Cities Index.
Agenda packet

Rancho Mirage City Council
October 19, 2023

Document
Agenda packet
Meeting
October 19, 2023
Body
Rancho Mirage City Council
Pages
87
Original file
8.1 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on portal.laserfiche.com. That file is the official record.

Start 06-Nov-
13 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Wed Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 7 89 12 153
12:15 17 87 17 161
12:30 11 105 7 163
12:45 9 76 44 357 5 169 41 646 85 1003
01:00 12 102 8 180
01:15 8 69 13 193
01:30 5 87 15 185
01:45 4 114 29 372 9 166 45 724 74 1096
02:00 4 106 9 143
02:15 8 109 10 182
02:30 6 137 13 222
02:45 7 104 25 456 13 183 45 730 70 1186
03:00 3 107 7 203
03:15 2 152 17 193
03:30 7 147 8 206
03:45 4 155 16 561 15 205 47 807 63 1368
04:00 3 117 16 201
04:15 8 137 33 201
04:30 10 123 34 229
04:45 6 117 27 494 29 213 112 844 139 1338
05:00 14 111 42 218
05:15 7 153 62 191
05:30 10 125 119 188
05:45 22 102 53 491 86 143 309 740 362 1231
06:00 20 94 121 123
06:15 51 76 154 132
06:30 48 47 233 113
06:45 38 48 157 265 151 86 659 454 816 719
07:00 40 58 212 95
07:15 52 60 295 82
07:30 57 41 321 79
07:45 63 46 212 205 242 90 1070 346 1282 551
08:00 51 41 228 89
08:15 62 45 244 85
08:30 54 51 213 73
08:45 79 37 246 174 177 63 862 310 1108 484
09:00 87 30 199 74
09:15 73 36 178 69
09:30 74 43 188 74
09:45 89 25 323 134 186 61 751 278 1074 412
10:00 85 35 167 57
10:15 70 24 202 54
10:30 98 28 174 55
10:45 75 27 328 114 164 37 707 203 1035 317
11:00 76 29 187 39
11:15 91 30 157 17
11:30 70 19 175 26
11:45 98 10 335 88 174 24 693 106 1028 194
Total 1795 3711 1795 3711 5341 6188 5341 6188 7136 9899 Combined
Total 5506 5506 11529 11529 17035
AM Peak 09:45 07:15
Vol. 342 1086
P.H.F. 0.872 0.846
PM Peak 03:15 04:15
Vol. 571 861
P.H.F. 0.921 0.940

Percentag
e 32.6% 67.4% 46.3% 53.7%

ADT/AAD
T ADT 17,035 AADT 17,035
12-2079
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

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

City of Rancho Mirage
Bob Hope Drive
S/ Ramon Road
24 Hour Directional Volume Counts

RNM002
Site Code: 009-13453
Date Start: 07-Nov-13
Date End: 07-Nov-13

Page 1 ends

Start 07-Nov-
13 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Thu Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 43 156 12 143
12:15 43 174 11 161
12:30 50 138 6 144
12:45 33 152 169 620 5 155 34 603 203 1223
01:00 38 126 7 158
01:15 39 149 12 156
01:30 39 161 4 170
01:45 23 180 139 616 9 134 32 618 171 1234
02:00 18 173 7 163
02:15 30 183 7 135
02:30 23 175 11 161
02:45 13 194 84 725 6 139 31 598 115 1323
03:00 16 183 9 143
03:15 19 203 11 129
03:30 15 210 9 122
03:45 11 262 61 858 11 133 40 527 101 1385
04:00 17 193 8 124
04:15 12 190 24 122
04:30 13 223 25 143
04:45 14 187 56 793 23 135 80 524 136 1317
05:00 19 238 41 123
05:15 18 268 55 129
05:30 21 239 90 116
05:45 17 165 75 910 49 96 235 464 310 1374
06:00 26 141 96 81
06:15 29 136 128 101
06:30 60 115 197 89
06:45 40 104 155 496 145 77 566 348 721 844
07:00 57 91 180 70
07:15 77 104 230 52
07:30 71 114 322 61
07:45 107 91 312 400 186 38 918 221 1230 621
08:00 83 77 215 56
08:15 88 99 186 44
08:30 105 80 208 47
08:45 78 76 354 332 177 38 786 185 1140 517
09:00 100 79 152 41
09:15 90 88 145 47
09:30 94 63 153 42
09:45 122 75 406 305 142 28 592 158 998 463
10:00 110 68 132 33
10:15 115 76 141 36
10:30 110 64 153 24
10:45 107 64 442 272 164 28 590 121 1032 393
11:00 124 57 132 21
11:15 134 51 130 16
11:30 128 58 156 10
11:45 152 58 538 224 151 14 569 61 1107 285
Total 2791 6551 2791 6551 4473 4428 4473 4428 7264 10979 Combined
Total 9342 9342 8901 8901 18243
AM Peak 11:00 07:15
Vol. 538 953
P.H.F. 0.885 0.740
PM Peak 04:45 00:45
Vol. 932 639
P.H.F. 0.869 0.940

Percentag
e 29.9% 70.1% 50.3% 49.7%

ADT/AAD
T ADT 18,243 AADT 18,243
12-2080
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

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

City of Rancho Mirage
Ramon Road
W/ Bob Hope Drive
24 Hour Directional Volume Counts

RNM004
Site Code: 009-13453
Date Start: 06-Nov-13
Date End: 06-Nov-13

Page 1 ends

Start 06-Nov-
13 Eastbound Hour Totals Westbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Wed Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 15 136 14 134
12:15 20 173 18 98
12:30 11 147 17 100
12:45 9 193 55 649 8 107 57 439 112 1088
01:00 14 185 7 106
01:15 12 152 5 102
01:30 11 145 8 122
01:45 6 170 43 652 8 119 28 449 71 1101
02:00 7 196 6 102
02:15 10 182 9 130
02:30 4 190 4 131
02:45 16 197 37 765 7 173 26 536 63 1301
03:00 4 213 11 163
03:15 7 204 5 166
03:30 14 217 8 173
03:45 12 211 37 845 6 168 30 670 67 1515
04:00 9 182 9 203
04:15 16 191 9 200
04:30 36 201 19 199
04:45 48 187 109 761 20 209 57 811 166 1572
05:00 43 196 23 232
05:15 60 219 21 241
05:30 77 218 39 237
05:45 94 191 274 824 68 216 151 926 425 1750
06:00 92 186 71 161
06:15 151 135 83 139
06:30 182 167 90 159
06:45 179 144 604 632 179 121 423 580 1027 1212
07:00 161 101 142 91
07:15 185 110 184 107
07:30 212 95 235 88
07:45 234 121 792 427 185 81 746 367 1538 794
08:00 215 92 156 100
08:15 189 109 137 104
08:30 198 97 194 94
08:45 221 67 823 365 162 81 649 379 1472 744
09:00 146 82 119 87
09:15 150 89 119 85
09:30 182 60 109 61
09:45 186 64 664 295 119 81 466 314 1130 609
10:00 170 57 106 82
10:15 165 78 87 69
10:30 140 51 140 41
10:45 164 39 639 225 85 36 418 228 1057 453
11:00 145 26 105 22
11:15 171 48 121 31
11:30 168 31 96 31
11:45 158 14 642 119 103 20 425 104 1067 223
Total 4719 6559 4719 6559 3476 5803 3476 5803 8195 12362 Combined
Total 11278 11278 9279 9279 20557
AM Peak 07:30 07:15
Vol. 850 760
P.H.F. 0.908 0.809
PM Peak 03:00 05:00
Vol. 845 926
P.H.F. 0.974 0.961

Percentag
e 41.8% 58.2% 37.5% 62.5%

ADT/AAD
T ADT 20,557 AADT 20,557
12-2081
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

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

City of Rancho Mirage
Ramon Road
E/ Bob Hope Drive
24 Hour Directional Volume Count

RNM003
Site Code: 009-13453
Date Start: 06-Nov-13
Date End: 06-Nov-13

Page 1 ends

Start 06-Nov-
13 Eastbound Hour Totals Westbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Wed Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 26 156 5 73
12:15 25 154 10 81
12:30 25 145 10 69
12:45 20 199 96 654 6 63 31 286 127 940
01:00 28 166 7 70
01:15 23 142 5 60
01:30 15 150 5 76
01:45 20 156 86 614 3 78 20 284 106 898
02:00 18 173 5 79
02:15 16 171 9 90
02:30 14 196 3 83
02:45 16 175 64 715 8 97 25 349 89 1064
03:00 6 262 3 92
03:15 16 206 3 116
03:30 18 235 5 83
03:45 12 195 52 898 5 93 16 384 68 1282
04:00 16 173 4 99
04:15 22 185 7 92
04:30 38 221 8 98
04:45 33 192 109 771 13 97 32 386 141 1157
05:00 56 213 29 95
05:15 40 236 14 102
05:30 84 245 33 78
05:45 81 169 261 863 26 82 102 357 363 1220
06:00 86 180 45 74
06:15 121 160 66 73
06:30 168 159 78 80
06:45 146 148 521 647 103 52 292 279 813 926
07:00 141 115 100 56
07:15 178 99 125 38
07:30 211 99 155 36
07:45 178 125 708 438 90 38 470 168 1178 606
08:00 190 103 90 38
08:15 160 113 87 52
08:30 175 103 130 37
08:45 165 81 690 400 86 48 393 175 1083 575
09:00 119 93 53 40
09:15 145 110 70 42
09:30 155 88 61 32
09:45 157 74 576 365 63 41 247 155 823 520
10:00 134 66 59 33
10:15 155 76 45 24
10:30 121 77 84 32
10:45 153 58 563 277 64 15 252 104 815 381
11:00 125 56 76 15
11:15 155 41 63 11
11:30 170 42 63 13
11:45 150 27 600 166 85 13 287 52 887 218
Total 4326 6808 4326 6808 2167 2979 2167 2979 6493 9787 Combined
Total 11134 11134 5146 5146 16280
AM Peak 07:15 06:45
Vol. 757 483
P.H.F. 0.897 0.779
PM Peak 03:00 04:30
Vol. 898 392
P.H.F. 0.857 0.961

Percentag
e 38.9% 61.1% 42.1% 57.9%

ADT/AAD
T ADT 16,280 AADT 16,280
12-2082
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

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

City of Rancho Mirage
Dinah Shore Drive
W/ Bob Hope Drive
24 Hour Directional Volume Counts

RNM005
Site Code: 009-13453
Date Start: 06-Nov-13
Date End: 06-Nov-13

Page 1 ends

Start 06-Nov-
13 Eastbound Hour Totals Westbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Wed Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon 12:00 9 159 10 164
12:15 6 141 8 178
12:30 13 151 9 173
12:45 8 155 36 606 9 147 36 662 72 1268
01:00 10 166 6 182
01:15 4 150 5 141
01:30 2 160 12 170
01:45 1 135 17 611 2 147 25 640 42 1251
02:00 2 154 10 169
02:15 1 153 5 177
02:30 8 151 4 175
02:45 2 142 13 600 3 192 22 713 35 1313
03:00 0 180 2 171
03:15 3 187 6 195
03:30 6 166 3 201
03:45 7 181 16 714 3 177 14 744 30 1458
04:00 5 154 13 199
04:15 6 136 10 205
04:30 15 171 24 193
04:45 21 166 47 627 26 194 73 791 120 1418
05:00 19 159 22 259
05:15 11 197 17 187
05:30 31 169 42 152
05:45 31 139 92 664 38 143 119 741 211 1405
06:00 37 117 62 125
06:15 41 112 60 132
06:30 67 103 105 109
06:45 77 84 222 416 103 129 330 495 552 911
07:00 85 63 121 116
07:15 90 54 141 91
07:30 127 68 150 87
07:45 170 60 472 245 115 89 527 383 999 628
08:00 148 50 101 86
08:15 133 61 111 81
08:30 132 48 114 90
08:45 147 54 560 213 104 68 430 325 990 538
09:00 106 64 98 69
09:15 136 126 110 58
09:30 138 114 115 54
09:45 130 45 510 349 115 45 438 226 948 575
10:00 141 42 110 48
10:15 135 30 124 40
10:30 159 29 151 30
10:45 140 25 575 126 137 22 522 140 1097 266
11:00 145 24 151 9
11:15 160 16 141 14
11:30 166 13 178 17
11:45 156 7 627 60 144 13 614 53 1241 113
Total 3187 5231 3187 5231 3150 5913 3150 5913 6337 11144 Combined
Total 8418 8418 9063 9063 17481
AM Peak 11:00 11:00
Vol. 627 614
P.H.F. 0.944 0.862
PM Peak 03:00 04:15
Vol. 714 851
P.H.F. 0.955 0.821

Percentag
e 37.9% 62.1% 34.8% 65.2%

ADT/AAD
T ADT 17,481 AADT 17,481
12-2083
File Name : RNMBH10WAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: I-10 Westbound Ramps
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
I-10 Westbound Off Ramp
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
I-10 Westbound On Ramp
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 0 39 32 71 69 4 30 103 32 60 0 92 0 0 0 0 266
07:15 AM 0 54 41 95 91 2 39 132 20 85 0 105 0 0 0 0 332 07:30 AM 0 55 37 92 132 3 39 174 30 67 0 97 0 0 0 0 363 07:45 AM 0 55 42 97 131 1 58 190 23 110 0 133 0 0 0 0 420 Total 0 203 152 355 423 10 166 599 105 322 0 427 0 0 0 0 1381 08:00 AM 0 49 29 78 95 3 44 142 27 81 0 108 0 0 0 0 328 08:15 AM 0 55 32 87 88 1 42 131 31 46 0 77 0 0 0 0 295
08:30 AM 0 63 29 92 101 5 28 134 39 41 0 80 0 0 0 0 306 08:45 AM 0 43 32 75 88 1 32 121 40 66 0 106 0 0 0 0 302 Total 0 210 122 332 372 10 146 528 137 234 0 371 0 0 0 0 1231 Grand Total 0 413 274 687 795 20 312 1127 242 556 0 798 0 0 0 0 2612 Apprch % 0 60.1 39.9 70.5 1.8 27.7 30.3 69.7 0 0 0 0 Total % 0 15.8 10.5 26.3 30.4 0.8 11.9 43.1 9.3 21.3 0 30.6 0 0 0 0 Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
I-10 Westbound Off Ramp
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
I-10 Westbound On Ramp
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 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 0 54 41 95 91 2 39 132 20 85 0 105 0 0 0 0 332 07:30 AM 0 55 37 92 132 3 39 174 30 67 0 97 0 0 0 0 363 07:45 AM 0 55 42 97 131 1 58 190 23 110 0 133 0 0 0 0 420 08:00 AM 0 49 29 78 95 3 44 142 27 81 0 108 0 0 0 0 328 Total Volume 0 213 149 362 449 9 180 638 100 343 0 443 0 0 0 0 1443 % App. Total 0 58.8 41.2 70.4 1.4 28.2 22.6 77.4 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .968 .887 .933 .850 .750 .776 .839 .833 .780 .000 .833 .000 .000 .000 .000 .859 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2084
File Name : RNMBH10WAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: I-10 Westbound Ramps
Weather: Sunny
Bob Hope Drive
I-10 Westbound On Ramp
I-10 Westbound Off Ramp
Bob Hope Drive
Right
149
Thru
213
Left
0 InOut Total
523 362 885
Right
180
Thru
9 Left
449
OutTotal In
0 638 638
Left
100
Thru
343
Right
0 Out TotalIn
662 443 1105
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 TotalOut In
258 0 258
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 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:
07:15 AM 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 07:00 AM
+0 mins. 0 54 41 95 91 2 39 132 20 85 0 105 0 0 0 0
+15 mins. 0 55 37 92 132 3 39 174 30 67 0 97 0 0 0 0
+30 mins. 0 55 42 97 131 1 58 190 23 110 0 133 0 0 0 0
+45 mins. 0 49 29 78 95 3 44 142 27 81 0 108 0 0 0 0
Total Volume 0 213 149 362 449 9 180 638 100 343 0 443 0 0 0 0 % App. Total 0 58.8 41.2 70.4 1.4 28.2 22.6 77.4 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .968 .887 .933 .850 .750 .776 .839 .833 .780 .000 .833 .000 .000 .000 .000 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2085
File Name : RNMBH10WPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: I-10 Westbound Ramps
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
I-10 Westbound Off Ramp
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
I-10 Westbound On Ramp
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 0 78 75 153 122 1 39 162 86 71 0 157 0 0 0 0 472 04:15 PM 0 54 53 107 99 0 33 132 100 70 0 170 0 0 0 0 409 04:30 PM 0 84 57 141 100 3 37 140 81 67 0 148 0 0 0 0 429 04:45 PM 0 68 53 121 132 0 24 156 88 42 0 130 0 0 0 0 407 Total 0 284 238 522 453 4 133 590 355 250 0 605 0 0 0 0 1717 05:00 PM 0 71 77 148 119 0 24 143 94 43 0 137 0 0 0 0 428 05:15 PM 0 40 54 94 145 1 28 174 121 56 0 177 0 0 0 0 445 05:30 PM 0 29 59 88 130 1 20 151 105 62 0 167 0 0 0 0 406 05:45 PM 0 18 47 65 100 1 18 119 70 33 0 103 0 0 0 0 287 Total 0 158 237 395 494 3 90 587 390 194 0 584 0 0 0 0 1566 Grand Total 0 442 475 917 947 7 223 1177 745 444 0 1189 0 0 0 0 3283 Apprch % 0 48.2 51.8 80.5 0.6 18.9 62.7 37.3 0 0 0 0 Total % 0 13.5 14.5 27.9 28.8 0.2 6.8 35.9 22.7 13.5 0 36.2 0 0 0 0 Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
I-10 Westbound Off Ramp
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
I-10 Westbound On Ramp
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 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 0 78 75 153 122 1 39 162 86 71 0 157 0 0 0 0 472 04:15 PM 0 54 53 107 99 0 33 132 100 70 0 170 0 0 0 0 409 04:30 PM 0 84 57 141 100 3 37 140 81 67 0 148 0 0 0 0 429 04:45 PM 0 68 53 121 132 0 24 156 88 42 0 130 0 0 0 0 407 Total Volume 0 284 238 522 453 4 133 590 355 250 0 605 0 0 0 0 1717 % App. Total 0 54.4 45.6 76.8 0.7 22.5 58.7 41.3 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .845 .793 .853 .858 .333 .853 .910 .888 .880 .000 .890 .000 .000 .000 .000 .909 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2086
File Name : RNMBH10WPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: I-10 Westbound Ramps
Weather: Sunny
Bob Hope Drive
I-10 Westbound On Ramp
I-10 Westbound Off Ramp
Bob Hope Drive
Right
238
Thru
284
Left
0 InOut Total
383 522 905
Right
133
Thru
4 Left
453
OutTotal In
0 590 590
Left
355
Thru
250
Right
0 Out TotalIn
737 605 1342
Left
0 Thru
0 Right
0 TotalOut In
597 0 597
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM

Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:00 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:00 PM
+0 mins. 0 78 75 153 132 0 24 156 88 42 0 130 0 0 0 0
+15 mins. 0 54 53 107 119 0 24 143 94 43 0 137 0 0 0 0
+30 mins. 0 84 57 141 145 1 28 174 121 56 0 177 0 0 0 0 +45 mins. 0 68 53 121 130 1 20 151 105 62 0 167 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 284 238 522 526 2 96 624 408 203 0 611 0 0 0 0 % App. Total 0 54.4 45.6 84.3 0.3 15.4 66.8 33.2 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .845 .793 .853 .907 .500 .857 .897 .843 .819 .000 .863 .000 .000 .000 .000 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2087
File Name : RNMBH10EAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: I-10 Eastbound Ramps
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
I-10 Eastbound On Ramp
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
I-10 Eastbound Off Ramp
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 15 91 0 106 0 0 0 0 0 46 2 48 43 2 72 117 271
07:15 AM 22 126 0 148 0 0 0 0 0 35 3 38 67 4 93 164 350 07:30 AM 26 170 0 196 0 0 0 0 0 53 8 61 48 1 135 184 441 07:45 AM 17 160 0 177 0 0 0 0 0 54 8 62 78 0 148 226 465 Total 80 547 0 627 0 0 0 0 0 188 21 209 236 7 448 691 1527 08:00 AM 22 127 0 149 0 0 0 0 0 54 5 59 50 1 99 150 358 08:15 AM 15 136 0 151 0 0 0 0 0 52 6 58 30 0 105 135 344 08:30 AM 24 141 0 165 0 0 0 0 0 54 5 59 29 0 84 113 337 08:45 AM 19 119 0 138 0 0 0 0 0 69 10 79 37 0 88 125 342 Total 80 523 0 603 0 0 0 0 0 229 26 255 146 1 376 523 1381 Grand Total 160 1070 0 1230 0 0 0 0 0 417 47 464 382 8 824 1214 2908 Apprch % 13 87 0 0 0 0 0 89.9 10.1 31.5 0.7 67.9
Total % 5.5 36.8 0 42.3 0 0 0 0 0 14.3 1.6 16 13.1 0.3 28.3 41.7 Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
I-10 Eastbound On Ramp
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
I-10 Eastbound Off Ramp
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 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 22 126 0 148 0 0 0 0 0 35 3 38 67 4 93 164 350 07:30 AM 26 170 0 196 0 0 0 0 0 53 8 61 48 1 135 184 441 07:45 AM 17 160 0 177 0 0 0 0 0 54 8 62 78 0 148 226 465 08:00 AM 22 127 0 149 0 0 0 0 0 54 5 59 50 1 99 150 358 Total Volume 87 583 0 670 0 0 0 0 0 196 24 220 243 6 475 724 1614 % App. Total 13 87 0 0 0 0 0 89.1 10.9 33.6 0.8 65.6 PHF .837 .857 .000 .855 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .907 .750 .887 .779 .375 .802 .801 .868 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2088
File Name : RNMBH10EAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: I-10 Eastbound Ramps
Weather: Sunny
Bob Hope Drive
I-10 Eastbound Off Ramp
I-10 Eastbound On Ramp
Bob Hope Drive
Right
0 Thru
583
Left
87 InOut Total
439 670 1109
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 OutTotal In
117 0 117
Left
0 Thru
196
Right
24 Out TotalIn
1058 220 1278
Left
243
Thru
6 Right
475
TotalOut In
0 724 724
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 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 07:00 AM 08:00 AM 07:15 AM
+0 mins. 26 170 0 196 0 0 0 0 0 54 5 59 67 4 93 164
+15 mins. 17 160 0 177 0 0 0 0 0 52 6 58 48 1 135 184
+30 mins. 22 127 0 149 0 0 0 0 0 54 5 59 78 0 148 226
+45 mins. 15 136 0 151 0 0 0 0 0 69 10 79 50 1 99 150
Total Volume 80 593 0 673 0 0 0 0 0 229 26 255 243 6 475 724 % App. Total 11.9 88.1 0 0 0 0 0 89.8 10.2 33.6 0.8 65.6 PHF .769 .872 .000 .858 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .830 .650 .807 .779 .375 .802 .801 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2089
File Name : RNMBH10EPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: I-10 Eastbound Ramps
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
I-10 Eastbound On Ramp
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
I-10 Eastbound Off Ramp
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 31 165 0 196 0 0 0 0 0 128 14 142 38 0 62 100 438 04:15 PM 33 125 0 158 0 0 0 0 0 111 4 115 33 0 48 81 354 04:30 PM 27 169 0 196 0 0 0 0 0 119 11 130 38 2 58 98 424 04:45 PM 41 168 0 209 0 0 0 0 0 96 15 111 27 1 63 91 411 Total 132 627 0 759 0 0 0 0 0 454 44 498 136 3 231 370 1627 05:00 PM 39 156 0 195 0 0 0 0 0 114 10 124 21 0 52 73 392 05:15 PM 24 154 0 178 0 0 0 0 0 147 7 154 32 2 61 95 427 05:30 PM 19 145 0 164 0 0 0 0 0 114 10 124 41 1 55 97 385 05:45 PM 11 111 0 122 0 0 0 0 0 82 7 89 21 0 60 81 292
Total 93 566 0 659 0 0 0 0 0 457 34 491 115 3 228 346 1496 Grand Total 225 1193 0 1418 0 0 0 0 0 911 78 989 251 6 459 716 3123 Apprch % 15.9 84.1 0 0 0 0 0 92.1 7.9 35.1 0.8 64.1
Total % 7.2 38.2 0 45.4 0 0 0 0 0 29.2 2.5 31.7 8 0.2 14.7 22.9 Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
I-10 Eastbound On Ramp
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
I-10 Eastbound Off Ramp
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 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 27 169 0 196 0 0 0 0 0 119 11 130 38 2 58 98 424 04:45 PM 41 168 0 209 0 0 0 0 0 96 15 111 27 1 63 91 411 05:00 PM 39 156 0 195 0 0 0 0 0 114 10 124 21 0 52 73 392 05:15 PM 24 154 0 178 0 0 0 0 0 147 7 154 32 2 61 95 427 Total Volume 131 647 0 778 0 0 0 0 0 476 43 519 118 5 234 357 1654 % App. Total 16.8 83.2 0 0 0 0 0 91.7 8.3 33.1 1.4 65.5 PHF .799 .957 .000 .931 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .810 .717 .843 .776 .625 .929 .911 .968 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2090
File Name : RNMBH10EPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: I-10 Eastbound Ramps
Weather: Sunny
Bob Hope Drive
I-10 Eastbound Off Ramp
I-10 Eastbound On Ramp
Bob Hope Drive
Right
0 Thru
647
Left
131
InOut Total
594 778 1372
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 OutTotal In
179 0 179
Left
0 Thru
476
Right
43 Out TotalIn
881 519 1400
Left
118
Thru
5 Right
234
TotalOut In
0 357 357
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 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:
04:30 PM 04:00 PM 04:30 PM 04:00 PM
+0 mins. 27 169 0 196 0 0 0 0 0 119 11 130 38 0 62 100
+15 mins. 41 168 0 209 0 0 0 0 0 96 15 111 33 0 48 81
+30 mins. 39 156 0 195 0 0 0 0 0 114 10 124 38 2 58 98
+45 mins. 24 154 0 178 0 0 0 0 0 147 7 154 27 1 63 91
Total Volume 131 647 0 778 0 0 0 0 0 476 43 519 136 3 231 370 % App. Total 16.8 83.2 0 0 0 0 0 91.7 8.3 36.8 0.8 62.4 PHF .799 .957 .000 .931 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .810 .717 .843 .895 .375 .917 .925 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2091
File Name : RNMDVRAAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Da Vall Drive
E/W: Ramon Road
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Da Vall Drive
Southbound
Ramon Road
Westbound
Da Vall Drive
Northbound
Ramon Road
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 55 36 5 96 28 92 21 141 8 13 9 30 5 96 24 125 392 07:15 AM 51 46 15 112 43 95 36 174 14 23 19 56 6 149 29 184 526 07:30 AM 68 90 8 166 45 142 24 211 11 23 19 53 4 147 37 188 618 07:45 AM 51 87 12 150 47 122 15 184 25 31 25 81 7 139 38 184 599 Total 225 259 40 524 163 451 96 710 58 90 72 220 22 531 128 681 2135 08:00 AM 38 45 10 93 24 108 16 148 22 33 21 76 6 144 22 172 489 08:15 AM 30 41 5 76 18 142 14 174 16 15 13 44 3 169 24 196 490 08:30 AM 46 47 5 98 36 160 20 216 21 16 27 64 7 156 26 189 567 08:45 AM 43 49 7 99 30 178 27 235 27 15 24 66 4 161 30 195 595 Total 157 182 27 366 108 588 77 773 86 79 85 250 20 630 102 752 2141 Grand Total 382 441 67 890 271 1039 173 1483 144 169 157 470 42 1161 230 1433 4276 Apprch % 42.9 49.6 7.5 18.3 70.1 11.7 30.6 36 33.4 2.9 81 16.1 Total % 8.9 10.3 1.6 20.8 6.3 24.3 4 34.7 3.4 4 3.7 11 1 27.2 5.4 33.5 Da Vall Drive
Southbound
Ramon Road
Westbound
Da Vall Drive
Northbound
Ramon Road
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 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 51 46 15 112 43 95 36 174 14 23 19 56 6 149 29 184 526 07:30 AM 68 90 8 166 45 142 24 211 11 23 19 53 4 147 37 188 618 07:45 AM 51 87 12 150 47 122 15 184 25 31 25 81 7 139 38 184 599 08:00 AM 38 45 10 93 24 108 16 148 22 33 21 76 6 144 22 172 489 Total Volume 208 268 45 521 159 467 91 717 72 110 84 266 23 579 126 728 2232 % App. Total 39.9 51.4 8.6 22.2 65.1 12.7 27.1 41.4 31.6 3.2 79.5 17.3 PHF .765 .744 .750 .785 .846 .822 .632 .850 .720 .833 .840 .821 .821 .971 .829 .968 .903 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2092
File Name : RNMDVRAAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Da Vall Drive
E/W: Ramon Road
Weather: Sunny
Da Vall Drive
Ramon Road
Ramon Road
Da Vall Drive
Right
45 Thru
268
Left
208
InOut Total
224 521 745
Right
91 Thru
467
Left
159
OutTotal In
871 717 1588
Left
72 Thru
110
Right
84 Out TotalIn
553 266 819
Left
23 Thru
579
Right
126
TotalOut In
584 728 1312
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM

Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:00 AM 08:00 AM 07:15 AM 08:00 AM
+0 mins. 55 36 5 96 24 108 16 148 14 23 19 56 6 144 22 172 +15 mins. 51 46 15 112 18 142 14 174 11 23 19 53 3 169 24 196 +30 mins. 68 90 8 166 36 160 20 216 25 31 25 81 7 156 26 189 +45 mins. 51 87 12 150 30 178 27 235 22 33 21 76 4 161 30 195 Total Volume 225 259 40 524 108 588 77 773 72 110 84 266 20 630 102 752 % App. Total 42.9 49.4 7.6 14 76.1 10 27.1 41.4 31.6 2.7 83.8 13.6 PHF .827 .719 .667 .789 .750 .826 .713 .822 .720 .833 .840 .821 .714 .932 .850 .959 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2093
File Name : RNMDVRAPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Da Vall Drive
E/W: Ramon Road
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Da Vall Drive
Southbound
Ramon Road
Westbound
Da Vall Drive
Northbound
Ramon Road
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 15 27 1 43 24 202 45 271 31 53 14 98 10 147 23 180 592 04:15 PM 26 30 2 58 20 167 45 232 39 40 15 94 7 151 23 181 565 04:30 PM 18 38 3 59 25 157 45 227 35 59 19 113 10 164 25 199 598 04:45 PM 26 26 5 57 19 171 52 242 33 68 14 115 10 146 19 175 589 Total 85 121 11 217 88 697 187 972 138 220 62 420 37 608 90 735 2344 05:00 PM 18 34 5 57 23 170 57 250 31 73 17 121 6 151 22 179 607 05:15 PM 27 25 4 56 25 177 54 256 35 61 16 112 14 181 17 212 636 05:30 PM 30 27 8 65 27 164 56 247 41 54 20 115 5 165 13 183 610 05:45 PM 25 23 6 54 22 159 56 237 22 39 8 69 9 144 22 175 535 Total 100 109 23 232 97 670 223 990 129 227 61 417 34 641 74 749 2388 Grand Total 185 230 34 449 185 1367 410 1962 267 447 123 837 71 1249 164 1484 4732 Apprch % 41.2 51.2 7.6 9.4 69.7 20.9 31.9 53.4 14.7 4.8 84.2 11.1 Total % 3.9 4.9 0.7 9.5 3.9 28.9 8.7 41.5 5.6 9.4 2.6 17.7 1.5 26.4 3.5 31.4 Da Vall Drive
Southbound
Ramon Road
Westbound
Da Vall Drive
Northbound
Ramon Road
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 04:45 PM
04:45 PM 26 26 5 57 19 171 52 242 33 68 14 115 10 146 19 175 589 05:00 PM 18 34 5 57 23 170 57 250 31 73 17 121 6 151 22 179 607 05:15 PM 27 25 4 56 25 177 54 256 35 61 16 112 14 181 17 212 636 05:30 PM 30 27 8 65 27 164 56 247 41 54 20 115 5 165 13 183 610 Total Volume 101 112 22 235 94 682 219 995 140 256 67 463 35 643 71 749 2442 % App. Total 43 47.7 9.4 9.4 68.5 22 30.2 55.3 14.5 4.7 85.8 9.5 PHF .842 .824 .688 .904 .870 .963 .961 .972 .854 .877 .838 .957 .625 .888 .807 .883 .960 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2094
File Name : RNMDVRAPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Da Vall Drive
E/W: Ramon Road
Weather: Sunny
Da Vall Drive
Ramon Road
Ramon Road
Da Vall Drive
Right
22 Thru
112
Left
101
InOut Total
510 235 745
Right
219
Thru
682
Left
94 OutTotal In
811 995 1806
Left
140
Thru
256
Right
67 Out TotalIn
277 463 740
Left
35 Thru
643
Right
71 TotalOut In
844 749 1593
Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM

Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:30 PM
+0 mins. 26 26 5 57 19 171 52 242 33 68 14 115 10 164 25 199 +15 mins. 18 34 5 57 23 170 57 250 31 73 17 121 10 146 19 175 +30 mins. 27 25 4 56 25 177 54 256 35 61 16 112 6 151 22 179 +45 mins. 30 27 8 65 27 164 56 247 41 54 20 115 14 181 17 212 Total Volume 101 112 22 235 94 682 219 995 140 256 67 463 40 642 83 765 % App. Total 43 47.7 9.4 9.4 68.5 22 30.2 55.3 14.5 5.2 83.9 10.8 PHF .842 .824 .688 .904 .870 .963 .961 .972 .854 .877 .838 .957 .714 .887 .830 .902 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2095
File Name : RNMRARAAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Rattler Road
E/W: Ramon Road
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Rattler Road
Southbound
Ramon Road
Westbound
Ramon Road
Eastbound
Start Time Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 6 4 10 133 12 145 7 155 162 317
07:15 AM 6 10 16 167 11 178 13 200 213 407
07:30 AM 19 8 27 210 14 224 6 234 240 491
07:45 AM 12 16 28 179 9 188 10 201 211 427
Total 43 38 81 689 46 735 36 790 826 1642
08:00 AM 15 13 28 134 12 146 16 189 205 379
08:15 AM 20 36 56 141 17 158 22 186 208 422
08:30 AM 49 59 108 166 45 211 54 168 222 541
08:45 AM 51 92 143 161 34 195 63 177 240 578
Total 135 200 335 602 108 710 155 720 875 1920
Grand Total 178 238 416 1291 154 1445 191 1510 1701 3562 Apprch % 42.8 57.2 89.3 10.7 11.2 88.8
Total % 5 6.7 11.7 36.2 4.3 40.6 5.4 42.4 47.8
Rattler Road
Southbound
Ramon Road
Westbound
Ramon Road
Eastbound
Start Time Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru 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 08:00 AM
08:00 AM 15 13 28 134 12 146 16 189 205 379
08:15 AM 20 36 56 141 17 158 22 186 208 422
08:30 AM 49 59 108 166 45 211 54 168 222 541
08:45 AM 51 92 143 161 34 195 63 177 240 578
Total Volume 135 200 335 602 108 710 155 720 875 1920
% App. Total 40.3 59.7 84.8 15.2 17.7 82.3
PHF .662 .543 .586 .907 .600 .841 .615 .952 .911 .830
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2096
File Name : RNMRARAAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Rattler Road
E/W: Ramon Road
Weather: Sunny
Rattler Road
Ramon Road
Ramon Road
Right
200
Left
135
InOut Total
263 335 598
Right
108
Thru
602
OutTotal In
855 710 1565
Left
155
Thru
720
TotalOut In
802 875 1677
Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 AM

Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
08:00 AM 07:15 AM 08:00 AM
+0 mins. 15 13 28 167 11 178 16 189 205
+15 mins. 20 36 56 210 14 224 22 186 208
+30 mins. 49 59 108 179 9 188 54 168 222
+45 mins. 51 92 143 134 12 146 63 177 240
Total Volume 135 200 335 690 46 736 155 720 875
% App. Total 40.3 59.7 93.8 6.2 17.7 82.3
PHF .662 .543 .586 .821 .821 .821 .615 .952 .911
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2097
File Name : RNMRARAPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Rattler Road
E/W: Ramon Road
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Rattler Road
Southbound
Ramon Road
Westbound
Ramon Road
Eastbound
Start Time Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Int. Total 02:00 PM 7 3 10 145 6 151 3 167 170 331
02:15 PM 2 1 3 177 4 181 4 195 199 383
02:30 PM 8 5 13 164 11 175 17 186 203 391
02:45 PM 11 11 22 196 33 229 34 180 214 465
Total 28 20 48 682 54 736 58 728 786 1570
03:00 PM 53 103 156 179 32 211 67 200 267 634
03:15 PM 18 33 51 227 18 245 24 186 210 506
03:30 PM 14 7 21 223 10 233 7 217 224 478
03:45 PM 8 9 17 237 11 248 6 188 194 459
Total 93 152 245 866 71 937 104 791 895 2077
Grand Total 121 172 293 1548 125 1673 162 1519 1681 3647 Apprch % 41.3 58.7 92.5 7.5 9.6 90.4
Total % 3.3 4.7 8 42.4 3.4 45.9 4.4 41.7 46.1
Rattler Road
Southbound
Ramon Road
Westbound
Ramon Road
Eastbound
Start Time Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 03:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 02:45 PM
02:45 PM 11 11 22 196 33 229 34 180 214 465
03:00 PM 53 103 156 179 32 211 67 200 267 634
03:15 PM 18 33 51 227 18 245 24 186 210 506
03:30 PM 14 7 21 223 10 233 7 217 224 478
Total Volume 96 154 250 825 93 918 132 783 915 2083
% App. Total 38.4 61.6 89.9 10.1 14.4 85.6
PHF .453 .374 .401 .909 .705 .937 .493 .902 .857 .821
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2098
File Name : RNMRARAPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Rattler Road
E/W: Ramon Road
Weather: Sunny
Rattler Road
Ramon Road
Ramon Road
Right
154
Left
96 InOut Total
225 250 475
Right
93 Thru
825
OutTotal In
879 918 1797
Left
132
Thru
783
TotalOut In
979 915 1894
Peak Hour Begins at 02:45 PM

Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 03:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
02:45 PM 03:00 PM 02:45 PM
+0 mins. 11 11 22 179 32 211 34 180 214
+15 mins. 53 103 156 227 18 245 67 200 267
+30 mins. 18 33 51 223 10 233 24 186 210
+45 mins. 14 7 21 237 11 248 7 217 224
Total Volume 96 154 250 866 71 937 132 783 915
% App. Total 38.4 61.6 92.4 7.6 14.4 85.6
PHF .453 .374 .401 .914 .555 .945 .493 .902 .857
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2099
Location:  Date: 11/6/2013
N/S:  File : RNMRARA
E/W:

North Leg East Leg South Leg West Leg
Ramon Road Rattler Road Ramon Road Rattler Road
Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians TOTAL
00 0 0
00 3 3
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 9 9
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 1 1
0 0 0 13 13
North Leg East Leg South Leg West Leg
Ramon Road Rattler Road Ramon Road Rattler Road
Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians Pedestrians TOTAL
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
10 16 17
10 0 1
00 0 0
00 0 0
2 0 0 16 18
3:30 PM
3:45 PM
TOTAL VOLUMES:
7:30 AM
2:15 PM
2:30 PM
2:00 PM
2:45 PM
3:00 PM
8:30 AM
8:45 AM
TOTAL VOLUMES:

Rancho Mirage
Rattler Road
Ramon Road
3:00 PM

WEEKDAY
7:00 AM
7:45 AM
8:00 AM
8:15 AM
7:15 AM
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951‐268‐6268
12-2100
File Name : RNMLARAAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Los Alamos Road
E/W: Ramon Road
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Ramon Road
Westbound
Los Alamos Road
Northbound
Ramon Road
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 7 147 154 3 4 7 148 7 155 316
07:15 AM 18 181 199 2 3 5 209 2 211 415
07:30 AM 23 232 255 4 17 21 238 13 251 527
07:45 AM 15 175 190 3 22 25 190 8 198 413
Total 63 735 798 12 46 58 785 30 815 1671
08:00 AM 7 158 165 1 10 11 210 6 216 392
08:15 AM 5 139 144 3 5 8 205 6 211 363
08:30 AM 8 192 200 7 5 12 213 3 216 428
08:45 AM 4 171 175 8 6 14 214 1 215 404
Total 24 660 684 19 26 45 842 16 858 1587
Grand Total 87 1395 1482 31 72 103 1627 46 1673 3258
Apprch % 5.9 94.1 30.1 69.9 97.3 2.7
Total % 2.7 42.8 45.5 1 2.2 3.2 49.9 1.4 51.4
Ramon Road
Westbound
Los Alamos Road
Northbound
Ramon Road
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 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 18 181 199 2 3 5 209 2 211 415
07:30 AM 23 232 255 4 17 21 238 13 251 527
07:45 AM 15 175 190 3 22 25 190 8 198 413
08:00 AM 7 158 165 1 10 11 210 6 216 392
Total Volume 63 746 809 10 52 62 847 29 876 1747
% App. Total 7.8 92.2 16.1 83.9 96.7 3.3
PHF .685 .804 .793 .625 .591 .620 .890 .558 .873 .829
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2101
File Name : RNMLARAAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Los Alamos Road
E/W: Ramon Road
Weather: Sunny
Ramon Road
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road
Thru
746
Left
63 OutTotal In
899 809 1708
Left
10 Right
52 Out TotalIn
92 62 154
Thru
847
Right
29 TotalOut In
756 876 1632
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 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:
07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:15 AM
+0 mins. 18 181 199 4 17 21 209 2 211
+15 mins. 23 232 255 3 22 25 238 13 251
+30 mins. 15 175 190 1 10 11 190 8 198
+45 mins. 7 158 165 3 5 8 210 6 216
Total Volume 63 746 809 11 54 65 847 29 876
% App. Total 7.8 92.2 16.9 83.1 96.7 3.3
PHF .685 .804 .793 .688 .614 .650 .890 .558 .873
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2102
File Name : RNMLARAPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Los Alamos Road
E/W: Ramon Road
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Ramon Road
Westbound
Los Alamos Road
Northbound
Ramon Road
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 7 216 223 6 3 9 179 2 181 413
04:15 PM 7 212 219 4 8 12 182 4 186 417
04:30 PM 5 214 219 6 7 13 191 1 192 424
04:45 PM 9 221 230 12 3 15 196 1 197 442
Total 28 863 891 28 21 49 748 8 756 1696
05:00 PM 6 231 237 9 13 22 191 5 196 455
05:15 PM 5 263 268 4 12 16 213 3 216 500
05:30 PM 7 235 242 9 6 15 206 2 208 465
05:45 PM 1 201 202 2 7 9 181 4 185 396
Total 19 930 949 24 38 62 791 14 805 1816
Grand Total 47 1793 1840 52 59 111 1539 22 1561 3512
Apprch % 2.6 97.4 46.8 53.2 98.6 1.4
Total % 1.3 51.1 52.4 1.5 1.7 3.2 43.8 0.6 44.4
Ramon Road
Westbound
Los Alamos Road
Northbound
Ramon Road
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 04:45 PM
04:45 PM 9 221 230 12 3 15 196 1 197 442
05:00 PM 6 231 237 9 13 22 191 5 196 455
05:15 PM 5 263 268 4 12 16 213 3 216 500
05:30 PM 7 235 242 9 6 15 206 2 208 465
Total Volume 27 950 977 34 34 68 806 11 817 1862
% App. Total 2.8 97.2 50 50 98.7 1.3
PHF .750 .903 .911 .708 .654 .773 .946 .550 .946 .931
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2103
File Name : RNMLARAPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Los Alamos Road
E/W: Ramon Road
Weather: Sunny
Ramon Road
Ramon Road
Los Alamos Road
Thru
950
Left
27 OutTotal In
840 977 1817
Left
34 Right
34 Out TotalIn
38 68 106
Thru
806
Right
11 TotalOut In
984 817 1801
Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM

Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:45 PM 04:45 PM 04:45 PM
+0 mins. 9 221 230 12 3 15 196 1 197
+15 mins. 6 231 237 9 13 22 191 5 196
+30 mins. 5 263 268 4 12 16 213 3 216
+45 mins. 7 235 242 9 6 15 206 2 208
Total Volume 27 950 977 34 34 68 806 11 817
% App. Total 2.8 97.2 50 50 98.7 1.3
PHF .750 .903 .911 .708 .654 .773 .946 .550 .946
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2104
File Name : RNMBHRAAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: Ramon Road
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
Ramon Road
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
Ramon Road
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 8 89 70 167 16 73 1 90 11 39 10 60 13 118 23 154 471 07:15 AM 10 115 88 213 18 89 1 108 16 23 14 53 17 144 36 197 571 07:30 AM 6 190 101 297 29 116 5 150 26 38 18 82 22 178 51 251 780 07:45 AM 8 203 102 313 28 64 2 94 13 42 27 82 17 146 50 213 702 Total 32 597 361 990 91 342 9 442 66 142 69 277 69 586 160 815 2524 08:00 AM 8 139 77 224 22 52 3 77 23 39 14 76 15 170 58 243 620 08:15 AM 7 147 79 233 11 63 1 75 16 37 16 69 13 123 46 182 559 08:30 AM 10 133 94 237 18 91 18 127 26 42 14 82 14 160 45 219 665 08:45 AM 9 117 85 211 21 55 15 91 27 50 19 96 23 143 61 227 625 Total 34 536 335 905 72 261 37 370 92 168 63 323 65 596 210 871 2469 Grand Total 66 1133 696 1895 163 603 46 812 158 310 132 600 134 1182 370 1686 4993 Apprch % 3.5 59.8 36.7 20.1 74.3 5.7 26.3 51.7 22 7.9 70.1 21.9 Total % 1.3 22.7 13.9 38 3.3 12.1 0.9 16.3 3.2 6.2 2.6 12 2.7 23.7 7.4 33.8 Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
Ramon Road
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
Ramon Road
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 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 10 115 88 213 18 89 1 108 16 23 14 53 17 144 36 197 571 07:30 AM 6 190 101 297 29 116 5 150 26 38 18 82 22 178 51 251 780 07:45 AM 8 203 102 313 28 64 2 94 13 42 27 82 17 146 50 213 702 08:00 AM 8 139 77 224 22 52 3 77 23 39 14 76 15 170 58 243 620 Total Volume 32 647 368 1047 97 321 11 429 78 142 73 293 71 638 195 904 2673 % App. Total 3.1 61.8 35.1 22.6 74.8 2.6 26.6 48.5 24.9 7.9 70.6 21.6 PHF .800 .797 .902 .836 .836 .692 .550 .715 .750 .845 .676 .893 .807 .896 .841 .900 .857 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2105
File Name : RNMBHRAAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: Ramon Road
Weather: Sunny
Bob Hope Drive
Ramon Road
Ramon Road
Bob Hope Drive
Right
368
Thru
647
Left
32 InOut Total
224 1047 1271
Right
11 Thru
321
Left
97 OutTotal In
743 429 1172
Left
78 Thru
142
Right
73 Out TotalIn
939 293 1232
Left
71 Thru
638
Right
195
TotalOut In
767 904 1671
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 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 07:00 AM 08:00 AM 07:15 AM
+0 mins. 6 190 101 297 16 73 1 90 23 39 14 76 17 144 36 197 +15 mins. 8 203 102 313 18 89 1 108 16 37 16 69 22 178 51 251 +30 mins. 8 139 77 224 29 116 5 150 26 42 14 82 17 146 50 213 +45 mins. 7 147 79 233 28 64 2 94 27 50 19 96 15 170 58 243 Total Volume 29 679 359 1067 91 342 9 442 92 168 63 323 71 638 195 904 % App. Total 2.7 63.6 33.6 20.6 77.4 2 28.5 52 19.5 7.9 70.6 21.6 PHF .906 .836 .880 .852 .784 .737 .450 .737 .852 .840 .829 .841 .807 .896 .841 .900 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2106
File Name : RNMBHRAPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: Ramon Road
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
Ramon Road
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
Ramon Road
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 03:00 PM 13 78 87 178 12 77 3 92 59 111 56 226 15 198 46 259 755 03:15 PM 20 77 101 198 14 92 5 111 55 107 46 208 22 151 29 202 719 03:30 PM 11 103 95 209 14 57 7 78 66 121 52 239 27 167 42 236 762 03:45 PM 15 73 119 207 15 74 4 93 55 109 31 195 25 148 44 217 712 Total 59 331 402 792 55 300 19 374 235 448 185 868 89 664 161 914 2948 04:00 PM 4 93 114 211 10 83 6 99 59 108 38 205 23 115 33 171 686 04:15 PM 10 85 100 195 15 62 7 84 65 98 35 198 15 137 50 202 679 04:30 PM 13 93 118 224 22 69 4 95 53 111 49 213 19 155 28 202 734 04:45 PM 9 95 115 219 22 62 2 86 53 105 36 194 12 142 38 192 691 Total 36 366 447 849 69 276 19 364 230 422 158 810 69 549 149 767 2790 05:00 PM 18 81 113 212 12 82 3 97 56 108 53 217 9 154 33 196 722 05:15 PM 17 94 98 209 12 70 6 88 78 152 47 277 6 178 33 217 791 05:30 PM 17 67 111 195 10 65 3 78 59 104 47 210 13 184 33 230 713 05:45 PM 10 82 79 171 14 53 5 72 68 86 32 186 5 131 34 170 599 Total 62 324 401 787 48 270 17 335 261 450 179 890 33 647 133 813 2825 Grand Total 157 1021 1250 2428 172 846 55 1073 726 1320 522 2568 191 1860 443 2494 8563 Apprch % 6.5 42.1 51.5 16 78.8 5.1 28.3 51.4 20.3 7.7 74.6 17.8 Total % 1.8 11.9 14.6 28.4 2 9.9 0.6 12.5 8.5 15.4 6.1 30 2.2 21.7 5.2 29.1 Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
Ramon Road
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
Ramon Road
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 03:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 03:00 PM
03:00 PM 13 78 87 178 12 77 3 92 59 111 56 226 15 198 46 259 755 03:15 PM 20 77 101 198 14 92 5 111 55 107 46 208 22 151 29 202 719 03:30 PM 11 103 95 209 14 57 7 78 66 121 52 239 27 167 42 236 762 03:45 PM 15 73 119 207 15 74 4 93 55 109 31 195 25 148 44 217 712 Total Volume 59 331 402 792 55 300 19 374 235 448 185 868 89 664 161 914 2948 % App. Total 7.4 41.8 50.8 14.7 80.2 5.1 27.1 51.6 21.3 9.7 72.6 17.6 PHF .738 .803 .845 .947 .917 .815 .679 .842 .890 .926 .826 .908 .824 .838 .875 .882 .967 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2107
File Name : RNMBHRAPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: Ramon Road
Weather: Sunny
Bob Hope Drive
Ramon Road
Ramon Road
Bob Hope Drive
Right
402
Thru
331
Left
59 InOut Total
556 792 1348
Right
19 Thru
300
Left
55 OutTotal In
908 374 1282
Left
235
Thru
448
Right
185
Out TotalIn
547 868 1415
Left
89 Thru
664
Right
161
TotalOut In
937 914 1851
Peak Hour Begins at 03:00 PM

Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 03:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:30 PM 03:15 PM 04:30 PM 03:00 PM
+0 mins. 13 93 118 224 14 92 5 111 53 111 49 213 15 198 46 259 +15 mins. 9 95 115 219 14 57 7 78 53 105 36 194 22 151 29 202 +30 mins. 18 81 113 212 15 74 4 93 56 108 53 217 27 167 42 236 +45 mins. 17 94 98 209 10 83 6 99 78 152 47 277 25 148 44 217 Total Volume 57 363 444 864 53 306 22 381 240 476 185 901 89 664 161 914 % App. Total 6.6 42 51.4 13.9 80.3 5.8 26.6 52.8 20.5 9.7 72.6 17.6 PHF .792 .955 .941 .964 .883 .832 .786 .858 .769 .783 .873 .813 .824 .838 .875 .882 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2108
File Name : RNM10ERAAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: I-10 Eastbound Ramps
E/W: Ramon Road
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Ramon Road
Westbound Northbound
Ramon Road
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 11 92 103 0 0 0 43 98 141 244
07:15 AM 14 113 127 0 0 0 55 116 171 298
07:30 AM 9 151 160 0 0 0 55 138 193 353
07:45 AM 20 84 104 0 0 0 86 111 197 301
Total 54 440 494 0 0 0 239 463 702 1196
08:00 AM 20 81 101 0 0 0 62 122 184 285
08:15 AM 13 81 94 0 0 0 57 95 152 246
08:30 AM 15 120 135 0 0 0 60 100 160 295
08:45 AM 18 85 103 0 0 0 63 115 178 281
Total 66 367 433 0 0 0 242 432 674 1107
Grand Total 120 807 927 0 0 0 481 895 1376 2303
Apprch % 12.9 87.1 0 0 35 65
Total % 5.2 35 40.3 0 0 0 20.9 38.9 59.7
Ramon Road
Westbound Northbound
Ramon Road
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 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 14 113 127 0 0 0 55 116 171 298
07:30 AM 9 151 160 0 0 0 55 138 193 353
07:45 AM 20 84 104 0 0 0 86 111 197 301
08:00 AM 20 81 101 0 0 0 62 122 184 285
Total Volume 63 429 492 0 0 0 258 487 745 1237
% App. Total 12.8 87.2 0 0 34.6 65.4
PHF .788 .710 .769 .000 .000 .000 .750 .882 .945 .876
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2109
File Name : RNM10ERAAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: I-10 Eastbound Ramps
E/W: Ramon Road
Weather: Sunny
Ramon Road
Ramon Road

Thru
429
Left
63 OutTotal In
258 492 750
Left
0 Right
0 Out TotalIn
550 0 550
Thru
258
Right
487
TotalOut In
429 745 1174
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM

Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:00 AM 07:00 AM 07:15 AM
+0 mins. 11 92 103 0 0 0 55 116 171
+15 mins. 14 113 127 0 0 0 55 138 193
+30 mins. 9 151 160 0 0 0 86 111 197
+45 mins. 20 84 104 0 0 0 62 122 184
Total Volume 54 440 494 0 0 0 258 487 745
% App. Total 10.9 89.1 0 0 34.6 65.4
PHF .675 .728 .772 .000 .000 .000 .750 .882 .945
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2110
File Name : RNM10ERAPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: I-10 Eastbound Ramps
E/W: Ramon Road
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Ramon Road
Westbound Northbound
Ramon Road
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 23 97 120 0 0 0 62 114 176 296
04:15 PM 22 91 113 0 0 0 75 115 190 303
04:30 PM 31 92 123 0 0 0 83 122 205 328
04:45 PM 23 89 112 0 0 0 101 102 203 315
Total 99 369 468 0 0 0 321 453 774 1242
05:00 PM 26 96 122 0 0 0 96 110 206 328
05:15 PM 23 95 118 0 0 0 107 146 253 371
05:30 PM 27 76 103 0 0 0 95 132 227 330
05:45 PM 17 79 96 0 0 0 76 112 188 284
Total 93 346 439 0 0 0 374 500 874 1313
Grand Total 192 715 907 0 0 0 695 953 1648 2555
Apprch % 21.2 78.8 0 0 42.2 57.8
Total % 7.5 28 35.5 0 0 0 27.2 37.3 64.5
Ramon Road
Westbound Northbound
Ramon Road
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 04:45 PM
04:45 PM 23 89 112 0 0 0 101 102 203 315
05:00 PM 26 96 122 0 0 0 96 110 206 328
05:15 PM 23 95 118 0 0 0 107 146 253 371
05:30 PM 27 76 103 0 0 0 95 132 227 330
Total Volume 99 356 455 0 0 0 399 490 889 1344
% App. Total 21.8 78.2 0 0 44.9 55.1
PHF .917 .927 .932 .000 .000 .000 .932 .839 .878 .906
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2111
File Name : RNM10ERAPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: I-10 Eastbound Ramps
E/W: Ramon Road
Weather: Sunny
Ramon Road
Ramon Road

Thru
356
Left
99 OutTotal In
399 455 854
Left
0 Right
0 Out TotalIn
589 0 589
Thru
399
Right
490
TotalOut In
356 889 1245
Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 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:
04:30 PM 04:00 PM 04:45 PM
+0 mins. 31 92 123 0 0 0 101 102 203
+15 mins. 23 89 112 0 0 0 96 110 206
+30 mins. 26 96 122 0 0 0 107 146 253
+45 mins. 23 95 118 0 0 0 95 132 227
Total Volume 103 372 475 0 0 0 399 490 889
% App. Total 21.7 78.3 0 0 44.9 55.1
PHF .831 .969 .965 .000 .000 .000 .932 .839 .878
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2112
File Name : RNMLAVBAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Los Alamos Road
E/W: Via Bella
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Los Alamos Road
Southbound
Los Alamos Road
Northbound
Via Bella
Eastbound
Start Time Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 6 5 11 2 6 8 1 1 2 21
07:15 AM 20 2 22 0 6 6 0 2 2 30
07:30 AM 30 1 31 0 19 19 2 3 5 55
07:45 AM 16 4 20 2 22 24 0 3 3 47
Total 72 12 84 4 53 57 3 9 12 153
08:00 AM 11 4 15 3 6 9 5 2 7 31
08:15 AM 12 2 14 5 9 14 3 6 9 37
08:30 AM 13 3 16 6 7 13 3 6 9 38
08:45 AM 8 2 10 4 10 14 7 4 11 35
Total 44 11 55 18 32 50 18 18 36 141
Grand Total 116 23 139 22 85 107 21 27 48 294
Apprch % 83.5 16.5 20.6 79.4 43.8 56.2
Total % 39.5 7.8 47.3 7.5 28.9 36.4 7.1 9.2 16.3
Los Alamos Road
Southbound
Los Alamos Road
Northbound
Via Bella
Eastbound
Start Time Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 30 1 31 0 19 19 2 3 5 55
07:45 AM 16 4 20 2 22 24 0 3 3 47
08:00 AM 11 4 15 3 6 9 5 2 7 31
08:15 AM 12 2 14 5 9 14 3 6 9 37
Total Volume 69 11 80 10 56 66 10 14 24 170
% App. Total 86.2 13.8 15.2 84.8 41.7 58.3
PHF .575 .688 .645 .500 .636 .688 .500 .583 .667 .773
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2113
File Name : RNMLAVBAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Los Alamos Road
E/W: Via Bella
Weather: Sunny
Los Alamos Road
Via Bella
Los Alamos Road
Right
11 Thru
69 InOut Total
66 80 146
Left
10 Thru
56 Out TotalIn
83 66 149
Left
10 Right
14 TotalOut In
21 24 45
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:
07:15 AM 07:30 AM 08:00 AM
+0 mins. 20 2 22 0 19 19 5 2 7
+15 mins. 30 1 31 2 22 24 3 6 9
+30 mins. 16 4 20 3 6 9 3 6 9
+45 mins. 11 4 15 5 9 14 7 4 11
Total Volume 77 11 88 10 56 66 18 18 36
% App. Total 87.5 12.5 15.2 84.8 50 50
PHF .642 .688 .710 .500 .636 .688 .643 .750 .818
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2114
File Name : RNMLAVBPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Los Alamos Road
E/W: Via Bella
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Los Alamos Road
Southbound
Los Alamos Road
Northbound
Via Bella
Eastbound
Start Time Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 6 2 8 9 12 21 0 6 6 35
04:15 PM 9 1 10 5 8 13 3 3 6 29
04:30 PM 4 3 7 9 13 22 4 4 8 37
04:45 PM 7 4 11 0 12 12 4 2 6 29
Total 26 10 36 23 45 68 11 15 26 130
05:00 PM 6 1 7 1 9 10 6 3 9 26
05:15 PM 9 0 9 2 22 24 1 1 2 35
05:30 PM 8 0 8 7 3 10 0 3 3 21
05:45 PM 4 3 7 5 15 20 0 2 2 29
Total 27 4 31 15 49 64 7 9 16 111
Grand Total 53 14 67 38 94 132 18 24 42 241
Apprch % 79.1 20.9 28.8 71.2 42.9 57.1
Total % 22 5.8 27.8 15.8 39 54.8 7.5 10 17.4
Los Alamos Road
Southbound
Los Alamos Road
Northbound
Via Bella
Eastbound
Start Time Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 6 2 8 9 12 21 0 6 6 35
04:15 PM 9 1 10 5 8 13 3 3 6 29
04:30 PM 4 3 7 9 13 22 4 4 8 37
04:45 PM 7 4 11 0 12 12 4 2 6 29
Total Volume 26 10 36 23 45 68 11 15 26 130
% App. Total 72.2 27.8 33.8 66.2 42.3 57.7
PHF .722 .625 .818 .639 .865 .773 .688 .625 .813 .878
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2115
File Name : RNMLAVBPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Los Alamos Road
E/W: Via Bella
Weather: Sunny
Los Alamos Road
Via Bella
Los Alamos Road
Right
10 Thru
26 InOut Total
56 36 92
Left
23 Thru
45 Out TotalIn
41 68 109
Left
11 Right
15 TotalOut In
33 26 59
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM

Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:00 PM 04:00 PM 04:15 PM
+0 mins. 6 2 8 9 12 21 3 3 6
+15 mins. 9 1 10 5 8 13 4 4 8
+30 mins. 4 3 7 9 13 22 4 2 6
+45 mins. 7 4 11 0 12 12 6 3 9
Total Volume 26 10 36 23 45 68 17 12 29
% App. Total 72.2 27.8 33.8 66.2 58.6 41.4
PHF .722 .625 .818 .639 .865 .773 .708 .750 .806
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2116
File Name : RNMBHCAAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: Casino Drive
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
Casino Drive
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 11 113 124 2 1 3 54 2 56 183
07:15 AM 13 158 171 3 2 5 52 4 56 232
07:30 AM 14 238 252 2 5 7 76 0 76 335
07:45 AM 13 282 295 2 4 6 79 4 83 384
Total 51 791 842 9 12 21 261 10 271 1134
08:00 AM 18 192 210 3 1 4 71 1 72 286
08:15 AM 24 174 198 0 4 4 68 1 69 271
08:30 AM 17 189 206 3 4 7 85 2 87 300
08:45 AM 23 183 206 2 2 4 90 4 94 304
Total 82 738 820 8 11 19 314 8 322 1161
Grand Total 133 1529 1662 17 23 40 575 18 593 2295
Apprch % 8 92 42.5 57.5 97 3
Total % 5.8 66.6 72.4 0.7 1 1.7 25.1 0.8 25.8
Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
Casino Drive
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
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 14 238 252 2 5 7 76 0 76 335
07:45 AM 13 282 295 2 4 6 79 4 83 384
08:00 AM 18 192 210 3 1 4 71 1 72 286
08:15 AM 24 174 198 0 4 4 68 1 69 271
Total Volume 69 886 955 7 14 21 294 6 300 1276
% App. Total 7.2 92.8 33.3 66.7 98 2
PHF .719 .785 .809 .583 .700 .750 .930 .375 .904 .831
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2117
File Name : RNMBHCAAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: Casino Drive
Weather: Sunny
Bob Hope Drive
Casino Drive
Bob Hope Drive
Thru
886
Left
69 InOut Total
308 955 1263
Right
14 Left
7 OutTotal In
75 21 96
Thru
294
Right
6 Out TotalIn
893 300 1193
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 07:15 AM 08:00 AM
+0 mins. 14 238 252 3 2 5 71 1 72
+15 mins. 13 282 295 2 5 7 68 1 69
+30 mins. 18 192 210 2 4 6 85 2 87
+45 mins. 24 174 198 3 1 4 90 4 94
Total Volume 69 886 955 10 12 22 314 8 322
% App. Total 7.2 92.8 45.5 54.5 97.5 2.5
PHF .719 .785 .809 .833 .600 .786 .872 .500 .856
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2118
File Name : RNMBHCAPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: Casino Drive
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
Casino Drive
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 23 117 140 7 8 15 201 1 202 357
04:15 PM 32 106 138 3 4 7 188 2 190 335
04:30 PM 23 116 139 6 13 19 202 10 212 370
04:45 PM 19 130 149 7 4 11 186 7 193 353
Total 97 469 566 23 29 52 777 20 797 1415
05:00 PM 30 90 120 10 7 17 227 6 233 370
05:15 PM 34 111 145 10 2 12 276 9 285 442
05:30 PM 14 94 108 3 2 5 210 10 220 333
05:45 PM 38 100 138 4 9 13 177 13 190 341
Total 116 395 511 27 20 47 890 38 928 1486
Grand Total 213 864 1077 50 49 99 1667 58 1725 2901
Apprch % 19.8 80.2 50.5 49.5 96.6 3.4
Total % 7.3 29.8 37.1 1.7 1.7 3.4 57.5 2 59.5
Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
Casino Drive
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
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 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 23 116 139 6 13 19 202 10 212 370
04:45 PM 19 130 149 7 4 11 186 7 193 353
05:00 PM 30 90 120 10 7 17 227 6 233 370
05:15 PM 34 111 145 10 2 12 276 9 285 442
Total Volume 106 447 553 33 26 59 891 32 923 1535
% App. Total 19.2 80.8 55.9 44.1 96.5 3.5
PHF .779 .860 .928 .825 .500 .776 .807 .800 .810 .868
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2119
File Name : RNMBHCAPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: Casino Drive
Weather: Sunny
Bob Hope Drive
Casino Drive
Bob Hope Drive
Thru
447
Left
106
InOut Total
917 553 1470
Right
26 Left
33 OutTotal In
138 59 197
Thru
891
Right
32 Out TotalIn
480 923 1403
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 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 04:30 PM 04:45 PM
+0 mins. 23 117 140 6 13 19 186 7 193
+15 mins. 32 106 138 7 4 11 227 6 233
+30 mins. 23 116 139 10 7 17 276 9 285
+45 mins. 19 130 149 10 2 12 210 10 220
Total Volume 97 469 566 33 26 59 899 32 931
% App. Total 17.1 82.9 55.9 44.1 96.6 3.4
PHF .758 .902 .950 .825 .500 .776 .814 .800 .817
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2120
File Name : RNMDVDSAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Da Vall Drive
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Da Vall Drive
Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Da Vall Drive
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 8 48 38 94 13 62 3 78 18 16 7 41 17 62 31 110 323 07:15 AM 14 51 47 112 9 93 9 111 15 31 13 59 18 104 26 148 430 07:30 AM 15 70 84 169 16 108 4 128 30 20 11 61 31 148 40 219 577 07:45 AM 19 110 74 203 27 112 10 149 25 41 18 84 35 143 51 229 665 Total 56 279 243 578 65 375 26 466 88 108 49 245 101 457 148 706 1995 08:00 AM 8 68 16 92 9 81 5 95 32 47 18 97 16 102 47 165 449 08:15 AM 10 76 11 97 10 71 6 87 20 23 21 64 10 102 28 140 388 08:30 AM 14 70 25 109 6 91 9 106 26 37 20 83 18 101 39 158 456 08:45 AM 22 72 22 116 6 90 4 100 31 35 11 77 11 93 39 143 436 Total 54 286 74 414 31 333 24 388 109 142 70 321 55 398 153 606 1729 Grand Total 110 565 317 992 96 708 50 854 197 250 119 566 156 855 301 1312 3724 Apprch % 11.1 57 32 11.2 82.9 5.9 34.8 44.2 21 11.9 65.2 22.9 Total % 3 15.2 8.5 26.6 2.6 19 1.3 22.9 5.3 6.7 3.2 15.2 4.2 23 8.1 35.2 Da Vall Drive
Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Da Vall Drive
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 14 51 47 112 9 93 9 111 15 31 13 59 18 104 26 148 430 07:30 AM 15 70 84 169 16 108 4 128 30 20 11 61 31 148 40 219 577 07:45 AM 19 110 74 203 27 112 10 149 25 41 18 84 35 143 51 229 665 08:00 AM 8 68 16 92 9 81 5 95 32 47 18 97 16 102 47 165 449 Total Volume 56 299 221 576 61 394 28 483 102 139 60 301 100 497 164 761 2121 % App. Total 9.7 51.9 38.4 12.6 81.6 5.8 33.9 46.2 19.9 13.1 65.3 21.6 PHF .737 .680 .658 .709 .565 .879 .700 .810 .797 .739 .833 .776 .714 .840 .804 .831 .797 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2121
File Name : RNMDVDSAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Da Vall Drive
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Da Vall Drive
Dinah Shore Drive
Dinah Shore Drive
Da Vall Drive
Right
221
Thru
299
Left
56 InOut Total
267 576 843
Right
28 Thru
394
Left
61 OutTotal In
613 483 1096
Left
102
Thru
139
Right
60 Out TotalIn
524 301 825
Left
100
Thru
497
Right
164
TotalOut In
717 761 1478
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM

Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:45 AM 07:15 AM
+0 mins. 8 48 38 94 9 93 9 111 25 41 18 84 18 104 26 148 +15 mins. 14 51 47 112 16 108 4 128 32 47 18 97 31 148 40 219 +30 mins. 15 70 84 169 27 112 10 149 20 23 21 64 35 143 51 229 +45 mins. 19 110 74 203 9 81 5 95 26 37 20 83 16 102 47 165 Total Volume 56 279 243 578 61 394 28 483 103 148 77 328 100 497 164 761 % App. Total 9.7 48.3 42 12.6 81.6 5.8 31.4 45.1 23.5 13.1 65.3 21.6 PHF .737 .634 .723 .712 .565 .879 .700 .810 .805 .787 .917 .845 .714 .840 .804 .831 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2122
File Name : RNMDVDSPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Da Vall Drive
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Da Vall Drive
Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Da Vall Drive
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 10 41 24 75 18 124 26 168 45 66 10 121 13 107 39 159 523 04:15 PM 3 40 25 68 14 164 27 205 50 61 5 116 10 112 23 145 534 04:30 PM 14 53 30 97 7 151 26 184 34 74 16 124 21 140 35 196 601 04:45 PM 14 38 24 76 12 174 24 210 48 64 8 120 16 125 32 173 579 Total 41 172 103 316 51 613 103 767 177 265 39 481 60 484 129 673 2237 05:00 PM 10 49 25 84 13 141 25 179 36 72 6 114 22 133 30 185 562 05:15 PM 8 44 29 81 13 198 29 240 53 80 11 144 16 170 35 221 686 05:30 PM 11 33 27 71 8 172 27 207 50 59 4 113 17 123 25 165 556 05:45 PM 5 33 33 71 14 127 5 146 36 45 5 86 18 89 22 129 432 Total 34 159 114 307 48 638 86 772 175 256 26 457 73 515 112 700 2236 Grand Total 75 331 217 623 99 1251 189 1539 352 521 65 938 133 999 241 1373 4473 Apprch % 12 53.1 34.8 6.4 81.3 12.3 37.5 55.5 6.9 9.7 72.8 17.6 Total % 1.7 7.4 4.9 13.9 2.2 28 4.2 34.4 7.9 11.6 1.5 21 3 22.3 5.4 30.7 Da Vall Drive
Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Da Vall Drive
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 14 53 30 97 7 151 26 184 34 74 16 124 21 140 35 196 601 04:45 PM 14 38 24 76 12 174 24 210 48 64 8 120 16 125 32 173 579 05:00 PM 10 49 25 84 13 141 25 179 36 72 6 114 22 133 30 185 562 05:15 PM 8 44 29 81 13 198 29 240 53 80 11 144 16 170 35 221 686 Total Volume 46 184 108 338 45 664 104 813 171 290 41 502 75 568 132 775 2428 % App. Total 13.6 54.4 32 5.5 81.7 12.8 34.1 57.8 8.2 9.7 73.3 17 PHF .821 .868 .900 .871 .865 .838 .897 .847 .807 .906 .641 .872 .852 .835 .943 .877 .885 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2123
File Name : RNMDVDSPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Da Vall Drive
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Da Vall Drive
Dinah Shore Drive
Dinah Shore Drive
Da Vall Drive
Right
108
Thru
184
Left
46 InOut Total
469 338 807
Right
104
Thru
664
Left
45 OutTotal In
655 813 1468
Left
171
Thru
290
Right
41 Out TotalIn
361 502 863
Left
75 Thru
568
Right
132
TotalOut In
943 775 1718
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 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:
04:30 PM 04:45 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM
+0 mins. 14 53 30 97 12 174 24 210 34 74 16 124 21 140 35 196 +15 mins. 14 38 24 76 13 141 25 179 48 64 8 120 16 125 32 173 +30 mins. 10 49 25 84 13 198 29 240 36 72 6 114 22 133 30 185 +45 mins. 8 44 29 81 8 172 27 207 53 80 11 144 16 170 35 221 Total Volume 46 184 108 338 46 685 105 836 171 290 41 502 75 568 132 775 % App. Total 13.6 54.4 32 5.5 81.9 12.6 34.1 57.8 8.2 9.7 73.3 17 PHF .821 .868 .900 .871 .885 .865 .905 .871 .807 .906 .641 .872 .852 .835 .943 .877 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2124
File Name : RNMLADSAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Los Alamos Road
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Los Alamos Road
Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 5 3 8 86 5 91 2 72 74 173
07:15 AM 2 19 21 107 2 109 4 103 107 237
07:30 AM 13 21 34 129 3 132 16 144 160 326
07:45 AM 16 14 30 138 5 143 20 176 196 369
Total 36 57 93 460 15 475 42 495 537 1105
08:00 AM 7 7 14 84 2 86 6 116 122 222
08:15 AM 14 3 17 76 7 83 7 120 127 227
08:30 AM 14 10 24 107 12 119 5 121 126 269
08:45 AM 12 5 17 98 8 106 5 127 132 255
Total 47 25 72 365 29 394 23 484 507 973
Grand Total 83 82 165 825 44 869 65 979 1044 2078
Apprch % 50.3 49.7 94.9 5.1 6.2 93.8
Total % 4 3.9 7.9 39.7 2.1 41.8 3.1 47.1 50.2
Los Alamos Road
Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru 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 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 2 19 21 107 2 109 4 103 107 237
07:30 AM 13 21 34 129 3 132 16 144 160 326
07:45 AM 16 14 30 138 5 143 20 176 196 369
08:00 AM 7 7 14 84 2 86 6 116 122 222
Total Volume 38 61 99 458 12 470 46 539 585 1154
% App. Total 38.4 61.6 97.4 2.6 7.9 92.1
PHF .594 .726 .728 .830 .600 .822 .575 .766 .746 .782
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2125
File Name : RNMLADSAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Los Alamos Road
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Los Alamos Road
Dinah Shore Drive
Dinah Shore Drive
Right
61 Left
38 InOut Total
58 99 157
Right
12 Thru
458
OutTotal In
577 470 1047
Left
46 Thru
539
TotalOut In
519 585 1104
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 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:
07:15 AM 07:00 AM 07:30 AM
+0 mins. 2 19 21 86 5 91 16 144 160
+15 mins. 13 21 34 107 2 109 20 176 196
+30 mins. 16 14 30 129 3 132 6 116 122
+45 mins. 7 7 14 138 5 143 7 120 127
Total Volume 38 61 99 460 15 475 49 556 605
% App. Total 38.4 61.6 96.8 3.2 8.1 91.9
PHF .594 .726 .728 .833 .750 .830 .613 .790 .772
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2126
File Name : RNMLADSPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Los Alamos Road
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Los Alamos Road
Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 5 9 14 168 15 183 5 134 139 336
04:15 PM 6 7 13 190 7 197 7 117 124 334
04:30 PM 4 4 8 202 19 221 4 148 152 381
04:45 PM 4 9 13 197 9 206 5 149 154 373
Total 19 29 48 757 50 807 21 548 569 1424
05:00 PM 7 6 13 190 9 199 10 148 158 370
05:15 PM 8 5 13 248 13 261 12 180 192 466
05:30 PM 6 7 13 177 9 186 3 135 138 337
05:45 PM 7 4 11 130 15 145 8 106 114 270
Total 28 22 50 745 46 791 33 569 602 1443
Grand Total 47 51 98 1502 96 1598 54 1117 1171 2867
Apprch % 48 52 94 6 4.6 95.4
Total % 1.6 1.8 3.4 52.4 3.3 55.7 1.9 39 40.8
Los Alamos Road
Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru 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 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 4 4 8 202 19 221 4 148 152 381
04:45 PM 4 9 13 197 9 206 5 149 154 373
05:00 PM 7 6 13 190 9 199 10 148 158 370
05:15 PM 8 5 13 248 13 261 12 180 192 466
Total Volume 23 24 47 837 50 887 31 625 656 1590
% App. Total 48.9 51.1 94.4 5.6 4.7 95.3
PHF .719 .667 .904 .844 .658 .850 .646 .868 .854 .853
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2127
File Name : RNMLADSPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Los Alamos Road
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Los Alamos Road
Dinah Shore Drive
Dinah Shore Drive
Right
24 Left
23 InOut Total
81 47 128
Right
50 Thru
837
OutTotal In
648 887 1535
Left
31 Thru
625
TotalOut In
861 656 1517
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM

Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:45 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM
+0 mins. 4 9 13 202 19 221 4 148 152
+15 mins. 7 6 13 197 9 206 5 149 154
+30 mins. 8 5 13 190 9 199 10 148 158
+45 mins. 6 7 13 248 13 261 12 180 192
Total Volume 25 27 52 837 50 887 31 625 656
% App. Total 48.1 51.9 94.4 5.6 4.7 95.3
PHF .781 .750 1.000 .844 .658 .850 .646 .868 .854
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2128
File Name : RNMWMDSAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Westin Mission Hills
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Westin Mission Hills
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 103 2 0 7 9 0 71 3 74 186
07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 115 0 115 2 0 5 7 1 97 5 103 225
07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 133 0 133 2 0 6 8 0 144 7 151 292
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 8 153 0 161 1 0 4 5 0 174 7 181 347
Total 0 0 0 0 8 504 0 512 7 0 22 29 1 486 22 509 1050
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 16 84 0 100 3 0 6 9 2 118 6 126 235
08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 10 94 0 104 1 0 5 6 0 129 7 136 246
08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 9 118 0 127 3 0 3 6 0 141 3 144 277
08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 15 104 0 119 2 0 6 8 2 128 7 137 264
Total 0 0 0 0 50 400 0 450 9 0 20 29 4 516 23 543 1022
Grand Total 0 0 0 0 58 904 0 962 16 0 42 58 5 1002 45 1052 2072 Apprch % 0 0 0 6 94 0 27.6 0 72.4 0.5 95.2 4.3
Total % 0 0 0 0 2.8 43.6 0 46.4 0.8 0 2 2.8 0.2 48.4 2.2 50.8 Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Westin Mission Hills
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 0 0 0 0 0 133 0 133 2 0 6 8 0 144 7 151 292
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 8 153 0 161 1 0 4 5 0 174 7 181 347
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 16 84 0 100 3 0 6 9 2 118 6 126 235
08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 10 94 0 104 1 0 5 6 0 129 7 136 246
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 34 464 0 498 7 0 21 28 2 565 27 594 1120 % App. Total 0 0 0 6.8 93.2 0 25 0 75 0.3 95.1 4.5
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .531 .758 .000 .773 .583 .000 .875 .778 .250 .812 .964 .820 .807 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2129
File Name : RNMWMDSAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Westin Mission Hills
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny

Dinah Shore Drive
Dinah Shore Drive
Westin Mission Hills
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 InOut Total
2 0 2
Right
0 Thru
464
Left
34 OutTotal In
586 498 1084
Left
7 Thru
0 Right
21 Out TotalIn
61 28 89
Left
2 Thru
565
Right
27 TotalOut In
471 594 1065
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:
07:00 AM 07:00 AM 07:00 AM 07:30 AM
+0 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 103 2 0 7 9 0 144 7 151
+15 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 115 0 115 2 0 5 7 0 174 7 181
+30 mins. 0 0 0 0 0 133 0 133 2 0 6 8 2 118 6 126
+45 mins. 0 0 0 0 8 153 0 161 1 0 4 5 0 129 7 136
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 8 504 0 512 7 0 22 29 2 565 27 594 % App. Total 0 0 0 1.6 98.4 0 24.1 0 75.9 0.3 95.1 4.5 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .824 .000 .795 .875 .000 .786 .806 .250 .812 .964 .820 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2130
File Name : RNMWMDSPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Westin Mission Hills
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Westin Mission Hills
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 0 0 0 0 1 178 0 179 2 0 12 14 2 142 3 147 340
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 8 192 0 200 7 0 5 12 0 124 0 124 336
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 7 194 0 201 16 0 17 33 12 166 2 180 414 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 3 187 0 190 9 0 13 22 1 159 3 163 375
Total 0 0 0 0 19 751 0 770 34 0 47 81 15 591 8 614 1465 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 6 196 0 202 8 0 15 23 1 150 7 158 383
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 13 254 0 267 8 0 8 16 1 196 2 199 482
05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 3 172 0 175 3 0 13 16 1 133 2 136 327
05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 6 140 0 146 2 0 9 11 2 113 3 118 275
Total 0 0 0 0 28 762 0 790 21 0 45 66 5 592 14 611 1467 Grand Total 0 0 0 0 47 1513 0 1560 55 0 92 147 20 1183 22 1225 2932 Apprch % 0 0 0 3 97 0 37.4 0 62.6 1.6 96.6 1.8
Total % 0 0 0 0 1.6 51.6 0 53.2 1.9 0 3.1 5 0.7 40.3 0.8 41.8 Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Westin Mission Hills
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 7 194 0 201 16 0 17 33 12 166 2 180 414 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 3 187 0 190 9 0 13 22 1 159 3 163 375
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 6 196 0 202 8 0 15 23 1 150 7 158 383
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 13 254 0 267 8 0 8 16 1 196 2 199 482
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 29 831 0 860 41 0 53 94 15 671 14 700 1654 % App. Total 0 0 0 3.4 96.6 0 43.6 0 56.4 2.1 95.9 2 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .558 .818 .000 .805 .641 .000 .779 .712 .313 .856 .500 .879 .858 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2131
File Name : RNMWMDSPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Westin Mission Hills
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny

Dinah Shore Drive
Dinah Shore Drive
Westin Mission Hills
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 InOut Total
15 0 15
Right
0 Thru
831
Left
29 OutTotal In
724 860 1584
Left
41 Thru
0 Right
53 Out TotalIn
43 94 137
Left
15 Thru
671
Right
14 TotalOut In
872 700 1572
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 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 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM
+0 mins. 0 0 0 0 7 194 0 201 16 0 17 33 12 166 2 180
+15 mins. 0 0 0 0 3 187 0 190 9 0 13 22 1 159 3 163
+30 mins. 0 0 0 0 6 196 0 202 8 0 15 23 1 150 7 158
+45 mins. 0 0 0 0 13 254 0 267 8 0 8 16 1 196 2 199
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 29 831 0 860 41 0 53 94 15 671 14 700 % App. Total 0 0 0 3.4 96.6 0 43.6 0 56.4 2.1 95.9 2 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .558 .818 .000 .805 .641 .000 .779 .712 .313 .856 .500 .879 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2132
File Name : RNMWRDSAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Westin Resort & Villas
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Westin Resort & Villas
Northbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 2 110 112 0 4 4 73 4 77 193
07:15 AM 6 121 127 0 5 5 100 3 103 235
07:30 AM 3 139 142 2 2 4 139 4 143 289
07:45 AM 5 155 160 1 3 4 178 0 178 342
Total 16 525 541 3 14 17 490 11 501 1059
08:00 AM 2 102 104 0 6 6 123 1 124 234
08:15 AM 5 106 111 0 6 6 134 2 136 253
08:30 AM 1 124 125 2 7 9 146 0 146 280
08:45 AM 3 123 126 2 8 10 131 1 132 268
Total 11 455 466 4 27 31 534 4 538 1035
Grand Total 27 980 1007 7 41 48 1024 15 1039 2094
Apprch % 2.7 97.3 14.6 85.4 98.6 1.4
Total % 1.3 46.8 48.1 0.3 2 2.3 48.9 0.7 49.6
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Westin Resort & Villas
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 3 139 142 2 2 4 139 4 143 289
07:45 AM 5 155 160 1 3 4 178 0 178 342
08:00 AM 2 102 104 0 6 6 123 1 124 234
08:15 AM 5 106 111 0 6 6 134 2 136 253
Total Volume 15 502 517 3 17 20 574 7 581 1118
% App. Total 2.9 97.1 15 85 98.8 1.2
PHF .750 .810 .808 .375 .708 .833 .806 .438 .816 .817
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2133
File Name : RNMWRDSAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Westin Resort & Villas
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Dinah Shore Drive
Dinah Shore Drive
Westin Resort & Villas
Thru
502
Left
15 OutTotal In
591 517 1108
Left
3 Right
17 Out TotalIn
22 20 42
Thru
574
Right
7 TotalOut In
505 581 1086
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:
07:00 AM 08:00 AM 07:45 AM
+0 mins. 2 110 112 0 6 6 178 0 178
+15 mins. 6 121 127 0 6 6 123 1 124
+30 mins. 3 139 142 2 7 9 134 2 136
+45 mins. 5 155 160 2 8 10 146 0 146
Total Volume 16 525 541 4 27 31 581 3 584
% App. Total 3 97 12.9 87.1 99.5 0.5
PHF .667 .847 .845 .500 .844 .775 .816 .375 .820
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2134
File Name : RNMWRDSPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Westin Resort & Villas
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Westin Resort & Villas
Northbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 8 181 189 4 5 9 147 4 151 349
04:15 PM 8 202 210 0 7 7 129 2 131 348
04:30 PM 12 204 216 4 12 16 181 1 182 414
04:45 PM 9 187 196 0 5 5 171 2 173 374
Total 37 774 811 8 29 37 628 9 637 1485
05:00 PM 8 204 212 1 4 5 171 0 171 388
05:15 PM 5 250 255 3 5 8 201 1 202 465
05:30 PM 6 186 192 2 9 11 151 2 153 356
05:45 PM 5 140 145 1 8 9 125 1 126 280
Total 24 780 804 7 26 33 648 4 652 1489
Grand Total 61 1554 1615 15 55 70 1276 13 1289 2974
Apprch % 3.8 96.2 21.4 78.6 99 1
Total % 2.1 52.3 54.3 0.5 1.8 2.4 42.9 0.4 43.3
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Westin Resort & Villas
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 12 204 216 4 12 16 181 1 182 414
04:45 PM 9 187 196 0 5 5 171 2 173 374
05:00 PM 8 204 212 1 4 5 171 0 171 388
05:15 PM 5 250 255 3 5 8 201 1 202 465
Total Volume 34 845 879 8 26 34 724 4 728 1641
% App. Total 3.9 96.1 23.5 76.5 99.5 0.5
PHF .708 .845 .862 .500 .542 .531 .900 .500 .901 .882
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2135
File Name : RNMWRDSPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Westin Resort & Villas
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Dinah Shore Drive
Dinah Shore Drive
Westin Resort & Villas
Thru
845
Left
34 OutTotal In
750 879 1629
Left
8 Right
26 Out TotalIn
38 34 72
Thru
724
Right
4 TotalOut In
853 728 1581
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 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:
04:30 PM 04:00 PM 04:30 PM
+0 mins. 12 204 216 4 5 9 181 1 182
+15 mins. 9 187 196 0 7 7 171 2 173
+30 mins. 8 204 212 4 12 16 171 0 171
+45 mins. 5 250 255 0 5 5 201 1 202
Total Volume 34 845 879 8 29 37 724 4 728
% App. Total 3.9 96.1 21.6 78.4 99.5 0.5
PHF .708 .845 .862 .500 .604 .578 .900 .500 .901
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2136
File Name : RNMBHDSAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 9 89 13 111 14 84 5 103 15 31 10 56 14 53 10 77 347 07:15 AM 11 124 13 148 12 95 9 116 18 34 11 63 11 70 16 97 424 07:30 AM 19 199 12 230 21 101 6 128 26 52 13 91 13 103 29 145 594 07:45 AM 32 237 18 287 31 118 14 163 24 51 13 88 19 110 30 159 697 Total 71 649 56 776 78 398 34 510 83 168 47 298 57 336 85 478 2062 08:00 AM 21 160 9 190 29 76 13 118 25 46 15 86 15 84 46 145 539 08:15 AM 26 152 6 184 14 72 16 102 25 41 17 83 15 83 31 129 498 08:30 AM 20 132 11 163 21 87 28 136 23 54 18 95 16 89 34 139 533 08:45 AM 35 144 9 188 26 73 26 125 26 66 26 118 19 80 41 140 571 Total 102 588 35 725 90 308 83 481 99 207 76 382 65 336 152 553 2141 Grand Total 173 1237 91 1501 168 706 117 991 182 375 123 680 122 672 237 1031 4203 Apprch % 11.5 82.4 6.1 17 71.2 11.8 26.8 55.1 18.1 11.8 65.2 23 Total % 4.1 29.4 2.2 35.7 4 16.8 2.8 23.6 4.3 8.9 2.9 16.2 2.9 16 5.6 24.5 Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 19 199 12 230 21 101 6 128 26 52 13 91 13 103 29 145 594 07:45 AM 32 237 18 287 31 118 14 163 24 51 13 88 19 110 30 159 697 08:00 AM 21 160 9 190 29 76 13 118 25 46 15 86 15 84 46 145 539 08:15 AM 26 152 6 184 14 72 16 102 25 41 17 83 15 83 31 129 498 Total Volume 98 748 45 891 95 367 49 511 100 190 58 348 62 380 136 578 2328 % App. Total 11 84 5.1 18.6 71.8 9.6 28.7 54.6 16.7 10.7 65.7 23.5 PHF .766 .789 .625 .776 .766 .778 .766 .784 .962 .913 .853 .956 .816 .864 .739 .909 .835 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2137
File Name : RNMBHDSAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Bob Hope Drive
Dinah Shore Drive
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive
Right
45 Thru
748
Left
98 InOut Total
301 891 1192
Right
49 Thru
367
Left
95 OutTotal In
536 511 1047
Left
100
Thru
190
Right
58 Out TotalIn
979 348 1327
Left
62 Thru
380
Right
136
TotalOut In
512 578 1090
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 07:15 AM 08:00 AM 07:30 AM
+0 mins. 19 199 12 230 12 95 9 116 25 46 15 86 13 103 29 145 +15 mins. 32 237 18 287 21 101 6 128 25 41 17 83 19 110 30 159 +30 mins. 21 160 9 190 31 118 14 163 23 54 18 95 15 84 46 145 +45 mins. 26 152 6 184 29 76 13 118 26 66 26 118 15 83 31 129 Total Volume 98 748 45 891 93 390 42 525 99 207 76 382 62 380 136 578 % App. Total 11 84 5.1 17.7 74.3 8 25.9 54.2 19.9 10.7 65.7 23.5 PHF .766 .789 .625 .776 .750 .826 .750 .805 .952 .784 .731 .809 .816 .864 .739 .909 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2138
File Name : RNMBHDSPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 22 101 9 132 38 130 44 212 49 127 44 220 17 109 24 150 714 04:15 PM 15 97 11 123 28 141 40 209 48 131 45 224 11 87 33 131 687 04:30 PM 17 91 16 124 25 143 36 204 52 117 52 221 22 138 29 189 738 04:45 PM 28 105 9 142 32 131 35 198 53 125 36 214 12 123 24 159 713 Total 82 394 45 521 123 545 155 823 202 500 177 879 62 457 110 629 2852 05:00 PM 20 77 18 115 27 123 57 207 51 167 38 256 18 121 35 174 752 05:15 PM 22 93 20 135 21 180 43 244 56 196 47 299 16 144 29 189 867 05:30 PM 18 75 5 98 26 135 42 203 41 146 24 211 24 116 33 173 685 05:45 PM 29 74 9 112 20 103 42 165 34 108 34 176 13 90 29 132 585 Total 89 319 52 460 94 541 184 819 182 617 143 942 71 471 126 668 2889 Grand Total 171 713 97 981 217 1086 339 1642 384 1117 320 1821 133 928 236 1297 5741 Apprch % 17.4 72.7 9.9 13.2 66.1 20.6 21.1 61.3 17.6 10.3 71.5 18.2 Total % 3 12.4 1.7 17.1 3.8 18.9 5.9 28.6 6.7 19.5 5.6 31.7 2.3 16.2 4.1 22.6 Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 17 91 16 124 25 143 36 204 52 117 52 221 22 138 29 189 738 04:45 PM 28 105 9 142 32 131 35 198 53 125 36 214 12 123 24 159 713 05:00 PM 20 77 18 115 27 123 57 207 51 167 38 256 18 121 35 174 752 05:15 PM 22 93 20 135 21 180 43 244 56 196 47 299 16 144 29 189 867 Total Volume 87 366 63 516 105 577 171 853 212 605 173 990 68 526 117 711 3070 % App. Total 16.9 70.9 12.2 12.3 67.6 20 21.4 61.1 17.5 9.6 74 16.5 PHF .777 .871 .788 .908 .820 .801 .750 .874 .946 .772 .832 .828 .773 .913 .836 .940 .885 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2139
File Name : RNMBHDSPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Bob Hope Drive
Dinah Shore Drive
Dinah Shore Drive
Bob Hope Drive
Right
63 Thru
366
Left
87 InOut Total
844 516 1360
Right
171
Thru
577
Left
105
OutTotal In
786 853 1639
Left
212
Thru
605
Right
173
Out TotalIn
588 990 1578
Left
68 Thru
526
Right
117
TotalOut In
852 711 1563
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 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 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM
+0 mins. 22 101 9 132 25 143 36 204 52 117 52 221 22 138 29 189 +15 mins. 15 97 11 123 32 131 35 198 53 125 36 214 12 123 24 159 +30 mins. 17 91 16 124 27 123 57 207 51 167 38 256 18 121 35 174 +45 mins. 28 105 9 142 21 180 43 244 56 196 47 299 16 144 29 189 Total Volume 82 394 45 521 105 577 171 853 212 605 173 990 68 526 117 711 % App. Total 15.7 75.6 8.6 12.3 67.6 20 21.4 61.1 17.5 9.6 74 16.5 PHF .732 .938 .703 .917 .820 .801 .750 .874 .946 .772 .832 .828 .773 .913 .836 .940 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2140
File Name : RNMKLDSAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Key Largo
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Key Largo
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 0 0 0 0 10 111 0 121 0 0 6 6 1 69 4 74 201
07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 5 120 0 125 2 0 7 9 0 99 3 102 236
07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 12 122 0 134 1 0 10 11 0 126 2 128 273 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 14 141 0 155 2 0 9 11 0 132 3 135 301
Total 0 0 0 0 41 494 0 535 5 0 32 37 1 426 12 439 1011
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 14 104 0 118 1 0 7 8 0 98 4 102 228
08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 12 114 0 126 1 0 4 5 0 119 7 126 257
08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 14 112 0 126 3 0 10 13 0 145 5 150 289 08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 18 118 0 136 2 0 7 9 0 118 5 123 268
Total 0 0 0 0 58 448 0 506 7 0 28 35 0 480 21 501 1042
Grand Total 0 0 0 0 99 942 0 1041 12 0 60 72 1 906 33 940 2053 Apprch % 0 0 0 9.5 90.5 0 16.7 0 83.3 0.1 96.4 3.5
Total % 0 0 0 0 4.8 45.9 0 50.7 0.6 0 2.9 3.5 0 44.1 1.6 45.8 Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Key Largo
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 07:45 AM
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 14 141 0 155 2 0 9 11 0 132 3 135 301
08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 14 104 0 118 1 0 7 8 0 98 4 102 228
08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 12 114 0 126 1 0 4 5 0 119 7 126 257
08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 14 112 0 126 3 0 10 13 0 145 5 150 289 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 54 471 0 525 7 0 30 37 0 494 19 513 1075 % App. Total 0 0 0 10.3 89.7 0 18.9 0 81.1 0 96.3 3.7 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .964 .835 .000 .847 .583 .000 .750 .712 .000 .852 .679 .855 .893 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2141
File Name : RNMKLDSAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Key Largo
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny

Dinah Shore Drive
Dinah Shore Drive
Key Largo
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 InOut Total
0 0 0
Right
0 Thru
471
Left
54 OutTotal In
524 525 1049
Left
7 Thru
0 Right
30 Out TotalIn
73 37 110
Left
0 Thru
494
Right
19 TotalOut In
478 513 991
Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM

Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:00 AM 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:45 AM
+0 mins. 0 0 0 0 10 111 0 121 2 0 7 9 0 132 3 135
+15 mins. 0 0 0 0 5 120 0 125 1 0 10 11 0 98 4 102
+30 mins. 0 0 0 0 12 122 0 134 2 0 9 11 0 119 7 126
+45 mins. 0 0 0 0 14 141 0 155 1 0 7 8 0 145 5 150
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 41 494 0 535 6 0 33 39 0 494 19 513 % App. Total 0 0 0 7.7 92.3 0 15.4 0 84.6 0 96.3 3.7 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .732 .876 .000 .863 .750 .000 .825 .886 .000 .852 .679 .855 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2142
File Name : RNMKLDSPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Key Largo
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Key Largo
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 0 0 0 0 9 223 0 232 0 0 14 14 1 185 2 188 434
04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 9 215 0 224 2 0 8 10 1 157 3 161 395
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 6 204 0 210 0 0 6 6 1 206 3 210 426
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 11 203 0 214 0 0 7 7 1 183 1 185 406
Total 0 0 0 0 35 845 0 880 2 0 35 37 4 731 9 744 1661
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 5 219 0 224 1 0 25 26 1 170 6 177 427
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 4 228 0 232 0 0 6 6 1 203 0 204 442
05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 6 204 0 210 0 0 4 4 0 168 2 170 384
05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 187 0 188 0 0 0 0 0 159 0 159 347
Total 0 0 0 0 16 838 0 854 1 0 35 36 2 700 8 710 1600
Grand Total 0 0 0 0 51 1683 0 1734 3 0 70 73 6 1431 17 1454 3261 Apprch % 0 0 0 2.9 97.1 0 4.1 0 95.9 0.4 98.4 1.2
Total % 0 0 0 0 1.6 51.6 0 53.2 0.1 0 2.1 2.2 0.2 43.9 0.5 44.6 Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Key Largo
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 6 204 0 210 0 0 6 6 1 206 3 210 426
04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 11 203 0 214 0 0 7 7 1 183 1 185 406
05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 5 219 0 224 1 0 25 26 1 170 6 177 427
05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 4 228 0 232 0 0 6 6 1 203 0 204 442
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 26 854 0 880 1 0 44 45 4 762 10 776 1701 % App. Total 0 0 0 3 97 0 2.2 0 97.8 0.5 98.2 1.3
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .591 .936 .000 .948 .250 .000 .440 .433 1.00 .925 .417 .924 .962 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2143
File Name : RNMKLDSPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Key Largo
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny

Dinah Shore Drive
Dinah Shore Drive
Key Largo
Right
0 Thru
0 Left
0 InOut Total
4 0 4
Right
0 Thru
854
Left
26 OutTotal In
806 880 1686
Left
1 Thru
0 Right
44 Out TotalIn
36 45 81
Left
4 Thru
762
Right
10 TotalOut In
855 776 1631
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 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 04:30 PM
+0 mins. 0 0 0 0 9 223 0 232 2 0 8 10 1 206 3 210
+15 mins. 0 0 0 0 9 215 0 224 0 0 6 6 1 183 1 185
+30 mins. 0 0 0 0 6 204 0 210 0 0 7 7 1 170 6 177
+45 mins. 0 0 0 0 11 203 0 214 1 0 25 26 1 203 0 204
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 35 845 0 880 3 0 46 49 4 762 10 776 % App. Total 0 0 0 4 96 0 6.1 0 93.9 0.5 98.2 1.3
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .795 .947 .000 .948 .375 .000 .460 .471 1.000 .925 .417 .924 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2144
File Name : RNMMODSAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Monterey Avenue
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Monterey Avenue
Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Monterey Avenue
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 84 220 76 380 6 29 45 80 20 86 4 110 46 30 17 93 663 07:15 AM 80 249 90 419 10 38 47 95 19 91 2 112 55 48 14 117 743 07:30 AM 113 345 110 568 7 47 55 109 17 83 3 103 84 43 27 154 934 07:45 AM 106 396 128 630 9 37 61 107 43 108 3 154 71 77 38 186 1077 Total 383 1210 404 1997 32 151 208 391 99 368 12 479 256 198 96 550 3417 08:00 AM 76 285 93 454 5 35 61 101 23 116 3 142 54 50 26 130 827 08:15 AM 56 211 94 361 15 26 70 111 29 106 7 142 74 51 35 160 774 08:30 AM 79 314 74 467 10 54 37 101 43 105 7 155 77 44 42 163 886 08:45 AM 62 278 107 447 9 53 44 106 53 120 5 178 68 52 45 165 896 Total 273 1088 368 1729 39 168 212 419 148 447 22 617 273 197 148 618 3383 Grand Total 656 2298 772 3726 71 319 420 810 247 815 34 1096 529 395 244 1168 6800 Apprch % 17.6 61.7 20.7 8.8 39.4 51.9 22.5 74.4 3.1 45.3 33.8 20.9 Total % 9.6 33.8 11.4 54.8 1 4.7 6.2 11.9 3.6 12 0.5 16.1 7.8 5.8 3.6 17.2 Monterey Avenue
Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Monterey Avenue
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 113 345 110 568 7 47 55 109 17 83 3 103 84 43 27 154 934 07:45 AM 106 396 128 630 9 37 61 107 43 108 3 154 71 77 38 186 1077 08:00 AM 76 285 93 454 5 35 61 101 23 116 3 142 54 50 26 130 827 08:15 AM 56 211 94 361 15 26 70 111 29 106 7 142 74 51 35 160 774 Total Volume 351 1237 425 2013 36 145 247 428 112 413 16 541 283 221 126 630 3612 % App. Total 17.4 61.5 21.1 8.4 33.9 57.7 20.7 76.3 3 44.9 35.1 20 PHF .777 .781 .830 .799 .600 .771 .882 .964 .651 .890 .571 .878 .842 .718 .829 .847 .838 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2145
File Name : RNMMODSAM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Monterey Avenue
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Monterey Avenue
Dinah Shore Drive
Dinah Shore Drive
Monterey Avenue
Right
425
Thru
1237
Left
351
InOut Total
943 2013 2956
Right
247
Thru
145
Left
36 OutTotal In
588 428 1016
Left
112
Thru
413
Right
16 Out TotalIn
1399 541 1940
Left
283
Thru
221
Right
126
TotalOut In
682 630 1312
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:
07:15 AM 07:30 AM 08:00 AM 07:45 AM
+0 mins. 80 249 90 419 7 47 55 109 23 116 3 142 71 77 38 186 +15 mins. 113 345 110 568 9 37 61 107 29 106 7 142 54 50 26 130 +30 mins. 106 396 128 630 5 35 61 101 43 105 7 155 74 51 35 160 +45 mins. 76 285 93 454 15 26 70 111 53 120 5 178 77 44 42 163 Total Volume 375 1275 421 2071 36 145 247 428 148 447 22 617 276 222 141 639 % App. Total 18.1 61.6 20.3 8.4 33.9 57.7 24 72.4 3.6 43.2 34.7 22.1 PHF .830 .805 .822 .822 .600 .771 .882 .964 .698 .931 .786 .867 .896 .721 .839 .859 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2146
File Name : RNMMODSPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Monterey Avenue
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Monterey Avenue
Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Monterey Avenue
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 52 175 101 328 11 99 128 238 83 246 2 331 150 55 65 270 1167 04:15 PM 76 183 131 390 8 71 110 189 112 275 9 396 159 60 68 287 1262 04:30 PM 63 210 128 401 8 87 132 227 62 265 9 336 178 56 89 323 1287 04:45 PM 57 192 120 369 9 69 106 184 80 228 2 310 160 83 90 333 1196 Total 248 760 480 1488 36 326 476 838 337 1014 22 1373 647 254 312 1213 4912 05:00 PM 44 180 93 317 6 91 108 205 109 298 4 411 164 58 84 306 1239 05:15 PM 84 154 150 388 10 72 98 180 118 272 8 398 180 73 90 343 1309 05:30 PM 65 199 117 381 6 85 86 177 78 226 7 311 127 59 71 257 1126 05:45 PM 62 134 85 281 10 55 86 151 78 198 8 284 128 52 54 234 950 Total 255 667 445 1367 32 303 378 713 383 994 27 1404 599 242 299 1140 4624 Grand Total 503 1427 925 2855 68 629 854 1551 720 2008 49 2777 1246 496 611 2353 9536 Apprch % 17.6 50 32.4 4.4 40.6 55.1 25.9 72.3 1.8 53 21.1 26 Total % 5.3 15 9.7 29.9 0.7 6.6 9 16.3 7.6 21.1 0.5 29.1 13.1 5.2 6.4 24.7 Monterey Avenue
Southbound
Dinah Shore Drive
Westbound
Monterey Avenue
Northbound
Dinah Shore 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 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 63 210 128 401 8 87 132 227 62 265 9 336 178 56 89 323 1287 04:45 PM 57 192 120 369 9 69 106 184 80 228 2 310 160 83 90 333 1196 05:00 PM 44 180 93 317 6 91 108 205 109 298 4 411 164 58 84 306 1239 05:15 PM 84 154 150 388 10 72 98 180 118 272 8 398 180 73 90 343 1309 Total Volume 248 736 491 1475 33 319 444 796 369 1063 23 1455 682 270 353 1305 5031 % App. Total 16.8 49.9 33.3 4.1 40.1 55.8 25.4 73.1 1.6 52.3 20.7 27 PHF .738 .876 .818 .920 .825 .876 .841 .877 .782 .892 .639 .885 .947 .813 .981 .951 .961 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2147
File Name : RNMMODSPM
Site Code : 00913453
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Monterey Avenue
E/W: Dinah Shore Drive
Weather: Sunny
Monterey Avenue
Dinah Shore Drive
Dinah Shore Drive
Monterey Avenue
Right
491
Thru
736
Left
248
InOut Total
2189 1475 3664
Right
444
Thru
319
Left
33 OutTotal In
541 796 1337
Left
369
Thru
1063
Right
23 Out TotalIn
1122 1455 2577
Left
682
Thru
270
Right
353
TotalOut In
1179 1305 2484
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 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 04:30 PM 04:30 PM
+0 mins. 52 175 101 328 11 99 128 238 62 265 9 336 178 56 89 323 +15 mins. 76 183 131 390 8 71 110 189 80 228 2 310 160 83 90 333 +30 mins. 63 210 128 401 8 87 132 227 109 298 4 411 164 58 84 306 +45 mins. 57 192 120 369 9 69 106 184 118 272 8 398 180 73 90 343 Total Volume 248 760 480 1488 36 326 476 838 369 1063 23 1455 682 270 353 1305 % App. Total 16.7 51.1 32.3 4.3 38.9 56.8 25.4 73.1 1.6 52.3 20.7 27 PHF .816 .905 .916 .928 .818 .823 .902 .880 .782 .892 .639 .885 .947 .813 .981 .951 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268-6268
12-2148
File Name : RNMBHGFAM
Site Code : 00001111
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: Gerald Ford Drive
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
Gerald Ford Drive
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
Gerald Ford 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 5 101 9 115 13 67 7 87 5 53 4 62 12 64 10 86 350 07:15 AM 12 131 12 155 20 84 9 113 13 55 2 70 20 100 33 153 491 07:30 AM 6 203 14 223 72 110 11 193 11 50 3 64 16 117 36 169 649 07:45 AM 22 235 25 282 35 102 17 154 21 61 9 91 28 109 33 170 697 Total 45 670 60 775 140 363 44 547 50 219 18 287 76 390 112 578 2187 08:00 AM 21 104 21 146 30 83 14 127 18 51 7 76 20 64 30 114 463 08:15 AM 11 179 19 209 26 77 7 110 9 71 4 84 44 84 28 156 559 08:30 AM 24 154 16 194 29 69 19 117 16 84 11 111 33 96 41 170 592 08:45 AM 16 159 14 189 36 79 25 140 8 41 2 51 12 64 19 95 475 Total 72 596 70 738 121 308 65 494 51 247 24 322 109 308 118 535 2089 Grand Total 117 1266 130 1513 261 671 109 1041 101 466 42 609 185 698 230 1113 4276 Apprch % 7.7 83.7 8.6 25.1 64.5 10.5 16.6 76.5 6.9 16.6 62.7 20.7 Total % 2.7 29.6 3 35.4 6.1 15.7 2.5 24.3 2.4 10.9 1 14.2 4.3 16.3 5.4 26 Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
Gerald Ford Drive
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
Gerald Ford 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 6 203 14 223 72 110 11 193 11 50 3 64 16 117 36 169 649 07:45 AM 22 235 25 282 35 102 17 154 21 61 9 91 28 109 33 170 697 08:00 AM 21 104 21 146 30 83 14 127 18 51 7 76 20 64 30 114 463 08:15 AM 11 179 19 209 26 77 7 110 9 71 4 84 44 84 28 156 559 Total Volume 60 721 79 860 163 372 49 584 59 233 23 315 108 374 127 609 2368 % App. Total 7 83.8 9.2 27.9 63.7 8.4 18.7 74 7.3 17.7 61.4 20.9 PHF .682 .767 .790 .762 .566 .845 .721 .756 .702 .820 .639 .865 .614 .799 .882 .896 .849 Counts Unlimited Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268
12-2149
File Name : RNMBHGFAM
Site Code : 00001111
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: Gerald Ford Drive
Weather: Sunny
Bob Hope Drive
Gerald Ford Drive
Gerald Ford Drive
Bob Hope Drive
Right
79 Thru
721
Left
60 InOut Total
390 860 1250
Right
49 Thru
372
Left
163
OutTotal In
457 584 1041
Left
59 Thru
233
Right
23 Out TotalIn
1011 315 1326
Left
108
Thru
374
Right
127
TotalOut In
510 609 1119
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 07:15 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM
+0 mins. 6 203 14 223 20 84 9 113 21 61 9 91 28 109 33 170 +15 mins. 22 235 25 282 72 110 11 193 18 51 7 76 20 64 30 114 +30 mins. 21 104 21 146 35 102 17 154 9 71 4 84 44 84 28 156 +45 mins. 11 179 19 209 30 83 14 127 16 84 11 111 33 96 41 170 Total Volume 60 721 79 860 157 379 51 587 64 267 31 362 125 353 132 610 % App. Total 7 83.8 9.2 26.7 64.6 8.7 17.7 73.8 8.6 20.5 57.9 21.6 PHF .682 .767 .790 .762 .545 .861 .750 .760 .762 .795 .705 .815 .710 .810 .805 .897 Counts Unlimited Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268
12-2150
File Name : RNMBHGFPM
Site Code : 00001111
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 1
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: Gerald Ford Drive
Weather: Sunny
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
Gerald Ford Drive
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
Gerald Ford 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 25 113 19 157 26 63 17 106 33 160 12 205 42 94 34 170 638 04:15 PM 15 128 20 163 23 85 13 121 28 159 11 198 34 84 24 142 624 04:30 PM 15 116 26 157 20 96 10 126 38 164 25 227 43 102 27 172 682 04:45 PM 12 137 16 165 28 95 7 130 24 142 11 177 49 109 27 185 657 Total 67 494 81 642 97 339 47 483 123 625 59 807 168 389 112 669 2601 05:00 PM 16 103 15 134 18 96 17 131 51 192 21 264 38 112 21 171 700 05:15 PM 12 112 16 140 18 96 19 133 33 180 19 232 25 114 17 156 661 05:30 PM 8 121 16 145 16 93 17 126 17 135 18 170 41 97 24 162 603 05:45 PM 9 102 12 123 16 70 5 91 17 118 9 144 38 74 19 131 489 Total 45 438 59 542 68 355 58 481 118 625 67 810 142 397 81 620 2453 Grand Total 112 932 140 1184 165 694 105 964 241 1250 126 1617 310 786 193 1289 5054 Apprch % 9.5 78.7 11.8 17.1 72 10.9 14.9 77.3 7.8 24 61 15 Total % 2.2 18.4 2.8 23.4 3.3 13.7 2.1 19.1 4.8 24.7 2.5 32 6.1 15.6 3.8 25.5 Bob Hope Drive
Southbound
Gerald Ford Drive
Westbound
Bob Hope Drive
Northbound
Gerald Ford 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 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 15 116 26 157 20 96 10 126 38 164 25 227 43 102 27 172 682 04:45 PM 12 137 16 165 28 95 7 130 24 142 11 177 49 109 27 185 657 05:00 PM 16 103 15 134 18 96 17 131 51 192 21 264 38 112 21 171 700 05:15 PM 12 112 16 140 18 96 19 133 33 180 19 232 25 114 17 156 661 Total Volume 55 468 73 596 84 383 53 520 146 678 76 900 155 437 92 684 2700 % App. Total 9.2 78.5 12.2 16.2 73.7 10.2 16.2 75.3 8.4 22.7 63.9 13.5 PHF .859 .854 .702 .903 .750 .997 .697 .977 .716 .883 .760 .852 .791 .958 .852 .924 .964 Counts Unlimited Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268
12-2151
File Name : RNMBHGFPM
Site Code : 00001111
Start Date : 11/6/2013
Page No : 2
City of Rancho Mirage
N/S: Bob Hope Drive
E/W: Gerald Ford Drive
Weather: Sunny
Bob Hope Drive
Gerald Ford Drive
Gerald Ford Drive
Bob Hope Drive
Right
73 Thru
468
Left
55 InOut Total
886 596 1482
Right
53 Thru
383
Left
84 OutTotal In
568 520 1088
Left
146
Thru
678
Right
76 Out TotalIn
644 900 1544
Left
155
Thru
437
Right
92 TotalOut In
602 684 1286
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 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 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM
+0 mins. 25 113 19 157 20 96 10 126 38 164 25 227 43 102 27 172 +15 mins. 15 128 20 163 28 95 7 130 24 142 11 177 49 109 27 185 +30 mins. 15 116 26 157 18 96 17 131 51 192 21 264 38 112 21 171 +45 mins. 12 137 16 165 18 96 19 133 33 180 19 232 25 114 17 156 Total Volume 67 494 81 642 84 383 53 520 146 678 76 900 155 437 92 684 % App. Total 10.4 76.9 12.6 16.2 73.7 10.2 16.2 75.3 8.4 22.7 63.9 13.5 PHF .670 .901 .779 .973 .750 .997 .697 .977 .716 .883 .760 .852 .791 .958 .852 .924 Counts Unlimited Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
951-268-6268
12-2152
Appendix 2

RIVTAM TAZ MAP

MODIFICATIONS TO RIVTAM

SOCIOECONOMIC DATA
12-2153
Endo Engineering Scale: 1” = 3,800’
Figure 2
RIVTAM TAZ Locations
TAZ 4637
TAZ 4630
TAZ 4645
TAZ 4639 TAZ 4648
TAZ 4620
TAZ 4651TAZ 4638TAZ 4623
TAZ 4621
TAZ 4625
TAZ 4619
TAZ 4617
TAZ 4640
TAZ 4635
TAZ 4689
TAZ 4608
TAZ 4613
TAZ 4622
TAZ 4653
TAZ 4654
TAZ 4658
TAZ 4609TAZ 4596
TAZ 4598
TAZ 4583
TAZ 4591
TAZ 4589
TAZ 4614
TAZ 4610
TAZ 4603TAZ 4600
TAZ 4612
TAZ 4661
TAZ 4599
TAZ 4660
TAZ 4607
Site
TAZ 4640
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varner RoadInterstate 10Union Pacific Railroad
30th Ave.

Vista Chino
Da Vall Dr.

Date Palm Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
Frank Sinatra Dr.
12-2154
Appendix 2
RIVTAM Modifications
RIVTAM Circulation Network Prior To Modifications
The extension of Bob Hope Drive, north of Ramon Road to Varner Road, and the construction of a new diamond interchange at Interstate 10 were completed in 2012. The RIVTAM network reflected this improvement. Bob Hope Drive, from Dinah Shore Drive northward, was upgraded from its Minor Arterial (four-lane divided) classification to a Major Arterial (six-lane divided) classification. The RIVTAM network incorporated this change.

Dinah Shore Drive, between Bob Hope Drive and Los Alamos Road, was upgraded from its Minor Arterial (four-lane divided) classification to a Major Arterial (six-lane divided) classification in the Rancho Mirage 2005 General Plan. This reclassification was included in RIVTAM.

Although Key Largo Avenue was extended north of Dinah Shore Drive and over Interstate 10 to Ramon Road as a four-lane divided Minor Arterial in the Rancho Mirage 2005 General Plan, it was not in the RIVTAM street network. Although a new east/west four-lane divided Minor Arterial was added to the Rancho Mirage 2005 General Plan north of Dinah Shore Drive, between Bob Hope Drive and Key Largo Avenue (“B Street” in the Section 19 Specific Plan) this new roadway was not included in RIVTAM.

Modifications Incorporated in RIVTAM
Los Alamos Road was deleted from RIVTAM between Dinah Shore Drive and Gerald Ford Drive but retained adjacent to the western boundary of Section 24. The existing Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort and the Mission Hills Country Club development would preclude the construction of Los Alamos Road, south of Dinah Shore Drive.

Dinah Shore Drive was downgraded from a six-lane divided to a four-lane divided facility, between Bob Hope Drive and Los Alamos Road. This change was made to quantify the future traffic projections for parallel facilities to identify appropriate mitigation for any significant impacts that might result from downgrading Dinah Shore Drive.

The Agua Caliente Casino was moved from west of Bob Hope Drive to east of Bob Hope Drive. The Rancho Mirage High School was added north of Ramon Road, between Los Alamos Road and Da Vall Drive, with a year 2035 enrollment of 2000 assumed. The data for the project site were replaced with SED reflecting the ultimate maximum development intensity/density that would be allowed by the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan. The nodal connectors within the project site were modified to more accurately reflect the proposed internal circulation and site access plan.

Through coordination with AFSHA Consulting, Inc., the socioeconomic data in RIVTAM for TAZ 4637 were replaced with data reflecting buildout of the proposed land uses within the Section 24 Specific Plan. The new SED assumed for TAZ 4637 included 2,406 households, a population of 4,331, and a total employment of 6,277 for buildout with the proposed project.

The SED for the 1,200 senior adult dwelling units were adjusted to reflect the age-restricted housing for active adults proposed by increasing the assumed age of the homeowner and assuming that nearly one-half of the occupants would be retired. The SED for the 3,138,600 square feet of non-residential building area associated with the proposed project was converted to employment by assuming the employment density factor used in RIVTAM for areas designated C-R and C-T (500 square feet of building area per employee). This factor was also assumed for the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) modeling.
12-2155
RIVTAM Socioeconomic Data for Section 24
Project POP RES HH GN HHSize_1 HHSize_2 HHSize_3 HHSize_4plusHHSize_4E age5_17 age18_24 age 25_64 age65_over ho18_24 ho25_44 ho45_64 ho65_over Alt 3 4331 4331 2406 0 1203 674 349 180 162 234 65 1832 2200 38 383 658 1327 917 509 407
HH_w0 HH_w1 HH_w2 HH_w3 K12 COLLEGE median HO<$25k median25k$25k<HO<$50kmedian25_50$50k<HO<$100kmedian50_100HO>$100k median_100 LINC_WRKMINC_WRKHINC_WRK 1140 804 404 58 0 0 57357 673 13890 626 41077 673 83142 434 165011 910 505 404 Tot_emp TotLow_empTotMed_empTotHig_emp Ag_emp Const_emp Manu_emp Whole_emp Ret_emp Trans_emp Infor_emp FIRE_emp Prof_emp Educ_emp ArtEnt_empOthSer_empPubAdm_emp 6277 3444 1659 1174 0 0 0 0 2511 0 0 627 627 0 1256 1256 DailyPark HourlyPark CBD RSA
0 0 0 45
12-2156
Appendix 3

HCM INTERSECTION ANALYSIS

METHODOLOGY AND WORKSHEETS
12-2157
Appendix 3
Highway Capacity Manual 2000 Methodology
Unsignalized Intersections
Some of the key intersections in the study area are unsignalized and controlled by stop signs on one or more of the approaches. Unsignalized intersections are typically categorized as either two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) or all-way stop-controlled (AWSC) intersections. At TWSC intersections, the approaches controlled by the stop sign are referred to as the minor street approaches. Minor street approaches can be either public streets or private driveways. The intersection approaches that are not controlled by stop signs are called the major street approaches.

To evaluate the ability of these intersections to serve traffic demands during peak hours, the capacity is determined for each minor approach movement and the left-turn movements from the major street onto the minor street, and then compared to the demand for each movement. The methodology utilized to determine the maximum capacity of the minor approach movements and the left turn onto the minor street (in passenger car equivalents per hour or PCPH) accounts for approach grade and speed, heavy vehicle mix, lane configuration, and type of traffic control. It allows the maximum potential capacity to be determined from the conflicting volumes and the critical gap associated with each type of vehicle maneuver. Once the capacity of each of the critical movements is calculated, the anticipated delay and the level of service for each of the intersection movements and each minor approach can be evaluated.

Typically, the movement with the longest average control delay or worst level or service defines the overall intersection evaluation; however, this may be tempered by engineering judgment, when conditions warrant it.

Although the level of service is primarily related to the average control delay, which is given in terms of seconds of delay per vehicle by minor movement and intersection approach, other performance measures for TWSC and AWSC intersections include: delay to major street through vehicles, queue length, and volume-to-capacity ratio.

For example, left turns from the minor leg may experience delay consistent with LOS F operation, while the major street through movements experience little or no delay and LOS A. Since the major-street through movements typically accommodate the majority of the traffic demand at the intersection, the overall intersection LOS would most likely be LOS A or LOS B. If the delay for the traffic on the minor leg is reduced by installing a traffic signal, the overall intersection delay will increase, as large numbers of vehicles on the major through moves are delayed by the new signal. The increase in total delay may lower the overall intersection LOS. For this reason, excessive delays on the minor legs of two-way stop intersections are only mitigated with a traffic signal when the minor street can no longer effectively provide access, as evidenced by traffic signal warrants being met. This eliminates situations where a large number of motorists are delayed for the benefit of only a few cars.

Capacity Considerations
A two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) or a raised or striped median allows a minor stream vehicle to cross one major traffic stream at a time. It results in two-stage gap acceptance, provided that sufficient storage space is available in the median or TWLTL to store vehicles. It reduces the critical gap (the minimum gap that would be acceptable to a driver on the minor approach) in the stream of traffic on the major street and increases the capacity of the minor approach.

The grade of the approach directly affects the capacity of each minor movement. Compared to a level approach, downgrades increase capacity and upgrades decrease the approach capacity.

A flared approach on the minor street increases the capacity of the minor street approach. It allows more vehicles to be served simultaneously. Increasing the length of the flared pavement improves access to the additional lane.

Even with a flared approach, vehicles seeking to use the flared lane may be delayed by queued vehicles blocking access to the additional lane. Therefore, flaring does not increase the capacity of the approach to the extent that an additional lane would.
12-2158
The presence of traffic signals upstream from the intersection on the major street will produce platoons and affect the capacity of the minor street approaches if the signal is located within 0.25 mile of the intersection. Four flow regimes can result: no platoons, platoons from the left only, platoons from the right only and platoons from both directions.

Signalized Intersections
The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) signalized intersection capacity and level of service methodology addresses the capacity and level of service of intersection approach land groups as well as the level of service of the intersection as a whole. The analysis is undertaken in terms of the ratio of demand flow rate to capacity (V/C ratio) for individual movements during a peak 15-minute interval and the composite V/C ratio for the sum of critical movements or lane groups within the intersection. The level of service is determined based upon average control delay per vehicle.
12-2159
HCS Worksheets
The HCS Worksheets are lengthy and available under separate cover by request. 12-2160
Appendix 4

TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
Peak Hour Signal Warrants
Signal Warrants Spreadsheet
12-2161
Appendix 4
MUTCD Traffic Control Signal Warrants
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) publishes the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which contains all national design, application, and placement standards for traffic control devices. The purpose of these devices, which include signs, signals, and pavement markings, is to promote highway safety, efficiency, and uniformity so that traffic can move efficiently on the Nation's streets and highways. All traffic control devices nationwide must conform to the MUTCD.

Although the FHWA adopts the standards, the individual State and local highway agencies, not the FHWA, select, install, operate, and maintain traffic control devices on all roadways (including the Interstate and the U.S. numbered systems) nationwide.

A traffic signal assigns intersection right-of-way and promotes the orderly movement of pedestrians and vehicles. However, improper signal controls sometimes lead to intentional violations, unnecessary delays and traffic diversion to less desirable routes.

The selection and use of traffic control signals should be based on an engineering study of roadway, traffic, and other conditions. A careful analysis of traffic operations, pedestrian and bicyclist needs, and other factors at a large number of signalized and unsignalized intersections, coupled with engineering judgment, has provided a series of signal warrants detailed in the FHWA’s MUTCD (2009 Edition)
1 that define the minimum conditions under which installing traffic control signals might be justified. As of January 13, 2012, Caltrans has adopted the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California MUTCD 2012) to include FHWA’s 2009 MUTCD to prescribe uniform standards for traffic control devices in California.

In order to justify the installation of a traffic control signal, a traffic control signal needs study is required that demonstrates delay, congestion, approach conditions, driver confusion, future land use, physical characteristics of the location, the factors contained in the traffic signal warrants, and/or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment beyond that which could be provided by a STOP sign. The FHWA’s MUTCD (2009 Edition)2 and the California MUTCD 2012 provide guidance and signal warrant sheets for use in developing traffic control signal needs studies.

The following are warrants for installation of a traffic control signal.

Warrant 1 - Eight Hour Vehicular Volume (including minimum vehicle volume and interruption of continuous traffic warrants) Warrant 2 - Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 3 - Peak Hour
Warrant 4 - Pedestrian Volume
Warrant 5 - School Crossing
Warrant 6 - Coordinated Signal System
Warrant 7 - Crash Experience
Warrant 8 - Roadway Network
Warrant 9 - Intersection Near A Grade Crossing
Disadvantages of Signalization
Improperly designed or installed traffic signals, those that are poorly maintained, and unjustified traffic signals can result in one or more of the following disadvantages:
• Excessive delay;
• Excessive disobedience of the signal indications;
• Increased use of less adequate routes (as road users attempt to avoid traffic signals); and • Significant increases in the frequency of collisions (especially rear-end collisions).

1 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, (2009 Edition). 2 Ibid.
12-2162
Advantages of Signalization
Traffic signals that are properly designed, located, operated, and maintained have one or more of the following advantages:
• They provide for the orderly movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. • They increase the traffic handling capacity of the intersection (if the signal operational parameters are reviewed and updated on a regular basis and when land use changes have occurred). • They reduce the frequency and severity of certain types of crashes (especially right- angle collisions). • They are coordinated to provide for continuous or nearly continuous movement of traffic at a definite speed along a given route under favorable conditions.
• They interrupt heavy traffic at intervals to permit other traffic (vehicular or pedestrian) to cross.

Alternatives to Signalization
Since vehicular delay and the frequency of some types of collisions can be greater under traffic signal control than under STOP sign control, consideration should be given to providing alternatives to traffic signals even if one or more of the signal warrants has been satisfied.

Alternatives for consideration may include:
• Improving the sight distance at the intersection by moving the stop line(s) and making other changes; • Adding one or more lanes on a minor street approach to reduce the number of vehicles per lane on the approach;
• Channelizing vehicular movements;
• Installing roadway lighting if a disproportionate number of collisions occur at night; • Restricting one or more turning movements, perhaps on a time-of-day basis, if alternative routes are available;
• Installing multiway STOP sign control if the warrant is satisfied; • Installing a roundabout intersection;
• Installing warning signs on the major street regarding the approaching intersection; • Installing flashing beacons on warning signs in advance of the intersection or at the intersection; and • Installing measures designed to reduce speeds on the approaches.

General Notes

1. The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.

2. A traffic control signal should not be installed unless an engineering study indicates that installing a traffic control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection.

3. A signal should not be installed if it will seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow.

4. Bicycles may be counted as either vehicles or pedestrians for signal warrant analysis.

5. Pedestrian volume counts should be taken on each crosswalk during the same periods as the vehicular counts and during the hours of highest pedestrian volume.

6. Quantify pedestrian delay time for at least two 30 minute peak pedestrian delay periods of an average weekday or like periods of a Saturday or Sunday.

7. The posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the uncontrolled approaches to the location should be noted.

8. The distance to the nearest traffic control signals should be noted.

9. Where feasible, note the queue length on stop-controlled approaches.

10. For signal warrant analysis, a location with a wide median (even if the median is greater than 30 feet) should be considered as one intersection.

11. For detailed guidance regarding the application of signal warrants refer to the California MUTCD 2012. 12-2163
12-2164
Peak Hour Volume Warrant
Intersection: Los Alamos Road @ Via Bella (Intersection 8) Major Approach: 2 Lanes+ Minor Approach: 1 Lane Rural Warrants AM Pk Hr 2022 2022 2035 2035 PM Pk Hr 2022 2022 2035 2035 Approach Existing Ambient +Project Ambient +Project Existing Ambient +Project Ambient +Project Northbound 69 119 128 157 196 71 123 135 92 247
Southbound 84 145 164 191 243 38 67 107 49 221
East/Westbound 25 30 38 35 35 27 34 34 31 31
Meets 1-Hr. Warrant No No No No No No No No No No
Intersection: Westin Resort Villas @ Dinah Shore Drive (Intersection 13) Major Approach: 2 Lanes+ Minor Approach: 2 Lanes+ Rural Warrants AM Pk Hr 2022 2022 2035 2035 PM Pk Hr 2022 2022 2035 2035 Approach Existing Ambient +Project Ambient +Project Existing Ambient +Project Ambient +Project Eastbound 610 639 680 671 748 764 799 829 841 1063
Westbound 543 568 590 597 644 923 965 1012 1015 1220
North/Southbound 21 22 22 23 54 36 37 37 39 218
Meets 1-Hr. Warrant No No No No No No No No No Yes
Intersection: Street C @ Ramon Road (Intesection 18)
Major Approach: 2 Lanes+ Minor Approach: 2 Lanes+ Rural Warrants AM Pk Hr 2035 2035 PM Pk Hr 2035 2035
Approach Ambient +Project Ambient +Project
Northbound 1581 2066
Southbound 1365 2092
Eastbound 76 376
Meets 1-Hr. Warrant No Yes
Intersection: Street D @ Ramon Road (Intesection 19)
Major Approach: 2 Lanes+ Minor Approach: 2 Lanes+ Rural Warrants AM Pk Hr 2035 2035 PM Pk Hr 2035 2035
Approach Ambient +Project Ambient +Project
Eastbound 1593 2080
Westbound 1380 2116
Northbound 119 516
Meets 1-Hr. Warrant Yes Yes
Intersection: Bob Hope Drive @ Street D (Intersection 20) Major Approach: 2 Lanes+ Minor Approach: 2 Lanes+ Rural Warrants AM Pk Hr 2035 2035 PM Pk Hr 2035 2035
Approach Ambient +Project Ambient +Project
Northbound 548 1901
Southbound 1307 1329
Eastbound 96 433
Meets 1-Hr. Warrant No Yes
Intersection: Bob Hope Drive @ Street E (Intersection 21) Major Approach: 2 Lanes+ Minor Approach: 2 Lanes+ Rural Warrants AM Pk Hr 2035 2035 PM Pk Hr 2035 2035
Approach Ambient +Project Ambient +Project
Northbound 589 2028
Southbound 1429 1391
Eastbound 58 245
Meets 1-Hr. Warrant No Yes
12-2165
Peak Hour Volume Warrant
Intersection: Los Alamos Road @ Street "A" (Intersection 22) Major Approach: 2 Lanes+ Minor Approach: 1 Lane Rural Warrants AM Pk Hr 2035 2035 PM Pk Hr 2035 2035
Approach Ambient +Project Ambient +Project
Northbound 202 320
Southbound 258 272
Westbound 26 11
Meets 1-Hr. Warrant No No
Intersection: Los Alamos Road @ Street "B" (Intersection 23) Major Approach: 2 Lanes+ Minor Approach: 1 Lane Rural Warrants AM Pk Hr 2035 2035 PM Pk Hr 2035 2035
Approach Ambient +Project Ambient +Project
Northbound 219 321
Southbound 276 350
Westbound 22 156
Meets 1-Hr. Warrant No No
12-2166
Appendix 5

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND

TRAFFIC GLOSSARY
12-2167
List of Acronyms
AB Assembly Bill
AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic
AASHTO American Associat ion of State Highway and Transportation Officials ADT Average Daily Traffic
AVO Average Vehicle Occupancy
AWSC All-Way Stop Control
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CMA Congestion Management Agency
CMP Congestion Management Program
CVAG Coachella Valley Association of Governments
DU Dwelling Units
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GFA Gross Floor Area
GLA Gross Leasable Area
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HCS Highway Capacity Software
HOV High Occupancy Vehicles
I-10 Interstate 10
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
NCV Neighborhood Circulating Vehicle
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NEV Neighborhood Electric Vehicle
PHF Peak Hour Factor
RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission
RIVTAM Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model
ROW Right-Of-Way
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SR State Route
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TEPA Tribal Environmental Policy Act
TIP Transportation Improvement Program
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSF Thousand Square Feet
TSM Transportation Systems Management
TWLTL Two-Way Left-Turn Lane
TWSC Two-Way Stop Control
ULI Urban Land Institute
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VPD Vehicles Per Day
VPH Vehicles Per Hour
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TSM Transportation Systems Management
12-2168
Appendix 5 - Traffic Glossary
Access point -- An intersection, driveway, or opening on the right-hand s ide of a roadway. An ent ry on the opposite side of a roadway or a median opening also can be considered as an access point if it is expected to influence traffic flow significantly in the direction of interest.

All-way stop controlled -- An intersection with stop signs at all approaches. The driver ’s decision to proceed is based on the rules of the road (e.g., the driver on the right has the right-of-way) and also on the traffic conditions of the other approaches.

Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) -- The total volume passing a point or segment of a highway facility in both direct ions for one year divided by the number of days in the year.

Average Daily Traffic (ADT) -- The total volume passing a point or segment of a highway fac ility in both dir ections on an average day during a specified interval (which can be the peak month or weekdays etc.).

Average Day -- A day representing traffic volumes normally and repeatedly found at a loc ation, typically a weekday when volumes are influenced by employment or a weekend day w hen volumes are influenced by entertainment or recreation.

Approach -- All lanes of traffic moving towards an intersect ion of a midblock location fr om one direction including any adjacent parking lanes.

Arterial -- Signalized streets that serve primarily through traffic and provide access to abutting properties as a sec ondary function, having signal spacing of 2 miles or less and turn movements at intersections that usually do not exceed 20 percent of total traffic.

Average approach delay -- Average stopped-time delay at a signalized intersection plus average time lost because of deceleration to and acceleration from a stop, generally estimated as 1.3 times the average stopped time delay.

Average control delay -- the total time vehicles are stopped in an intersection approach during a specified t ime interval divided by the volume departing from the approach during t he same time period. It does not include queue follow-up time (i.e. the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position to the first-in-queue position).

Average stopped-time delay -- The total time vehicles are stopped in an intersection approach or lane group during a specified time interval divided by the volume departing from the approach or lane group during the same t ime per iod, in seconds per vehicle.

Average total delay -- The total additional travel time experienced by drivers, passengers, or pedestrians as a result of control measures and interaction with other users of the facility divided by the volume departing from the correspo nding cross section of the facility.

AWSC intersection -- an all-way stop-controlled intersection, which can be a three-way stop if the intersection has only three legs or a four-way stop if the intersection has four legs.

Bike lane -- A portion of a roadway that has been designated by striping, signing, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicycles.

Bike path -- A bikeway physically separated from motorized traffi c by an open space or barrier, either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way.

Bikeway -- Any road, path, or way that in some manner is specifically designated as being open to bicycle travel, r egardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicyclists or are to be shared with other vehicles.

Capacity -- The maximum rate of flow at which persons or vehicles can be reasonable expected to traverse a point or uniform segment of a lane or roadway during a specifi ed time period under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions, usually expressed as vehicles per hour or persons per hour.

Clearance lost time -- The minimum possible time interval between the departure of one bus from a bus berth and the entrance of another.

Clearance time -- The time, in seconds, between signal phases during which an intersection is not used by any traffic.

Conflicting approach -- The approach at approximately 90 degrees to t he subject approach at an all-way stop-contr olled (AWSC) intersection.

Conflicting traffic volume -- The volume of traffic that conflicts with a specific movement at an unsignalized intersection. 12-2169
Control delay -- The component of delay that results when a control signal causes a lane group to reduce speed or to stop; it is measured by comparison with the uncontrolled condition.

CMP -- Congestion Management Program, designed to ensure that a balanced transportation system is devel oped that relates population growth, traffic growth, and land use decisions to transportation system level of service perfor mance standards to help reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality.

Constrained operation -- An operating condition in a weaving area in which, because of geometric constraints, weaving vehicles are unable to occupy as large a portion of available lanes as required to achieve balanced operation.

Critical gap -- The minimum time interval between vehicles in a major traffic stream that permits side-street vehicles in a stop-controlled approach to enter the intersection under prevailing traffic and roadway conditions, in seconds.

Critical lane group -- The lane groups that have the highest flow ratio for a given signal phase.

Critical volume-to-capacity ratio -- The proportion of available intersection c apacity used by vehicles in critical lane groups.

Crosswalk -- That part of a roadway at an int ersection included wi thin the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs (or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the travers able roadway) and in the absence of a sidewalk on one side of the r oadway, the part of a roadway included within the extension of the lateral lines of the sidewalk at right angles to the c enterline. Any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhe re distinctly indicated as a pedestrian crossing by lines on the surface, which may be supplemented by a contrasting pav ement texture, style or color.

Cycle -- Any complete sequence of signal indications.

Cycle length -- The total time required for one complete sequence of signal indications.

Deceleration lane -- A paved auxiliary lane, including tapered areas, allowing vehicles leaving the through-traffic lane of the roadway to decelerate.

Delay -- Additional travel time experienced by a driver, passenger, or pedestrian beyond what would reasonably be desired for a given trip.

Demand volume -- The traffic volume expected to desire service past a point or segment of the highway system at some future time, or the traffic currently arriving or desiring service past such a point, usually expressed as vehicles per hour.

Effective green time -- The time allocated for a given traffic movement (g reen plus yellow) at a signalized intersection less the start-up and clearance lost times for the movement.

Exclusive turn lane -- A designated left- or right-turn lane or lanes used only by vehicles making those turns.

Expressway -- An arterial which increases vehicular capacity by reducing at-grade access and increased signal spacing.

Flared approach -- A shared right-turn lane that allows right-tur ning vehicles to complete their movement while other vehicles are occupying the lane.

Free flow speed -- (1) The theoretical speed of traffic when density is zero, that is, when no vehicles are present; (2) the average speed of vehicles over an arterial segment not close to signalized intersections under conditions of low volume.

Gap acceptance -- The process by which a minor-street vehicle accepts an available gap to maneuver.

Green time -- The actual length of the green indication for a given movement at a signalized intersection.

HCM -- Highway Capacity Manual
HCS -- Highway Capacity Software implementing the Highway Capacity Manual procedures.

Ideal conditions-- Characteristics for a given type of facility that are assumed to be the best possible from the point of view of capacity, that is, characteristics that if further improved would not result increased capacity.

Intersection -- The area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb lines , or if none the lateral boundary lines of the roadways of two highways that join one another at, or approximately at right angles, or the area within which vehicles traveling on different highways that join at any other angle might come into conflict. The junction of an alley
or driveway with a roadway or highway does not constitute an intersection. 12-2170
Intersection delay -- The total additional travel time experienced by driver s, passengers, or pedestr ians as a result of control measures and interaction with other users of the facility, divided by the volume departing from the corresponding cross section of the facility.

Interval -- The part of a signal cycle during which signal indications do not change.

Level of service (LOS) -- A qualitative measure de scribing operational conditions within a traffic str eam, generally described in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety.

Lost time -- The time during which the intersection is not effectiv ely used by any movement. C learance lost t ime plus start- up lost time.

Major street -- The street not contr olled by st op signs at a two-way stop-contr olled intersect ion. The street nor mally carrying the higher volume of vehicular traffic.

Maximum service flow rate -- The highest 15-minute rate of flow that can be accommodated on a highway fac ility under ideal conditions while maintaining the operating characteristics for a stated level of service, expressed as passenger cars per hour per lane.

