air District Mendocino

16.8 10.8
Air District Modoc County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air District Monterey Bay

16.8 10.8
Air District North Coast

16.8 10.8
Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8
Air District Northern

16.8 10.8
Air District Placer County 16.8 10.8
Air District Sacramento 15 10
Attachment A
6-610

Air District San Diego

16.8 10.8
Air District San Joaquin

16.8 10.8
Air District San Luis Obispo

13 13
Air District Santa Barbara

8.3 8.3
Air District Shasta County 16.8 10.8
Air District Siskiyou County

16.8 10.8
Air District South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Tehama County 16.8 10.8
Air District Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
Air District Ventura County 16.8 10.8
Air District Yolo/Solano 15 10
County Alameda 10.8 10.8
County Alpine 16.8 10.8
County Amador 16.8 10.8
County Butte 12.54 12.54
County Calaveras 16.8 10.8
County Colusa 16.8 10.8
County Contra Costa 10.8 10.8
County Del Norte 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado-Lake 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado-16.8 10.8
County Fresno 16.8 10.8
County Glenn 16.8 10.8
County Humboldt 16.8 10.8
County Imperial 10.2 7.3
County Inyo 16.8 10.8
County Kern-Mojave 16.8 10.8
County Kern-San 16.8 10.8
County Kings 16.8 10.8
County Lake 16.8 10.8
County Lassen 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles-16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles-19.8 14.7
County Madera 16.8 10.8
County Marin 10.8 10.8
County Mariposa 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Mendocino-16.8 10.8
County Merced 16.8 10.8
County Modoc 16.8 10.8
County Mono 16.8 10.8
County Monterey 16.8 10.8
County Napa 10.8 10.8
6-611

County Nevada 16.8 10.8
County Orange 19.8 14.7
County Placer-Lake 16.8 10.8
County Placer-Mountain 16.8 10.8
County Placer-16.8 10.8
County Plumas 16.8 10.8
County Riverside-16.8 10.8
County Riverside-

19.8 14.7
County Riverside-Salton 14.6 11
County Riverside-South 19.8 14.7
County Sacramento 15 10
County San Benito 16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-

16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-

19.8 14.7
County San Diego 16.8 10.8
County San Francisco 10.8 10.8
County San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
County San Luis Obispo 13 13
County San Mateo 10.8 10.8
County Santa Barbara-

8.3 8.3
County Santa Barbara-

8.3 8.3
County Santa Clara 10.8 10.8
County Santa Cruz 16.8 10.8
County Shasta 16.8 10.8
County Sierra 16.8 10.8
County Siskiyou 16.8 10.8
County Solano-15 10
County Solano-San 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-North 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-San 10.8 10.8
County Stanislaus 16.8 10.8
County Sutter 16.8 10.8
County Tehama 16.8 10.8
County Trinity 16.8 10.8
County Tulare 16.8 10.8
County Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
County Ventura 16.8 10.8
County Yolo 15 10
County Yuba 16.8 10.8
Statewide Statewide 16.8 10.8
6-612

Air Basin Rural (miles)Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Mininum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
6-613

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 1 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Attachment B
6-614

Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.

Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.

Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.

Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.

Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.

Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.

Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 2 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-615

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 3 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-616

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1713 1.8242 1.1662 2.4000e-
003

0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 213.1969 213.1969 0.0601 0.0000 214.6993 2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 6 1,721.682
6 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7 2023 0.6148 3.3649 5.6747 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 1,627.529 5 1,627.529
5 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
5 2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004

0.0325 6.4700e-
003

0.0390 8.6300e-
003

6.0400e-
003

0.0147 0.0000 52.9078 52.9078 8.0200e-
003

0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 6 1,721.682
6 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 4 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-617

0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 213.1967 213.1967 0.0601 0.0000 214.6991 2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 3 1,721.682
3 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3 2023 0.6148 3.3648 5.6747 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 1,627.529 1 1,627.529
1 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
1 2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004

0.0325 6.4700e-
003

0.0390 8.6300e-
003

6.0400e-
003

0.0147 0.0000 52.9077 52.9077 8.0200e-
003

0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 3 1,721.682
3 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4103 1.4103
2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3613 1.3613
3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1985 1.1985
4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1921 1.1921
5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1918 1.1918
6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0774 1.0774
7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 1.0320 1.0320
8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 1.0260 1.0260
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 5 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-618

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073
2 3,896.073
2 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3 Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 07 12,531.15
19 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51 Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 1.0265 1.0265
10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8857 2.8857
11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6207 1.6207
Highest 2.8857 2.8857
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 6 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-619

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 7 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-620

Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 8 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-621

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 9 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-622

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003

0.0000 7.5100e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004

0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004

0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003

0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 10 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-623

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003

0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e-
004

3.9400e-
003

1.9000e-
004

4.1300e-
003

1.0800e-
003

1.8000e-
004

1.2600e-
003

0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003

0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.7000e-
004

7.5000e-
004

8.5100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4900e-
003

6.5000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

6.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.2267
Total 2.9000e-
003

0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e-
004

6.4100e-
003

2.1000e-
004

6.6200e-
003

1.7300e-
003

2.0000e-
004

1.9300e-
003

0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e-
003

0.0000 19.7136
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003

0.0000 7.5100e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004

0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004

0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003

0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 11 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-624