Minor Street -- The street controlled by stop signs at a two-way stop-controlled intersection; also referred to as a side street.

The street normally carrying the lower volume of vehicular traffic.

Passenger car equivalent -- The number of passenger cars that are displaced by a single heavy vehicle of a partic ular type under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions.

Peak hour -- The hour during which the greatest number of vehicles are traveling on a given facility.

Peak hour factor -- The hourly volume during the maximum volume hour of the day divided by the peak 15-minute rate of flow within the peak hour; a measure of traffic demand fluctuation within the peak hour.

Pedestrian Clearance Time -- The time provided for a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk, after leaving the curb or shoulder, to travel to the far side of the traveled way or to a median.

Performance measure -- A quantitative or qualitative characteristic describing the quality of service pr ovided by a transportation facility or service.

Permitted plus protected -- Compound left-turn protection that displays the permitted phase before the protected phase.

Permitted turns -- Left or right turns at a signalized intersect ion that are made against an opposing or c onflicting v ehicular or pedestrian flow.

Phase -- The part of a signal cycle allocated to any combinat ion of traffic movements receiving the right-of-way simultaneously during one or more intervals.

Planning analysis -- A use of capacity analysis procedures to estimate the number of lanes r equired by a fac ility in order to provide for a specified level of service based on approximate and gener al planning data in the early st ages of pr oject development.

Platoon -- A group of vehicles or pedestrians traveling together as a group, either voluntarily or involuntarily because of signal control, geometrics, or other factors.

Platoon -- A group of vehicles or pedestrians traveling together as a group, either voluntarily or involuntarily, because of traffic signal controls, geometrics, or other factors.

Protected turns -- Left or right turns at a signalized intersection made with no opposing or conflicting vehicular or pedestrian flow.

Queue -- A line of vehicles or persons waiting to be served by the system in which the rate of low from the front of the queue determines the average speed within the queue. Slowly moving vehicles or people joining the rear of the queue are usually considered a part of the queue. The internal queue dynamics may involve a series of starts and stops. A faster-moving line of vehicles is often referred to as a moving queue or a platoon.

Red Clearance Interval -- An optional interval that follows a yellow change interval and precedes the next conflicting green interval.

Right-of-Way Assignment -- The permitting of vehicles and/or pedestrians to proceed in a lawful manner in preference to other vehicles or pedestrians by the display of signal indications. 12-2171
Roadway Network -- A geographical arrangement of intersecting roadways.

RTIP -- Regional Transportation Improvement Program is a list of transportation projects, their costs and projected fun ding sources, and their anticipated date of completion.

RTP -- Regional Transportation Plan is a plan adopted for the region's transit, highw ays, bicycle programs, commuter and inter-city rail lines.

Shared lane capacity -- The capacity of a lane at an unsignalized intersection that is shared by two or three movements, in passenger cars per hour.

Signal Coordination -- The establishment of timed relationships between adjacent traffic control signals.

Signal Phase -- the right-of-way, yellow change, and red clearanc e intervals in a cycle t hat are assigned to an independent traffic movement or combination of movements.

Signal System -- two or more traffic control signals operating in signal coordination.

Signal Timing -- the amount of time allocated for the display of a signal indication.

Signal Warrant -- a threshold condition that, if found to be satisfied as part of an engineering study, shall result in analysis of other traffic conditions or factors to determine whether a traffic control signal or other improvement is justified.

TDM -- Transportation Demand Management is a program des igned to decrease the demand for peak hour commute and truck travel and increase the use of alternative transportation modes.

TIS -- Traffic Impact Study A Congestion Management Program (TIS) analysis is required for all large projects.

Total delay -- The sum of all components of delay for any lane group, including control delay, traffic delay, geometric delay, and incident delay.

Trip-end -- one end of a trip at either the origin or the destination; i.e. each trip has two trip-ends.

Traffic -- pedestrians, bicyclists, ridden or herded animals, vehicles, streetcars, and other conveyances either singularly or together while using any highway for purposes of travel.

Traffic Control Signal -- any highway traffic signal by which traffic is alternately directed to stop and permitted to proceed.

Travel speed -- The average speed, in miles per hour, of a traffi c stream computed as the length of a highway s egment divided by the average travel time of the vehicles traversing the segment.

Travel time -- The average time spent by vehicles traversing a highway segment, including control delay, in seconds per vehicle or minutes per vehicle.

TSM -- Transportation Systems Management is a program to facilitate low cost traffic flow improvements like coordinating traffic signals, metering freeway ramps and incident management.

Two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) -- The center lane on a three-lane or multi-lane highway that is used continuously for vehicles turning left in either direction of flow at mid-block locations.

Two-way stop-controlled -- The type of traffic control at an intersection where drivers on the minor street or a driver tur ning left from the major street wait for a gap in the major-street traffic to complete a maneuver.

Unconstrained Operation -- An operating condition in a weaving area where geometric constraints do not limit the ability of weaving vehicles to achieve balanced operation.

Unsignalized intersection -- Any intersection not controlled by traffic signals.

V/C ratio -- The ratio of demand flow rate to capacity for a traffic facility.

Volume -- The number of persons or vehicles passing a point on a lane, roadway, sidewalk et c. during some time interval, often taken to be one hour, expressed in vehicles.

VMT -- Vehicle miles traveled.

Yellow Change Interval -- the first interval following the green interval during which the yellow signal indication is displayed. 12-2172
Appendix 6

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE REVIEW

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
12-2173
1 October 6, 2014
City of Rancho Mirage Comments
Comments on the Section 24 Traffic Impact Study

Comment 1 - Sole Reliance on RivTAM Traffic Model

The Endo study projects much lower traffic numbers than the ap proved 2005 General Plan in the vicinity of the project as shown in the table below.

Location 2035 Section 24 T.S. RM GP Buildout % of RM GP Buildout Bob Hope Drive n/o
Ramon Rd.
40,520 67,700 60%
Bob Hope Drive s/o
Ramon Rd.
37,660 55,300 68%
Ramon Road w/o Bob
Hope Dr.
50,070 74,800 67%
Dinah Shore Drive w/o
Bob Hope Dr.
27,080 49,400 55%

The Endo study has relied entirely on the Riv TAM traffic model and considers it an adequate evaluation of t he projects long term cumulative traffic impacts. The RivTAM model is not intended to repres ent General Plan buildout, but rather buildout at a target horizon year (i.e. 2035), and it is not known if the model that was used included the known cumulative development Specific Plans in the vicinity. The City will require that infrastructure facilities accommodate full bu ildout of the City and the study should use the City provided data for analysis of General Plan infrastructure needs.

Response to Comment 1:

As explained in more detail below, the RivTAM model used in the Section 24 Specific Plan Traffic Study is a more sophisticated, comprehensive and current model than the 2005 City of Rancho Mirage G eneral Plan Traffic Model (RMTM) and reflects the full amount of population and housing projected in the City’s General Plan. For this reason, the traffic volumes projected by the RivTAM model are more reliable than the volumes in the City’s 2005 model for these roadways.

Based on the RivTAM forecasts, the City’s General Plan Circulation System can accommodate the proposed Sect ion 24 Specific Plan proj ect and the other residential and population growth allowed by the City’s G eneral Plan as well as the employment growth forecast for the year 2035 in the SCAG 2004 Growth Forecast . In other words, the RivTAM 2035 forecasts include t he growth allowed by the City’s General Plan.

12-2174
2 Section 24 is located within unincor porated Riverside County and the Sphere of Influence of the City of Ranc ho Mirage. Two subregional travel demand models were considered for use in forecasting long-term traffic projections for the Section 24 Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study . The Riverside County Traffi c Analysis Model (RivTAM), completed in May 2009, was developed with the cooperative efforts of the Riverside County Transportation Department (RCTD) , Western Riverside Council· of Governments (WRCOG), Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and California Depar tment of Transportation (Caltrans). The RivTAM incorporates a detailed description of Riverside County, while maintaining consistency with the SCAG Regional Model.

The RivTAM provides long-term traffic proj ections for the horizon year 2035 and is intended for use for transportation plannin g purposes throughout Riverside County by all levels of governmental jurisdiction and by private entities and as a tool to determine potential impacts of large dev elopment proposals, General Plan land use changes, and forecasting for transportation projects.

The RMTM, developed in 2005, was based on the Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study (CVATS) model, which wa s the best available regional model at that time. The CVATS model is no longer supported by CVAG or SCAG. The CVATS model did not include recently completed and planned impr ovements to the circulation system in the vicinity of the Section 24 Proj ect Site, including six of the existing I-10 interchanges in the Coachella Valley. It did not reflect the existing configuration at the Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road inte rchanges or the planned Da Vall Road Interchange to the east of Section 24.

The RMTM was used to develop buildout projections for the 2005 update of the Rancho Mirage General Plan. It was used to model the 15,796 acre s within the City of Rancho Mirage as well as 4,084 acres withi n the Northern Sphere of Influence (SOI) and 1,465 acres within the Southern SOI. Wh ile it included development within the Section 19 Specific Plan area, it did not reflect all of the land uses subsequently approved for the Section 19 Specific Plan in 2009.

In 2009, CVATS was superceded by RivTAM, which is a more sophisticated capacity- restrained gravity flow model, with land uses reflecting Tribal lands and all local general plans and the roadway network in the Circulation Element of the Riverside County General Plan. RivTAM includes regional cumulative develop ment anticipated in the horizon year 2035 per the SCAG 2004 Growth Forecast for six southern California counties.

The RMTM future traffic projections over state the development potential and future traffic volumes that the circulation netwo rk within the City of Rancho Mirage will be required to accommodate from buildout of the uses current ly allowed by the City’s General Plan. As shown in the table below , the 2005 City traffic model evaluated 18 percent more housing, 2 percent more popul ation and 61 percent more employment 12-2175
3 than projected from buildout of the 2005 Rancho Mirage General Plan . By comparison, RivTAM includes 100 percent of the housing and population growth anticipated upon buildout of the 2005 Rancho Mirage General Plan as well as approximately 70 percent of the em ployment antici pated by the 2005 Rancho Mirage General Plan.

Future Growth Projections

Projection Rancho Mirage a SCAG/RIVTAMa City Traffic Modelb General Plan Buildout Evaluated Evaluated

Housing

16,612

16,917

19,522
Population 32,393 32,541 33,130
Employment 25,029 17,249 40,323
a. Source: The Planning Center, Section 19 Specific Plan EIR, May 2009 (page 5.10-13). b. Source: Urban Crossroads; City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Traffic Study , March 2005 (page 3-3.

It should be noted that the RMTM included 4,084 acres no rth of Interstate 10 ( I - 1 0 ) that were 99% vacant and projected to generate 133,134 daily trips, primarily as a result of future employment, most of which was the result of 12,000 future jobs associated with non-residential land uses assumed in this area.

Much of this area will never be developed and ve ry little, if any, of the area north of I-10 is expected to be annexed to the City of Rancho Mirage, based on the current Riverside County LAFCo Spheres of Influence for the Cities of Rancho Mirage and Cathedral City north of the I-10. Approximatel y 1,200 acres of this area is Tribal (Allottee) land. More than 1,500 acres of th is area was subsequently been included in the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Area and other c onservation areas t hat will never be developed. Approximately 591 acres in this area have been annexed to Cathedral City in conjunction wit h the approval of the North City Extended Specific Plan. The land uses for this area are not the same as assumed in the 2005 Rancho Mirage General Plan designations for the Nort hern SOI and will result is s ubstantially less employment, and daily trips, than were assumed in the 2005 RMTM. This assumed future growth is reflected in the higher em ployment projections used in the RMTM and the higher projected traffic volumes on roads in this portion of the City’s planning area.

RivTAM includes 100 percent of the households and population identified to result from buildout of the 2005 Rancho Mirage General Plan. RivTAM al so reflects approximately 70 percent of the employm ent projected for buildout of the 2005 Rancho Mirage General Plan. Since RivTAM is a 20-year horizon model, not a General plan buildout model, it constrained the employment with Rancho Mirage by the year 2035 to reflect the SCAG 2004 Growth Forecast. The SCAG 2012 Growth Forecast currently being used to update RivTAM anticipates 7 to 8 percent less growth than the SCAG 2004 12-2176
4 Growth Forecast and, for this reason, t he estimate of employment growth is conservative, and more up to date and r ealistic than the amount of employment assumed in the 2005 RMTM, which assumed a large amount of employment growth on the City’s SOI area north of the I-10 that will not occur, as discussed above.

The Riverside County Traffic Analysis Mode l (RivTAM) was determined to be the most appropriate model based on the following considerations:

• RivTAM is the approved subregional transportation model that includes socioeconomic data from six counties in Southern California.

• RivTAM provides horizon year 2035 tra ffic projections based on 52 socio- economic input parameters per TAZ, consistent with the 2008 SCAG Travel Demand Model and the SCAG 2004 Growth Forecast.

• RivTAM was approved by Riverside County, RCTC, CVAG, as well as all of the cities in the Coachella Valley and t he Agua Cali ente Band of Cahuilla Indians for use as the s ubregional model fo r the Coachella Valley.

• RivTAM was released in November 2010, updated in Augus t 2013, and is updated periodically as new information is available. The August 2013 version was used to prepare the Section 24 Traffic Impact Study.

• RivTAM superseded the CVATS travel demand model, which is no longer supported by CVAG or SCAG.

The Rancho Mirage Traffic Model (RMTM) was not utilized based on the following considerations, which indicate that this model is not as up to date or accurate as the RivTAM model.

• The RMTM was based on the now outdated CVATS 2030 traffic model, which was never adopted by and is no longer supported by CVAG or SCAG. The CVATS projections were modified in March 2005 to address 2,910 more households, 737 more residents and 15,294 more employment than buildout per the 2005 Rancho Mirage General Plan.

• The RMTM assumptions for the area north of Interstate 10 (within the Northern Sphere of Influence) generated 133,134 daily trips and substantially overstated the future traffic demands that would need to be served by the Rancho Mirage circulation system.

• The RMTM is an older model that does not reflect changes to the circulation system that have occurred since 2005, such as the completion of the improvements to six key I-10 interchanges in this portion of the Coachella Valley, including the final configurati on of the major recent improvements to the Bob Hope Driv e/Ramon Road interchange. For this 12-2177
5 reason, the 2005 City model projected substantially more trips on arterial streets parallel to I-10 such as Ramon Road.

The Section 24 traffic study used RivTAM to develop long-term traffic projections because it incorporates a much larger area, uniforml y addresses all cities and unincorporated Riverside County , incorporates more recent data, and is regularly updated. RivTAM is especially useful for dev elopment in areas in volving multiple jurisdictions.

The socioeconomic data in t he City’s 2005 General Plan, in the General Plan Traffic Model and in RivTAM for the City of Rancho Mirage was reviewed. This review revealed that the RivTAM 2035 growth forecasts in clude 100% of the population and housing growth projected for full buildout of the City’s General Plan. The RivTAM growth forecast includes approximately 70% of the employment growth pr ojected in the City’s 2005 traffic m odel and do not assume developm ent of the 1,500 acres within conservation areas established north of I-10 that will never be developed. This difference partially explains the difference in the future forecasted traffic volumes on Bob Hope Drive, Ramon Road, and Dinah Shore Drive. The other major factor discussed above is that the City’s 2005 model does not reflect the future planned circulation system as accurately as the Riv TAM model. These are the primary reasons why the RivTAM model provides more reliabl e future forecasts that more accurately reflect the likely buildout of the City’s General Plan.

Section 7.2 of the Riverside County TI A Preparation Guide states: “Development proposals that also include a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Zone Change or other approval that increases traffic beyond what was approved in the [County] General Plan will also be required to per form a Build-out Analysis to assess long-term impacts.

This analysis will determine if the Circulation Element of the General Plan is adequate to accommodate projected traffic at the tar get LOS, or if additi onal mitigation is necessary.” Table 2-1 of the traffic study shows t hat the Section 24 Specific Plan would not increase traffic beyond the amount generat ed by the land uses allowed by the Riverside County General Pl an. Therefore, a General Plan buildout analysis is not required to assess long-term impacts. The Section 24 Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study exceeded the traffic modeling requirem ents outlined in Sect ion 8.2 of the Riverside County TIA Preparation Guide.

Section 15130 (b) of the CEQA Guidelin es identify two approaches to produce an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts. The first method involved considering a list of related projects while t he second involves the use of projections in a regional planning document, such as a regional tr ansportation plan. As discussed above, RivTAM is the approved sub-regional transpor tation model that addresses regionwide cumulative development projected for the year 2035 and is consistent with the second method identified in the CEQA Guidelines. The use of RivTAM as the source for the long-term traffic projections in the Section 24 was discussed with City of Rancho Mirage 12-2178
6 staff at a meeting in January 2014 to discuss the methodology and scope of the Section 24 Traffic Study. City staff agreed at this meeting that RivTAM was the most appropriate model to use for this study.

Comment 2 - Insufficient Study Area

The study area limits used by the Endo traffi c study extended 1 mile from the project site. For a project of this size and scope, Mr. Wa ters recommends that the study limits be expanded up to a 5 mile radius that includes all intersections where the project contributes 50 or more peak hour trips as required by River side County. This is typical Riverside County process and has been adhered to by numerous large Specific Plans in the Coachella Valley and elsewhere in the County.

Endo argues that the Riverside County Traffic Study Impact Analysis Preparation Guide requires a buildout analysis for projects that would increase traffic beyond levels associated with the County G eneral Plan, however, this project is decreasing the land use intensity from the Count y Plan and therefore should not be held to the higher standard. Endo argues t hat because significant impacts have not been identified in the intersections studied (within 1 mile), there is no need to analyze more distant intersections. Mr. Waters points out that th e project is using exis ting excess capacity at intersections close to the project, while other intersections further from the site currently operating at, or near, capacity ma y decrease level of service significantly by the added traffic. Mr. Waters i ndicates that large specific plans do in fact require extensive analysis for a large study area up to 5 miles fr om the study site. We anticipate that this may be an issue especially for adjoining municipalities.

Response to Comment 2:

In determining the scope of study, the Riverside County TI A Preparation Guide was reviewed and the scope of the study was di scussed with City staff at the January 9, 2014 traffic scoping study meeting. The proj ect site is located in unincorporated Riverside County. The Riverside County Circulation Element roadway classifications were designed specifically to accommodate t he land uses in the Riverside County Land Use Element. The proposed land uses are cons istent, but less intense than the uses shown in the Riverside County General Plan. Therefore, the project would be using the roadway capacity that was incorporated in the Riverside County Cir culation Element to accommodate the land uses for this site designated in the Land Use Element.

In addition, the City of Rancho Mirage subm itted a letter to dated February 12, 2004 in response to the Notice of Intent to prepare the Section 24 Specific Plan EIS issued by the Tribe that included comments on Trans portation and Traffic. Specifically, these comments recommended that “all intersections and road segmen ts within a mile of the project site should be studied including the impact on the newly constructed Bob Hope freeway bridge and Ramon Road.”

12-2179
7 Specific plans that generate more trips th an the Riverside County General Plan land uses may need improvements beyond the Gener al Plan Circulation Element road classifications and require a larger study area. Similarly, specific plans in undeveloped areas with interim roadway improvements may require a larger study area to evaluate the timing of future roadway widening. In addition, specific plans with rapid development schedules may result in near-term impacts over a larger area and require an extended study area. However, the Sect ion 24 Specific Plan has none of these characteristics.

The proposed Section 24 Specific Plan would gener ate fewer trips than the development that would be a llowed by the Riverside Coun ty General Plan land use designations for Section 24. Most of the streets serving the de velopment are fully widened. The area is centrally located with development in all directions and regional access is provided by I-10. The project will be phased over a long development period with only six percent of the total trip generation occurring by the year 2022, which is the year identified for full develop ment of the active adult resi dential community in Phase I of the project.

At the traffic study scoping meeting held at the Rancho Mirage City offices on January 9, 2014, City staff requested that the study area be expanded to exte nd one mile from the perimeter of the project site and the number of inte rsections studied be expanded from 12 to 17 intersections. The traffic st udy addressed 17 existing and 23 future key intersections, covering the entire study ar ea requested by City st aff. Although project traffic would travel on roadways beyond t he study area, the pot ential incremental contribution of traffic from the Section 24 project to cu mulative impacts on streets outside the study area will be mitigated thr ough payment of TUMF fees, which fund improvements to roads throughout the Coachella Valley, consistent with the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element.

In addition, it should be noted that the study area requested by Rancho Mirage City staff for the Section 24 Traffic Study covers more than three times the area evaluated by the City in the Traffic Impact Study for the Section 19 Specific Plan , even though the two projects would generate simila r amounts of traffic. The Section 19 Specific Plan would generate 75,054 unadjusted weekday trips while the Section 24 Specific Plan would generate 73,890 unadjusted weekday trips. The Traffic Impact Study for the Section 19 Specific Plan evaluated 9 existing and 19 future ke y intersections, none of which were west of Bob Hope Drive, which is the wester n boundary of the Sectio n 19 Specific Plan area. The scope of the Se ction 24 traffic study is consistent with the Riverside County TIA Preparation Guide, addresses the study area requested by the City in January 2014, and is larger and more comprehensive t han the study area the City used in the Section 19 Specific Plan Study for project that generates a similar amount of traffic.

Comment 3 - Lack of Information regarding Cumulative Projects

Endo has relied on the RivTAM model to project City of Palm Desert and Cathedral City traffic for near term cumulative developmen t. It appears that these cities were not contacted. RivTAM input data shall be updated to include known cumulative development, including Specific Plans, in Cathedral City and Palm Desert. 12-2180
8 Response to Comment 3:

At the January 2014 traffic st udy scoping meeting, the City of Rancho Mirage staff identified two near-term cumulative developm ents that were addressed in the traffic study. The year 2022 near-te rm traffic scenario in the Section 24 Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study included these two cumulative proj ects, as well as background traffic growth determined by interpolating between existing and year 2035 tr affic volumes. The traffic impacts from the Section 24 Specific Plan development would be very limited in the year 2022, since the initial phase only represents six percent of the total project trip generation. This initial phase of development reflects the full development of the proposed 320-acre active adult community. For the year 2035 long-term traffic scenario, the Section 24 Specific Pl an Traffic Impact Study used RivTAM to address all cumulative traffic impacts from growth projected throughout si x Southern California counties. All cumulative development through the year 2035 in Rancho Mirage, unincorporated Riverside County, Tribal lands, as well as the neighboring cities was included in RivTAM. As discussed above, t he use of the RivTAM model to assess long- term cumulative impacts is consistent wit h the CEQA Guidelines requirements for analysis of cumulative impacts, and includes the most current and realistic assumptions for cumulative traffic grow th. The amount of development assumed for the year 2035 was identified by each jurisdiction, but constrained by the 2004 SCAG Growth Forecast.

When RivTAM is updated in the near future, the horizon year growth forecast is expected to decrease by approximately seven percent to reflect the slower growth during the recent recession. As a result, the current version of RivTAM provides a conservative estimate of projected growth and likely cumulative traffic impacts from this growth.
12-2181

1 October 6, 2014
Urban Crossroads
(City of Rancho Mirage Traffic Review Consultant)
Comments on the Section 24 Traffic Impact Study

Urban Crossroads Comment 1
No mention is made regarding consistency of the proposed project with the County of Riverside or City of Rancho Mirage General Plan and Zoning. A General Plan amendment (GPA) is required, long range analysis addressing General Plan conditions should be included in the report.

Response to Comment 1
A traffic study scoping meeting was held with the City in January 2014 to discuss the scope and methodology of the traffic study. Based on the discussion at this meeting, it was determined that the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivTAM) model for 2035 was the most appropriate analysis tool, as RivTAM is the most complete, accurate, and up to date growth model available to assess long-term cumulative traffic impacts. The City participated in the development of RivTAM, which was developed for use for transportation planning purposes through Riverside County by all levels of governmental jurisdiction and to assist in determining potential impacts of large development proposals and General Plan land use changes.

The traffic study identifies the land uses allowed by both the County and City General Plans in relation to the uses that would be permitted by the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan. The intensity of the land uses that would be permitted by the Section 24 Specific Plan and the amount of traffic that would be generated is compared to the uses that would be allowed by the City's General Plan and the County General Plan in Table 2-1. While the Section 24 Specific Plan would generate more traffic than the mix of residential and commercial uses allowed by the City's General Plan, the amount of traffic generated by the Section 24 Specific Plan project would be 16.5 percent less than the amount generated by the Riverside County General Plan land use designations for Section 24, and the RivTAM projections reflect the intensity of development allowed by the County General Plan. To evaluate the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in the study area, RivTAM was modified to include socio-economic (SED) data representing full development of the uses that would be permitted by the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan.

As described in further detail below, the SED in RivTAM for the 2035 analysis year in RivTAM was reviewed and compared to the buildout projections in the Rancho Mirage General Plan. Through this review it was determined that the RivTAM 2035 growth projections include over 100% of the population and housing growth in the City's General Plan buildout growth projections and 70% of the projected employment. Through further review of the employment projections in the City’s General Plan and 2005 General Plan Traffic Model it was determined that the General Plan Traffic Model included a large amount of projected employment north of the I- 10 in areas that will not be annexed to the City or developed as assumed in the City’s model. Since the RivTAM projections are consistent with updated SCAG growth forecasts, the RivTAM employment projections for the City are considered to be more up to date and reliable than the projection in the 2005 General Plan. This indicates that the RivTAM model considers appropriate long range analysis for the City of Rancho Mirage and the rest of Riverside County.

Urban Crossroads Review of Response to Comment 1
The comment response suggests repeatedly that the RivTAM data used to evaluate project impacts is similar to or exceeds the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan allowable land use. Table 1 below has been prepared based on the data included in the traffic impact study report (Table 4-5) and data extracted from the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Traffic Study (Urban Crossroads, Inc., 2005). General Plan Traffic Study excerpts 12-2182

2 are included as Attachment B to this letter for ease of reference. Table 1 compares the daily traffic volumes at a limited number of locations in the immediate vicinity of the project site, including 2 locations on Bob Hope Drive and one location each on Dinah Shore Drive and Ramon Road.

Table 1
Volume Comparison

Location 2035 Sect 24 RM GP Buildout Difference % Difference Bob Hope Drive n/o Ramon Road 40,520 67,700 27,180 67%
Bob Hope Drive s/o Ramon Road 37,660 55,300 17,640 47%
Ramon Road w/o Bob Hope Drive 50,Q70 74,800 24,730 49%
Dinah Shore Drive w/o Bob Hope Drive 27,080 49,400 22,320 82%

As shown on Table 1, the Section 24 traffic study 2035 With Project Buildout daily volumes range from 27,080 to 50,070 vehicles per day (VPO), while the General Plan buildout daily traffic volumes range from 49,400 to 74,800 VPD. Further investigation of these large daily volume differences is required to explain how the RivTAM data can be considered representative of buildout traffic conditions in the study area.

Response
The information and assumptions in both the 2005 Rancho Mirage Traffic Model (RMTM) and the current RivTAM model were reviewed to identify the differences that resulted in the differenced in traffic volumes noted in this comment. To clarify the differences in the socioeconomic assumptions between the two models, Table A includes the future growth projections associated with each model. The future population growth, housing forecast, and employment forecast shown in Table A include: (1) buildout of the 2005 Rancho Mirage General Plan, (2) the SCAG Growth Forecast used to develop RivTAM, and (3) the socioeconomic input data used in the 2005 Rancho Mirage General Plan traffic model.

Table A
Future Growth Projections

Projection
Rancho Mirage
a

General Plan Buildout
SCAG/RivTAM
a

Evaluated
City Traffic Model
b

Evaluated

Housing

16,612 16,917 19,522
Population 32,393 32,541 33,130
Employment 25,029 17,249 40,323
a. Source: The Planning Center, Section 19 Specific Plan EIR, May 2009 (page 5.10-13). b. Source: Urban Crossroads; City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Traffic Study , March 2005 (page 3-3.

As shown in Table A, the 2005 City traffic model evaluated 18 percent more housing, 2 percent more population and 61 percent more employment than anticipated upon buildout of the 2005 Rancho Mirage General Plan . By comparison, RivTAM included all of the housing and population growth projected for full development of the uses allowed by 2005 Rancho Mirage General Plan as well as approximately 70 percent of the projected employment.

The higher employment number in the RMTM results primarily appears to result from the City’s model evaluating 4,084 acres north of Interstate 10 that were 99% vacant and projected to generate 133,134 daily trips, primarily as a result of future employment. This area was in the City’s Sphere of Influence in 2005. Much of this area will never be developed and very little, if any, of the area north of I-10 is now expected to be 12-2183

3 annexed to the City of Rancho Mirage. Approximately 1,200 acres of this area is Aqua Caliente Tribal (Allottee) land. More than 1,500 acres of this area was subsequently included in the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Area and other conservation areas that will never be developed. Approximately 591 acres in this area has been annexed to Cathedral City in conjunction with the approval of the North City Extended Specific Plan. The future employment modeled for this area by the RMTM substantially increased the future traffic generation loading on the circulation network in this area and partially explains the discrepancies in the future projections between RivTAM and the RMTM.

The differences in the traffic volumes shown in Table 1 do not necessarily result only from the difference in the employment levels for the City of Rancho Mirage in RMTM and RivTAM. The RMTM is an older model that does not reflect changes to the circulation system that have occurred since 2005, such as the completion of the improvements to six key I-10 interchanges in this portion of the Coachella Valley, including the final configuration of the major recent improvements to the Bob Hope Drive/Ramon Road interchange. For this reason, the 2005 City model retained more trips on arterial streets parallel to Interstate 10 such as Ramon Road. The RMTM did not consider the same planned future circulation improvements that are included in the more up to date RivTAM model. For example, the RMTM did not include the Da Vall Drive interchange, which is now included in the Riverside County General Plan and the Cathedral City General Plan. Three of the four future traffic projections shown in Table 1 are for roadways in the immediate vicinity of the recent Interstate 10 interchange modifications at Bob Hope Drive/Ramon Road, and would have higher projected traffic in the RMTM as a result.

The employment growth assumed in the RMTM for the area north of I-10 exceeded the future increase in employment assumed for the entire City. This difference partially explains the difference in the future forecasted traffic volumes on Bob Hope Drive, Ramon Road, and Dinah Shore Drive. The other major factor discussed above is that the City’s 2005 model does not reflect the future planned circulation system as accurately as the RivTAM model. These are the primary reasons why the RivTAM model provides more reliable future forecasts that more accurately reflect the likely buildout of the City’s General Plan than the RMTM.

Table 2-1 of the Section 24 Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study shows the type and intensity of land uses that would be allowed by the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan in relation to both the adopted Riverside County General Plan and the 2005 Rancho Mirage General Plan. The land uses allowed for the site by the current County of Riverside General Plan would be more intense than would be allowed by the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan. The land use designations for the site shown in the 2005 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan would be less intense than the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan land uses. The RivTAM SED for the project site were modified to reflect buildout of the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan land uses.

The Riverside County TIA Preparation Guide (Section 7.2) states: “Development proposals that also include a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Zone Change or other approval that increases traffic beyond what was approved in the General Plan will also be required to perform a Build-out Analysis to assess long-term impacts”. The Section 24 Specific Plan is located within unincorporated Riverside County and would not increase traffic beyond what was approved in the Riverside County General Plan. Consequently, a General Plan buildout analysis is not required to assess long-term impacts of the proposed project under the standard in the Riverside County TIA Preparation Guide.

The Riverside County Travel Demand Model Socio-Economic Data (SED) inputs were developed based on the Riverside County Projections 2006 (RCP-06) approved by CVAG on January 29, 2007. Population and housing growth was allocated to each partial census tract based on the overall county growth trend, the land use, specific plan, general plan, zoning, and most recently adopted SCAG growth forecast distribution. The RivTAM model future SED input for year 2035 development throughout the City Rancho Mirage was developed for Riverside County through coordination with City representatives, based on the 2005 Rancho Mirage General 12-2184

4 Plan. That data was reviewed and approved by the City of Rancho Mirage, as was RivTAM. As discussed above, RivTAM includes 100% of the population and housing growth identified in the City’s General Plan and a more updated and realistic projection of the amount of employment that would be generated by the City’s General Plan.

For these reasons, RivTAM provides the most reliable forecasts of traffic from projected future growth in the area, including the growth permitted by the City’s 2005 General Plan.

Urban Crossroads Comment 2
The project vicinity map presents numerous planned developments, including the North City Specific Plan, the North City Extended Specific Plan, the Section 13 Specific Plan, and the Section 19 Specific Plan. Further discussion of the near term development potential for these planned developments shall be included in the traffic study report.

Response to Comment 2
Additional discussion of the status of these projects has been be added to the traffic study. Near-term development is not anticipated in any of these areas. Please note that City of Rancho Mirage General Plan land use designation for Section 13 requires that a specific plan be approved prior to development of this area. No application for approval of a specific plan has been submitted to the City of Rancho Mirage.

The City of Rancho Mirage has also not received any applications for development projects in Section 19 and the City of Cathedral City has also not received any applications for development projects in the North City or North City Extended Specific Plan Areas located north of the I-10.

The near-term and long-term cumulative developments are discussed on pages 3-3 to 3-5. The traffic study included all known near-term cumulative projects within the study area. As discussed above, the other major specific plan projects in the vicinity of Section 24 are not anticipated to result in near-term growth.

These other specific plan projects will result in long-term growth. The RivTAM 2035 projections were used to evaluate future cumulative impacts from projections of long-term development and growth throughout the Coachella Valley and Southern California.

Urban Crossroads Review of Response to Comment 2
The response notes that the RivTAM 2035 projections were used to evaluate future cumulative impacts from projections of long-term development and growth throughout the Coachella Valley and Southern California. It is necessary to demonstrate that the RivTAM represents buildout of the known cumulative development Specific Plans in the vicinity of the proposed project to ensure th at roadways are properly sized to serve ultimate travel demand in the study area.

Response
As stated in the traffic study, RivTAM is the approved subregional travel demand model developed by Riverside County for use by local jurisdictions to evaluate cumulative traffic impacts. RivTAM provides the best projections available of cumulative traffic volumes for the year 2035, which was evaluated as the project buildout year.

RivTAM is a 20-year planning horizon model developed to forecast year 2035 traffic volumes. The traffic study evaluating the Section 24 Specific Plan evaluated a proposed development within Riverside County that would be consistent with the Riverside County General Plan and, for this reason, does not require a General Plan buildout analysis. No further analysis of long-term cumulative traffic impacts is required under CEQA for a project that is consistent with the general plan as the cumulative impact was adequately addressed in the previously certified EIR for the Riverside County General Plan. Per the CEQA Guidelines, a project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact is rendered less than cumulatively considerable, and thus not 12-2185

5 significant, if the project funds its fair share of the mitigation designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. The future developments within the Section 24 Specific Plan will pay their fair share of the cost of mitigation through the contribution of fees equivalent to those required by participation in the TUMF program, which funds the improvements to the regional arterial roadway system required to accommodate planned land uses, including the development of the uses allowed by the Riverside County General Plan and other jurisdictions as reflected in RivTAM.

Urban Crossroads Comment 3
The project description section of the report presents trip generation totals and comparisons for and to the Riverside County General Plan and the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan that are insufficiently detailed to verify the basis for the data presented. The basis of these trip generation figures needs to be presented in the report. For instance, the report appears to allocate the "High Density Residential” use for Rancho Mirage to multi-family development. The maximum allowable density for this use is 9 dwelling units per acre, which corresponds to single-family detached residential development.

Response to Comment 3
Footnotes a-f to Table 2-1on page 2-4 of the Project Description section present detailed information on the assumptions used to develop the trip generation estimates in this table. Only assumptions documented in the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan EIR, and the Riverside County Integrated Plan (General Plan) assumptions used in the RivTAM were used to develop Table 2-1. The City of Rancho Mirage General Plan High Density Residential land use designation allows 5 to 9 dwelling units per acre. Although this designation was generally assumed to result in approximately 50 per cent single-family residential and 50 percent multiple- family residential for in Rancho Mirage General Plan Updat e traffic model, the area with this designation within the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) that includes the project site, was assumed to be all multiple family residential.

Urban Crossroads Review of Response to Comment 3
Based on the response, it appears that the traffic study is only entitling multiple family residential dwelling units within the project site. Please confirm that this is the intent.

Response
As shown in Table 2-1 of the traffic study, the project includes both non-residential and residential land uses.

The 2005 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan designates the 39 acres of Section 24 located adjacent to the intersection of Los Alamos Road and Ramon Road as High Density Residential, a land use designation that would allow the 351 multiple-family residential units identified in Table 2-1. The traffic study includes a detailed description of the land uses proposed in the Section 24 Specific Plan. The Initial Phase would include only single-family dwelling units in the 320 acres proposed for development as an Active Adult (age restricted) Community.

Urban Crossroads Comment 4
The "Consistency with General Plan Land Use Designations" section of the report concludes by stating that the project would generate substantially more non-residential trips than would be allowed under the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, suggesting that a General Plan buildout analysis shall be (and is not) included in the report. This is also supported by Table 2-1, which indicates that the proposed project would generate 73,890 daily trips, compared to 48,780 daily trips for the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan.

Response to Comment 4
The traffic study included a project buildout analysis prepared in accordance with the methodology in the Riverside County TIA Preparation Guide, which states that project buildout analysis should be conducted using an approved model. This Guide states that if a proposed project is large enough to have the potential to create impacts significantly greater than the Riverside County General Plan land uses, additional modeling may be 12-2186

6 required. As described above, the Section 24 Specific Plan project will generate less traffic than the uses allowed by the County General Plan land use designations. Nonetheless, due to the size of the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan Project, additional modeling was completed using RivTAM to analyze the impacts of the project. The proposed land uses were added to the RivTAM model and the results from this additional modeling were used in the analysis.

Examination of the 2035 socio-economic data (SED) in RivTAM showed that the level of growth for Rancho Mirage in these projections equates to 100% of the City 's General Plan buildout projections for both population and housing and 70% of the employment projection. The RivTAM employment forecast, which is based on more recent SCAG growth forecasts, is more up to date and reliable than the employment projection in the City’s 2005 General Plan. In this regard the RivTAM 2035 growth projections are generally representative of buildout of the City's General Plan.

Urban Crossroads Review of Response to Comment 4
For purposes of modeling General Plan buildout conditions, it is typically necessary to update the RivTAM data to reflect General Plan buildout throughout the jurisdiction under consideration. A recent example is the General Plan traffic study performed for the City of Coachella. The proximity of the proposed project to the City of Rancho Mirage boundary with adjacent jurisdictions indicates the need to ensure that buildout of vacant land in the adjacent areas is also considered.

The tables that are attached to the response to comments document do not include any information related to employment. The majority of the development potential in the City of Rancho Mirage is non-residential.

Therefore, employment data is critical to assessing the adequacy of the traffic impact study.

Response
As discussed above, further review of the RivTAM SED indicates that the model includes approximately 70% of the employment projection in the City’s 2005 General Plan. The RivTAM employment forecast reflects the SCAG 2004 Growth Forecast for the horizon year 2035 and is more up to date and reliable than the employment projection in the City’s 2005 General Plan. Each local jurisdiction, including the City of Rancho Mirage, provided employment, housing, and population data based on their General Plans for incorporation in RivTAM. Only the employment data reflecting buildout of the Section 24 Specific Plan site was modified in RivTAM, as documented in the traffic study appendix. Table 2-1 of the traffic study includes the employment associated with the proposed project as well as the land uses designated in the City and County General Plan for the project site.

The 2005 Rancho Mirage General Plan includes approximately 3,200 jobs for the 75 acres designated C-C within the project site plus the 36 acres designated Rest-H occupied by the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa.

The maximum employment for the project site under the City General Plan would include 2,287 jobs (based on an assumed FAR of 0.35). The proposed project would have an employment of 6,277 jobs upon project buildout.

The RMTM assumed employment of 40,323 in the City’s Planning Area, which exceeds by 61 percent the 25,029 employment projection in the 2005 Rancho Mirage General Plan. The employment assumed in the RMTM included buildout of the Northern and Southern Sphere of Influence areas as defined in the City’s General Plan. The development of 4,084 acres north of Interstate 10 was assumed to generate a future employment in excess of 12,000. Much of the area north of I-10 (approximately 1,500 acres) has been included in conservation areas that will never be developed. Cathedral City also annexed 591 acres of this area. It is unlikely that any of the remaining area north of I-10 will be annexed to the City of Rancho Mirage. The potential for the remaining developable area north of I-10 to generate 133,134 trips, as forecast by the RMTM, is very remote.
12-2187

7 As stated above, the RivTAM employment forecast, which is based on recent SCAG growth forecasts, is more up to date and reliable than the employment projection in the City’s 2005 General Plan. In this regard the RivTAM 2035 growth projections are generally representative of buildout of the City's General Plan.

Urban Crossroads Comment 5
Study area limits for traffic studies prepared in the County of Riverside generally adhere to the requirements of Riverside County and include all intersections within a five (5) mile radius of the project where the project contributes 50 or more peak hour trips. Why was this not performed?

Response to Comment 5
The Riverside County Transportation Department TIA Preparation Guide requires a buildout analysis for all General Plan Amendments and Specific Plans that would increase the amount of traffic generated beyond the amount that would be generated by the land uses allowed by the Riverside County General Plan assumed in RivTAM. If the Section 24 Specific Plan would generate more traffic than the uses allowed by the Riverside County General Plan then the study area would need to be large enough to determine if the General Plan circulation network could support the travel demands generated by the proposed land uses. However, as discussed above, the land uses included in the Section 24 Specific Plan represent a decrease in the land use intensity when compared to the Riverside County General Plan and would result in approximately 16.5 percent fewer weekday trips than the land uses allowed by the Riverside County General Plan. Therefore, the Section 24 Specific Plan should not result in traffic impacts that would require circulation network improvements beyond those already considered in RivTAM based on the County General Plan land use designations for the site.

The City of Rancho Mirage generally examines intersections within one mile of a site and, in this case, the City reviewed the scope of this traffic study and all intersections identified by the City were analyzed.

The scope of the traffic impact analysis in the traffic study was determined based on a review of initial RivTAM model runs, which were reviewed to determine the amount of traffic the project contributed in relation to the capacity of the regional roads and intersections analyzed in the model. Most of the roadways serving the Project Site are high-volume regional arterial streets. Except for the proposed site access intersections, most of the intersections near the Project Site are fully improved to General Plan standards.

In addition, the study area for the traffic study was developed in response to comments from the City of Rancho Mirage provided in a letter to dated February 12, 2004 submitted in response to the Notice of Intent to prepare the Section 24 Specific Plan EIS issued by the Tribe that included comments on Transportation and Traffic.

Specifically, these comments recommended that “all intersections and road segments within a mile of the project site should be studied including the impact on the newly constructed Bob Hope freeway bridge and Ramon Road.”

City staff requested that the study area be expanded to extend one mile from the perimeter of the project site and the number of intersections studied be expanded from 12 to 17 intersections. The traffic study addressed 17 existing and 23 future key intersections, covering the entire study area requested by City staff. Although project traffic would travel on roadways beyond the study area, the potential incremental contribution of traffic from the Section 24 project to cumulative impacts on streets outside the study area will be mitigated through payment of TUMF fees, which fund improvements to roads throughout the Coachella Valley.

The developers of future projects within the Section 24 Specific Plan will improve the site access intersections and make contributions equivalent to the CVAG TUMF prior to the issuance of building permits. These funds will be used to fund regional transportation improvements, including future improvements to the regional road network to accommodate the traffic volumes identified in the RivTAM traffic model. The traffic study identified that the Section 24 Project would not result in significant impacts to the major arterial intersections analyzed. As 12-2188

8 these are the intersections that would be most impacted by the Project, examination of more distant intersections is not necessary as the proposed project has a very long development horizon and may not be completed for fifty years. Any analysis of distant intersections that far in the future would, at best, be speculative. Future traffic volumes at these intersections will depend on the density and intensity actually achieved within the site as well as on all undeveloped land in the surrounding areas. Many variables could change the trip generation of the land uses in the area over time such as the price of gasoline, and the availability of public transportation, and the future Jobs/Housing balance would not result in significant impacts at these intersections.

Urban Crossroads Review of Response to Comment 5
The project site is currently vacant. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines require the evaluation of project impacts compared to the existing (vacant) condition. Large Specific Plans do in fact require extensive analysis for a large study area extending up to (and in some cases beyond) five miles from the project site. A relatively recent example is the Travertine Point Specific Plan project located in the eastern Coachella Valley.

Response
As required by the CEQA, the traffic study includes a detailed evaluation of existing and existing plus project conditions, as well as near-term conditions (including specific cumulative developments) and project buildout conditions. The project buildout analysis included the use of the adopted subregional transportation model to forecast the growth in background traffic associated with cumulative development throughout the Coachella Valley for the horizon year 2035.

Proposed specific plan projects that would increase the intensity of future development within a site and generate more trips than anticipated by the Riverside County General Plan land use designations may require transportation improvements beyond the General Plan Circula tion Element classifications and justify a larger study area. Similarly, specific plans in undeveloped areas with interim roadway improvements may require a larger study area to evaluate the timing of future roadway widening. Specific plans with rapid development schedules may result in near-term impacts over a larger area and require an extended study area. The proposed Section 24 Specific Plan has none of these characteristics. The proposed land uses would generate less traffic than anticipated in the Riverside County General Plan. Most of the streets serving the development have already been widened by others and have the available capacity to accommodate the proposed Initial Phase of development without improvements other than proposed for site access. The area is centrally located in the Coachella Valley and regional access is provided by I-10. The project would be constructed over a long development period with only six percent of the total trip generation occurring by the year 2022.

The study area was based on the guidance provided in the Riverside County TIA Preparation Guide and coordination with the City of Rancho Mirage, prior to the initiation of the traffic study. The project site is in unincorporated Riverside County and the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element roadway classifications were established to be consistent with the land uses in the Land Use Element of the Riverside County General Plan. The proposed land uses are consistent, and less intense than the uses shown in the Riverside County General Plan. The future travel demands associated with the land uses in the Riverside County General Plan have been evaluated in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan EIR. In addition, as discussed above, the RivTAM reflects the growth permitted by the City’s General Plan as well as the General Plans of other jurisdictions in the County, including the City of Rancho Mirage. For these reasons, the future transportation system required to accommodate those travel demands is shown in the Circulation Element of the Riverside County General Plan and not re flected in RivTAM. The RivTAM forecasts are also used as the basis for the Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Program administered by the Coachella Valley 12-2189

9 Association of Governments, which allocates funding fo r improvements to regional arterial roadways from the TUMF program and Measure A, the sales tax initiative approved by Riverside County voters to fund transportation system improvements through the year 2039.

Urban Crossroads Comment 6
The area conditions section indicates that only the City of Rancho Mirage was contacted regarding potential near term cumulative development. The Cities of Palm Desert and Cathedral City are located in close proximity to the project site and should have also been contacted. Why not?

Response to Comment 6
The City of Rancho Mirage was contacted regarding the potential for near-term cumulative development within the study area, and cumulative development from the Cities of Palm Desert and Cathedral City was addressed by the projected increase in through traffic volumes on the roadways studied in the RivTAM growth projections.

Both the near-term and horizon year scenarios included cumulative traffic from the Cities of Palm Desert and Cathedral City based on RivTAM projections.

Urban Crossroads Review of Response to Comment 6
The response to this comment suggests that nearby cumulative development was adequately addressed in the traffic impact study report. This statement cannot be verified in the absence of a list of known cumulative projects from the adjacent jurisdictions.

Response
The City of Rancho Mirage identified two near-term cumulative development projects that were addressed in the traffic study. The year 2022 near-term traffic scenario in the Section 24 Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study included these two cumulative projects, as well as background traffic growth determined by interpolating between existing and year 2035 traffic volumes developed using RivTAM. The traffic impacts from the Section 24 Specific Plan development would be very limited in the year 2022, since the Initial Phase would generate only six percent of the total project-related trip generation. For the horizon year 2035 traffic scenario, the Section 24 Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study used RivTAM to address all cumulative traffic demands associated with development throughout six Southern California counties. RivTAM was developed for use by local jurisdictions and planning agencies in evaluating cumulative development expected to occur by the year 2035 in Rancho Mirage, unincorporated Riverside County, Tribal lands, as well as the neighboring cities.

Urban Crossroads Comment 7
The traffic study (pg. 3-4) identifies the Riverside Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM) as the basis for establishing project buildout (full occupancy) horizon year conditions. This is appropriate for valuating project buildout impacts, but does not address overall General Plan buildout conditions and transportation infrastructure needs in the study area. The report shall address General Plan buildout conditions and transportation infrastructure needs in the study area.

Response to Comment 7
The Section 24 Specific Plan Traffic Study uses the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivTAM) model to evaluate the horizon year 2035. The City participated in the development of RivTAM, which was developed for use for transportation planning purposes through Riverside County by all levels of governmental jurisdiction and by private entities and to assist in determining the potential impacts of large development proposals and General Plan land use changes. As described in the 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Plan, the RivTAM model is based on the SCAG 2008 model (which was updated to include new growth forecasts for the Year 2035) with refinements to reflect local conditions within Riverside County. The RivTAM model is more current than the RMTM and the Coachella Valley Area Traffic Study (CVATS) model, more current than the SCAG Regional Transportation M odel, and incorporates the best available growth 12-2190

10 forecasts, taking into account both existing and planned land uses and demographic projections. For these reasons, RivTAM is the most complete and accurate growth model available to assess the long-term cumulative traffic impacts of uses allowed by the City's General Plan.

Urban Crossroads Review of Response to Comment 7
As discussed in the response to Comment 4 and the review of this response, it is acknowledged that modifications to the RivTAM input data are necessary to accurately represent General Plan buildout conditions.

Based on the traffic volume comparison previously presented in this review letter, it does not appear that General Plan buildout conditions are adequately represented.

Response
As discussed above and summarized below, RivTAM does reflect the growth allowed by the City’s General Plan. Since the project is consistent with the Riverside County General Plan, no General Plan buildout analysis is required. RivTAM is not a General Plan buildout model, but rather a 20-year planning horizon model. As discussed above, the RivTAM 2035 projections reflect all of the population and housing anticipated by the City’s General Plan and includes future employment based upon the SCAG 2004 Growth Forecast. Since the RivTAM projections are consistent with updated SCAG growth forecasts, the RivTAM employment projections for the City are considered to be more up to date and reliable than the projection in the 2005 General Plan, which as discussed above, assume more employment will be generated in the City’s Sphere of Influence than is now anticipated.

The Riverside County General Plan includes a Land Use Element and Circulation Element. The proposed project is consistent with both the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element. The Riverside County General Plan roadway network and City of Rancho Mirage General Plan roadway network would be adequate to provide acceptable levels of service upon buildout of the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan Project as well as the residential and population growth anticipated by the City’s General Plan and 70 percent of the City General Plan employment growth. The traffic model was not modified to be a Rancho Mirage General Plan buildout model and the horizon year 2035 traffic projections developed are not intended for use in updating the Rancho Mirage General Plan.

Urban Crossroads Comment 8
The report (pg. 3-4) discusses various Specific Plan developments in this section of the report. The report shall discuss whether these developments are adequately represented in the RivTAM forecasting tool. If they are not adequately represented, additional analysis should be completed that includes these known cumulative developments to adequately address overall long term transportation infrastructure requirements in the study area.

Response to Comment 8
The Section 19 Specific Plan in Rancho Mirage and the North City and North City Extended Specific Plans in Cathedral City are large specific plan areas that will be developed over decades in response to market conditions. As mentioned above, no specific plan has been proposed yet for Section 13. The latest version of RivTAM was obtained from Riverside County at the start of the traffic study in August 2013. RivTAM was developed to be the source of future travel demand estimates for use in Federal and California environmental documents. RivTAM is periodically modified to be consistent with the most recent SCAG Growth Forecast. The demographic assumptions in the traffic analysis zones containing Section 13 and Section 19 Specific Plans were reviewed with the City and determined to be sufficient for the purposes of analyzing potential cumulative impacts in this study as RivTAM is based on adopted local and regional growth projections through the year 2035 and based on review of the SED in RivTAM, this model reflects the growth allowed by both the City and County General Plans.

12-2191

11 Urban Crossroads Review of Response to Comment 8
A quantitative comparison of the RivTAM data and the buildout potential of the various Specific Plans is necessary to assess the validity of this response.

Response
Riverside County requires projects that propose an increase in the currently approved density and intensity land use to evaluate the long-term impacts of the project to demonstrate that the planned roadway system can support the proposed project and those land uses already allowed in the area. Since the proposed project would not increase the currently intensity of land uses allowed by the Riverside County General Plan, this long- term buildout analysis is not required.

RivTAM was developed by Riverside County with input from all local jurisdictions and to provide horizon year 2035 travel demand estimates for use in environmental documents. RivTAM represents the best available source for cumulative traffic projections from future development throughout six Southern California counties as it reflects regional growth forecasts from SCAG . The latest available RivTAM update (August 2013) was obtained from Riverside County immediately prior to the initiation of the traffic study. RivTAM includes that portion of the other Specific Plans projected to be developed by the year 2035, based on local projections and the SCAG 2004 Growth Forecast.

Urban Crossroads Comment 9
Chapter 4 of the report begins with a discussion of the use of a 20 year time frame for analysis purposes.

Although appropriate for evaluating off-site project impacts, it is important to recognize the buildout infrastructure requirements of the transportation system and ensure that adequate right of way is allocated and that the development project constructs appropriate on-site improvements in accordance with the subdivision map act.

Response to Comment 9
As discussed above, the best long range forecasting tool available for analysis of traffic impacts is the RivTAM 2035 model, which is the basis of the 20-year timeframe mentioned in this comment. The project land uses were added to the model to verify that the City's General Plan Circulation Element street sections were adequate to accommodate the traffic from the Section 24 project. The analysis determined the City's General Plan circulation system can accommodate the traffic from the Section 24 project and the project will dedicate the ROW to develop the adjacent streets consistent with the City's Circulation Element.

As discussed above, Table 2-1 in the traffic study shows the Section 24 Specific Plan would generate less traffic than buildout of the site under the Riverside County General Plan. The roadways as planned in the County Circulation Element and City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Element would, therefore, provide acceptable levels of service with the addition of traffic from the Section 24 Specific Plan.

Urban Crossroads Review of Response to Comment 9
Please refer to previous review of Responses 1, 2, 4 and 7.

Response
Future traffic conditions at the theoretical build out of Riverside County (including a cumulative analysis of buildout of the cities within the County) were analyzed previously when the proposed General Plan build out circulation system and Circulation Element were adopted in conjunction with the Riverside County General Plan. The comprehensive planned roadway system for Riverside County described in the Circulation Element was evaluated to ensure adequate roadway rights-of-way within the unincorporated territory as needed to enhance the arterial network to respond to anticipated growth and mobility needs. The LOS thresholds and analyses in the EIR addressed segment-level operations to identify deficiencies on the roadway system at build 12-2192

12 out and provide for future expansion and improvements based upon travel demand. The certified EIR for the Riverside County General Plan analyzed the overall adequacy of the proposed roadway and highway system in the Circulation Element. Since the proposed project would generate less traffic than the land use designations for the site in the Riverside County General Plan and, as discussed in detail above, RivTAM also reflects the growth allowed by the City’s General Plan, the transportation system would be adequate and sufficient right-of- way to accommodate future transportation improvements shall be dedicated, as appropriate.

In Riverside County, any individual development project ma y be required to provide a traffic analysis to assess peak hour impacts at affected intersections to identify needed mitigation measures to achieve or maintain the target level of service. This ensures that individual development projects do not create bottlenecks at the intersections of the roadway system whose roadway widths and rights-of-way were previously examined as part of the General Plan and its environmental analysis. The Section 24 Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study assessed the peak hour impacts at intersections identified for study by the Tribe and the City of Rancho Mirage based upon their familiarity with conditions within the study area.

Urban Crossroads Comment 10
The report discusses the unique peaking characteristics associated with various land uses within the study area. The report also notes the likelihood that the proposed senior adult residential uses would generate traffic during unique time frames (other than the typical AM and PM peak hour peaks of commuter traffic). The study shall therefore include analysis of additional time frames at intersections located in close proximity to uses that generate unusual peak conditions (e.g., schools).

Response to Comment 10
The intersection of Rattler Road and Ramon Road was studied in the Section 24 Traffic Study to address the potential for impacts associated with traffic from Rancho Mirage High School. Pedestrian and motor vehicle volumes were counted at this intersection during the hours of 2 PM to 4 PM to include the peak exiting traffic from the high school. As shown in Table S-7, this intersection was projected to operate at LOS A with the critical movements using 49 percent of the intersection capacity. The addition of Phase 1 of the project utilized approximately one percent of the intersection capacity.

As shown in Table 5-7 of the traffic study, the first phase of the Section 24 Project, which consists of the Active Adult residential housing generated traffic that would utilize up to 2 percent of the capacity at any off-site intersections with existing off-site lane configurations. With a maximum volume-to-capacity of 84 percent, none of the off-site key intersections were close to requiring mitigation with year 2022+Phase 1traffic volumes. Even with higher off-peak traffic generation from the senior housing development, none of the off-site key intersections would require mitigation, especially with the reduced commuter travel during these off-peak hours.

Review of Response to Comment 10
The discussion of the measures taken to ensure that local peak conditions related to schools presented in the response should be incorporated into the environmental documentation to clearly document the defensibility of the document.

Response
All of the information provided above in the response to this comment is included in the traffic study. Details regarding the traffic counts are discussed in the baseline and impact sections and the count locations and actual count data are included in Appendix 1 of the traffic study. A detailed discussion of the time periods selected for analysis is provided on pages 4-1 and 4-2 of the traffic study. The potential impacts of the residential community designed for active seniors are addressed separately as the Initial Phase and shown in the peak hour intersection level of service analysis. The number of trips generated by the Initial Phase would represent only six percent of the trips generated upon project build out. 12-2193

13 Urban Crossroads Comment 11
The report (pg. 4-2) includes a section describing the "Horizon Years and Development Scenarios Evaluated".

Given the increase of trips compared to the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, additional analyses addressing General Plan buildout conditions shall be included in the analysis.

Response to Comment 11
As discussed above in detail, the RivTAM model was determined to be the best analysis tool available to consider long term cumulative impacts, including the growth allowed by the City's General Plan.

Urban Crossroads Review of Response to Comment 11
Please refer to previous review of Responses 1, 2, 4, and 7. The response requires further investigation and documentation to verify defensibility.

Response
Please refer to earlier responses, especially the response to comment 5. A General Plan buildout analysis is not required because the project is located in Riverside County and consistent with the Riverside County General Plan. In addition, as discussed above, RivTAM 2035 growth forecasts include all of the population and housing growth identified in the City’s General Plan and an updated employment projection.

Urban Crossroads Comment 12
Trip generation assumptions and estimates presented in the traffic study report (pp. 4-4 through 4-7) have been reviewed. Additional data pertaining to the land use categories and trip rates used in the analysis shall be presented in the report. Only summary information is presented, which is inadequate to determine the accuracy and defensibility of the traffic study assumptions.

Response to Comment 12
The footnotes to Table 4-1 identify the land use codes used. The trip generation estimates in this table were developed from the regression equations and weighted average rates (when appropriate) in the ITE Trip Generation Manual as described in the text on pages 4-3 to 4-7.

Urban Crossroads Review of Response to Comment 12
The response to comment 14 refers to very detailed adjustments reflecting the on-site circulation and numerous site access points. This detailed information and the resulting adjustments should be included in traffic study report.

Response
The traffic study includes five tables, twelve figures, and seven pages of narrative detailing the trip generation forecast and the methodology utilized to develop the site traffic volumes at the site access points. Appendix 2 provides a map of the RivTAM TAZs and includes t he modifications made to the RivTAM SED and circulation network. This documentation is extensive and adequate to justify the assumptions made. The RivTAM modifications were all made by an approved Riverside County consultant, in accordance with the County’s procedures for use of the RivTAM model. Endo Engineering does not have direct access to RivTAM and requested no modifications other than the correction of obvious deficiencies, as documented in Appendix 2 of the traffic study.

Urban Crossroads Comment 13
Using the standard Riverside County criteria of 50 peak hour trips representing the threshold for requiring peak hour intersection analysis, the project impacts shall be evaluated at all intersections within a five mile radius where the project trip distribution is higher than 0.7%.

12-2194

14 Response to Comment 13
As discussed above the scope of the traffic impact analysis was determined based on a review of initial RivTAM model runs and consultation with the City to include all intersections where the proposed Project would be likely to result in any potentially significant impacts. As the Project did not result in significant impacts at the study intersections, analysis of more distant intersections is not warranted or necessary to determine the impacts of the Project.

Urban Crossroads Review of Response to Comment 13
The project is located in a relatively undeveloped area of the City of Rancho Mirage. It is inaccurate to assume that more distant intersections in more developed areas of Rancho Mirage and the adjacent jurisdictions are not nearing capacity and will not be potentially impacted by the proposed project.

Response
It should be noted that the Section 24 Specific Plan area is not located within the City of Rancho Mirage. It is located entirely within unincorporated Riverside County territory. As discussed above, the Tribe has the discretionary authority to determine the scope of the traffic study, the study area, the key intersections to be evaluated, and the scenarios to be analyzed. Prior to the preparation of the traffic study, the guidelines in the Riverside County TIA Preparation Guide were carefully considered and coordination with the City of Rancho Mirage was undertaken and consensus was achieved at that meeting. The traffic study reflects that consensus in that it utilized RivTAM to develop the future traffic projections for the year 2035, expanded the study area as requested by City of Rancho Mirage staff, evaluated the additional key intersections requested, and included two near-term cumulative developments identified by City representatives.

Future individual development projects within the Section 24 Specific Plan area will contribute on a fair-share basis to the cost of mitigating any potential incremental regional traffic impacts by contributing impact fees equivalent to those required by the TUMF program. These contributions will be made prior to the issuance of building permits.

The Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element roadway classifications were established to accommodate the land uses in the Land Use Element, which are similar to but more intense than the proposed project. Since the proposed land uses are consistent with, and less intense than the uses shown in the Riverside County General Plan, the study area extends over an area of 7.5 square miles and includes 23 key intersections (including intersections in Cathedral City and Palm Desert as well as Rancho Mirage and unincorporated Riverside County). The future travel demands associated with the land uses in the Riverside County General Plan have been evaluated in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan EIR. The future transportation system required to accommodate those travel demands is shown in the Circulation Element of the Riverside County General Plan.

Urban Crossroads Comment 14
The project trip distribution discussion appears to be primarily based on the CVAG 2004 Origin Destination survey. Data from the RivTAM forecasting tool shall also be included in the traffic study report. RivTAM is based on a calibration to conditions more recent (2008) than the CVAG study.

Response to Comment 14
Although the CVAG 2004 Origin Destination Survey was used to develop RivTAM, the RivTAM projections were used as the basis for impact analysis of future conditions. The trip distribution was verified by the traffic counts at the key intersections. The proposed Section 24 Specific Plan Project includes seventeen access points with different components of the project sharing the access locations. The project traffic distribution was adjusted to reflect the detailed access and internal circulation plan associated with proposed project.

12-2195

15 Urban Crossroads Review of Response to Comment 14
This additional information regarding how the project trip distribution was developed should be included in the traffic study report to enhance defensibility.

Response
No RivTAM calibrations were modified. The intent was to avoid making modifications beyond the project boundaries to maintain consistency with the approved subregional travel demand model.

Urban Crossroads Comment 15
Standard accepted practice is to evaluate project impacts at all intersections within a five (5) mile radius of the project where the project contributes more than SO peak hour trips. This corresponds to less than 1% of the project traffic as presented in the report for adjusted project trip generation.

The study area must be expanded in accordance with this criterion to ensure defensibility. The trip distribution is substantially higher than 1% at the edges of the study area on the 1-10 Freeway to the northwest (9.8%), the I-10 Freeway to the southeast (12.9%), Ramon Road to the east (22%), Bob Hope Drive to the south (16.1%), etc. Subsequent data (for instance, Figure 4-S) confirm this issue.

The Riverside County TIA Preparation Guide reads as follows:

In general, the minimum area to be studied shall include 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, not exceeding a 5-mile radius from the project site.

Response to Comment 15
As discussed above, the Project does not result in significant impacts at any of the intersections studied, where the Project will contribute a greater percentage of traffic. Study of additional high capacity major arterial intersections that are more distant from the site is, therefore, not warranted.

Urban Crossroads Review of Response to Comment 15
Please refer to the review of Responses 5 and 13.

Response
As discussed above, the scope of the traffic study was based on the Riverside County TIA Preparation Guide and coordinated with the City of Rancho Mirage, prior to preparation of the traffic study. The circulation network was designed and approved by Riverside County to accommodate land uses consistent with the proposed project. The traffic study identifies, discloses and focuses on those impacts that were determined to be potentially significant.

As discussed above, prior to the preparation of the traffic study, the guidelines in the Riverside County TIA Preparation Guide were carefully considered and coordination with the City of Rancho Mirage was undertaken and consensus was achieved at that meeting. The traffic study reflects that consensus in that it utilized RivTAM to develop the future traffic projections for the year 2035, expanded the study area as requested, evaluated the additional key intersections identified, and included two near-term cumulative developments identified by City representatives. The traffic study identifies, discloses and focuses on those impacts that were determined to be potentially significant.

Urban Crossroads Comment 16
The traffic study report does not include sufficient info rmation regarding the development of future 203S traffic volumes. The RivTAM forecasting tool is based on peak period traffic volume projections. These projections 12-2196

16 should be used to develop 2035 conditions peak hour forecasts. The report forecasts do not appear to utilize this RivTAM data and are based instead on daily projections obtained from the RivTAM forecasting tool.

Response to Comment 16
As specified in the Riverside County Transportation Department TIA Preparation Guide, future traffic forecasts in the Section 24 Specific Plan traffic study used the RivTAM year 2035 traffic projections as the basis for determining turning movement volumes for the intersection analysis. The RivTAM daily forecast was used to establish the projected growth in the study area. New peak hour and daily traffic counts were combined with the RivTAM projections to identify future peak hour traffic volume projections. This methodology was discussed and accepted during the meeting with City staff in Rancho Mirage.

Urban Crossroads Review of Response to Comment 16
The methodology and supporting data (RivTAM plots, etc. ) should be included in the Appendices to the traffic study report to the extent necessary to allow the reviewer to confirm /replicate the forecasting process.

Response
Consistent with Riverside County approved procedures, the RivTAM forecast was prepared by AFSHA Consulting, Inc., one of the consulting firms approved by the County to conduct modeling using the RivTAM. A TAZ map and the horizon year 2035 SED inputs used to address project buildout are provided in Appendix 2 of the traffic study.

Urban Crossroads Comment 17
All of the analysis scenarios shall be expanded to include all additional intersections where the project is anticipated to contribute more than 50 peak hour trips.

Response to Comment 17
Please see the responses above on the scope of the analysis in the traffic impact study.

Urban Crossroads Review of Response to Comment 17
Please refer to the review of Responses 5 and 13.

Response
Please refer to earlier responses. As discussed above, the scope of the traffic study was based on the Riverside County TIA Preparation Guide and coordinated with the City of Rancho Mirage, prior to preparation of the traffic study.

Urban Crossroads Comment 18
Analysis of General Plan Buildout conditions shall be included in the traffic study report, as an intensification in use compared to the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan is contemplated.

Response to Comment 18
As discussed above, the RivTAM 2035 traffic projections reflect the housing and population growth anticipated by the City’s General Plan as well as the an updated employment growth forecast for the City, and the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan would generate less traffic than the uses allowed on the site by the Riverside County General Plan that are assumed in RivTAM. For these reasons, RivTAM reflects all growth that would be allowed by both the City and County General Plans.

Urban Crossroads Review of Response to Comment 18
Please refer to previous review of Responses 1, 2, 4, and 7.

12-2197

17 Response
Please refer to earlier responses. As noted previously, a General Plan buildout analysis is not required for the proposed project by the Riverside County TIA Preparation Guide. The project is located in unincorporated Riverside County and would be less intense than the land use designations in the Riverside County General Plan which are reflected in the RivTAM model. In addition, as noted above, in addition, as noted above, the RivTAM 2035 traffic projections reflect the housing and population growth anticipated by the City’s General Plan as well as the employment growth per the SCAG 2004 Growth Forecast.

Urban Crossroads Comment 19
The recommendations state (pg. 6-4) that the project proponent shall dedicate appropriate right-of-way to accommodate the ultimate improvement of the abutting General Plan roadways and full improve those roadway in conjunction with adjacent development. The project shall therefore be required to dedicate right-of-way and construct half-section improvements on Ramon Road, Bob Hope Drive, Dinah Shore Drive, and Los Alamos Road in accordance with the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Plan.

Response to Comment 19
Based on discussions with the City, appropriate right-of-way will be dedicated as development of the areas adjacent to the surrounding streets occurs and appropriate improvements will also be constructed.

Urban Crossroads Review of Response to Comment 19
The response acknowledges the role of the City in determining the appropriate right-of-way and improvements in accordance with CEQA and the subdivision map act.

Response
All roadways within and adjacent to the project site will be improved consistent with the Section 24 Specific Plan.

12-2198

APPENDIX H
Water Supply Assessment/Water Supply Verification
12-2199

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF

COACHELLA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-226
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Coachella Valley Water District assembled in regular meeting this 12th day of November, 2014, that it hereby approves the Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification for the Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan. * * * * * * * * * * *

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COACHELLA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT ) ss.

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY )
I, JULIA FERNANDEZ, Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Coachella Valley Water District, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2014 -226 adopted by the Board of Directors of said District at a regular meeting thereof duly held and convened on the 12th day of November , 2014, at which meeting a quorum of said Board was present and acting throughout. The Resolution was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes: Four
Directors : Powell, De Klotz, Nelson , Livesay
Noes: None

Absent: Pack
Dated this 12th day of November, 2014.
(SEAL)
12-2200

COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRI CT
Board Action Item
Board Meeting Date: Novem ber 12,2014
TO: Board of Directors
SUBJECT: Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification for Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan
Description and Location
The prop osed Section 24 Specific Plan (Section 24) consists of approximately 577 acres of land on the Agua Ca liente Indian Reservation and is bounded by Ramon Road on the north, Bob Hope Drive on the east, Dinah Shore Drive on the south and Los Alamo s Road on the west. It is surrounded by the City of Rancho Mirage on all four sides.

The pr oposed development includes 2,406 residential units and up to 3 million square feet of commercial space includin g retail, office, restaurant , hotel and entertainment uses.

Please see the attached map.

Purpose and Benefit of Project
The requireme nts for the preparation of a Water Supply Assess ment (WSA) are set forth in Section 109 I a of the California Water Code in accordance with SB 610, which was enacted in 200 I and became effec tive January I, 2002. The Code requires that a WSA be prepared for any project, which would consist of one or more of the following:
• A proposed residential deve lopme nt of more than 500 dwelling units; • A proposed shopp ing center or business estab lishment employing more than 1,000 perso ns or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space; • A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space;
• A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified above; • A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.

Requirements for prepar ation of a Water Supply Verification (WSV) are set forth in Section II0lO of the Business and Profess ional Code and Sections 66455.3, 66473 .7 and 65867. 5 of the Government Code, as amended by SB 221, which was enacted in 200 I and became effective as of Januar y 1,2002. SB 22 1 establi shed the relationship between the WSV for the project and the project approval under the Subdivision Map Act. Pursuant to California Code Section 66473.7 , a Public Water System (PWS) must provide a written verification of suffic ient water supplies prior Page I or3
12-2201
to the approval of a new subdivision. The WSV provides the legislative body of a city, or county with written verification from the PWS that a sufficient water supply is available for the project.

The Section 24 project requires a WSA/WSV because it proposes over 500 housing units and has over 250,000 square feet of commercial floor space.

The Section 24 WSAlWSV estimates total project water demand to be 1,780 acre-feet per year, or about 3.1 acre-feet per acre. Based on the projects proposed occupancy rates, it will have an average water demand of approximately 270 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) which is below CVWD's 20 by 2020 urban water use target of 473 gallons per capita per day.

This project will incorporate the elements of the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update (2010 CVWMP Update) and the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (2010 UWMP).

The urban water supply will come from the Whitewater River Subbasin for indoor and outdoor use. The project will be required to participate in all CVWD's water management programs, including the most current landscape ordinance, conservation programs, outreach and education programs, and tiered water pricing in place at the time of development. If additional supplies such as treated Colorado River water are available for use, the project will use these additional supplies.

The attached Section 24 WSA/WSV analyzes demand and supply based on the 2010 CVWMP Update, 2014 Status Report, and 2010 UWMP. These documents evaluate future supplies with and without Quantification Settlement Agreement in place and with long term reliability of State Water Project supplies at 50 percent.

Until the project begins construction, this WSA/WSV will be reviewed every five years or in the event that the 2010 CVWMP Update assumptions have changed. The project applicant shall notify the District before construction begins. The reviews will ensure that the information included in this WSA/WSV remains accurate and no significant changes to either the project or the District's water supply have occurred. If neither the project applicant nor the lead agency contacts the District within five years of approval ofthis WSAIWSV, the water supply assessment provided by this document will become invalid.

Procurement and Expenditures
This project does not utilize CVWD funds.

Environmental Impact
D No, this item is not a "project" as defined by CEQA; therefore, approval does not require any CEQA action.
~ Yes, see below.

This project is defined as a subdivision in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians is the Lead Agency for planning and environmental review of the project and is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement in compliance with both the Agua Caliente Tribal Environmental Policy Act (TEPA) and CEQA. As the Public Water Supplier (PWS) CVWD has determined that a WSA/WSV is necessary to complete CEQA compliance.

However approval ofthis WSAIWSV does not require CVWD to take any additional CEQA action.

Page2of3
12-2202
Legal Review
~ Reviewed by Counsel
ON/A
Fiscal Impact
This project does not utilize CVWD funds and therefore has no negative fiscal impact on the Budget.

Prior Authorizations
o Yes, see attachment.
~N/A
Staff Recommendation
District staff has thoroughly reviewed this WSA/WSV and has determined that it demonstrates that sufficient water supplies exist to meet the demands of the project, and the project commits to participating in CVWD's 2010 CVWMP Update programs. It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification for the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan.

Please see the attached proposed resolution.

Prepared by: Patti Reyes
Planning and Special Programs Manager
Submitted by: Mark Johnson
Approved by:

Director of Engineering
J. M. Barrett
General Manager
Attachments/as
FILE: 0483.05 and 0421.2

Page 3 ends

12-2203
Land Use Legend:

Mixed Use Core (MXD CORE) - 2S Ac .

Resort Flex (RESORT) - 81 Ac .

Retail (RETAIL) - S2 Ac .

Multi·Fam Ry Residentia l (MFR) - 58 Ac .

Single FamRy Resident ial (SFR) - 313 Ac .

Public Roadways R/W - 48 Ac.

Specific Plan Boundary - S77 Ac. (Gross)
Note: AU land acreage number.

Included on figure 6 and
Table 1 are approxl,.n'!'.e.
ffi:§mom~
1l9!l7<i!l~~
12-2204

Water Supply Assessment
and
Water Supply Verification

For the Proposed
Section 24 Specific Plan

Prepared for:

Coachella Valley Water District
P.O. Box 1508
Coachella, California 92236

Prepared by:

Meridian Consultants, LLC
860 Hampshire Road, Suite P
Westlake Village, California 91361

November 2014
12-2205
Meridian Consultants i Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-013 November 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 3

1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 P roject Description ............................................................................................................. 4

1.3 Regulatory Requirements ................................................................................................. 12

1.4 P urpose of Document ....................................................................................................... 12

1.5 Water System and Supply ................................................................................................. 14

1.6 Existing Water Management Plans ................................................................................... 16

2.0 WATER DEMANDS .......................................................................................................................... 22

2.1 Project Specific Water Demand ........................................................................................ 22

2.2 Water Conservation Measures ......................................................................................... 27

3.0 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 30

3.1 General .............................................................................................................................. 30

3.2 Identification of Water Source ......................................................................................... 30

3.3 Analysis of Water Supply ................................................................................................. 31

3.4 Analysis of Water Supply and Demand ............................................................................. 49

3.5 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 58

4.0 WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION ....................................................................................................... 60

4.1 General .............................................................................................................................. 60

4.2 Water Source .................................................................................................................... 60

4.3 Supporting Documentation .............................................................................................. 60

4.4 Factors of Reliability .......................................................................................................... 60

4.5 Impacts on Other Projects ................................................................................................ 62

4.6 Rights to Groundwater ..................................................................................................... 62

4.7 Verification ........................................................................................................................ 62

5.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................ 63

Appendix
A Water Resource Litigation and Other Actions
B Water Demand Calculations
C Coachella Valley Water District, 2010 Water Management Plan Executive Summary D 2014 Status Report for the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update 12-2206
Meridian Consultants ii Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-013 November 2014

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Regional Location Map .................................................................................................................... 9 2 Project Location Map ..................................................................................................................... 10 3 Conceptual Land Use Plan.............................................................................................................. 11

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page

1.0-1 Land Use Plan Summary .................................................................................................................. 8

1.0-2 Water Shortage Contingency Plan ................................................................................................. 19

2.0-1 Indoor Residential Water Demands ............................................................................................... 23

2.0-2 Indoor Nonresidential Water Demands ......................................................................................... 24

2.0-3 Outdoor – Open Space Water Demands ....................................................................................... 26

2.0-4 Summary of Project Demands ....................................................................................................... 26

3.0-1 Groundwater Storage Capacity of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin ................................ 33

3.0-2 West Whitewater River Subbasin Annual Recharge Deliveries ..................................................... 35

3.0-3 Annual CVWD Colorado River Diversions at Imperial Dam – 1964 to 2012 .................................. 42

3.0-4 Colorado River Deliveries to CVWD under the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) .............................................................................................................................................. 43

3.0-5 State Water Project Water Sources ............................................................................................... 44

3.0-6 Department of Water Resources Table A Water Allocations ........................................................ 45

3.0-7 Existing CVWD Water Supply Table A Amounts – Water Rights and Water Service Contracts ........................................................................................................................................ 49

3.0-8 Current and Projected Average Urban Water Supply .................................................................... 49

3.0-9 Supply and Demand Comparison – Normal Water Years 2015-2035 ............................................ 56

3.0-10 Supply and Demand Comparison – Single Dry Years 2015-2035 ................................................... 57

3.0-11 Supply and Demand Comparison – Multiple Dry-Years 2015-2035 ............................................. 57

3.0-12 Project Supply and Demand Comparison ...................................................................................... 58

12-2207
Meridian Consultants 1 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Section 24 Specific Plan (proposed Project ) is proposed to consist of up to 3,138,600 square feet of commercial retail, office, restaurant, hotel, and entertainment uses, and up to 2,406 residential units on approximately 577 acres of land on the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation (Reservation). The overall vision for the Section 24 Specific Plan is to create a master planned, mixed -land use community. The proposed Project will accommodate a higher density mix of retail, entertainment, office, hotel, and residential land uses within a c ommercial and mixed use d evelopment, in combination with a lower density active adult community in accordance with the objectives of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (Tribe).

The Section 24 Specific Plan area (Project Site) is surrounded by the City of Rancho Mirage on all sides and is bound by the following roadways: 1) Ramon Road on the north; 2) Bob Hope Drive on the east; 3) Dinah Shore Drive on the south; and 4) Los Alamos Road on the west.

The public water sup plier for the Project Site is the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The domestic water supply (potable) for all water users of the Project will be groundwater from the western portion of the Whitewater River Subbasin in the Coachella Valley. This wat er supply assessment/water supply verification (WSA/WSV) commits to implementing the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update (2010 CVWMP Update ) activities that apply to this development, including following the CVWD landscape ordinance in effect at the time of development.

This WSA/WSV relies on the water supply and demand planning considerations established in the 2010 CVWMP Update, the 2014 CVWMP Status Report, the CVWD 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (2010 UWMP), and the State of California, Department of Water Resources, Delivery Reliability Report 2011, Draft Delivery Reliability Report 2013 (Draft Delivery Reliability Report 2013).

As discussed in the 2010 CVWMP Update , the 2014 CVWMP Status Report, the 2010 UWMP, and this WSA/WSV, CVWD h as implemented many programs to ensure a long- term sustainable water supply , including use of its Colorado River and SWP supplies, recycled wastewater, desalinated agricultural drain water, conversion of groundwater use rs to canal water users, and water co nservation including tiered water rates, a landscaping ordinance, and outreach and education.

The proposed Project incorporates a number of features that reduce the overall water demand and provide for a reduction in use. These features include a number o f water conservation measures for both indoor and outdoor use for both residential and commercial development. The proposed Project ’s total water demand estimate is approximately 1,780 acre-feet per year (afy) ; this total water demand corresponds to approx imately 3.1 afy per acre which is within the average future water use per acre 12-2208
Executive Summary
Meridian Consultants 2 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
estimated in the 2010 CVWMP Update. The Project’s total urban water use would be 277 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), or 0.74 afy per residential dwelling unit . CVWD’s 20 by 2020 urban water use target for urban water use is 473 gpcd. The Project’s demand of 277 gpcd is below the 20 by 2020 per capita target of 473 gpcd . The Project is consistent with the application of the conservation requirements of the CVWD regulations including the Landscape Ordinance 1302.1, which requires reduced water allowances for landscaped and recreational areas. Similarly, the Project is consistent with the Agua Caliente Land Use Ordinance. Specifically, Article VII of the Tribal Land Use Ordinance , Landscaping Standards, ensures maximum water efficiency in comprehensive landscaping plans, irrigation plans, plant materials, and decorative water features. The Project is also consistent with the County of Riverside Ordinance No. 859, Water Efficient Landscape R equirements Ordinance, which establishes provisions for water management practices and water waste prevention for new and rehabilitated landscapes.

The proposed Project is required to secure approval of a WSA (Senate Bill [SB] 610) and a WSV (SB 221).

In compliance with these legislated requirements, this WSA/WSV examines the current condition of the Coachella Valley groundwater basin (aquifer) and finds the water supply from the aquifer, the SWP, the Colorado River, and other sources are adequate to suppl y the proposed P roject in accordance with California Water Code Section 10910 et seq. This WSA/WSV also verifies the ability of the water supplies from the aquifer, the SWP, the Colorado River, and other sources are available to serve the proposed Project in accordance with the California Government Code Section 66473.7.

This WSA/WSV will be reviewed every five years, or if CVWD determines that the planning assumptions of this document are no longer valid, until the Project begins construction. Each individ ual P roject proponent shall notify CVWD when construction has begun. The review will insure that the information included in this WSA/WSV remains accurate and no significant changes to either the proposed Project or CVWD's water supply have occurred. If ne ither the individual Project proponent nor the lead agency contacts CVWD within five years of approval of this WSA/WSV, it will be assumed that the proposed Project no longer requires the estimated water demand calculated and the water supply assessment and water supply verification provided by this document will become invalid. 12-2209
Meridian Consultants 3 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND
The environmental review of the proposed Project is being prepared in compliance with both the Agua Caliente Tribal Environmental Policy Act (TEPA) (Tribal Ordinance No. 28) and the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) process and is a subdivisio n as defined by the California Government Code Section 66473.7 as consisting of 500 or more dwellings . Th e Coachella Va lley Wa ter Di strict (CVWD), the Public Water System ( PWS) for the proposed Project, has determined that a water supply assessment (W SA) is necessary to complete the proposed Project's TEPA and CEQA process and that a written water supply verification (WSV) is needed as a condition of any necessary County of Riverside (County) and/or City of Rancho Mirage (City) approvals for the proposed Project.

The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians ( Tribe), acting as the Lead Agency for the planning and environmental review of this proposed Project, has decided to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the both TEPA and CEQA, and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 15000 et seq.) in order to minimize the duplication of environmental studies and documentation by other public agencies involved with the review and approval of actions related to the proposed Project that are required to comply with TEPA and CEQA, including the City and the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). The Tribe has ultimate jurisdiction over land use decisions in Planning Areas 1 to 7, as discussed below. The City will have jurisdiction over land use decisions if Planning Area 8 is annexed into the City, and the County will have jurisdiction if Plannin g Area 8 is not annexed into the City.

CVWD prepared and adopted the 2010 CV WMP Update and the 2010 UWMP to manage water supplies and eliminate overdraft. These Plans identify programs necessary to ensure reliable water supplies. The proposed Project will participate in the CVWMP programs that are available to it including compliance with the most current landscape ordinance in place at the time of development, conservation programs, outreach and education programs and budget based tiered water rates. This WSA outlines how these programs eliminate overdraft and how the proposed Project will support the CVWMP programs.

1.1.1 Tribal Water History
The Reservation was established in 1876, and expanded in 1877. Documented reports by Federal Indian Agents in the Valley in the mid- 1890s confirmed substantial ongoing Cahuilla agricultural activities, as well as the presence of an elaborate system of irrigation ditches and dams developing the water from the Whitewater River system, including a more than one mile long irrigation conveyance ditch from Tahquitz Canyon constructed around 1830.
12-2210

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 4 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
In 1910, the United States Indian Irrigation Service (IIS) initiated a systematic effort to provide the Tribe with water resource development in support of the Tribe’s irrigation as well as household and other water needs. In 1922, the Division of Water of the California Department of Public Works began the process of determining rights to the Whitewater River system, including tributaries of Andreas Creek and Tahquitz Creek. Further discussion on tribal information can be found in Appendix A, Water Resource Litigation and Other Actions.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.2.1 Location
Regional Setting
The Section 24 Specific Plan area is surrounded by the City of Rancho Mirage which is conside red to be in the heart of the Coachella Valley in Riverside County, nestled at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains and conveniently located to utilize the southern California freeway system via Interstate 10 (I -10), as shown in Figure 1, Regional Location Map. The majority of future development in this area of the Coachella Valley is expected to occur near the I-10 corridor.

Community Setting
The Project consists of the development of a Specific Plan for a portion of Section 24, an approximately 577-acre area of the Reservation located within unincorporated Riverside County (Project Site), which is surrounded on all four of its sides by the City as illustrated on Figure 2, Project Location Map. The Project Site is bounded by the following roadways: 1) Ramon Road on the north; 2) Bob Hope Drive on the east; 3) Dinah Shore Drive on the south; and 4) Los Alamos Road on the west. The Section 19 Specific Plan is located directly east across Bob Hope Drive from the Project Site and directly southeast of the Agua Caliente Casino/ Resort/ Spa.

1.2.2 Specific Plan Overview
The Section 24 Specific Plan provides for approximately 577 acres of the Reservation, located within the City Sphere of Influence designated as Section 24, Township 4 South, Range 5 East of the San Bernardino Meridian, as illustrated on Figure 2. The Section 24 Specific Plan would be approved and adopted by the Tribal Council and serve as the zoning for the Project Site. The City would subsequently adopt the Specific Plan and approve any request(s) for annexation into the City. The Specific Plan would establish the necessary plans, development standards, regulations, infrastructure requirements, design guidelines, and implementation programs on which subsequent project -related development activities would be founded.
12-2211

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 5 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
It is intended that local public works projects, design review plans, detailed site plans, grading and building permits, water use plans, or any other action requiring ministerial or discretionary approval applicable to the Project Site would be consistent with the Specific Plan.

1.2.3 Land Use Plan
The proposed Project would provide a potential mix of up to 3,138,600 square feet of commercial, retail, office, restaurant, hotel and entertainment uses, up to 1,206 medium density multifamily /single family attached residential units and up to 1,20 0 single family age restricted residential units. The proposed Project is designed to accommodate these uses through the creation of seven land use categories and eight Planning Areas that cover approximately 529 acres, as shown in Figure 3, Conceptual Land Use Plan. These Planning Areas, in addition to approximately 48 acres for public street rights- of-way, would total approximately 577 acres for the Project Site. The land use categories and Planning Areas would allow for a greater variety and flexibility of land uses and development standards, as shown in Table 1.0- 1, Land Use Plan Summary.

The Mixed-Use Core (MXD CORE) land use category would provide the most intense an d compact component of the Project Site, supporting the potential vertical integration of housing with ground floor retail commercial uses and services. Located within an approximately 25 -acre area of the P roject Site, the mix of uses is intended to produce a unique and walkable shoppin g, working, and living experience.

This land use category allows a maximum of 1,090,000 square feet of mixed retail, restaurant, office, business campus, and hospitality -oriented indoor amusement/entertainment uses. Flexibility is also provided for possible hotel, multifamily, single family attached residential units within this category with a possible maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.0 . Although this category would allow for various land uses, it does not require a specified mix of uses.

The Resort Flex (RESORT) land use category would permit uses such as retail, restaurants, resort hotels, and regional entertainment to create a lively and comfortable atmosphere for business and leisure travelers. The Resort Flex category accounts for approxi mately 81 acres of the Project Site with a maximum FAR of 0.40.

The Retail (RETAIL) land use category would provide the Project’s primary shopping destination and would offer a range of commercial, office/ service, entertainment, and eating es tablishments on approximately 52 acres. These uses would be located at the northeast and southeast corners of the Project Site and would be exposed to the high volumes of traffic along Ramon Road, Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive. A maximum FAR of 0.35 is specified for these areas. 12-2212

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 6 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
The Multi-Family Residential (MFR) land use category would provide a more urbanized style of residential living on approximately 58 acres adjacent to the Mixed-Use Core, Retail, and Resort Flex land use areas. Permitted uses would include single and multi-family residential developments. Buildings of two stories in height could contain dwelling units at densities up to a maximum of 18 units per acre.

These residential uses would serve as a transition between the higher intensity commercial areas and the low-density single-family residential area, which is planned as an Active Adult Community.

The Single Family Residential (SFR) land use category would accommodate an approximately 313 -acre Active Adult Community up to 1,200 single -family dwelling units at an overall density of 3.8 units per acre. Building heights would be primarily one story with some potential for two story units within the interior of the Active Adult Community. Approximately 85 acres, or 27 percent, of the Active Adult Community would be devoted to Private Open Space, consisting of a system of pedestrian, bicycle and golf cart trail linkages, neighborhood parks, water features, community clubhouse/ pool/spa and associated amenities.

A total of eight Planning Areas delineate and describe the amount, type, and distribution of development throughout the Project Site. The Planning Areas have also been constructed to recognize the current ownership patterns, thus enabling the Project to be constructed in an incremental fashion while still achieving a unified development. Each Planning Area is subject to a distinct list of allowed uses and development standards. Planning Areas 1 to 7 (Tribal Planning Areas) and Planning Area 8 (the Active Adult Community) are proposed within the Project Site.

Planning Area 1 is approximately 35-acres in size and would be located at the northwest corner of the Project Site at the Ramon Road and Los Alamos Road intersection. This Planning Area would allow up to a maximum of 435,600 square feet of retail, restaurant and office/ services and hotel uses, or any combination thereof, in a planned Resort Flex development along Ramon Road and up to a maximum of 180 residential dwelling units accessible from Los Alamos Road and a planned local street.

Planning Area 2 is approximately 36-acres in size and would be located along the south side of Ramon Road and would allow up to a maximum of 1,090,000 square feet of mixed retail, restaurant, office, business campus and hospitality -oriented indoor amusement/ entertainment uses. This Planning Area would also allow up to a maximum of 180 residential dwelling units. Flexibility is also provided for possible hotel, multi-and single-family attached residential uses within this area.

Planning Area 3 is approximately 27-acres in size and would be located at the northeast corner of the Project Site, would be a gateway planning area accessible from three signalized intersections on Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive, and would allow up to a maximum of 396,000 square feet of commercial retail, restaurant and entertainment uses around a planned “Main Street” village center. 12-2213

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 7 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
Planning Area 4 is approximately 37-acres in size and would be located immediately south of Planning Area 3 along the west frontage of Bob Hope Drive, and represents a Resort Flex land use opportunity for commercial retail, restaurant, and hospitality -oriented indoor amusement/ entertainment uses which would allow up to a maximum of 505,000 square feet of mixed-use commercial development.

Planning Area 5 is approximately 18-acres in size and would allow up to a maximum of 486 residential dwelling units. This area would be located directly west of Planning Area 4 and would provide a land use-to-land use transition buffer from the more intense commercial uses in Planning Are a 4 to the east and the lower density Active Adult Community in Planning Area 8 to the west.

Planning Area 6 is approximately 28-acres in size and would be located immediately south of Planning Areas 4 and 5 along the west frontage of Bob Hope Drive and w ould consist of two subareas: Planning Area 6A and Planning Area 6B. Planning Area 6A would consist of an approximately 19 acre Resort Flex land use for. Two signalized intersections on Bob Hope Drive would provide access to this sub planning area along with a mid -point right -in/ right -out turning lane. This P lanning Area would allow up to a maximum of 331,000 square feet of mixed use commercial development , including a combination of commercial retail, restaurant, and hospitality -oriented indoor amusement/ entertainment uses , and would allow up to a maximum of 180 residential dwelling units.

Planning Area 7 is approximately 35-acres in size and would be located at the southeast corner of the Project Site . This Planning Area would allow up to a maximum of 3 81,000 square feet of mixed use commercial development , including neighborhood-scale retail, restaurant and office/ services center, and would allow up to a maximum of 180 residential dwelling units.

Planning Area 8 is approximately 313 acres in size and is planned for the development of a master planned Active Adult Community of up to a maximum of 1,200 single family dwelling units. The gated Active Adult Community would be master planned consisting of four neighborhoods accessed by a system of private streets and recreational open space amenities located in neighborhood parks and trail linkages.