0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e-
004

3.9400e-
003

1.9000e-
004

4.1300e-
003

1.0800e-
003

1.8000e-
004

1.2600e-
003

0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003

0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.7000e-
004

7.5000e-
004

8.5100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4900e-
003

6.5000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

6.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.2267
Total 2.9000e-
003

0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e-
004

6.4100e-
003

2.1000e-
004

6.6200e-
003

1.7300e-
003

2.0000e-
004

1.9300e-
003

0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e-
003

0.0000 19.7136
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004

0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004

0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 12 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-625

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.7814
Total 7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.7814
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004

0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004

0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 13 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-626

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.7814
Total 7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.7814
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003

0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003

0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 14 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-627

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144 4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144 4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.7607
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003

0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003

0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 15 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-628

1.2700e-
003

0.0144 4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144 4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.7607
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004

5.7200e-
003

5.2600e-
003

0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003

0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004

0.0807 5.7200e-
003

0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003

0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003

0.0000 19.2414
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 16 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-629

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6684
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004

5.7200e-
003

5.2600e-
003

0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003

0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004

0.0807 5.7200e-
003

0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003

0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003

0.0000 19.2414
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 17 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-630

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6684
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003

0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 18 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-631

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e-
003

0.1140 3.1800e-
003

0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003

0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e-
003

1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003

0.3031 0.0000 966.8117 966.8117 0.0266 0.0000 967.4773
Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 1,408.795 2 1,408.795
2 0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003

0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003

0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 19 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-632

0.1140 3.1800e-
003

0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003

0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e-
003

1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003

0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003

0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 20 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-633

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e-
003

0.1113 1.4600e-
003

0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003

0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e-
003

1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003

0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291
Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e-
003

1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003

0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336
9 1,327.336
9 0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003

0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003

0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 21 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-634

0.1113 1.4600e-
003

0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003

0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e-
003

1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003

0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291
Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e-
003

1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003

0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336
9 1,327.336
9 0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003

0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003

0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.7100e-
003

0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003

0.0000 13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 22 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-635

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8968
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003

0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003

0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.7100e-
003

0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003

0.0000 13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 23 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-636

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8968
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003

0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003

0.0000 22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 24 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-637

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.4706
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003

0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003

0.0000 22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 25 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-638

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.4706
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004

0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004

0.0000 4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 26 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-639

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0101 6.9900e-
003

0.0835 2.8000e-
004

0.0307 2.3000e-
004

0.0309 8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004

0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003

0.0835 2.8000e-
004

0.0307 2.3000e-
004

0.0309 8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004

0.0000 24.9558
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1600e-
003

0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004

0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004

0.0000 4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 27 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-640

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

0.0835 2.8000e-
004

0.0307 2.3000e-
004

0.0309 8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004

0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003

0.0835 2.8000e-
004

0.0307 2.3000e-
004

0.0309 8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004

0.0000 24.9558
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 28 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-641

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 29 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-642

Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 30 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-643

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 31 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-644

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003

0.0188 8.0100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

1.5200e-
003

0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.30613e
+007

0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003

0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003

0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004

1.7500e-
003

0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

8.30736e
+006

0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003

0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003

8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006

9.3900e-
003

0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003

1.7000e-
003

93.4557
Quality
Restaurant

1.84608e
+006

9.9500e-
003

0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004

6.8800e-
003

0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003

1.8100e-
003

99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004

4.5000e-
003

3.7800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005

4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 32 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-645

0.0188 8.0100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

1.5200e-
003

0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.30613e
+007

0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003

0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003

0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004

1.7500e-
003

0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

8.30736e
+006

0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003

0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003

8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006

9.3900e-
003

0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003

1.7000e-
003

93.4557
Quality
Restaurant

1.84608e
+006

9.9500e-
003

0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004

6.8800e-
003

0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003

1.8100e-
003

99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004

4.5000e-
003

3.7800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005

4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 33 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-646

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003

1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003

1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003

9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003

2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 34 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-647

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003

1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003

1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003

9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003

2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 35 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-648

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Unmitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003

0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003

3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004

0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 36 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-649

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003

0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003

3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004

0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 37 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-650

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 38 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-651

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

1.62885 /

1.02688

10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003

12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise

63.5252 /

40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building

7.99802 /

4.90201

53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003

61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003

62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003

7.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003

13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003

31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 39 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-652

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

1.62885 /

1.02688

10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003

12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise

63.5252 /

40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building

7.99802 /

4.90201

53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003

61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003

62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003

7.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003

13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003

31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 40 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-653

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 41 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-654

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building

41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant

7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center

58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 42 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-655

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building

41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant

7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center

58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 43 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-656

11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 44 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 6-657

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 1 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 6-658