The proposed Section 24 Specific Plan includes lists of permitted uses including those permitted without any conditions and those that require conditional use permits (CUPs) and public use permits. 12-2214

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 8 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 1.0-1
Land Use Plan Summary
Planning
Area
Land Use
Category
Typical Permitted Uses
Community
Retail Restaurants
Office
/Service
Resort
Hotel
Multi-
Family
Residential
Single
Family
Residential
Mixed-
Use
Net
Land
Area
(Acres)
Non-
Residential
Square
Footage
Dwelling
Units
1A RESORT X X X 25 435,600 -
1B MFR X X 10 - 180
2A MXD CORE X X X X X X X 25 1,090,000 -
2B MFR X X 11 - 180
3 RETAIL X X X 27 396,000 -
4 RESORT X X X 37 505,000 -
5 MFR X X 18 - 486
6A RESORT X X X 19 331,000 -
6B MFR X X 9 - 180
7A RETAIL X X X 25 381,000 -
7B MFR X X 10 - 180
8 SFR X 313 - 1,200
Right-of-
Way 48 - -
Total 577 3,138,600 2,406

Abbreviations: RESORT = Resort Flex; MFR = Multi-Family Residential; MXD CORE = Mixed Use Core; RETAIL = Retail; SFR = Single Family Residential.

12-2215
Regional Location Map
FIGURE 1
044-001-13
N
SOURCE: MSA Consulting Inc. - October 2014.

NOT TO SCALE
12-2216
Project Location Map
FIGURE 2
044-001-13
N

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
400020000 8000
SOURCE: MSA Consulting, Inc. - October 2014
12-2217
Conceptual Land Use Plan
FIGURE 3
044-001-13
N

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
10005000 2000
SOURCE: MSA Consulting, Inc. - October 2014
12-2218

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 12 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014

1.3 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
The Project is subject to the CEQA process and is a subdivision as defined by the California Government Code Section 66473.7. The CVWD, as the PWS for the Project, has determined that a WSA is necessary to complete CEQA compliance, and that a written WSV is required pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act.

CVWD completed its 2010 UWMP in compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act established in 1983 and most recently amended by SBx7-7 which requires a 20 percent reduction in per- capita water use by 2020. The CVWD also maintains a separate water management planning document, the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (2010 CVWMP Update). The two planning documents are considered the primary reference documents for this WSA/WSV. The 2010 CVWMP Update discusses the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA). The QSA and related agreements were signed in 2003. A number of lawsuits have unsuccessfully challenged the QSA in state and federal courts. Both the 2010 UWMP and the 2010 CVWMP Update evaluate the water supplies under the QSA and prior to the implementation of the QSA.

The State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) issues its final State Water Project Reliability Report every two years. The 2009 report was utilized in the 2010 UWMP and the 2010 CVWMP Updates ; however, the Draft Delivery Reliability Report 2013 contains the most recent information. This report accounts for the impacts to water delivery reliability through 2029 associated with climate change and recent federal litigati on. Based on information from the draft 2013 report, the average reliability of SWP Table A deliveries through 2029 is projected to be 62 percent of Table A amounts after taking into consideration the effects of climate change. In order to anticipate futur e reductions in reliability, the 2010 CVWMP Update and 2010 UWMP assumed an even lower long term reliability of 50 percent.

1.4 PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT
CVWD, as a PWS, is required by law to provide a WSA/WSV during the CEQA process and is required by law to provide a WSV following approval of the Tentative Map for the residential portion of the Project.

This information is included in the CEQA documentation and it becomes evidence used in the approval process for the proposed development. It should be no ted that this W SA/WSV addresses the overall water supply ava ilable to th e CVWD to m eet the demands of existing cu stomers and other fut ure demands. The W SA/WSV does not a ddress the wa ter delivery system within the CVWD’s system since the fo cus is on the overall water supply. Adequacy of water supplies is a ddressed via CVWD’s water master planning efforts. The W SA/WSV reviews and makes a finding of reasonable su fficiency of water supplies t hat either are available or wi ll be ava ilable to CVWD to m eet future demands. The 12-2219

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 13 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
California Water Code requires a determination for a 20-year period ( 2017–2036) from the sta rt of project construction.

The WSA/WSV must be reviewed every five years or in the event the water planning assumptions have changed, until the Project begins construction. The Project applicant shall notify CVWD when construction has begun. The review will insure that the information included in the WSA/WSV remains accurate and no significant changes to either the Project or CVWD’s water supply have occurred. If neither the Project applicant nor the lead agency contacts CVWD within five years of approval of this WSA/WSV, it will be assumed that the Project no longer exists, and the water supply assessment and verification provided by this document will become invalid.

1.4.1 Water Supply Assessment
Requirements for the preparation of a WSA are set forth in Senate Bill 610 (SB 610), which was enacted in 2001 and became effective January 1, 2002. SB 610 amended Section 21151.9 of the Public Resource Code. It requires cities and counties to request specific information on water supplies from the PWS that would serve any project that is subject to CEQA and is defined as a Project in Water Code Section 10912.

This information is to be incorporated into the environment al review documents prepared pursuant to CEQA.

State Water Code Section 10912 defines a Project as any of the following:
• A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units • A proposed sho pping center or business estab lishment emp loying more tha n 1,000 pe rsons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space
• A proposed co mmercial o ffice bu ilding emp loying mo re t han 1,000 pe rsons or having mo re than 250,000 square feet of floor space
• A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 ro oms
• A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area
• A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified above • A project that woul d de mand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project
The proposed development is a project, as defined by Wa ter Code Section 10912, and requires a WS A because it proposes over 500 housing units; mo re than 500,000 squa re feet of co mmercial space; and would employ more than 1,000 people.
12-2220

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 14 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014

1.4.2 Water Supply Verification
Senate Bill ( SB) 221 was enacted in 2001 and became effective as of J anuary 1, 2002. SB 221 amends Section 11010 of th e Business and Professional Code, and Sections 66455.3 and 66473.7, and Section 65867.5 of th e Government Code. SB 221 estab lishes the relat ionship between th e WSA prepared for a proje ct and t he pr oject approval un der the Subdivisio n Map A ct. Pursuant to Ca lifornia Government C ode Section 65865.5 and 664 73.7, t he approval of a development agreement or tentative map that includes a subdivision, as defined, shall be conditioned on obtaining a WSV.

The purpose of the WSV is to provide the legislat i ve body of a ci ty, county, or th e designated advisory agency wi th wri tten verificat ion from the a pplicable public water purveyor that a su fficient water supply is ava ilable or, in a ddition, a specifie d finding is made by the local agency that sufficient water supplies are, or w ill be, available prior to completion of the project. Therefore, a WSV i s required since this proposed Project has over 500 housing units, more than 500,000 square feet of commercial space, would employ more than 1,000 people, and is a subdivision, as de fined by Gover nment Code Section 66473.7.

1.5 WATER SYSTEM AND SUPPLY

1.5.1 Water System
The proposed potable water master plan is the backbone system for the Project. All of the in-tract water distribution facilities will be shown on subsequent improvement plans and will be designed and constructed in accordance with CVWD requirements.

CVWD’s existing water supply and conveyance systems include, or will include, adequate capacity for daily demands and emergency fire protection. This includes groundwater pumping, transmission pipelines, distribution storage and surface pumping within internal roadways or other rights -of-way to provide domestic service to each residential and commercial tenant wit hin the Project. In the future, CVWD’s supply and conveyance system may also include delivery of Colorado River water treated for municipal use.

1.5.2 Water Supply
CVWD is the PWS for the area in which the Project Site is located. CVWD provides services fo r domestic water, irrigation water, sanitation sewerage collection, wastewater reclamation and recycling, imported water, stormwater protection and agricultural drainage. 12-2221

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 15 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
CVWD currently has ap proximately 108,050 domestic water co nnections1 and pumped approximately 115,800 acre-feet of groundwater in 2013.2 However, the annual pumping capacity is approximately 300,000 afy. Areas served wi th domestic water by CVWD include port ions of l and nea r Desert Hot Springs, the Indi o H ills area, and a po rtion of Cath edral Ci ty. CVWD serves all of Rancho Mirage, Thousand Palms, Palm Dese rt, Indian We lls, La Quinta , and a portion of Indio and Coachella. CVWD also serves other rural communities, including Thermal, Mecca, Oasis, Desert Shores, Salton Sea Beach, Salton City, North Shore, Bombay Beach, and Hot Mineral S prings and other portions of unincorporated Riverside County.

CVWD servi ce ar ea encompasses 639,857 a cres, mostly within Rive rside County, but al so extends into northern Imperial and San Diego counties. Th e Coachella Valley is bor dered on the west and north by high mountains, which provide an effective barrier against coastal storms, and which greatly reduce the contribution of dire ct precipitation to recharge the va lley's groundwater basin. The majori ty of natural recharge comes from runoff from the adjacent mountains.

Development throughout the Coachella Valley has been dependent on groundwater as a source of supply. The demand for groundwater has annually exceeded the limited natural recharge of the groundwater basin. Therefore, imported water is used to recharge the aquifer and reduce groundwater overdraft. CVWD and the Desert Water Agency (DWA) work in conjunction as State Water Project Contractors to import State Water Project water supplies for recharge in the Western Coachella Valley.

1.5.3 Historical Context
The n eed to enhance th e p ublic water supply in the Coache lla Va lley has been recognized for many years. The formation of CVWD in 1918 was a direct result of the conce rn of local residents about a plan to export water from the Whi tewater River to Imperial Count y. Early on, va lley resi dents al so recognized that action was n eeded to stem the decline of the water table, whi ch was o ccurring as a result of local pu mping in the east ern Coachella Va lley. As a resul t, CV WD entered in to an agreement for the cons truction of th e Coachella Br anch of the All-American Cana l in order to bring Colorado River water to the Coache lla V alley. Sin ce 19 49, the Coache lla Ca nal has b een providing water for i rrigation use in th e area tha t g enerally encompasses Indio and La Quinta so utherly to the Salton Sea. Colorado River water is delivered to the Coachella Valley via the All American and Coachella Canals and distributed through an un derground i rrigation distrib ution piping sy stem to farms and a

1 Coachella Valley Water District, 2013 Operations Production Consumption Totals, (September 2014). 2 Coachella Valley Water District, 2013 Operations Production Consumption Totals, (September 2014). 12-2222

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 16 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
growing number of golf co urses in the Coache lla Valley. In recent years, CVWD has begun a program of recharging the Aquifer in the eastern Coachella Valley with this source.

The n eed for a dd itional water s upplies was recogni zed d ue to the onset of development in the western Coachella Valley. As a resul t, in 1963 CVWD and DWA, which serves water to the Palm Springs area and a portion of Cathedral City and imports water for these areas and the Desert Hot S prings area, entered into separa te contra cts with the Sta te of California in or der to en sure that SWP water would be ava ilable. Because a dire ct pipeline from the S WP system to the Coache lla V alley does not ex ist, CVWD
and DWA entered into an exchange agreement with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) to receive water from the M WD Colorado River Aq ueduct, which crosses the upper portion of the Coache lla Valley near Whi tewater. In exchange, CVWD and D WA have their S WP water allotment delivered to MWD. Sin ce 19 73, in exch ange for their SWP water, CVWD and D WA have been receiving Colorado Rive r water from MWD's Colo rado River Aq ueduct turnout loca ted at Whitewater Canyon to replenish groundwater in the Coachella Valley.

In addi
tion, CVWD h as recognized the n eed to provide other so urces of water to supplement its water supplies. CVWD has been re cycling reclaimed wastewater s ince 1967 and opera tes six water reclamation pl ants, three of which currently rec ycle water. Re cycled wa ter is currently used for go lf course and greenbelt i rrigation in the cities of Palm Dese rt, Indian We lls, and Ind io, thereby reducing demand on groundwater in the basin.

1.6 EXISTING WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS

1.6.1 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update CVWD initiated the first water management planning process in the early 1990s to address the overdraft conditions in the Aquifer and to ensure that there would be adequate water supplies in the future. The plan is a 35 -year blueprint for wise water management and the basis for all the Districts efforts to preserve the Valley’s groundwater source.

The Coachella Valley Water Management Plan was adopted by the CVWD Board of Directors (Board) in September, 2002. A Programmatic Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the plan and certified under the California Environmental Quality Act. The goal of the Water Management Plan is to reliably meet current and future water demands in a cost effective and sustainable manner, by achieving the following objectives:
• Meet current and future water demands with a 10 percent supply buffer • Eliminate long term groundwater overdraft
• Manage and protect water quality
12-2223

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 17 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
• Comply with state and federal laws and regulations
• Mange future costs
• Minimize adverse environmental impacts.

The Board recognized the need to update th e Water Management Plan periodically to respond to changing external and internal conditions. The 2010 CVWMP Update meets that need. It defines how the goal will be met given changing conditions and new uncertainties regarding water supplies, water demands, and evolving federal and state regulations.

The Plan calls for a multifaceted approach including:
• increased water conservation by all types of water users; • increasing the imported water supply from the Coachella Canal and State Water Project; • increasing the use of the impo rted supply and re cycled water, instead of groundwater, for irrigation; and
• expanded groundwater replenishment and source substitution efforts.

The 2010 CVWMP Update identifies several water conservation measures with the overall goal to reduce urban water consumption by 20 percent by 2020, and the overall goal to maintain this level of reduction through 2045. These measures include water efficient landscaping and irrigation controls, water efficient plumbing, tiered or seasonal water pricing, public information and education programs, alternative water supplies, water restrictive municipal development policies, appointing a CVWD conservation coordinator and refining the maximum water allowance budget for landscaped and recreational areas. The 2010 CVWMP Update reduces reliance on groundwater sources by fully utilizing Colorado River water, SWP water and recycled water supplies and implementing more conservation over the long term. For reference, the Executive Summary of the 2010 CVWMP Upda te is provided in Appendix C.

The 2010 CVWMP Update emphasizes cooperation with municipalities, local water agencies, and tribes in regional planning and implementation. The following are among some of the recommended conservation measures and activities o utlined in the 2010 CVWMP Update for the Board to consider over the next 35 years:

• Provide incentives and support to agricultural customers to conserve water, such as through con
verting from flood/sprinkler irrigation to more efficient micro-sprinkler/drip systems. • Encourage existing golf courses to convert landscaping to meet the most current Landscape Ordinance, requiring no more than 4 acres of grass per hole and 10 acres of grass per practice area. 12-2224

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 18 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
• Expand landscape conversion rebates for domestic cust omers to encourage less grass and more desert appropriate landscaping
• Complete construction of subsequent phases of the Mid-Valley Pipeline system to provide a blend of recycled and Colorado River water for up to 50 golf courses in lieu of groundwater.

The 2010 CVWMP Update recognizes t hat groundwater storage makes up the di fference between supply and demand. Other than canal water for irrigat ion, re cycled water and desalinated drai n water, all water delivered to the end use rs is obtained from the groundwater basin. The groundwater basin has a capaci ty of a pproximately 28.8 mi llion a cre-feet. It is capable of meeting the water demands of the Coachella Valley for extended periods.

The 2010 CVWMP Update discusse s that CVWD has many programs to maximize the wa ter resources available including:
• Recharge of Colorado River and SWP supplies
• Recycled wast ewater, desalinated a gricultural drain water, c onversion of groundwater uses to Canal water
• Water conservat ion including tiere d water rates, l andscaping ordi nance, o utreach and ed ucation.

The 2010 CVWMP Update and CVWD’s replenishm ent assessment programs estab lish a comprehensive and managed effort to e liminate the overdraf t. The se pro grams a llow CVWD to maintain the groundwater basin as i ts primary water supply and to recharge the groundwater basin as its other supplies are available.

CVWD recently prepared a 2014 CVWMP Status Report to evaluate the effectiveness of the 2010 CVWMP Update including progress on eliminating overdraft . The 2014 CVWMP Status Report demonstrated that the 2010 CVWMP Update is working and continued implementation of the programs in the 2010 CVWMP Update ensures that overdraft will be eliminated by 2021 as shown in Figure 4, Status of the Overdraft – Annual Change in Storage . Over the last ten -year period there has been no overdraft mainly as a result of increases in urban conservation and increases in imported water deliveries to the Coachella Valley. Water levels have increased in the Palm Springs area and in the East Valley. However water levels are still declining in the Mid-Valley areas near Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert and Indian Wells. Groundwater levels in this area will continue to decline until full implementation of Mid Valley programs that reduce pump ing. These Mid-Valley Programs include urban conservation to reduced urban demand 20% by 2020; source substitution programs including non -potable water system expansion to golf courses, Colorado River water treatment for municipal use ; and additional recha rge.

The 2014 CVWMP Status Report is included in Appendix D. 12-2225

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 19 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014

1.6.2 CVWD 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, SBX7-7, and Water Shortage Contingency Ordinance
The 2010 CVWD Urban Water Management Plan ( UWMP) was approved by the State on November 10, 2011. Water Code Section 10910 (c)(2) states that if demand from potential future growth is accounted for in the most recently adopted 2010 UWMP, the water supplier may incorporate the requested information from the 2010 UWMP in preparing the WSA/WSV. CVWD demand projections contained in the 2010 UWMP take into account the increased growth throughout its service area.

In November 2009, SBx7-7 was approved and adopted by the State. DWR provides alternative water use reduction targets for urban water suppliers to selec t, and guidance to achieve the target goal. The legislation includes requirements to improve the management of CVWD water resources by monitoring groundwater basins, developing agricultural water management plans, reducing statewide per capita water consumption by 2015 and 2020, and reporting water diversions and uses in the Delta.

SBx7-7 creates a framework of future planning and actions by urban and agricultural water suppliers to reduce California’s water use. This bill requires the development of agric ultural water management plans and requires urban per capita water consumption to be reduced by 20 percent by the year 2020.

Water Shortage Contingency
The CVWD developed its Water Shortage Contingency Plan during the 1986 -92 drought pursuant to the requirements of the Government Code 10632. The key element of CVWD’s water shortage contingency plan is an ordinance with phased water use restrictions and a drought rate structure. The Water Shortage Contingency Plan provides the stages and action levels shown in Table 1.0-2, Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

Table 1.0-2
Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Stage Action
Water Use
Reduction Goal
1 Voluntary 10%
2 Mandatory 10%
3 Mandatory 20%
4 Mandatory 50%

Source: Coachella Valley Water District, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, (2011).Table 5-17.

12-2226

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 20 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
The trigger levels (to move from one state to the next) depend on the State -wide and local water situation. Based on voluntary response during Stage 1, CVWD’s General Manager- Chief Engineer can determine that it is necessary to implement Stage 2 to protect the public welfare and safety. Also, in the case of a State -wide water shortage declaration, the Governor can determine that it is necessary it implement Stage 2. Prior to the implementation of each mandatory phase, CVWD will hold a public hearing for the purpose of determining whether a shortage exists and which measures should be implemented. The public will be informed of the public hearing at least ten days prior to the hearing and CVWD will notify the public of its determination by public proclamations.

California Drought Update
On January 17, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown Issued a Drought Declaration and requested a voluntary 20 percent reduction in urban water use Statewide. At that same time he also directed the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to adopt Emergency Regulations. As a result, on July 15, 2014, the SWRCB adopted Emergency Regulations for Statewide Urban Water Conservation. They became effective on July 28, 2014 and were documented in Tit le 23, Sections 863-865, of the California Code of Regulations. The regulations will remain effective for 9 months and could be extended if drought conditions persist.

The regulations prohibit applying water to outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes runoff such that water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots, or structures; using a hose to wash an automobile except where the hose is equipped with a shut- off nozzle; applying water to any hard surface including, but not limited to, driveways, sidewalks, and asphalt; and using potable water in a fountain or other decorative water feature, except where the water is part of a recirculating system.

The regulations also require that Urban Water Suppliers must move to the first mandatory level of water reduction designated in their 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. For CVWD this is Stage 2 which requires a mandatory 10 percent reduction in water use.

In response to the Governors Drought Declaratio n and the SWRCB’s emergency regulations, CVWD Adopted a Water Shortage Contingency Ordinance implementing Stage 2 of its Water Shortage Contingency Plan, and implemented the following restrictions:
• Outdoor irrigation is limited to between 10:00 AM and sunset • Customers should follow the CVWD drought watering guide which reduces irrigation demand 20% • Broken sprinklers should be repaired within 24 hours of notice • Water should be served in restaurants only upon request 12-2227

1.0 Introduction
Meridian Consultants 21 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
• Hotels should maintain messaging in hotel rooms asking guests to conserve water Allowances are provided for essential maintenance and overseeding.

1.6.3 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Integrated Regional Water Management Planning is a collaborative approach to managing all aspects of water resources in a region and is encouraged by the DWR. It involves multiple agencies, stakeholders, individuals and groups; and attempts to address the issues and differing perspectives of all the entities involved through mutually beneficial solutions. In 2008 the five public water agencies in the Coachella Valley formed the Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group (CVRWMG); in 2010 they adopted the Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP.) These efforts insure that the Coachella Valley as a whole will focus on sustainable water resources. All water agencies in the valley work together, share information discuss concerns and viewpoints and build consensus in supporting future projects that benefit the entire region. Since its formation the CVRWMG has added members and is working toward adding the Agua Caliente Tribe as its newest member.

1.6.4 Agua Caliente Cahuilla Band of Indians
The purpose of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Land Use Ordinance (Tribal Land Us e Ordinance) is to provide standards and regulations to control land uses on Indian Reservation Lands, maintain and protect the Reservation’s unique natural and cultural resources, and to preserve the natural environment. Article VII, Landscaping Standards, of the Tribe’s Land Use Ordinance promotes the use of native, desert, and other drought tolerant plants to reduce water demand on the Reservation.

The landscape management practices identified in this article of the Tribal Land Use Ordinance ensure maximum water efficiency in comprehensive landscaping plans, irrigation plans, plant materials, decorative water features, and places limitations on turf material.

1.6.5 City of Rancho Mirage
The City of Rancho Mirage has adopted by reference the CVWD Ordinance No. 1302.1 and incorporates CVWD’s water management planning efforts in the City’s General Plan Updates.

1.6.6 County of Riverside
The County of Riverside Ordinance No. 859, Water Efficient Landscape Requirements Ordinance, establishes provisions for water management practices and water waste prevention for new and rehabilitated landscapes and to implement the requirements of the California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act 2006 and the California Code of Regulations Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7. The County also incorporates CVWD’s water management planning efforts in its General Plan Updates. 12-2228

Meridian Consultants 22 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014

2.0 WATER DEMANDS

2.1 PROJECT SPECIFIC WATER DEMAND

2.1.1 Project Specific Water Demand Estimate
The unit water usage for this WSA/WSV are based on indoor water use performance standard as provided in the California Water Code for residential water demand; the American Water Works Association Research Foundation for commercial water demands; and the CVWD’s Landscape Ordinance No. 1302.1
3 which meets the water conservation goals of the DWR Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). The overall goal of the ordinance is to reduce landscape water use, reduce or eliminate runoff in streets, and limit turf. Specific landscape design for the project is unknow n at this time. CVWD’s Maximum Applie d Water Allowance (MAWA), as outlined in Appendix D of the District’s Ordinance No. 1302.1 is used to estimate outdoor irrigation usage. The MAWA complies with Division 2, Title 23, California Code or Regulation, Chapter 7, Section 702.

The Project planning area i ncludes a total of 577 acres within the Reservation. In order to prov ide a more accurate estimate of the proposed Project’s water demand, a site-specific analysis was completed.

Potable water demand was calculated for all indoor uses based on Project-specific estimates.

The following factors are pertinent to the proposed Project:
• Indoor Residential (Multifamily) = 55 gallons per day (gpd)/person • Active Adult Community density per home is 1.8 people per home 4 • Multifamily residential density per home is 2.97 people per home5 • Outdoor irrigation based on CVWD’s MAWA
• Indoor non -residential (commercial/retail, office, restaurant) based on American Water Works Association (AWWA)
− Clubhouse 0.096 gallons per square foot
− Restaurant 0.907 gallons per square foot
• Common Area landscape (parks/catchment/medians) based on MAWA

3 Assembly Bill 1881, “Water Conservation” (September 28, 2006). 4 Based on the Riverside Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM) which is within a negligible margin of error for the City of Rancho Mirage’s open space calculation.
5 Based on the Riverside County General Plan Land Use Element for Medium Density Residential land uses. 12-2229

2.0 Water Demands
Meridian Consultants 23 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
Residential
The projected water demands are distinguished between indoor and outdoor usage. Table 2.0-1, Indoor Residential Water Demands, summarizes the indoor water demands of the residential portion of the Project.

Table 2.0-1
Indoor Residential Water Demands
Planning
Area Land Use Units gpd/unit
Demand
(gpd)
Indoor Residential
Annual Demand (afy)
1 Multifamily Residential1 180 163.35 29,403 32.94
2 Multifamily Residential1 180 163.35 29,403 32.94
5 Multifamily Residential1 486 163.35 79,388 88.93
6 Multifamily Residential1 180 163.35 29,403 32.94
7 Multifamily Residential1 180 163.35 29,403 32.94
8 Single Family Residential2 1,200 99.0 118,800 133.07
Total 2,406 315,800 353.76

1 0.55 gpd/person x 2.97 person/unit = 163.35 gpd/unit
2 0.55 gpd/person x 1.80 person/unit = 99.0 gpd/unit
Abbreviations: gpd = gallons per day; afy = acre-feet per year

Nonresidential
For the purposes of this WSA/WSV, the AWWA Research Foundation’s Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water (2000), the most recent AWWARF document, was used to estimate indoor non-residential water use. In the absence of documented local indoor non -residential usage factors that wo uld accurately represent water use trends, the AWWARF document provides water use data applicable to mixed use commercial/industrial development projects of desert areas within southern California and Arizona, and sets water efficiency benchmarks for specific commercial uses. Based on these benchmarks, usage factors for the distinct uses of Retail, Restaurant, and Office were developed for the Project. Table 2.0 -2, Indoor Nonresidential Water Demands , summarizes nonresidential water demands.

12-2230

2.0 Water Demands
Meridian Consultants 24 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 2.0-2
Indoor Nonresidential Water Demands
Planning
Area Land Use
Building Area
(sq. ft.) gpd/sq. ft.

Demand
(gpd)
Annual Demand
(afy)
1 Mixed Use Commercial 217,800 0.096 20,909 23.42
1 Mixed Use Restaurant 108,900 0.907 98,772 110.64
1 Mixed Use Office 108,900 0.096 10,454 11.71
2 Mixed Use
Retail/Commercial
817,500 0.096 78,480 87.91
2 Mixed Use Restaurant 272,500 0.907 247,158 276.85
3 Mixed Use
Retail/Commercial
297,000 0.096 28,512 31.94
3 Mixed Use Restaurant 99,000 0.907 89,793 100.58
4 Mixed Use
Retail/Commercial
378,750 0.096 36,360 40.73
4 Mixed Use Restaurant 126,250 0.907 114,509 128.27
6 Mixed Use
Retail/Commercial
165,500 0.096 15,888 17.80
6 Mixed Use Restaurant 82,750 0.907 75,054 84.07
6 Mixed Use Office 82,750 0.096 7,944 8.90
7 Mixed Use
Retail/Commercial
190,500 0.096 18,288 20.49
7 Mixed Use Restaurant 95,250 0.907 86,392 96.77
7 Mixed Use Office 95,250 0.096 9,144 10.24
8 Clubhouse 12,000 0.096 1,152 1.29
8 Clubhouse Restaurant 3,000 0.907 2,721 3.05
Total 941,530 1,054.66

Source: Demand factors from the American Water Works Association Research Foundation for commercial, office, and restaurant demand.

Abbreviations: sq. ft. = square feet; gpd = gallons per day; afy = acre-feet per year.

Landscape Irrigation Demand
The Coachella Valley receives annual rainfall between 1.5 and 3.0 inches and experiences extremely high temperatures and large daily temperature ranges. Annual rainfall is normally less than 5.5 inches during the period and several maximum monthly average tem peratures reached above 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

The total potential evapotranspiration is well above the total rainfall, and is due to the high temperatures and the great amount of sun. The Coachella Valley never experiences a water su rplus 12-2231

2.0 Water Demands
Meridian Consultants 25 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
condition with respect to precipitation versus evapotranspiration. Prime evapotranspiration sites in the valley are the well-watered lawns and golf courses.

A formula called MAWA is based on the Project area’s reference evapotranspiration, ET adjustment factor, and the size of the Project’s landscape area. This calculation determines the upper limit of irrigation water allowed for the project. To meet the requirements of MAWA, a landscape design must use highly water efficient plant material laid out in a spare manner, and irrigated with efficient irrigation technology including drip emitters and smart controllers.

Landscape water demand for the Project is based on the estimated landscape irrigation area and water usage equations of the Districts Landscape Ordinance 1302. 1. Although the landscape design is unknown, this method ensures that a sufficient budget is provided to have a sustainable landscape that meets the criteria established in CVWD’s ordinance. Therefore , the MAWA equation for the Project was used to project irrigation demand. The equation uses an evapotranspiration rate of 93.9 inches per year (CVWD Zone 5) and a plant factor to irrigation efficiency ratio of 0.5 . The following demand characteristics apply to the proposed Project:
• Demand of 3.89 acre feet/year/acre is applied to the landscaped area (10 percent for Planning Areas 1 through 7 and 100 percent for Planning Area 8 of the Net Land Area is used to reflect desert scape type landscaping).
• CVWD’s Maximum Water Allotment per CVWD table is 3.89 acre feet/year/acre. • Retention Basins are minimally landscaped (5 percent of Net Land Area).

Adherence to the MAWA requirements as outlined in the CVWD ordinance assures compliance with CVWD water conservation goals and requirements.

Open space for the proposed Project includes a system of pedestrian, bicycle and golf cart trail linkages, neighborhood parks, plazas, courtyards, lawn areas, water features, community club house/pool/spa and associated amenities. The CVWD Maximum Water Allotment of 3.89 afy/ acre is inclusive of varying types of open space/landscaping uses, including all uses included in the proposed Project. Planning Area 8, which includes 1,200 residential units and 15,000 square feet of clubhouse/restaurant uses, also includes the largest net area of open space. Planning Area 8 provides a variety of outdoor amenities including neighborhood parks, trail linkages, water features, fitness trail, gathering areas, garden plots, and a golf putting green. For this reason, it is assumed that 100 percent of the open space area would be irrigated, using the standard water allotment of 3.89 afy/acre.

Table 2.0-3, Outdoor – Open Space Water Demands, estimates the water use for the Project’s common area landscaping.
12-2232

2.0 Water Demands
Meridian Consultants 26 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 2.0-3
Outdoor – Open Space Water Demands
Planning
Area
Net Total
Outdoor
Acreage
Landscaped
Acreage
Percent
Irrigated
Water Allotment
(afy/acre)2
Annual Demand
(afy)
1 27.5 2.75 10 3.89 10.70
2 28.7 2.87 10 3.89 11.16
3 26.6 2.66 10 3.89 10.35
4 29.6 2.96 10 3.89 11.51
5 19.7 1.97 10 3.89 7.66
6 22.8 2.28 10 3.89 8.87
7 29.1 2.91 10 3.89 11.32
8 77.0 77.0 100 3.89 299.53
Total 261.0 371.11

1 Based on CVWD Maximum Water Allotment from Landscape Ordinance. This generation rate is inclusive of the varying types of ope n space uses associated with the proposed Project.

Summary
Table 2.0-4, Summary of Project Demands, provides a summary of the water demand that would need to be provided to the Section 24 Specific Plan.

Table 2.0-4
Summary of Project Demands
Planning Area Land Use
Total Estimated
Demand
(afy)
1 Multifamily residential
Non-residential
Open Space

32.94 145.77

10.7 Subtotal 189.41
2 Multifamily residential
Non-residential
Open space

32.94 364.76

11.16 Subtotal 408.86
3 Non-residential
Open space
132.52

10.35 Subtotal 142.87
4 Non-residential
Open space
169.00

11.51 12-2233

2.0 Water Demands
Meridian Consultants 27 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
Planning Area Land Use
Total Estimated
Demand
(afy)
Subtotal 180.51
5 Multifamily residential
Open space

88.93 7.66
Subtotal 96.59
6 Multifamily residential
Non-residential
Open space

32.94 110.77

8.87 Subtotal 134.72
7 Multifamily residential
Non-residential
Open space

32.94 127.50

11.32 Subtotal 171.76
8 Single family residential
Non-residential
Open space
133.07

4.34 299.53
Subtotal 436.94
Total Project Demand 1,779.53

Note: Based on totals from Table 2.0-1, Table 2.0-2, and Table 2.0-3.

The Section 24 Specific Plan Project would require approximately 1, 780 afy using the Project- specific demand factors. A detailed year by year projection is provided in Appendix B, Water Demand Calculations. This estimation includes indoor an d outdoor use for the Residential and Nonresidential areas. This quantity is approximately 1.5 percent of CVWD’s 2013 total urban water production.6

2.2 WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
CVWD has made significant effort to provide private and public consumers of local water resources with information to help conserve these resources through the use of drought tolerant desert plants and efficient irrigation systems. As discussed in Section 1.6.4 , the Tribe h as adopted landscaping standards similar to CVWD’s landscape ordinance. In addition, the City of Rancho Mirage has adopted the landscape ordinance and requires that development within the City be water efficient.

6 Coachella Valley Water District, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (2011) Table 3-10. 12-2234

2.0 Water Demands
Meridian Consultants 28 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
The 2010 CVWMP Update identifies several conservation measures with the goal of reducing urban water demand by 20 percent by 2020. The 2010 CVWMP Update includes water efficient landscaping and irrigation, water efficient plumbing and appliances, tiered or budget based water pricing, public information and education programs, alternative water supplies, water restrictive municipal development policies and maximum water allowance for landscaped and recreational areas. CVWD employs a full-time conservation coordinator with sufficient staffing to review all new landscape plans for compliance with the CVWD’s Landscape Ordinance.

2.2.1 Desert Landscaping: Native and Other Drought Tolerant Plants The need for progressive water conservation and control of landscape maintenance costs has also prompted the greater use of native and other drought- tolerant planti ng materials within the Project Site. The Coachella Valley and CVWD have been a leader in the promotion of these desert landscape materials and design themes, most notably in Landscape Ordinance 1302.1. As a result, thoughtful and conservative management a nd use of water resources have guided development of the conceptual Project landscape plan.

2.2.2 Project-Specific Water Conservation and Groundwater Reduction Measures
A broad range of Project Design Features have been included in the Section 24 Specific Plan to address the Project's potential impacts on water resources.

Project developers shall be required to implement the following features to assure the most efficient use of water resources and to meet and maintain the Tribe’s and the 2010 CVW MP Update g oals throughout the life of the Project:

1. The Project will require use of xeriscape planting principles and establishes a palette of drought - tolerant trees, shrubs and plants that require little irrigation.

2. Turf is restricted to active outdoor recreation areas only in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance in effect at that time.

3. The Specific Plan allows the use of grey water recycled water infrastructure and rainwater collection systems.

4. Decorative water features shall be designed to recirculate water to minimize water consumption and evaporation.
12-2235

2.0 Water Demands
Meridian Consultants 29 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014

5. New development will meet CVWD water efficiency goals and will be strongly encouraged to incorporate creative designs that exceed those goals.

6. The Active Adult Community incorporates many sustainable and water saving features:
a. Reduced width streets (32 foot) that reduce impervious surfaces that generate run-off. b. Retains and treats all stormwater on site from up to a 100-year storm event. c. Low flow toilets and low gallon per minute (gpm) plumbing fixtures in compliance with the City, Tribe, and California Plumbing Code.
d. Tankless water heaters.
e. Timed irrigation watering systems and irrigation rain sensors for maximum efficiency 12-2236

Meridian Consultants 30 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014

3.0 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT

3.1 GENERAL
Having established that the 2010 CVWMP Update and 2010 UWMP are applicable to this Project, the next requirement of a WSA is to identify and describe the water supply sources of the PWS that will serve the Project. State Water Code Section 10910(d) requires a WSA to include identification of any existing water supply Table A amounts, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed Project. The WSA shall also include a description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the PWS. According to the 2010 UWMP, the aquifer and other sources of supply are adequate for an average year, single dry year, and multiple dry years for a 20-year period.

3.2 IDENTIFICATION OF WATER SOURCE

3.2.1 Primary Water Sources
The primary source of water supply for this Project is groundwater. The groundwater basin is recharged by Colorado River Water, reclaimed water, SWP supplies and potentially desalinated agricultural drain water. Colorado River water is also available for potential domestic use if treated. Colorado River water via the Coachella Canal supplies water for irrigation of the eastern valley. The proposed Project is located in the western portion of the Coachella Valley which does not currently have access to this water.

3.2.2 Additional Water Sources
In addition to Colorado River water and groundwater, CVWD and the Coachella Valley have additional water sources, including the Colorado River, imported SWP water, recycled water and a limited amount of surface water. These sources are described in the followi ng analysis in Section 3.3, Analysis of Water Supply. In the future, drainage water from the shallow, semi- perched groundwater zone, which is collected by CVWD's drainage system, will be treated and used to meet non-potable uses as described in the 2010 CV WMP Update . The area within the Specific Plan is planned for access to grey water and recycled water . Potential sources of grey water include dual plumbing fixtures for large commercial projects to capture commercial dishwasher water and capturing runoff water from roofs and parking structures. Grey water would irrigate landscapes within the Specific Plan Area. The Project could also utilize storm water contained on site for reuse.
12-2237

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 31 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014

3.3 ANALYSIS OF WATER SUPPLY

3.3.1 Groundwater
Since the early part of the 2 0th century, the Coachella Valley has been dependent primarily on groundwater as a source of domestic water supply. Groundwater is als o used to supply water for crop irrigation, fish farms, duck clubs, golf courses, greenhouses, and industrial uses in the Coachella Valley.

Water Code Section 10910 (f) requires additional information when a groundwater basin is cited as the water supply source for a project includ ing a description of the basin, the rights of the PWS to use the basin, the overdraft status of the basin, any past or planned overdraft mitigation efforts, historical use of the basin by the PWS, projected use of the basin by the project, and a sufficiency analysis of the basin that is to supply the Project.

3.3.2 Description of the Aquifer
Groundwater is the principal source of municipal water supply in the Coachella Valley. 7 CVWD serves domestic water to most of the developed portions of the Coachella Valley and along both sides of the Salton Sea in Imperial Valley. CVWD obtains water from both the West and East Whitewater River subbasins and the Mission Creek subbasin. A common groundwater source, the Whitewater River subbasin, is shared by CVWD, DWA, the cities of I ndio and Coachella, Myoma Dunes Water Company and numerous private groundwater users.

The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, as described by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), is bounded on the north and east by non -water bearing crystalline rocks of the San Bernardino and Little San Bernardino Mountains and on the west by the crystalline rocks of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. 8 At the west end of the San Gorgonio Pass, between Beaumont and Banning, the basin boundary is defined by a surface drainage divide separating the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin from the Beaumont Groundwater Basin of the Upper Santa Ana drainage area.

The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin can be described as a giant tilted bathtub full of sand, with the high end at the northwest edge of the Coachella Valley near the comm unity of Whitewater and the low end at the Salton Sea. The aquifer underlies the cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Indio, and Coachella, and the unincorporated communities of Thousand Palms, Thermal, Bermuda Dunes, Oasis, and Mecca.

7 Coachella Valley Water District, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, (June 2011). 4-4. 8 Coachella Valley Water District, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, (June 2011). 4-9. CVWD, Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update, (January 2012). 4-1.
12-2238

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 32 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
The Subbasins present in the Valley are Mission Creek, Desert Hot Springs, Garnet Hill, and Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasins. The Whitewater Subbasin includes four subareas: Palm Springs, Thermal, Thousand Palms, and Oasis. 9 The Palm Springs Subarea is the forebay or main area of recharge to the subbasin, and the Thermal Subarea comprises the pressure or confined area within the basin. The Thousand Palms and Oasis subareas are peripheral areas having unconfined groundwater conditio ns.

The subbasins with their groundwater storage reservoirs are defined without regard to water quantity or quality. They delineate areas underlain by formations, which readily yield the stored water through water wells and offer natural reservoirs for the regulation of water supplies. From a management perspective, the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin is commonly divided into a west and east portion, with the dividing line extending from Point Happy in La Quinta to the northeast, terminating at the San Andreas Fault and the Indio Hills at Jefferson Street. The west portion of the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin is defined generally as that portion of the Thermal Subarea west of this line including the Palm Springs Subarea, and the Thousand Palms Subarea.

The Whitewater River Subbasin comprises the major portion of the floor of the Coachella Valley and encompasses approximately 400 square miles. Historical fluctuations of groundwater levels within the Whitewater River Subbasin indicate a steady decline in the levels throughout the Subbasin prior to 1949.

With the importation of Colorado River water from the Coachella Canal after 1949, the demand on the groundwater basin declined in East Valley (generally east and south of Washington Street) below Point Happy, and the groundwater levels rose sharply
10 although water levels continued to decline in the
western portions of the subbasin. Water levels in the deeper aquifers of the East Valley rose from 1950 to 1980. However, since the early 1980s, water levels in this area have again declined, at least partly due to increasing urbanization and groundwater usage.

The Whitewater Subbasin is located northwest of the Salton Sea and receives low precipitation, averaging about 6 inches per year, and a wide range of temperatures. 11 The Banning fault bounds the
subbasin on the north and the semi -permeable rocks of the Indio Hills mark the northeast boundary.

Impermeable rocks of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains bound the subbasin on the south. A bedrock constriction separates the Indio Subbasin from the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin on the northwest. The Salton Sea is the eastern boundary and the subbasin’s primary discharge area. A low drainage divide forms a short boundary with the West Salton Sea Groundwater Basin in the southeast.

9 Coachella Valley Water District, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, (June 2011). 4-9. CVWD, Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update, (January 2012). 4-3.
10 Coachella Valley Water District, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, (June 2011). 4-9. 11 Department of Water Resources, California Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, Indio Subbasin (2004).
12-2239

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 33 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
In the upper part of the Whitewater Subbasin, groundwater is unconfined, whereas to the south and southeast groundwater is mostly confined except on the edges o f the subbasin where unconfined conditions are found. Depth to groundwater varies widely in the southeast part of the subbasin and some wells historically delivered artesian flow.

As shown in Table, 3 .0-1, Groundwater Storage Capacity of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, DWR estimated that the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin contained a total of approxim ately 39.2 million acre -feet of water in the first 1,000 feet below the ground surface, much of which originated from runoff from adjacent mountains. However, the amount of water in the aquifer has decreased over the years due to pumpage to serve urban, rural, and agricultural development in the Coachella Valley, which has withdrawn water from the aquifer at a rate faster than its natural rate of recharge.

Table 3.0-1
Groundwater Storage Capacity of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin Area Storage (AF)
San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin 2,700,000
Mission Creek Subbasin 2,600,000
Desert Hot Springs Subbasin 4,100,000
Garnet Hill Subbasin 1,000,000
Subtotal 10,400,000
Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin
Palm Springs Subarea 4,600,000
Thousand Palms Subarea 1,800,000
Oasis Subarea 3,000,000
Thermal Subarea 19,400,000
Subtotal Whitewater River Subbasin 28,800,000
Total all Subbasins 39,200,000

Source: Coachella Valley Water District, Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and R eplenishment Assessment, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit 2040-2015. Coachella, California (April 2014).Table 1.

Although water levels have been declining throughout most of the Subbas ins since 1945, water levels in the southeastern portion of the Valley had risen until the early 1980s because of the use of imported water from the Coachella Canal and the resulting decreased pumpage in that area. 12 The rate of

12 Coachella Valley Water District, Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit 2040-2015. Coachella, California. (April 2014). 14. 12-2240

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 34 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
groundwater level decline increased from the early 1980s until about 2010 due to inc reased urbanization and increased groundwater use by domestic water purveyors, local farmers, golf courses and fish farms. Since 2010 groundwater levels in the eastern portion of the Coachella Valley have risen due to recharge of Colorado River water at the Thomas E. Levy Recharge Facility.

The historic declining water table in the Whitewater River Subbasin led to a determination by CVWD and DWA that a management program is required to stabilize water levels and prevent other adverse effects such as water quality degradation and land subsidence. CVWD’s East and West Whitewater River Subbasin Groundwater Replenishment Program s are reducing declining water levels in this subbasin.

Groundwater recharge in the West Whitewater River Subbasin began in 1973 and the benefits of recharge can be seen in recent groundwater level measurements.

As presented in the 2010 CVWMP Update, total groundwater production within the West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of benefit from all producers was estimated to be 208,439 afy in 1999. The reported production for 2013 was 181,994 afy.
13 Groundwater production within the East Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit was estimated to be 168,300 afy during 1999. The reported production for 2013 was 119,194 afy.14
Surface runoff and subsurface inflow are significant sources of recharge to the Indio Subbasin. In addition, the Whitewater River spreading grounds northwest of Palm Springs receives Colorado River Aqueduct water and has a maximum capacity of 300,000 afy. 15 Although t he Whitewa ter River
spreading grounds recharged only 26,620 afy in 2013, annual recharge has averaged 70,500 afy since 1973. Annual water quantities delivered vary as a result of var ying State Water Project delivery reliability, drought and advance deliveries associated with the exchange agreement. Average historical natural recharge is approximately 49,000 afy. Colorado River water is conveyed into the West subbasin via the Coachella Canal, which also supplies recharge project facilities located in the southwestern part of the subbasin.16 DWR has calculated the storage capacity of the subbasin to be 28.8 million acre-feet.

The annual amounts of water delivered for recharge are shown in Table 3.0-2, West Whitewater River Subbasin Annual Recharge Deliveries.

13 Coachella Valley Water District, Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit 2040-2015. Coachella, California. (April 2014). 14 Coachella Valley Water District, Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment, East Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit 2040-2015. Coachella, California. (April 2014). Table 2. 15 Department of Water Resources, California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, Indio Subbasin, (February 27, 2004).
16 Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (January, 2012). 12-2241

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 35 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 3.0-2
West Whitewater River Subbasin Annual Recharge Deliveries Calendar Year

Replenishment Delivery
(afy)
Calendar Year

Replenishment Delivery
(afy)
1973 7,475 1994 36,763
1974 15,396 1995 61,318
1975 20,126 1996 188,266
1976 13,206 1997 113,677
1977 0 1998 132,455
1978 0 1999 90,601
1979 25,192 2000 72,450
1980 26,341 2001 707
1981 35,251 2002 33,435
1982 27,020 2003 902
1983 53,732 2004 13,244
1984 83,708 2005 165,554
1985 251,994 2006 98,959
1986 298,201 2007 16,009
1987 104,334 2008 8,008
1988 1,096 2009 57,024
1989 12,478 2010 228,330
1990 31,721 2011 232,214
1991 14 2012 257,267
1992 40,870 2013 26,620
1993 60,153 Total 2,884,111

Source: Coachella Valley Water District, Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Asse ssment, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit 2040-2015. Coachella, California (April 2014).Table 5.

Note: Delivered water quantities vary as a result of varying State Water Project delivery reliability, drought, and advance deliveries associated with the exchange agreement.

Aquifer Adjudication
The groundwater basin has not been adjudicated. CVWD shares a common groundwater source with other PWS’s, including DWA, the Mission Springs Water District (MSWD), the City of Coachella, the City of Indio, and the Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company. Other groundwater users include some individual residents mostly in rural areas, farmers, golf courses, businesses, and commercial facilities.

DWA and CVWD both operate groundwater replenishment programs whereby groundwater pumpers 12-2242

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 36 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
(other than minimal pumpers) pay a per acre -foot charge that is used to pay the cost of importing and recharging the aquifer.

Status of the Aquifer
The groundwater supply of the Whitewater River Subbasin consists of a combination of natural runoff, inflows from adjacent basins, returns from groundwater, recycled water and imported water use. The supply is supplemented with artificial recharge with imported SWP Exchange and Colorado River Water.

The long-term average of natural inflow fro m mountain-front runoff is about 46,000 afy. Runoff varies from about 8 ,000 afy in very dry years to over 200,000 afy in extremely wet years. For the 10 year period of 2000 through 2009, natural inflow from mountain -front runoff was below normal averaging about 29,000 afy. Subsurface inflow from adjacent groundwater basins averages about 11,000 afy and is relatively consistent from year to year. Returns from use vary with water demand. From 2000 to 2009 returns from use are estimated to average about 240,000 afy. During this same period, about 51,000 afy of imported water was recharged into the basin. Total inflows are estimated to be about 331,000 afy. 17 Outflows from the basin consist of pumping, flows to the agricultural drainage system, evapotranspiration by native vegetation , and subsurface outflow to the Salton Sea. For the 2000 through 2009 period, groundwater pumping averaged about 389,000 afy . Drain flows are estimated to be about 48,000 afy while evapotranspiration and subsurface outflow averaged abo ut 4,000 afy. Total basin outflows for this period averaged 441,000 afy . Average net outflow from storage for this period was 110,000 afy.

California DWR Bulletin 108 and Bulletin 118 are the most current bulletins published by the DWR that characterize the condition of the aquifer as a whole.
18,19 In 1964, Bulletin 108, DWR noted that the
amount of usable supply in the overdrafted aquifer was decreasing. CVWD estimates the annual water balance in its Engineer’s Reports on Water Supply and Replenishment Asse ssment. These reports estimated the annual change in storage for the Coachella Valley to be approximately 62,700 afy in 2013.

Over the last ten year period urban per capita water use has decreased as a result of ongoing conservation programs. In addition imported water supplies have increased. As a result , the 2014 CVWMP Status R eport showed that overdraft has not occurred between 2003 and 2013, and with continued implementation of 2010 CVWMP Update Programs overdraft will be eliminated by 2021.

17 Coachella Valley Water District, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, (June 2011). Table 4-3. 18 California Department of Water Resources, Bulletin 108 (1964). 19 California Department of Water Resources, Bulletin 118 (2003). 12-2243

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 37 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
The historical overdraft in the Coachella Valley has caused groundwater levels to decrease in portions of the Coachella Valley particularly in Mid -Valley region of Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, and Indian Wells and raised concerns about water quality degradation and land subsidence. Groundwater overdraft is manifested not only as a prolonged decline in groundwater storage, but also through secondary adverse effects including decreased well yields, increased energy costs, water quality degradation and land subsidence. Groundwater levels in the West Valley from Palm Springs to La Quinta have also decreased historically. However, in the last ten years groundwater level increases have been seen in the Palm Springs area where artificial recharge has successfully raised water levels.

The effectiveness of the groundwater replenishment program has been demonstrated by rising water levels in Palm Springs area and by slowing water level declines in some wells of the upper portion of the Whitewater River Subbasin.
20 Overdraft Mitigation Efforts
Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update
In addition to the requirements for the 2010 UWMP, as previously mentioned, CVWD maintains water management policies within its 2010 CVWMP Update to comprehensively protect and augment the groundwater supply. As defined in the 2010 CVWMP Update, CVWD is reducing reliance on groundwater sources by utilizing more Colorado River water, SWP water and recycled water. Per this plan, CVWD also implements source substitution and conservation measures to reduce demands on the aquifer. The goal is to reduce the urban water demand by 20 percent by 2020 pursuant to SB7 -7. The CVWD anticipates this water use reduction level will be permanent.

CVWD Landscape Ordinance
CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.1 requires a series of reduction methods, including requirements that new developments install weather -based irrigation controllers that automatically adjust water allocation.21 Additional requirements include setbacks of spray emitters from impervious surfaces, as well as use of porous rock and gravel buffers between grass and curbs to eliminat e runoff onto streets.

With the exception of turf, all landscaping, including groundcover and shrubbery , must be irrigated with a drip system. In addition, the maximum water allowance for landscaped areas throughout the CVWD

20 Coachella Valley Water District, 2014 Status Report for the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update, 2014. 21 Coachella Valley Water District, Landscape and Irrigation System Design Criteria, November, 2009. 12-2244

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 38 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
service area has been reduced. 22 This new reduction goal requires that developers maximize the use of native and other drought -tolerant landscape materials, and to minimize use of more water- intensive landscape features, including turf and fountains.

Source Substitution
Source substitution is the delivery of an alternate source of water to users currently pumping groundwater. The substitution of an alternate water source reduces groundwater extraction and allows the groundwater to remain in storage, thus reducing overdraft. Alternative sources of water include municipal recycled water from Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) -7, WRP-9, WRP-10, and the City of Palm Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant; Colorado River water, desalinated agricultural drain water, grey water, and re-use of water used in aquaculture.

Source substitution projects include:
• Conversion of existing and future golf courses in the East Valley from groundwater to Colorado River Water
• Conversion of exist ing and future golf courses in the West Valley from groundwater to recycled water and/or Colorado River water via SWP Exchange Water • Conversion of existing and future golf courses in the East Valley from groundwater to Colorado River Water via the Mid-Valley Pipeline
• Conversion of agricultural irrigation from groundwater to Colorado River water, in both the Oasis area and Mecca area
• Conversion of some municipal use from groundwater to treated Colorado River Water Examples of effective alternative source substitution efforts include the following:
• CVWD has a non -potable water system that delivers treated recycled water from three water reclamation plants, blends it with canal water and delivers it to golf courses, schools, and open spaces for irrigation. Approximately 8,750 acre feet of recycled water was delivered in 2013. • CVWD has completed construction of a 54-inch diameter pipeline to deliver Colorado River water to the Mid-Valley area for use with CVWD's recycled water for golf course and open space irrigation. A total of 45 golf courses within CVWD’s service area now use either recycled or canal water or a combination of both. This reduces the pumping from the groundwater basin for these uses.

22 For design purposes, the upper limit of annual applied water for the established landscape area as identified in Division 2, Title 23, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 7, Section 702. It is based on an area's calculated evapotranspiration rate.

The estimated applied water for landscaping shall not exceed the maximum applied water allowance. 12-2245

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 39 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
• CVWD has secured rights to the Colorado River and participate d in the construction of the All - American Canal and the Coachella Canal. Beginning in the late 1940’s, CVWD worked with the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and constructed a distribution system to deliver Colorado River water to the farms in the Lower Coachella Valley. This system delivered 245,894 acre -feet of Colorado River water in 2006, and increased deliveries to approximately 331,000 acre-feet in 2013. • CVWD recharges the Coachella Valley groundwater basin with Colorado River water at three locations. The largest recharge program is operated at the Whitewater River Recharge Facility. The Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility recharges up to 40,000 afy in the East Valley. • CVWD has secured rights to SWP water and negotiated exchange and advanced delivery agreements with the MWD to exchange CVWD's SWP water for MWD's Colorado River water source. The SWP exchange water is used to recharge the a quifer in the West Coachella Valley. This recharge program was started in 1972 and has replenished the aquifer with almost three million acre-feet of water.

CVWD plans to utilize treated agricultural drainage water for irrigation purposes. A desalination pilot study was completed in 2007.
• CVWD has worked with an aquaculture farm and developed water efficiency programs that include water treatment and reuse.
• CVWD intends to implement expansion of the Oasis area irrigation system. This project will reduce groundwater pumping by extending Colorado River water delivery to the Oasis Slope. The Oasis system would deliver Canal and desalinated drain water to serve urban non-potable water uses such as irrigation.

Conservation Programs
CVWD continues to work with the cities in its service area to limit the amount of water that can be used for outdoor landscaping, and maintains an ongoing turf rebate program to encourage homeowners to replace turf areas with desert friendly landscaping. As the result of the adoption of statewide indoor water conservation measures requiring low flush toilets, shower and faucet flow res trictors and other devices, the amount of water used inside homes has been significantly reduced. In addition, in 2010 CVWD adopted water budget -based tiered rates to discourage excessive water us , and implemented a 20 by 2020 urban water use reduction tar get. CVWD is also working with the g olf course industry to reduce their water use. In 2014 CVWD began a partnership with the Southern California Golf Association and formed the Golf and Water Task Force to reduce overall golf course water use by 10 percent . Key activities being implemented are the establishment of water budgets to limit golf course groundwater pumping and a region wide golf course turf reduction program. With the large number of new communities constructed, these conservation programs have reduced impacts of new development on the Aquifer.
12-2246

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 40 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
The Section 24 Specific Plan would be required to implement the CVWD conservation measures in order to assure the most efficient use of water resources and to meet and maintain the CVWMP goals throughout the life of the project. In addition, the Project will strictly adhere to CVWD’s landscape ordinance and the Tribe’s landscape ordinance, which mirrors CVWD’s landscape ordinance.

Historical Groundwater Use
The CVWD’s annual Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment for each of the groundwater basins reviews the historical use of groundwater in the Coachella Valley. In 1936, groundwater use was 92,400 afy and increased continually t o about 376 ,000 afy in 1999 . The groundwater use in 2009 dropped to about 35 9,000afy due to a combination of water conservation efforts, source substitution projects and the effects of the ongoing economic recession. In 2013, as a continued result of conservation and source substitution programs total groundwater use dropped even further to approximately 301,000 afy. This more than a 20 percent reduction in reported Coachella Valley groundwater pumping since 2007.

Groundwater Sufficiency Analysis
The 2010 UWMP reported CVWD’s 2010 urban water demand at 109,488 afy. CVWD’s projected urban water demand in the 2010 UWMP for the year 2035 is 242,700 afy. When adding groundwater recharge and non-potable water demands (agriculture, golf course and municipal), these CVWD UWMP demand estimates are 588,700 afy in 2010 and 689,400 afy in 2035.

The proposed Project would begin construction in 2016 . Total water demand of the Project is estimated to be 1780 afy, which represents approximately 1.6 percent of CVWD’s 2010 UWMP urban demand and approximately 0.3 percent of CVWD’s total potable and non -potable 2010 demand. With a total of 577 acres, buildout of the proposed Project would result in a total demand of 3.08 afy/acre. The remaining development of the higher-density mix of retail, entertainment, office, hotel and residential land uses will begin construction at a later date following the completion of the Active Adult Community component and occur over a longer period of time.

With almost 30 million acre-feet of combined storage and the groundwater management planning in the 2010 UWMP and 2010 CVWMP Update, the a quifer is sufficient to supply the Project and other present and anticipated needs for normal year, as well as single dry and multiple dry years, over the next 20 years.

3.3.3 Additional Water Sources
Groundwater provides the main water supply for the Project. This WSA/WSV focuses on the adequacy of these sources and other alternative water sources to supply sufficient amounts of water to meet the 12-2247

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 41 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
water demands of this P roject. Additional water sources are considered as a supplement to groundwater in that they are used to recharge the aquifer, serve as a source substitution for groundwater, or are used for irrigation in other locations in the subbasin.

If it becomes available to the Project Site, t he proposed Project will utilize recycled water on site to supplement non-potable water demands. Additionally, the project may also use drainage water (storm water) contained on site for landscape irrigation and to recharge the groundwater basin.

Colorado River Water
The Coachella Canal is a branch of the All- American Canal, which brings Colorado River water into the Imperial and Coachella valleys. Under the 1931 California Seven Party Agreement, CVWD has water rights to Colorado River water as part of the first 3.85 million acre -feet allocated to California. CVWD is in the third priority position along with th e Imperial Irrigation District. This priority is ahead of the 550,000 acre-feet allocation to the MWD, which has the lowest priority of the California Seven Party.

California's Colorado River supply is protected by the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act, which provides that certain Colorado River supplies to Arizona and Nevada after 1968 shall be reduced to zero before California will be reduced below 4.4 million acre -feet in any year. It is estimated that this reduction is about 1.5 million acre -feet. This reduction together with the reduction by California agencies with lower priorities than CVWD results in reduction in excess of 2 million acre-feet in Colorado River water available to the Lower Basin States before the Colorado River supply available to CVWD are impacted. This assumes that the California agricultural agencies with rights to Colorado River water are using less than 3.85 million acre-feet.

Historically, CVWD has received approximately 330,000 afy of Priority 3a Colorado River water. Table

3.0-3, Annual CVWD Colorado River Diversions at Imperial Dam – 1964 to 2013 (after Measured Returns), contains the diversions of Colorado River water after measured returns at Imperial Dam to CVWD for the period 1964 -2013. The 2003 Q SA, among some of the California Colorado River contractors, resulted in a firm contractual obligation for the supply to CVWD. A number of lawsuits have unsuccessfully challenged the QSA agreements and transfers in state and federal courts.

12-2248

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 42 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 3.0-3
Annual CVWD Colorado River Diversions at Imperial Dam – 1964 to 2013 (after measured Returns)
Year
Diversion Volume
(acre-feet) Year
Diversion Volume
(acre-feet)
1964 526,417 1989 359,419
1965 524,686 1990 322,625
1966 489,429 1991 331,821
1967 465,053 1992 359,419
1698 449,263 1993 369,685
1969 470,683 1994 317,563
1970 511,476 1995 309,367
1971 522,356 1996 318,990
1972 558,864 1997 326,102
1973 522,356 1998 326,697
1974 558,864 1999 333,810
1975 570,987 2000 342,871
1976 524,800 2001 329,367
1977 508,635 2002 331,107
1978 509,491 2003 296,808
1979 530,733 2004 318,616
1980 531,791 2005 304,768
1981 452,260 2006 329,322
1982 424,868 2007 311,971
1983 362,266 2008 299,064
1984 355,789 2009 308,560
1985 337,002 2010 306,141
1986 339,702 2011 309,348
1987 322,625 2012 329,576
1988 331,821 2013 331,137

Source: Records of releases of water through regulatory structures in accordance with Article V(A) of the Decree of the Supreme Court of the United States in Arizona v. California dated March 9, 1964.

12-2249

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 43 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
The 2003 QSA was entered into and between CVWD, Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA). The QSA quantifies distribution allotments of Colorado River water rights in California, including CVWD’s Colorado River Rights, for the next 75 years. The agreements provide for additional transfer of Colorado River allocations to CVWD from the IID and MWD. Under the QSA, CVWD will receive up to 459,000 afy of Colorado River water as shown in Table 3.0-4, Colorado River Deliveries to CVWD under the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA).

Table 3.0-4
Colorado River Deliveries to CVWD under the QSA
Component 2010 Amount (afy) 2045 Amount (afy)
Base Entitlement 330,000 330,000
1998 MWD/IID Approval Agreement 20,000 20,000
Coachella Canal Lining (to SDCWA) -26,000 -26,000
To Miscellaneous/Indian PPR’s -3,000 -3,000
IID/CVWD First Transfer 50,000 50,000
IID/CVWD Second Transfer 53,000 53,000
Metropolitan/SWP Transfer 35,000 35,000
Total Diversion at Imperial Dam 368,000 459,000
Less Conveyance Losses -31,000 -31,000
Total Deliveries to CVWD 337,000 428,000

Source: Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (January, 2012).Table ES-1. afy = acre-feet per year

Water from the Coachella Canal provides a significant supply source for the East Valley. I n 1999, the Coachella Canal supplied over 60 percent of the water used in the East Valley, but provided less than 1 percent of the water supply to the West Valley. Most of the canal water was used for crop irrigati on in the East Valley.

In 1995, CVWD began operating the Dike No. 4 pilot rec harge facility in La Quinta. This facility has successfully demonstrated the adequacy of this site to recharge the aquifer. This facility was expanded in 1998. This site, the Levy Facility at the Dike 4 site was expanded in 2009 and put into full operation.

Future development and associated increases in water demand, as well as quality concerns, are expected to increase use of Colorado River water for domestic purposes. Determinin g the best way to treat this water in order to substitute for and decrease the area's dependency on groundwater is an important objective of the 2010 CVWMP Update and the 2010 UWMP . 2010 CVWMP Update calls for 12-2250

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 44 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
the treatment and distribution of as much as 62,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water for domestic use annually.

State Water Project Water
CVWD and DWA are SWP contractors for the Whitewater River basin aquifer. The SWP includes 660 miles of aqueduct and conveyance facilities extending from Lake Orov ille in the north to Lake Perris in the south. The SWP has contracts to deliver 4.1 million afy to 29 contracting agencies. CVWD's original SWP water right (Table A Amount) was 23,100 afy and DWA's original SWP Table A Amount was 38,100 afy—for a combined Table A Amount of 61,200 afy. In 2004, CVWD purchased an additional 9,900 afy of SWP water from the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, which brought CVWD's SWP allotment to 33,000 afy.

In addition, CVWD and DWA have also negotiated an exchange agreement with MWD for 100,000 afy of SWP Table A Amount. MWD has permanently transferred 88,100 afy an d 11,900 afy of its SWP Table A Amounts to CVWD and DWA, respectively. This exchange agreement increases the total SWP Table A Amount for CVWD and DWA to 178,100 afy, with CVWD's portion equal to 126,350 afy. This agreement provides that CVWD and DWA generally receive this water from the SWP during wet years, which allows the two agencies to recharge the groundwater basin and operate a conjunctive use program, storing water in wet years and pumping the groundwater basin in dry years.

In 2007, CVWD and DWA made a second purchase of SWP water from the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District. CVWD purchased 5,250 afy and DWA purchased 1,750 afy . In 2007, CVWD and DWA completed the transfer of 12,000 afy and 4,000 afy, respectively, from the Berrenda Mesa Water District for a total Table A amount of 16,000 afy . Therefore, the total SWP Table A Amount for CVWD and DWA is 1 94,100 afy, with CVWD's portion equal to 138 ,350 afy. Table 3.0 -5, State Water Project Water Sources, summarizes CVWD and DWA total allocations of Table A SWP water to be delivered when available.

Table 3.0-5
State Water Project Water Sources (afy)

Original
SWP
Table A
Tulare Lake
Basin 2004
Transfer
Metropolitan
2003 Transfer
Tulare Lake
Basin 2007
Transfer
Berrenda Mesa
2007 Transfer Total
CVWD 23,100 9,900 88,100 5,250 12,000 138,350
DWA 38,100 -- 11,900 1,750 4,000 55,750
Total 61,200 9,900 100,000 7,000 160,000 194,100

Source: Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (January, 2012).Table 4-4.

12-2251

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 45 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
SWP contractors make annual requests to the DWR for water allocatio ns and DWR makes an initial SWP Table A allocation for planning purposes, typically in the last month before the next water delivery year.

Throughout the year, as additional information regarding water availability becomes available to DWR, its allocation/delivery estimates are updated. Table 3.0 -6, Department of Water Resources Table A Water Allocations, outlines the historic reliability of SWP deliveries, including their initial and final allocations since 1988. The 2014 initial allocation of SWP water for CVWD is 6,918 acre-feet and DWA is 2,778 acre-feet, for a combined total of 9,696 acre-feet or 5 percent of the requested total.23 Table 3.0-6
Department of Water Resources Table A Water Allocations Year Initial Allocation Final Allocation
1988 100% 100%
1989 100% 100%
1990 100% 100%
1991 85% 30%
1992 20% 45%
1993 10% 100%
1994 50% 50%
1995 40% 100%
1996 40% 100%
1997 70% 100%
1998 40% 100%
1999 55% 100%
2000 50% 90%
2001 40% 39%
2002 20% 90%
2003 20% 90%
2004 35% 65%
2005 40% 90%
2006 55% 100%
2007 60% 60%
2008 25% 35%
2009 15% 40%

23 Department of Water Resources, State Water Project, Notice to State Water Project Contractors 14-08, May 30, 2014. 12-2252

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 46 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
Year Initial Allocation Final Allocation
2010 5% 50%
2011 25% 80%
2012 60% 65%
2013 30% 35%
2014 5% 5%
Average 44% 75%

Source: California Department of Water Resources, Notice to State Water Project Contractors (2014).

As noted previously, CVWD and DWA do not directly receive SWP water. Rather, CVWD and DWA have entered into an exchange agreement with MWD that allows MWD to take delivery of CVWD and DWA SWP Table A water. In exchange, MWD provides an equal amount of Colorado River water that MWD transports through its Colorado River Aqueduct, which crosses the Coachella Valley near Whitewater.

The exchange agreement allows for advanced delivery and storage of water, thereby providing better and more efficient water management. Water is recharged when SWP and exchange waters are available. The large storage capacity of the Coachella Valley aquifer and the large volume of water in storage allow CVWD and DWA to pump from the aquifer for a number of years without recharging and to recharge large amounts of water to refill the aquifer when the water is available.

Factors Potentially Impacting SWP Delivery Reliability
DWR issues the State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report every two years, with the 2013 draft report currently available for public review. This updated report accounts for impacts to water delivery reliability associated with climate change and recent federal litigation (see Appendix A ). Based on information in the Draft 2013 State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report, the average long term reliability of future SWP Table A deliveries through 2029 is projected to be 62 percent. 24 This allocation percentage is based on computer modeling of the state’s watersheds, and past hydrology adjusted for factors that affect reliability. In considering future water supply needs in the 2010 CVWMP Update, CVWD considered an even lower SWP delivery reliability to allow for the uncertainty of future court decisions, Water Resources Control Board actions, ESA and other restrictions, modeling error, levee failure and relaxation in the biological opinions (BO) as the result of better science.

24 California Department of Water Resources, Bay-Delta Office, Draft State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report 2013. 12-2253

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 47 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
There are three significant factors contributing to uncertainty in the delivery reliability of the SWP: 1) possible effect from climate change and sea level rise; 2) the vulnerability of the Delta levees to failure, and 3) greater operat ion restrictions imposed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries (NMFS) in response to decreasing population of endangered fish species.

Each of these uncertainties is discussed in Appendix A.

CVWD considers pu rchases of additional Table A Amounts from SWP contractors as they become available.

Surface Water
Surface water supplies come from several local rivers and streams, inclu ding the Whitewater River, Snow Creek, Falls Creek, and Chino Creek, as well as a number of smaller creeks and washes . In 1999, surface water supplied approximately three percent o f the total water supply to the West Coachella Valley to meet municipal demand, and none to the East Coachella Valley. Because surface water supplies are affected by variations in annual precipitation, the annual supply is highly variable. Since 1936, the estimated historical surface water supply has ranged from approximately 4,000 to 9,000 afy.

Recycled Water
Wastewater that has been highly treated and disinfected can be reused for landscape irrigation and other purposes; however, treated wastewater is not suitable for direct potable use. Recycled wastewater has historically been used for irrigation of golf courses and municipal landscaping in the Coachella Valley since the early 1960s. In addition, fish farm effluent is available in certain localized areas of the East Valley and is being recycled for reuse. Although recycled water is not planned for use in the project vicinity, the project will utilize recycled water if it becomes available in the future.

Desalinated Drain Water
The 2010 CVWMP Update identifies desalinated agricultural drain water as a future additional local water supply available for use in the U pper and Lower Whitewater River subbasins. CVWD plans to use treated agricultural drainage water for irrigation purposes. It is planned that agricultural drain water from the CVW D will be desalted to a quality equivalent to Canal water for irrigation use with an initial rate of 4,000 afy in 2013, increasing to 11,000 afy capacity by 2023. The amount of drain water that would be treated and recycled depends on supply availability (the amount of drain flow occurring), the overall supply mix (the amount of additional water needed), and the cost of treatment and brine disposal. According to the 2010 CVWMP Update the amount of water recovered through drain water desalination will range from 55,000 afy to 85,000 afy by 2045. 12-2254

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 48 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
Treated drain water could be delivered to the Canal water distribution system and used as a non - potable supply for agricultural, golf course and landscape irrigation and potentially for potable water supply. Since the desalinated drain water is local water, it could be used anywhere within the CVWD service area.

A brackish groundwater treatme nt pilot study and feasibility study was completed in 2008 (Malcolm - Pirnie, 2008a and 2008b). The 2008 study recommended a combined source water strategy involving wells and direct connection to the open drain outfalls. Such a combined approach will provide additional flexibility and reliability to this new water supply. This study concluded that agricultural drainage water can be treated for reuse as non-potable water and potentially as new potable water.

Permanent Water Purchases
CVWD purchases Table A Amounts from SWP contractors as they have become available and meet CVWD's needs. Additional purchases from the SWP and from others with water rights, mainly in the Central Valley of California, will be evaluated as they become available to determine whether they meet CVWD's needs. If they do, CVWD may purchase additional SWP water rights.

Summary of Primary and Additional Water Sources
Table 3.0-7, Existing CVWD Water Supply Table A Amounts Water Rights and Water Service Contracts , shows CVWD's existing water supply entitlements, rights and service contracts.

The 2010 UWMP projects that the percentage of water from each of the cu rrent water supply sources will change significantly by 2035, relative to 2010 conditions.

To provide an estimate of the proposed Project's contribution to CVWD water deman d, the proposed Project is assumed to build out in a 20 -year span between 2017 and 2036 25 with an average annual increase in demand of 254.4 afy for the Active Adult Community, and 137.6 afy for the Tribal Planning Areas.

25 The proposed Project anticipates the first residential units occupied in 2017. To meet the requirements of SB610, this WSA uses a 20-year buildout period. However, it should be noted that the actual project development schedule is for a 6-year period for the Active Adult Community, and for an unspecified period following the construction of the Active Adult Community to complete development of the retail, entertainment, and hotel uses on the Tribal Planning Areas. The 20- year scenario is used to illustrate total project demand within the required 20-year WSA time frame established by SB610.

As the actual development will occur over a longer period of time, the 20-year demand forecast is considered conservative.
12-2255

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 49 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 3.0-7
Existing CVWD Water Supply Table A Amounts
Water Rights and Water Service Contracts
Supply
Existing Supplies
(afy) Entitlement Right Contract Other
Ever
Utilized?
Groundwater Unspecified1 X Yes
Coachella Canal

459,0002

X Yes
SWP Exchange
Water3
138,3504 X Yes
Recycled Water 14,000 X Yes

1 CVWD shares a common groundwater source that has not been adjudicated 2 As quantified in the Quantification Settlement Agreement between IID, MWD, and DVWD, October, 2003. 3 Imported SWP Exchange Water is not used as a direct water supply source, but rather is used to recharge groundwater supplies in the Coachella Valley.
4 Includes Original Table A Amount, Tulare Agreement, Berrenda Mesa Agreement and MWD Agreement. afy = acre-feet per year

As shown in Table 3.0 -8, Current and Projected Average Urban Water Supply (afy), the 2010 UWMP projects that the percentage of water from each of the current water supply sources will change significantly by 2035, relative to 2010 conditions.

Table 3.0-8
Current and Projected Average Urban Water Supply (afy)
Water Supply Source 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Supplier-Produced
Groundwater
109,488 118,700 125,600 129,900 133,500 128,700
Treated Colorado River
Water
0 5,700 19,300 31,400 39,500 49,100
Untreated Colorado River
Water
0 1,300 11,100 26,300 39,000 54,800
Desalinated Agricultural
Drain Water
0 0 0 0 0 10,000
Total 109,488 125,700 156,000 187,600 212,000 242,600

Source: Coachella Valley Water District, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, (June 2011). Table 4-1.

3.4 ANALYSIS OF WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND
The analysis of supplies and water demands for the Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV is based on the 2010 UWMP and the 2010 CVWMP Update. The 2010 UWMP was prepared in accordance with the 12-2256

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 50 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
Urban Water Management Planning Act as most recently amended by SBx7 -7 which required a state - wide 20 percent reduction in per capita water use by the year 2020. The purpose of the 2010 UWMP is to document CVWD’s projected water demands and its plans for delivering water supplies to CVWD’s service area through 2035. In accordance with SBx7-7, CVWD’s 2010 UWMP sets interim and final urban water use targets for complying with California’s 2020 conservation program based on DWRs defined Target Method No. 1 which p rovides for an agency goal of 80 percent of baseline demands. The 2010 UWMP relies on and summarizes the water supplies and water supply program s detailed in the 2010 CVWMP Update.

The 2010 CVWMP Update is a 35 year plan to reliably meet current and future water demands in a cost effective and sustainable manner. The planning areas for the 2010 CVWMP Update are the Whitewater River Subbasin including Salton City and areas north of the Banning Fault that are within the service areas in Indio and Coachella. The 2010 CVWMP Update evaluates all of the water demand and supplies in the planning area through 2045, for all water users including urban, agricultural and golf and provides a preferred alternative water supply plan for meeting demands. The 2010 CVWMP Update evaluates long-term risks to water supplies such as reduced SWP reliability and reduced Colorado River supplies and provides contingencies for addressing these risks. The elements of the preferred alternative are imported water supplies, recharge, sour ce substitution and conservation. The preferred alternative identifies projects and programs that implement these plan elements.

Both the 2010 UWMP and the 2010 CVWMP Update rely on the Riverside County Population Projections 2006 (RCP-06). In 2005, Riverside County was experiencing rapid growth. Recognizing the need for more accurate growth forecasts the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research (RCCDR) was established under the joint efforts of the County of Riverside, the Western Riverside Counci l Governments, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments , and the University of California Riverside for the development of demographic data and related support products to serve all of Riverside County. The RCCDR was tasked with developing the RCP -2006 growth forecast to provide agencies with a consistent and standard set of population, housing, and employment forecasts. The RCP- 06 was adopted by Southern California Association of Governments for use in their regional growth forecasts.

Although the growth forecast indicated significant future growth for the Coachella Valley, these forecasts were based on potential development that had not yet been approved by the cities and county within the Coachella Valley. Prior to 2008, there was substantial devel opment pressure to transition from agricultural to urban land uses. As agricultural land converts to urban uses, the characteristic of its water demands and infrastructure will change. The 2010 CVWMP Update reflects these changes in its water demand projections and the ways that water is used in this area. As urban development occurs, 12-2257

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 51 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
land that currently is irrigated with untreated Coachella Canal water could begin using groundwater replenished with the canal water, or use treated canal water for indoor use and untreated canal water for outdoor use.

Tribal land in the Coachella Valley makes up over 49,000 acres. While much tribal land in the West Coachella Valley has been developed to varying degrees, a substantial amount of tribal land in the East Coachella Valley is undeveloped. An understanding of the timing and degree of development on tribal lands is important. All of the Coachella Valley tribes have developed one or more casinos, which have provided them important economic opportunities. As development continues in the Coachella Valley, it is expected that additional growth will occur on the remaining tribal lands.

In other portions of the Coachella Valley, development of tribal land is closely coordinated with the Coachella Valley cities where they are located. RCP-2006 and RCP-2010 growth forecasts are assumed to include development of these lands.

Riverside County has been hit particularly hard by the past economic downturn. The County has some of the highest rates of foreclosures and unemployment in t he country. Due to this economic downturn, growth in the C ounty has significantly decreased over the last two to three years. The Riverside County Planning growth forecasts were developed and adopted in late 2006 and early 2007, before the onset of the widespread recession. Therefore, the slowdown in the housing market, which was one of the primary components of the recession, was not accounted for in the forecasts.

Some economists and real estate professionals who have been studying the effects of the recession on the County predict that economic recovery rate in the County will be slow. This would result in a lower than projected growth rate for the Coachella Valley. The timing and extent of this reduced growth rate cannot be accurately predicted. Because the planning period for the 2010 CVWMP Update is through 2045, it is expected that the effect of the recession on growth in the Coachella Valley will attenuate over the long term.

In CVWD’s 2014 CVWMP Status Report the RCP 2010 population projections were considered and future water demands were re-evaluated. Using RCP 2010 results in an estimated 22 percent lower urban water demand in 2035 and a 13 percent higher agricultural water demand. Overall demand would be about 14 percent lower in 2035. It is imp ortant to note that this is not an elimination of demand but a deferral of demand to later years. Growth will continue but at a slightly slower rate.

Water conservation is a major component of future water management. CVWD is committed to reducing its urban water use to 20 percent by 2020. In the 2010 UWMP, CVWD’s baseline water use was derived by calculating the highest ten -year average per -capita water use. Per -capita water use for any 12-2258

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 52 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
given year is defined as gross water production divided by the 2000 U S Census based population. Using this method the highest average baseline water use was calculated to be 591 gpcd. CVWD’s 2020 target is 80 percent of this average, 473 gpcd , which indicates that CVWD has already met 90 percent of its 2020 target.

The golf industry represents a significant water demand sector in the Coachella Valley and is expected to remain so in the future. Estimates developed for the 2010 CVWMP Update indicate that up to 75 new golf courses could potentially be constructed within the Wh itewater River Subbasin boundary area by 2045. Since most of the future growth is anticipated to occur in the East Coachella Valley, this estimate is based on a ratio of the total number of existing golf courses in the East Coachella Valley to the East Coachella Valley population. This ratio is then applied to future population growth in the Coachella Valley. This method assumes that the existing pattern of development (golf course acres per acre of urban development) within the Coachella Valley will continue into the future.

The 2010 CVWMP Update assumes that the fish farm and duck club growth will be much lower than projected in the 2002 CVWMP. Some of the large fish farms have moved from the traditional fish farming business. The replacement use at these farms is suspected to significantly reduce the water demand. Based on the available information at this time, further fish farm demand of 8,500 afy and duck club demand of 2,000 afy is assumed.

It is assumed that the growth that occurs on tribal land will be similar to the Coachella Valley as a whole and land uses will be proportional to the growth that occurs on non -tribal land in the East Coachella Valley. Corresponding water demands are calculated based on this growth assumption.

The 2010 CVWMP Update increases the water conservation requirement during the next 35 years. A 14 percent reduction in agricultural water use is targeted by 2020. Urban water use is targeted for a 20 percent reduction by 2020. CVWD’s Landscape Ordinance will govern the irrigation demands of new golf courses as well as reduce the demands of existing golf courses by 10 percent. 2010 CVWMP Update water demand projections for t he Whitewater Subbasin increase from 678,600 afy in 2010 to 783,300 afy in 2030, or 15 percent. During this same period, the population in the Coachella Valley is estimated to increase by almost 100 percent, or about four percent per year, according to CVWD’s 2010 UWMP. In the 2014 Status report RCP 2010 projections were used and this water demand was revised to 691,500 in 2030, a 12 percent reduction.

Groundwater and Groundwater Storage
As supply and demand changes, the amount of groundwater in storage change s to make up the difference between the demand and the supply. Other than Canal water, recycled wastewater and 12-2259

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 53 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
desalinated agricultural drain water, all water delivered to the end users is obtained from the groundwater basin. The groundwater basin has the capacity of approximately 28.8 million acre feet . It currently contains about 25 million acre feet and acts as a very large reservoir. It is capable of meeting the water demands of the Coachella Valley for extended periods.

As discussed in the 2010 CVWMP U pdate, CVWD has many programs to maximize the water resources available to it including recharge of its Colorado River and SWP supplies, recycled wastewater, desalinated agricultural drain water, conversion of groundwater uses to Canal water and conservati on including tiered water rates, a landscaping ordinance, outreach and education. The 2010 CVWMP Update and CVWD replenishment assessment programs establish a comprehensive and managed effort to eliminate the overdraft. These programs allow CVWD to maintain the groundwater basin as its primary water supply and to recharge the groundwater basin, as its other supplies are available.

Coachella Canal Water
Colorado River supplies available to CVWD under the 1931 Seven Party Water Priority 43 Agreement and other agreements and savings are considered in the 2010 UWMP and 2010 CVWMP Update. The annual CVWD Colorado Diversions at Imperial Dam for the period 1964 to 2008 were prepared as required by the U.S. Supreme Court decree. CVWD average annual diversion for said 45 years was 475,662 afy .

CVWD average annual diversion for the period 1983 to 2008 (last 26 years of decree records) was 330,286 afy. The difference of 145,375 afy is the result of the water conserved by the lining of the first 49 miles of the Coachella Canal by the USBR under repayment contract with CVWD. The Section 24 Specific Plan is not geographically located to enable it to rely on canal water for outdoor use.

Additional Table A Amounts
DWA and CVWD have increased their SWP supplies from a total o f 61,000 afy in 2002 to 194,100 afy currently.

State Water Project Reliability
SWP reliability projections are the result of computer modeling by DWR and reflect the results of adjusting 82 years of hydrology to incorporate the results of climate change models. SWP reliability projections also take into account the existing physical facilities and the regulatory restrictions, including the restriction on the SWP and Central Valley Project (CVP) operations in accordance with the biological opinions of the US FS and NMFS issued on December 15, 2008 and June 4, 2009 respectively. Modeled SWP deliveries were divided by the Table A amount requests for each year (maximum Table A amount of 4.132 million acre feet) to obtain the reliability percentage for each year. This data was then ranked and the long term average demand for 2009 and 2029 was determined. The 2013 percentage values 12-2260

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 54 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
determined using this method results in a long term delivery reliability of 62 percent for both wet year and dry year models.

This reliability was adjusted to allow for the uncertainty of future court decisions, Water Resources Control Board actions, ESA and other restrictions, modeling error, levee failure and relaxation in the biological opinions as the result of better science. Linear proration was used to obtain the reliability for years 2010 to 2030.

The 2010 CVWMP uses an even more conservative long term reliability of 50 percent to compensate for the additional uncertainty of a 35-year planning period.

Metropolitan Water District Callback
In 1984, MWD and CVWD entered into an advanced delivery agreement, which allowed MWD to store water from its Colorado River Aqueduct in the Coachella Valley. Prior to this agreement, DWA and CVWD were exchanging their annual SWP Table A amount with MWD for the same amount of water from MWD's Colorado River Aqueduct. This was done because the SWP does not extend into the Coachella Valley. This 1984 agreement allows MWD to deliver more water into the Coachella Valley during wet periods or periods when it has excess water and to build a credit that it can use to provide the water to exchange for DWA and CVWD's Table A amounts during dry periods. This creates a conjunctive use program among the three agencies.

In 2003, MWD, DWA and CVWD entered into an exchange agreement whereby MWD transferred title to 100,000 acre-feet of its SWP Maximum Table A amount to DWA and CVWD. Under the agreement, MWD obtained the right to callback the SWP water for its use for a maximum number of times in a given period of years. The 100,000 acre-feet was divided into two 50,000 acre -foot blocks. The 2010 UWMP assumes that MWD will exercise its option to callback the 100,000 afy in four wet years out of every 10 years. This is also in accordance with the 2010 CVWMP Update. The actual callback would depend on availability of MWD's supplies to meet their demands. Since 2003, MWD exercised its callback option once in 2005.

Data from DWR’s State Water Project Reliability Report 2009 was used to determine the average water deliveries in the 50 percent driest years and the 75 percent driest years. Linear proration was used to obtain the yearly values for years 2010 through 2029. This data was used to obtain the MWD callback water for the first and second 50,000 acre -feet, and they were summed to obtain the total MWD callback for each year. The reliability percentage and the DWA and CVWD Maximum Table A amount without the MWD 100,000 acre feet transfer were used to obtain the amount of SWP water deliveries for DWA and CVWD after the total MWD callback was deducted. These values were multiplied by the 12-2261

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 55 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
share that CVWD obtained for its use based on the ratios from the 2005 UWMP. The ratios were linearly prorated to obtain the values for each year.

Long Term Average SWP Deliveries
The amount o f SWP supply that is available to CVWD for its own use was considered as the long -term average SWP supply.

The published reliability of the SWP water has decreased over time. The 2005 SWP Delivery Reliability Report (DRR) estimated a reliability of 77 perc ent in 2025; the 2007 DRR estimates a reliability of 66 to 69 percent in 2027, and the 2011 draft DRR estimates a reliability of 58 percent in 2029. There are additional uncertainties related to SWP reliability in the future, which further reduce the reliability factor. The factors that could affect the SWP reliability considered in the 2010 UWMP and the 2010 CVWMP update are:
• Uncertainty in modeling restrictions associated with biological opinions, • Risk of levee failure in the Delta,
• Additional pumping res trictions resulting from biological opinions on new species or revisions to existing biological opinions,
• Impacts associated with litigation such as the California ESA lawsuit, and • Climate Change impacts.

Because of these factors and the need to plan for higher contingency, the planning assumption in the 2010 CVWMP Update and the 2010 UWMP is that the long -term future average SWP reliability is 50 percent until successful completion of the Bay-Delta conservation Plan and delta conveyance facilities.

Groundwater basin recharge through direct and in -lieu recharge is a major element of CVWD's water management activities. CVWD has spent over $43.5 million on the construction of the Thomas E. Levy Replenishment Facility in the Lower Valley and over $42 million o n the construction of the Mid -Valley Pipeline to move Canal water into the Upper Valley for source substitution for groundwater. The protection of the aquifer storage will be addressed through additional water supply purchases, water conservation, and source substitution similar to the ones described in the 2010 CVWMP Update.

The available supplies and water demands for CVWD's service area were analyzed in the water supply conditions of the 2010 UWMP to assess the region's ability to satisfy demands for current and future demands, including the Section 24 Specific Plan, under three scenarios: a normal water year, a single dry year, and multiple dry years. According to the CVWD 2010 UWMP, the urban water demands of the CVWD are estimated to grow from 109,488 afy in 2010 to 242,800 afy in 2035. The estimated Project 12-2262

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 56 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
demands of 1,780 afy represent approximately 1.6 percent of the 2010 demand, 0.7 percent of the 2035 demand, and 1.3 percent of the growth.

Tables 3.0-9, 3.0-10, and 3.0-11 outline the water supply and demand scenarios for normal, single -dry, and multiple-dry years respectively.

Table 3.0-9
Supply and Demand Comparison – Normal Water Years 2015-2035 (afy) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Water Supply Sources
Supplier-Produced
Groundwater
118,700 125,600 129,900 133,500 128,700
Treated Colorado River
Water
5,700 19,300 31,400 39,500 49,100
Untreated Colorado
River Water
1,300 11,100 26,300 39,000 54,800
Desalinated Agricultural
Drain Water
0 0 0 0 10,000
Supply Totals 125,800 156,100 187,700 212,000 242,700
Water Demand
Total Urban Water
Deliveries1
121,700 151,000 181,600 205,100 234,800
Sales to Other Water
Agencies
0 0 0 0 0
Domestic System
Losses2
4,100 5,100 6,100 6,900 7,900
Demand Totals 125,800 156,100 187,700 212,000 242,700

Source: Coachella Valley Water District, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, (June 2011). Table 5-14. 1 Total urban deliveries calculated from CVWD 2010 UWMP Table 3-8 through Table 3-12. 2 Domestic system losses are assumed to be 3.2 percent of total water production, which is the average system water loss from 2006-2010.

12-2263

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 57 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 3.0-10
Supply and Demand Comparison – Single Dry Years 2015-2035 (afy) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Water Supply Sources
Supplier-Produced
Groundwater
118,700 125,600 129,900 133,500 128,700
Treated Colorado River
Water
5,700 19,300 31,400 39,500 49,100
Untreated Colorado
River Water
1,300 11,100 26,300 39,000 54,800
Desalinated Agricultural
Drain Water
0 0 0 0 10,000
Supply Totals 125,800 156,100 187,700 212,000 242,700
Water Demand
Total Urban Water
Deliveries1
121,700 151,000 181,600 205,100 234,800
Sales to Other Water
Agencies
0 0 0 0 0
Domestic System
Losses2
4,100 5,100 6,100 6,900 7,900
Demand Totals 125,800 156,100 187,700 212,000 242,700

Source: Coachella Valley Water District, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, (June 2011). Table 5-15. 1 Total urban deliveries calculated from CVWD 2010 UWMP Table 3-8 through Table 3-12. 2 Domestic system losses are assumed to be 3.2 percent of total water production, which is the average system water loss from 2006-2010.

Table 3.0-11
Supply and Demand Comparison – Multiple Dry-Years 2015-2035 (afy) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Multiple-Dry Year
First Year Supply
Supply Totals
Demand Totals
Difference
125,800
125,800
0 156,100
156,100
0 187,700
187,700
0 212,000
212,000
0 242,700
242,700
0 Multiple-Dry Year
Second Year
Supply
Supply Totals
Demand Totals
Difference
125,800
125,800
0 156,100
156,100
0 187,700
187,700
0 212,000
212,000
0 242,700
242,700
0 Multiple-Dry Year
Third Year Supply
Supply Totals
Demand Totals
Difference
125,800
125,800
0 156,100
156,100
0 187,700
187,700
0 212,000
212,000
0 242,700
242,700
0 Source: Coachella Valley Water District, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, (June 2011). Table 5-16.

12-2264

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 58 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
Multiple Dry Year Period Supply and Demand
Since groundwater production is driven by demand, the 2010 UWMP report assumes supplies are equal to demand. This is a result of the large amount of water stored in the underground aquifer as described in Section 3.3.2 Description of the Aquifer. However, with implementation of the 2010 UWMP and 2010 CVWMP Update programs described in detail in this WSA, long-term groundwater overdraft will be eliminated, and this supply is considered reliable in single dry and multiple dry water years.

Summary
Table 3.0-12, Project Supply and Demand Comparison, shows the proposed Project water demand as a percent of total supply throughout various milestones in the build -out schedule. By 2020, the Project is estimated to demand 356 afy of water. This amount translates to 147 gpcd, or 0.3 afy per residential dwelling unit, which is within the CVWD 20 by 2020 per capita target of 473 gpcd water use. P rojected water demand associated with the Project represents 0.71 percent of CVWD's total projected u rban water demand at full buildout in 2035. By 2036, the Project’s total urban water use would be 277 gpcd, or 0.74 afy per residential dwelling unit.

Table 3.0-12
Project Supply and Demand Comparison (afy)
2020 20221 2025 2035 20362
Total Supply 156,100 168,059 187,700 242,700 249,329
Project Demand 356 534 801 1,691 1,780
Percent of Supply 0.23 0.32 0.43 0.70 0.71

Source: Total supply extrapolated from data in Table 3.0-11. Project demand extrapolated from data Table 2.0-4, based on a 20 year build-out.
1 2022 is the final buildout year of the Active Adult Community with buildout of the Tribal Planning Area expected to begin in this same year.
2 2036 is the final buildout year for the Tribal Planning Areas and completion of the Project.

The 2010 CVWMP Update, projects total water demands for the Coachella Valley through 2035 and demonstrates that supplies are sufficient to meet demands without long term overdraft. The projected demand for the Project will account for only a small fraction of the projected demands.

3.5 CONCLUSIONS
Coachella Valley Water District Service Area
Based on the information, analysis, and findings documented in this WSA/WSV there is substantial evidence to support a determination that there will be sufficient water supplies to meet the current and future demands of the Project in addition to all forecasted demands in In the Whitewater subbasin the 12-2265

3.0 Water Supply Assessment
Meridian Consultants 59 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
next 20 years . This is based on the volume of water available in the aquifer, CVWD's Colorado River contract supply, SWP Table A Amounts, and water rights and water supply contracts. CVWD has committed sufficient resources to further implement the primary elements of the 2010 CVWMP Update and the 2010 UWMP, which include the purchase of additional water su pplies, water conservation, and source substitution.

The domestic water supply (potable) for the P roject will be the West Whitewater River Subbasin in the Coachella Valley. Groundwater storage will be used in dry years to make up the difference between supply and demand. The groundwater basin has a capacit y of approximately 28.8 million acre-feet and currently contains about 25 million acre- feet and acts as a very large reservoir. It is capable of meeting the water demands of the Coachella Valley for extended normal and drought periods.

As discussed in the 2010 CVWMP Update , the 2010 UWMP, and this WSA/WSV, CVWD has many programs to eliminate overdraft and maximize the water resources including recharge of Colorado River and SWP supplies, recycled wastewater, desalinated agricultural drain water, conversion of groundwater uses to Canal water and water conservation including tiered water rates, landscaping ordinance, outreach and education.

Project Water Requirements
As shown in this WSA/WSV analysis, the pro jected demand for the proposed P roject is 1,780 afy, or approximately 3.1 afy per acre which is within the average future water use per acre estimated in the 2010 CVWMP Update, and accounts for approximately 1.6 percent of the total projected growth in CVWD urban water demands presented in the 2010 UWMP for 2035 . By 2036, the Project’s water demand equates to 367 gpcd, or 0.74 afy per residential dwelling unit, and is within CVWD’s 20 by 2020 urban water use target of 473 gpcd.

It is anticipated that t he Project will incorporate the elements of CVWD’s water conservation plan as required by SBx7 -7. These include conservation elements for indoor and outdoor use for both multi - family residential and commercial developments. This may further reduce the ulti mate project demands.
12-2266

Meridian Consultants 60 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014

4.0 WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION

4.1 GENERAL
The residential component of the Section 24 Specific Plan development Project will be subject to the requirements of Senate Bill 221 pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act since more than 500 r esidential dwelling units are proposed.

4.2 WATER SOURCE
Project domestic water supplies and associated landscape irrigation supplies will be provided from groundwater. The WSV addresses: (1) information included in CVWD’s 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update and the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan; (2) information related to groundwater recharge of non -groundwater sources, namely Colorado River water and SWP water; and (3) consideration of historical litigation regarding the Quantification Settlement Agreement.

4.3 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
This WSA/WSV relies on CVWD's 2010 CVWMP Update, the 2014 CVWMP Status Report (see Appendix D), the Subsequent Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the CVWMP Update (see Appendix C for the Executiv e Summary) , and the Final Subsequent Program EIR for the CVWMP Update and are incorporated by reference . The 2010 UWMP contains specific details regarding the Water Shortage Contingency Plan which discusses phased water use restrictions and a drou ght rate structure to minimize water use during a multiple dry year period. Supporting information is also used from the 2010 UWMP, as permitted by Government Code Section 66473.7.

4.4 FACTORS OF RELIABILITY

4.4.1 General
Government Code Section 66473.7(a) requires that all of the following factors be considered: (1) t he availability of the supply over 20 years, (2) the applicability of CVWD’s urban water shortage contingency analysis found in the 2010 UWMP, (3) the reduction of water supply to a specific u ser by ordinance or resolution, and (4) the reasonable amount of ground water supply that can be relied upon, considering natural sources as well as the supporting recharge sources within agreements for Colorado River water and SWP water.

4.4.2 Historical Availability of Supply
The Coachella Valley has been primarily de pendent on groundwater as a source of domestic water supply for several decades. The 2010 CVWMP Update and the CVWD 2010 UWMP review the historical 12-2267

4.0 Water Supply Verification
Meridian Consultants 61 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014
use of water in the Coachella Valley. In 1936, groundwater use was 92,400 afy . Current use is at approximately 301,188 afy. Deliveries of Colorado River water and MWD SWP transfer water help offset the groundwater use. The Colorado River water deliveries have averaged approximately 300,000 afy over the past five years with MWD deliveries to the Coachella Valley expected to average 60,000 afy.

4.4.3 Reduction of Water Supply
No reduction of water supply is expected to any user due to the Project’s use of water resources, or due to CVWD's ongoing management of water resources and planning for growth within their service area and throughout the Coachella Valley.

4.4.4 SWP and Colorado River Water
CVWD's Colorado River water rights and SWP Table A allotments will provide supplemental water for direct use and groundwater recharge to the Coachella Valley. CVWD proposes to develop direct treatment of Colorado River water for potable uses in the future. The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin has the capacity to meet future demands. Based on the information pro vided in the 2013 draft State Water Reliability Report , CVWD's Colorado Rive r water rights, recycled water, desalinated drain water and CVWD's water conservation program, water supplies will be sufficient to meet the Project’s demands and CVWD’s existing a nd future demands. In the event that additional conservation and/or limitations are necessary, the Project would adhere to any and all limitations associated with this potential reduction in supply.

In addition, the USBR has developed interim surplus and s hortage g uidelines for management of the Colorado River water supplies.
26 The USBR preferred alternative provides flexibility for the potential storage of additional conserved Colorado River or non -Colorado River water in Lake Mead. The guidelines that were adopted by USBR have been updated and extended through 2026. The revised guidelines address the operation of Lake Mead at relatively full elevations, and determine when surplus water supplies would be available to water users in Southern California, inclu ding the Coachella Valley.

As currently drafted, the guidelines indicate that water shortages will not negatively impact the Colorado River water supply for the Coachella Valley. CVWD is part of the California agricultural agencies’ Colorado River entitlement and is protected by over two million acre -feet of Lower Basin Colorado River entitlement that has a lower priority. The lower priority water would be used to meet shortages before the agricultural entitlements would begin to be impacted.

26 US Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages, Final Environmental Impact Statement (November, 2007).
12-2268

4.0 Water Supply Verification
Meridian Consultants 62 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014

4.5 IMPACTS ON OTHER PROJECTS
The Project is within the goals of the 2010 CVWMP Update and the 2014 CVMWP Status Report , and should not have a significant impact on agricultural, potable, or industrial users. CVWD’s 20 by 2020 urban water use target for urban water use is 473 gpcd .27 As previously indicated, the Project’s urban water demand of 277 gpcd is below the 20 by 2020 per capita target of 473 gpcd necessary to manage the groundwater basin. In addition, this Project should not affect the water supply for future lower- income housing projects.

The Project will adhere to the Tribe’ s Land Use Ordinance which regulates landscape irrigation and CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.1. The proposed Project’s potential groundwater demand would be reduced due to the future use of grey and recycled water for landscape irrigation when made available to the Project Site. The Project may be responsible for funding the purchase of additional imp orted water supplies to support its projected demands on the PWS. Based on the findings of the WSV, it is expected that the impacts to the groundwater basin will be fully mitigated.

4.6 RIGHTS TO GROUNDWATER
The Coachella Valley groundwater basin has been the principal source of water for the Valley since the early 1900s in the West Valley, urban development relies mainly on groundwater. CVWD, DWA, Indo Water Authority and Coachella Water Agency are the 4 public water purveyors in the Indio Sub basin.

CVWD has the legal authority to manage the groundwater basins within its service area under the County Water District Law (California Water Code, Division 12). The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin has not been adjudicated. CVWD has the righ t to extract the groundwater as needed to supply this project. CVWD recognizes the need to responsibly and reliably manage the groundwater basin and adopted the 2002 CVWMP, and the 2010 CVWMP Update to reliably meet current and future water demands in a cost effective and sustainable manner.

4.7 VERIFICATION
This document verifies the water supply for the proposed Project as required by California Government Code Section 66473.7 is available.

27 Coachella Valley Water District, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, (June 2011). Table 3-7. 12-2269

Meridian Consultants 63 Section 24 Specific Plan WSA/WSV 044-001-13 November 2014

5.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS
ac acre
af acre-feet, equal to approximately 325,851 gallons
afy acre-feet per year
BO Biological Opinion
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
cfs cubic feet per second
CVWD Coachella Valley Water District
CVP Central Valley Project
DWA Desert Water Agency
DWR California Department of Water Resources
ESA Endangered Species Act
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
IRP Integrated Resources Program
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries
PWS public water system
QSA Quantification Settlement Agreement
SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SWP State Water Project
USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WSV Water Supply Verification
12-2270

APPENDIX A
Water Litigation and Other Water Issues
12-2271
1 1. Quantification Settlement Agreement (b)
On October 10, 2003, a series of agreements were signed by various parties including CVWD, Imperial Irrigation District (IID), San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan), The State of California and the U.S. Department of the Interior to quantify water distribution allotments of the Colorado River water in California. The agreements further provide for additional transfer of Colorado River water to CVWD from shares of IID and Metropolitan.

The total ultimately available to CVWD is 459, 000 acre -feet/ year during the lifetime (75 years) of the agreements collectively known as Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA). The QSA includes:
• Capping IID and CVWD Priority 3 water at 3.1 million acre-feet and 330,000 acre-feet, respectively • Modification of the 1988 IID/Metropolitan Water Conservation Agreement • Amendment of the 1989 Metropolitan/IID /CVWD/PVID Approval Agreement and transferring 20,000 acre-feet/year to CVWD
• Conservation and transfer of200,000 acre-feet/year from IID to SDCWA • Exchange Agreement between SDCWA and Metropolitan
• Conservation and transfer of 103,000 acre-feet/year from IID to CVWD • Lining the All -American Canal and the Coachella Canal and transfer of conserved water to Metropolitan less 16,000 acre-feet/year for the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement • Sharing obligations to provide 14,500 acre -feet/year from IID and CVWD for miscellaneous present perfected rights
• Transfer of35,000 acre-feet/year of SWP water from Metropolitan to CVWD • Potential water transfers between 25,000 and 111,000 acre -feet annually from the Palo Verde Irrigation District to Metropolitan
• Quantifications of surplus water available under Priority 6 and 7 • Sharing of shortages between CVWD and IID when there is less that 3.85 million acre - feet/year available to Priorities 1, 2, 3a, and 3b
After the QSA was executed, a number of lawsuits were filed including, but not limited to, actions seeking va IIDation of the agreements and CEQA challenges. To date the QSA has been successfully upheld in several state and federal Courts against challenges to the CEQA process and other issues.

12-2272
2 2. Intentionally Created Surplus on Colorado River (f)(g) Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS), a new type of surplus water, was created by the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead in December 2007. There are four ICS categories:
• Tributary Conservation: Allows a water user to fallow water rights in tributaries of the Colorado River that were in use prior to the effective date of th e 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act and transport this water to the Colorado River for credit.
• Imported ICS: Allows a Colorado River contract holder to convey non -Colorado River water for credit.
• System Efficiency: Allows a user to fund a system efficiency p roject that would conserve Colorado River water. The project must increase the amount of water available in the United States and a portion of the saved water would be credited to the user funding the project. • Extraordinary Conservation: Allows a water user to implement a project, such as land fallowing or canal lining, to conserve water through extraordinary measures which would increase Lake Mead levels
ICS allows agencies with contracts for Colorado River water to develop some water resources that were formerly identified as "in-state water" by conveying them to the Colorado River and receive credits.

If this water is not used in the year it is created, it converts to extraordinary conservation ICS credits, which can be used like a bank account and can be stored in Lake Mead for multiple years for future use.

The Yuma Desalting Plant was constructed under authority of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 to treat saline agricultural return flows from the Wellton -Mohawk Irrigation and Drain age District. The treated water is intended for inclusion in water deliveries to Mexico thereby preserving the like amount of water in Lake Mead. Construction o f t he plant was completed in 1992 and it has operated on two occasions since then. The plant has been maintained, but largely not operated due to surplus and then normal water supply conditions on the Colorado River.

In 2009, Reclamation developed a plan for a Pilot Run of the plant. The Pilot Run is being funded by a consortium of municipal utilities which agreed to provide the funding in exchange for receiving ICS for the water created during the Pilot Run. The Pilot Run operations started in May 2010.

The Drop 2 Reservoir project captures United States' Colorado River water that would otherwise go unused in the Lower Basin and pass into Mexico and not be counted as part of Mexico’s entitlement. A 12-2273
3 consortium of municipal utilities has agreed to fund the construction of the Drop 2 Reservoir storage project along th e All -American Canal in California in exchange for receiving ICS credits for the water saved. The Drop 2 Reservoir was renamed the Warren H. Brock Reservoir and was completed in 2010.

Mr. Brock was a prominent, innovative Imperial Valley farmer who participated in numerous commercial ventures as well as experimental farming with different varieties of crops and arid and semi-arid farming methods.

The Pilot Run project and the Warren H. Brock Reservoir project are two examples of the type of projects that CVWD can undertake to increase its water supply to help resolve the overdraft.

3. Colorado River Augmentation (i)
Recognizing the importance of a reliable water supply for the entire Southwest, the seven Colorado River Basin States agreed to conduct an analy sis of potential measures that could be used to augment the water supply provided by the river.

Colorado River Water Consultants, a project -specific partnership between engineering firms CH2MHill and Black & Veatch, undertook the task of evaluating potential concepts based upon several key parameters and developed a report for the basin states.

Twelve augmentation options analyzed as part of this study as follows:
• Brackish water desalination
• Coal bed methane production water
• Ocean water desalination
• Power plant reduction of consumptive use
• Reservoir evaporation control
• River basin imports
• Stormwater storage
• Vegetation management (salt cedar and forest management) • Water imports using ocean routes
• Water reuse
12-2274
4 • Weather modification
It is important to note that the augmentation study is intended to provide technical information to water managers; thus, it does not include specific recommendations, prioritization of options or timelines. The report recognizes the legal, political and environmental issues associate d with options, but does not attempt to provide guidance related to how they may be addressed.

4. Bay Delta Conservation Plan (a)
The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) is being developed to promote the recovery of endangered, threatened and sensitive fish and wildlife species and their habitats in the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta in a way that will also protect and restore water supplies.

Key provisions of the BDCP include:
• Identify conservation strategies to improve the overall ecological health of the Delta • Identify ecologically friendly ways to move fresh water through and/or around the Delta • Address toxic pollutants, invasive species, and impairments to water quality • Establish a framework and funding to implement the Plan overtime In July 2012, the governor and U.S. Interior Secretary outlined revisions and alternative proposals to the proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). Subsequently, the California Natural Resources Agency released four draft chapters of the BDCP in March 2013. On Decem ber 9, 2013, the State released an updated BDCP, along with a dra ft EIR/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for formal public review.

The formal public review and comment period for the dra ft EIR/EIS was from December 13, 2013 through July 29, 2014.

5. Biological Opinions on Effects of Coordinated SWP and CVP Operations (a) Several fish species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) as endangered or threatened are found in the Delta. The continued viability of populations of these species in the Delta depends in part on Delta flow levels. For this reason, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have issued several Biological Opinions ( BOs) since the 1990s on the effects of coordinated SWP/CVP operations on several species.

These BOs affect the SWP's water delivery reliability for two reasons. Most obviously, they include terms that specifically restrict SWP pumping levels in the Delta at certain times under certain 12-2275
5 conditions. In addition, the BO s' requirements are based on physical and biological phenomena that occur daily while DWR's water supply models are based on monthly data.

The first BOs on the effects of SWP (and CVP) operations were issued in February 1993 (NMFS BO on effects of project operations on winter -run Chinook salmon) and March 1995 (USFWS BO on project effects on delta smelt and split tail). Among other things, the BOs contained requirements for Delta inflow, Delta outflow, and reduced export pumping to meet specified incidental take limits. These fish protection requirements imposed substantial constraints on Delta water supply operations. Many were incorporated into the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta (1995 WQCP), as described in the "Water Quality Objectives" section later in this chapter.

The terms of the USFWS and NMFS BOs have become increasingly restrictive in recent years. In December 2008, USFWS issued a new BO covering effects of the SWP and CVP on delta smelt, and i n June 2009, NMFS issued a BO covering effects on the winter -run and spring- run Chinook salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon, and killer whales. These BOs replaced BOs issued earlier by the federal agencies.

The U
SFWS BO includes additional requirements in al l but 2 months of the year. The BO calls for "adaptively managed" (adjusted as necessary based on the results of monitoring) flow restrictions in the Delta intended to protect delta smelt at various life stages. USFWS determines the required target flow, with the reductions accomplished primarily by reducing SWP and CVP exports. Because this flow restriction is determined based on fish location and decisions by USFWS staff, predicting the flow restriction and corresponding effects on export pumping with any great certainty poses a challenge. The USFWS BO also includes an additional salinity requirement in the Delta for September and October in wet and above
- norm
al water years, calling for increased releases from SWP and CVP reservoirs to reduce salinity. Am ong other provisions included in the NMFS BO, limits on total Delta exports have been established for the months of April and May. These limits are mandated for all but extremely wet years.

The 20
08 and 2009 BOs were issued shortly before and shortly a fter the Governor proclaimed a statewide water shortage state of emergency in February 2009, amid the threat of a third consecutive dry year. NMFS calculated that implementing its BO would reduce SWP and CVP Delta exports by a combined 5% to 7%, but DWR's init ial estimates showed an impact on exports closer to 10% in average years, combined with the effects of pumping restrictions imposed by BOs to protect delta smelt and other species. The 2008 USFWS and 2009 NMFS BOs have been subject to considerable litigati on.

Recent decisions by the U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger changed specific operational rules for the fall/ winter of 2011-2012, and both the USFWS BO and NMFS BO have been remanded to the agencies for further review and analysis. However, the operation al rules specified in the 2008 and 2009 BOs 12-2276
6 continue to be legally required and are the rules used in the analyses presented in Chapters 5, 6, and 7 of this report. Chapter 5 presents a comparison of monthly Delta exports as estimated for this 2011 Report with those estimated for the 2005 Report, illustrating how the 2008 and 2009 BOs have affected export levels from the Delta.

The final judgment remands the 2009 salmon biological opinion to the NMFS and directs that a new draft salmon biological opinion be issued by October 1, 2014, and that a final biological opinion be issued by February 1, 2016, after completion of environmental impact review under NEPA.

The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) issued consistency det erminations for both BOs under Section 2080.1 of the California Fish and Game Code. The consistency determinations stated that the USFWS BO and the NMFS BO would be consistent with the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Thus, DFG allowed incidental take of the species listed under bother the federal ESA and CESA to occur during SWP and CVP operations without requiring DWR or the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to obtain a separate State-issued permit.

6. Delta Water Quality Objectives for Salinity (a)
Because the Delta is an estuary, salinity is a particular concern. In the 1995 WQCP, the State Water Board set water quality objectives to protect beneficial uses of water in the Delta and Suisun Bay. The objectives must be met by the SWP (and federal CVP), as specified in the water Delta outflows, limits on SWP and CVP Delta exports, and maximum allowable salinity levels are enforced through the provisions of the State Water Board's Water Right Decision 1641 (D-1641), issued in December 1999 and updated in March 2000. DWR and Reclamation must monitor the effects of diversions and SWP and CVP operations to ensure compliance with existing water quality standards.

Among the objectives established in the 1995 WQCP and D -1641 are the "X2" objectives. D -1641 mandates the X2 objectives so that the State Water Board can regulate the locations of the Delta estuary's salinity gradient during the months of February-June. X2 is the position in the Delta where the electrical conductivity (EC) level, or salinity, of Delta water is 2 parts per thousand. The location of X2 is used as a surrogate measure of Delta ecosystem health. For the X2 objective to be achieved, the X2 position must remain downstream of Collinsville in the Delta (shown in figure 4 -1) for the entire 5 - month period, and downstream of the other specific locations in the Delta outflow must be at certain specified levels at certain times-which can limit the amount of water the SWP may pump at those times at its Harvey 0. Banks Pumping Plant in the Delta. Becau se of the relationship between seawater intrusion and interior-Delta water quality, meeting the X2 objective also improves water quality at Delta drinking-water intakes; however, meeting the X2 objectives can require a relatively large volume of water for outflow during dry months that follow months with large storms. 12-2277
7 The 1995 WQCP and D -1641 also established and export/inflow (E/I) ratio. The E/I ratio, resented in Table 3 of t he 1995 WQCP (SWRCB 1995:18 -22), is designed to provide protection for the fish and wildlife beneficial uses in the Bay -Delta estuary (SWRCB 1995:15). The E/I ratio limits the fraction of Delta inflows that are exported. When other restrictions are not controlling, Delta exports are limited to 35% of the total Delta inflow from February through June and 65% of inflow from July through January.

7. Ongoing Environmental and Policy Planning Efforts (a) The Delta is an essential part of the conveyance system for the SWP. SWP pumping at the Banks Pumping Plant is regulated to protect the many uses of the Delta. However, today's uses in the Delta are not sustainable over the long term under current management practices and regulatory requirements. Two large -scale plans for the Delta that are in development could affect SWP water delivery reliability: the Delta Plan and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP).

After years of concern about the Delta amid rising water demand and habitat degradation, the Delta Stewardship Council was created in legislation to achieve State -mandated coequal goals fo r the Delta.

As specified in Section 85054 of the California Water Code:
"Coequal goals" means the two goals of providing more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem. The coequal goals shall be ach ieved in a manner that protects and enhances the unique cultural, recreational, natural resource, and agriculture values of the Delta as an evolving place.

The draft Delta Plan seeks to reduce reliance on Delta water supplies. In a series of policies and recommendations, the draft plan aims to encourage farms and cities to increase conservation and become more self-sufficient, particularly in the event of a disaster in the Delta. It calls for agriculture water agencies to change pricing to encourage conservation. It also urges the State Water Board to set enforceable flow objectives for the Delta and its tributaries that take into account wildlife and habitat need. In the future, government projects in the Delta must prove they are consistent with the Delta Plan. The Delta Stewardship Council is preparing the draft Delta Plan and environmental impact report.

Scheduled for adoption and implementation in 2012, the Delta Plan is intended to serve as California's guiding policy document for the Delta and Suisun Marsh for the next 88 years (that is, through the year 2099), with frequent updates.

8. Delta Levee Failure (a)
Delta levees provide constant protection from flooding because most lands in the Delta are below sea level. Most Delta levees, however, do not meet modem engineering standards and are highly susceptible to failure. Levees are subject to failure at times of high flood flows, but also at any time of 12-2278
8 the year due to seepage or the piping of water through the levee, slippage or sloughing of levee material, or sudden failure due to an earthquake. According to the URS Corp./Jack R. Benjamin & Associates report, Report; Phase l:RiskAnalysis, Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS), December 2008, the risk of levee failure in the Delta is significant, as shown by the fact that most islands in the Delta have flooded at least once over the past 100 years, with many flooding at least twice. Since 1900 there have been 158 levee failures.

A breach of one or more levees and island flooding may affect Delta water quality and water operations. Depending on the hydrology and the size and locations of the breaches and flooded islands, a significant amount of saline water may be drawn into the interior Delta from Suisun and San Pablo bays. At the time of island flooding , exports may be drastically reduced or ceased to evaluate the salinity distribution in the Delta and to avoid drawing higher saline water toward the pumps. The introduced salinity then could become dispersed and degrade Delta water quality for a prolonged period because of complex relationships between Delta inflows, tidal mixing, and the time taken to repair the breaches.

A large earthquake in the Delta causing significant levee failures and island flooding could lead to multiyear disruptions in water supply, significant water quality degradation, as well as permanent flooding of several islands. Such permanent multi- island flooding would probably lead to increased salt water intrusion into the Delta during seasonal low inflows. Maintaining Delta water quality when several islands are flooded and breaches are open would require additional Delta inflow because the volume of water coming into the Delta on the flood tide would increase, requiring more fresh water from the rivers to prevent the saline water from extending into the Delta. When SWP and CVP pumping are restarted, Delta inflow would need to increase again beyond the pumping amount in order to prevent water quality degradation in the Delta. This chain of events would significantly affect water supply reliability.

A worst case scenario for water supply effects would be a moderate or large earthquake causing extensive levee failure in the late summer or fall of a dry year. A strong earthquake affecting the Delta could cause simultaneous le vee failures on several islands, with these islands flooding simultaneously.

Preliminary analysis indicates that some water may not be treatable by municipal agencies for many months due to high organic carbon concentrations. This would extend the period t hat Delta water supply would be unavailable for urban users.

12-2279
9 Possible effects on SWP deliveries due to earthquakes are:
• There is about a 40% chance of 27 or more islands simultaneously failing during a major earthquake in the next 25 years
• A moderate to large earthquake capable of causing multiple levee failures could happen in the next 25 years. Under such an earthquake, extensive levee failure would most likely occur in the west and central Delta. Levee repairs could take more than 2.5 years and exports from the Delta could be disrupted for about a year with a loss of up to 8 million acre feet of water
• By 2050, the risk of island flooding from seismic events is expected to increase by 35%over 2005 conditions, if a seismic event has not occurred

9. Monterey Amendment Environmental Impact Report (d)
The Monterey EIR is aimed at identifying potential environmental impacts resulting from modifications to SWP water supply contracts. In 1994, DWR and some of the SWP contractors, meeting in Monterey, executed the Monterey Agreement to modify the long
- term wa
ter supply contracts. These
modifications were incorporated into the long -term water supply contracts in what became known as the Monterey Amendment.

An EIR f
or the Monterey Amendment was prepared by the Centra l Coast Water Authority (CCWA), a joint powers agency representing several Central Coast contractors. A fter the EIR was certified in 1995, the Planning and Conservation League challenged the adequacy of the EIR. Later, the Citizen's Planning Association of Santa Barbara and Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District joined the action as plaintiffs. In 2000, the committee ruled that the EIR was inadequate because it failed to analyze invocation of Article 18(b) of the then- existing SWP contr acts as a no -project alternative, and that DWR must serve as the lead agency for a new EIR. Following the court's ruling, DWR, the SWP contractors and the plaintiffs executed the Settlement Agreement in 2003. The Settlement Agreement specifies a process for the plaintiffs and the contractors to advise DWR in preparation of the new EIR, sets forth some specific items to be included in the content of the new EIR, and establishes a process for mediation of CEQA issues raised by either the plaintiffs or contractors. The Settlement Agreement also requires DWR to carry out various actions and modify some of its administrative practices.

In June 2010, Central Delta Water Agency, South Delta Water Agency, California Water Impact Network, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw filed a lawsuit challenging (1) the validity of the Monterey Amendment and the contract amendments executed as part of the settlement agreement and (2) challenging the EIR. A second 12-2280
10 lawsuit challenging the EIR was filed by Rosedale -Rio Bravo Water Storage District and Buena Vista Water Storage District. The trial court has ruled that the challenge to the va lidity of the Monterey Amendment and settlement agreement amendments is baited by the statute of limitations. The challenges to the EIR are set for hearing in January 2014.

10. State Water Bond
The 2014 water bond is the product of a comprehensive legislative package crafted in 2009 by Governor Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers to meet California's growing water challenges. This package represented a major step toward ensuring a reliable water supply for future generations, as well as restoring the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta and other ecologically sensitive areas. The package was composed of four policy bills and an $11.14 billion bond.

The water bond measure was originally set to be on the state's 2010 ballot and was later moved to the 2012 ballot. The California State Legislature, on July 5, 2012, approved a bill to take the measure off the 2012 ballot and put it on the 2014 ballot to provide a public cost share for elements of the package that benefit the public.

The Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of2014 is a multi-billion dollar general obligation bond proposal that would provide funding for California's aging water infrastructure and for projects and programs to address the ecosystem and water supply issues in California.

In its current form, the bond would allocate roughly funds for local resources development, ecosystem restoration and public benefits associated with new surface and groundwater storage projects. It is planned that every $1 authorized as pmi of the bond would leverage $3 to $4 in other funds, for a total of up to $40 billion for needed investments.

The vast majority of public funds allocated by the bond would be awarded via competitive proces s to ensure dollars go to a public benefit. There would also be careful review of dollars targeted for ecosystem restoration and a competitive process to determine the highest value investments. 12-2281
11 11. Salton Sea (e)(g)
The Salton Sea is a saline terminal lake located at the east end of the Coachella Valley. It is California's largest lake and is a main stop on Pacific Flyway for migratory birds. Over 400 bird species have been documented there. The Sea is about 35 miles long and 9 -15 miles wide with approximately 360 square miles of water surface and 105 miles of shoreline. The surface of the Sea currently lies approximately 232 feet below mean sea level (MSL). One of the major functions of the Salton Sea is to serve as a sump for agricultural wastewater from the Imperial and Coachella Valleys. Executive Order of Withdrawal (Public Water Reserve No. 114, California No. 26), signed by President Coo lidge in 1928, designated lands within the Salton Basin below elevation 220 feet below MSL as storage for wastes an d seepage from imitated lands in the Imperial Valley. Approximately 90 percent of the freshwater inflow to the Sea is agricultural drain water from Imperial Valley, Coachella Valley and Mexicali Valley (Salton Sea Authority website, 2010). Because the Sea has no outlet, salts concentrate in it by evaporation and concentrated nutrients increase the formation of eutrophic conditions. Salt concentrations in the Sea are currently about 51,000 mg/L or about 45 percent higher than ocean water, with salinity increasing at approximately 1 percent per year.

The Salton Sea Reclamation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105 -372) directed the Secretary of the Interior, through Reclamation, to study options for managing the salinity and elevation of the Sea to preserve fish and wildlife health and to enhance opportunities for recreation use and economic development while continuing the Sea's use as a reservoir for irrigation drainage.

In January 2003, a status report was released by the Secretary of the Interior about the Salton Sea Restoration Project. The legislation directed DWR to prepare an ecosystem restoration study and programmatic environmental document. The study, conducted in consultation with a legislatively mandated advisory committee and with the Authority, included a proposed funding plan for implementing the preferred alternative.

The California State Legislature, by legislation enacted in 2003 and 2004, directed the Secretary of the California Resources Agency (CRA) to prepare a restoration plan for the Salton Sea eco system, and an accompanying Environmental Impact Report. In September 2003, legislation was passed in which the State of California accepted responsibilities for ecosystem restoration at the Sea. The Secretary has established an Advisory Committee to provide recommendations to assist in the preparation of the Ecosystem Restoration Plan, including consultation throughout all stages of the alternative selection process. DWR and CDFG are leading the effort to develop a preferred alternative for the restoration of the Salton Sea ecosystem and the protection of wildlife dependent on that ecosystem. 12-2282
12 In June 2006, the Salton Sea Authority (SSA) published a study entitled "Salton Sea Authority Plan for Multi-Purpose Project". As part of this study, the SSA developed a combined, multi - pur pose
revitalization/restoration project. The preferred project design resulting from this study included components such as in -sea circulation channels, water treatment facilities, habitat enhancement features, Colorado River water storage reservoir, park, and open space and wildlife areas.

In Ma
y 2007, the State published the "Salton Sea Ecosystem Restoration Program Preferred Alternative Report and Funding Plan". The Plan and the accompanying PEIR/EIS considered eight restoration alternatives along with a no project alternative. The preferred alternative includes Saline Habitat Complex in the northern and southern sea bed, a Marine Sea that extends around the northern shoreline from San Felipe Creek to Bombay Beach in a "horseshoe" shape, Air Quality Management facilities to reduce particulate emissions from the exposed playa, Brine Sink for discharge of salts, and Sedimentation/Distribution facilities.

On Jan
uary 24, 2008, the California Legislative Analysis Office released a report entitled "Saving the Salton Sea." The preferred alternative outlined within this dra ft plan calls for spending a total of almost $9 billion over 25 years and proposes a smaller but more manageable Salton Sea. The amount of water available for use by humans and wildlife would be reduced by 60 percent from 365 square miles (945 square kilometers) to about 147 square miles (381 square kilometers). Fi fty-two miles (84 km) of perimeter dikes
- cons
tructed most likely out of boulders, gravel and stone columns - would be erected along with earthen beams to corral the water into a horseshoe shape along the shoreline of the sea from San Felipe Creek on the west shore to Bombay Beach on the east shore. The central portion of the sea would be allowed to almost completely evaporate and would serve as a brine sink, while the southern portion of the sea would be constructed into a saline habitat complex. If approved, construction on this project is slated to begin in 2011 and would be completed by 2035.

Salton
Sea Restoration Project- SB 187 was approved by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2008 and chaptered by the Secretary of State (Chapter 374, Statutes of2008). SB 187 limits expenditures of funds from Proposition 84, upon appropriation by the Legi slature, to those activities to be completed in the first five years (Period I) identified in the Resources Agency's report entitled "Salton Sea Ecosystem Restoration Program Preferred Alternative Report and Funding Plan." Activities identified for completion in Period I included a demonstration project, early start habitat, and additional biological, inflow, sediment, water and air quality investigations.

In 2010 in response to inaction by the legislature, SB 51 was passed creating the Salton Sea Restorati on Council. To lead restoration efforts, The Council was never formed, members were never appointed and in 2012, Governor Brown eliminated the council by executive action. In late 2013, Governor Brown 12-2283
13 signed AB 71 the Salton Sea restoration plan authored by Coachella Democratic Assemblymru1 V.

Manuel Perez. The law gives local stakeholders greater say in the revitalization of the Salton Sea and aims to have the local Salton Sea Authority work directly on a plan with the state's Natural Resources Agency. It also authorizes those agencies to study "short - and long-term funding opportunities to help determine a financially sustainable restoration project.

The draft 2010 Water Management Plru1 Update (201 0 WMP) projects that in order to meet the 2045 demand conditions in the Coachella Valley, up to 85,000 AFY of drain flow to the Salton Sea could be captured and desalinated for urban use. This might result in a significant reduction of projected flow to the Salton Sea from the Coachella Valley. However, it is predicted that these reductions will be offset by higher drainage flow to the sea from the Coachella Valley Aquifer as a result of overdraft reduction. The impacts associated with flow to the Salton Sea are evaluated in the 2010 WMP Update Subsequent Programmatic Environmental Impact Report.

12. Climate Change and Sea Level Rise (a)(l)(g)
State Water Protect:

California's climate is expected to continue to change into the future. Mean temperatures are predicted to increase by 1.5 degrees to 5.0 degrees Fahren heit by mid -century and 3.5 degrees to 11 degrees by the end of the century. These rising air temperatures are expected to continue to reduce snowpack, especially in low elevation watersheds where more precipitation may fall as rain rather than snow.

Reduced snow pack is expected to lead to higher winter runoff and lower spring runoff. This could increase flooding during the winter and reduce river flows in the spring and summer , which may require water managers to evaluate the tradeoffs between flood prote ction and water supply. Future sea level rise estimates range from 4 to 16 inches by mid - century and 7 to 55 inches by the end of the century.

Higher sea levels could threaten the existing levee system in the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta. Salinity intrusion into the Delta could also require increased releases of freshwater from upstream reservoirs to maintain compliance with water quality standards.

For the SWP, these climate changes have the potential to simultaneously affect the availability of source water, the ability to convey water, and users' demands for water. This may exacerbate the existing mismatch in California between where and when precipitation occurs and where and when people use water.

12-2284
14 Colorado River:

Recent studies suggesting substantial changes in runoff may occur over the next century in the Colorado River Basin are of great concern to the region's water managers. The range of estimated impacts on Colorado River discharge has been from slight increases to a 45% decrease by mid -century. While this range of projections and associated hypotheses may be of intellectual interest and stimulate scientific debate, to users and decision makers at the federal level, in the seven basin states, and internationally, providing conflicting information on future conditions is a serious impediment to drought and climate change planning.

Given the wide range of projected flows, the four NOAA Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments in the western US (RISAs: Western Water Assessment, Climate Assessment fo r the Southwest, Climate Impacts Group of the Pacific Northwest, California Applications Program), Bureau of Reclamation and NOAA engaged in a coping with drought study to reconcile the range of estimates for future Colorado River flows. A secondary goal was to inform the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) on the process needed to convey to policy and decision makers the nature of the uncertainties associated with projections of future climate impact.

An intercomparison was initiated to assess how the methodological approaches and models used to generate estimates of Colorado River flow in 2050 reflect actual uncertainty with associated risks, and how much uncertainty is due to differences in the methodological approaches and model biases . First, the various approaches simulated the 20th century record of Colorado River stream flow due to shifts in the average and seasonality of temperature and precipitation, snow pack development and decline, and antecedent soil moisture conditions were examined. Precipitation elasticities and temperature sensitivities of these approaches to simulate stream flow were evaluated by imposing a 10 percent reduction of precipitation and
1°C and 2 °C increases in temperature. The elevation dependency of runoff c ontributing to stream flow among the simulations and in comparison to the observed record was also examined.

An initial result of the intercomparison is a narrowing of the range of projected Colorado River flows at 2050 to decreases between - 6% and - 20%. P recipitation elasticity across the approaches for annual flows at Lees Ferry is on the order 2, whereas temperature sensitivity for annual flows at Lees Ferry ranges from 2%/°C to -9%/°C. In addition, differences in gridded time series of precipitation and temperature (Oregon State University PRISM approach versus University of Washington Maurer approach) were found to impact the simulated 20th century flows and sensitivity of future flows to climate change at 2050.
12-2285
15 Extended droughts in the southwestern United States are believed to have occurred a number of times in the past 1,200 years. A study published in 2007 reconstructed Upper Colorado River flows at Lee Ferry (below Lake Powell) using tree-ring data for the period A.D. 762 to 2005. This study indicated that the Colorado River basin may have experienced two droughts extending for 60 to 80 years during the Medieval period, including a drought in the mid -11OOs where the average flow over a 25 -year period decreased by 15 percent. One of these droughts is believed to have caused the decline of the Anasazi culture in the Southwest. Several droughts lasting 20 to 30 years are also inferred from the tree -ring data. Although basin -wide inflows have exceeded water use over the past 100 years, the reconstructed hydrology suggests that the average flow at Lee Ferry might be 14.65 million AFY, which is significantly lower than the 16.5 million AFY allocated to Colorado River users.

CVWD will continue to monitor the supply conditions on the Colorado River, mak e adjustments to its operations as appropriate, and actively participate in efforts to augment the water supplies of Colorado River. For the 20 year period that the Water Supply Assessment looks into the future and assuming a linear relationship, these stu dies would have a decrease in runoff in 2030 of between - 35 to - 10%. As discussed under the "Law of the River", reductions of these magnitudes would not impact CVWD's rights to Colorado River water.

13. Law of the River (h)
The Colorado River is managed and operated under numerous compacts, federal laws, court decisions and decrees, contracts, and regulatory guidelines collectively known as the "Law of the River." This collection of documents apportions the water and regulates the use and management of the Colorado River among the seven basin states and Mexico. Following is a synopsis of the most significant documents:

The Colorado River Compact of 1922 - The cornerstone of the "Law of the River", this Compact was negotiated by the seven Colorado River Basin states and the federal government in 1922. It defined the relationship between the upper basin states, where most of the river's water supply originates, and the lower basin states, where most of the water demands were developing. At the time, the upper ba sin states were concerned that plans for Hoover Dam and other water development projects in the lower basin would, under the Western water law doctrine of prior appropriation, deprive them of their ability to use the river's flows in the future.

The states could not agree on how the waters of the Colorado River Basin should be allocated among them, so the Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover suggested the basin be divided into an upper and lower half, with each basin having the right to develop and use 7.5 million acre -feet (mat) of river water 12-2286
16 annually. This approach reserved water for future upper basin development and allowed planning and development in the lower basin to proceed.

The Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 - This act: (1) ratified the 1922 Co mpact; (2) authorized the construction of Hoover Dam and related irrigation facilities in the lower Basin; (3) apportioned the lower basin's 7 million acre -feet (maf) among the states of Arizona (2.8 mat), California (4.4 mat) and Nevada (0.3 mat); and (4) authorized and directed the Secretary of the Interior to function as the sole contracting authority for Colorado River water use in the lower basin.

California Seven Party Agreement of 1931 - This agreement helped settle the long - standing conflict between California agricultural and municipal interests over Colorado River water priorities. The seven principal claimants Palo Verde Irrigation District, Yuma Project, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Irrigation District, Metropolitan Water District, and the City and County of San Diego - reache
d
consensus in the amounts of water to be allocated on an annual basis to each entity. Although the agreement did not resolve all priority issues, these regulations were also incorporated in the major California water delivery contracts.

The agreement provides for the following priorities:
• First Priority- Palo Verde litigation District for beneficial use exclusively upon lands in said District as it now exists and upon lands between said District and the Color ado River, aggregating a gross are of 104,500 acres, such waters as may be required by said lands. • Second Priority - Yuma Project of United States Bureau of Reclamation for beneficial use upon not exceeding a gross area of 25,000 acres of land located in sa id project in California, such waters as may be required by said lands.
• Third Priority (a) Imperial Irrigation District and other lands under or that will be served for the All American Canal in Imperial and Coachella Valleys, and (b) Palo Verde Irrigation District for use exclusively on 16,000 acres in that area known as the "Lower Palo Verde Mesa", adjacent to Palo Verde Irrigation District, for beneficial consumptive use, 3,850,000 acre feet of water per annum less the beneficial consumptive use under th e priorities designated in Section 1 and 2 above.
• The total beneficial consumptive use under priorities stated in Sections 1, 2 and 3 of this article shall not exceed 3,850,000 acre feet per annum. 12-2287
17 • Fourth Priority - The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and/or the City of Los Angeles, for beneficial consumptive use, by themselves and/or others, on the Coastal Plain of Southern California, 550,000 acre feet of water per annum. • Fifth Priority, (a) The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and/or the City of Los Angeles, for beneficial consumptive use, by themselves and/or others, on the Coastal Plain of Southern California, 550,000 acre feet of water per annum and (b) the City of San Diego and/or County of San Diego, for beneficial consumptive use, 112,000 acre feet of water per annum.
• Sixth Priority (a) Imperial Irrigation District and other lands under or that will be served from All American Canal in Imperial and Coachella Valleys, and (b) to Palo Verde Irrigation District for use exclusively on 16,000 acres in that area known as the "Lower Palo Verde Mesa," adjacent to Palo Verde Irrigation District, for beneficial consumptive use, 300,000 acre feet of water per annum.
• Seventh Priority - All remaining water available for use within California, for agricultural use on designated lands in the Colorado River Basin in California. 1934 IID/CVWD Compromise Agreement - An agreement between Imperial Irrigation District ( IID) and CVWD which addressed the sale of power within the Coachella Valley and provided a priority for IID ahead of CVWD for Colorado River water in Priorities 3 and 6 of the Seven Party Agreement of 1931 for water put to reasonable beneficial use in its service area.

The Mexican Water Treaty of 1944 -Committed 1.5 maf of the river's annual flow to Mexico.

Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948 - Created the Upper Colorado River Commission and apportioned the Upper Basin's 7.5 maf among Colorado (51.75 percent), New Mexico (11.25 percent), Utah (23 percent), and Wyoming ( 14 percent); the portion of Arizona that lies within the Upper Colorado Basin was also apportioned 50,000 acre-feet annually.

Colorado River Storage Project of 1956 - Provided a comprehensive Upper Basin - wide water resource development plan and authorized the construction of Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge, Navajo and Curecanti dams for river regulation and power production, as well as several projects for irrigation and other uses.

The Arizona v. California Supreme Court Decision of 1964- In 1963, the Supreme Court issued a decision settling a 25 -year-old dispute between Arizona and California. The dispute stemmed from Arizona's 12-2288
18 desire to build the Central Arizona Project so it could use its full Colorado River apportionment.

California objected and argued the Arizona's use of water from the Gila River, a Colorado River tributary, constituted use of its Colorado River apportionment, and that it had developed a historical use of some of Arizona's apportionment. This, under the doctrine of prior appropriation, precluded Arizona from developing the project.

The Supreme Court rejected California's arguments, ruling that lower basin states have a right to appropriate and use tributary flows before the tributary co -mingles with the Colorado River, and that the doctrine of prior appropriation did not apply to apportionments in the lower basin.

In 1964, the Court issued its decree. This decree enjoined the Secretary of the Interior from delivering water outside the framework of apportionments defined by the law and mandate d the preparation of annual reports documenting the uses of water in the three lower basin states. 1979, The Supreme Court issued a Supplemental Decree which addressed present perfected right referred to in the Colorado River Compact and in the Boulder Can yon Project Act. These rights are entitlements essentially established under state law, and have priority over later contract entitlements.

The case was finalized in 2006.

The Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 - This Act authorized construction of a number of water development projects in both the upper and lower basins, including the Central Arizona Project (CAP). It also made the priority of the CAP and portions of Nevada's Colorado River water supply subordinate to California's apportionment in times of shortage, and directed the Secretary to prepare, in consultation with the Colorado River Basin states, long -range operating criteria for the Colorado River reservoir system. This priority for California provides additional reliability for California's Colorado River supply as approximately an additional 1.4 maf of Colorado River water of Arizona and Nevada will take the first storage in the Lower Basin.

The Criteria for Coordinated Long -Range Operation of Colorado River Reservoirs of 1970 (amended March 21, 2005) -Provided for the coordinated operation of reservoirs in the upper and lower basins and set conditions for water releases from Lake Powell and Lake Mead.

Minute 242 of the US Mexico International Boundary and Water Commission of 1973 required the U.S. to take actions to reduce the salinity of water being delivered to Mexico and Morelos Darn.

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 authorized desalting and salinity control projects, including Yuma Desalting Plant, to improve Colorado River quality. 12-2289
19 Colorado River Storage for CVWD- Under the 1931 Seven Party Agreement and the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, the Colorado River supply to the Lower Basin must be reduced from 7.5 maf to 5 maf before CVWD is subject to a shortage reduction. Under these conditions, the Colorado River supply to CAP and MWD would be reduced to zero.

There are several other laws, contracts and documents which are part of the "Law of the River" in addition to these provisions, the federal Endangered Species Act and various Native American water claim settlement both affect the extent to which water developments and diversions can be utilized in the Colorado River Basin.

14. Agua Caliente Law Suit
On May 14, 2013, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, a federally recognized tribe, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against CVWD and Desert Water Agency (DWA) in U.S.

District Court. The complaint alleges that the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation is entitled to groundwater rights prior and paran1ount to the rights of CVWD and DWA under an aboriginal rights theory (in an amount needed to provide for the aboriginal uses of the tribe with a priority date of time immemorial) and under a federal reserved water rights theory (in an amount needed to fulfill the purposes of the reservation, with a priority date of the Executive Orders of 1876 and 1877 establishing the reservation), that CVWD and DWA are overdrafting the Upper Whitewater River and Garnet Hill sub- basins, that CVWD and DWA are degrading groundwater quality by recharging the sub -basins with Colorado River water, and that the tribe owns the "pore space" beneath the reservation lands and has a prior right to use that space for storage of water. The tribe seeks a declaratio n quantifying the amount of its claimed water rights and an injunction prohibiting CWVD and DWA from producing groundwater in conflict with the claimed water rights, from overdrafting the sub - basins
, from recharging the sub-basins
with untreated water, and from using the pore space beneath the reservation in conflict with the tribe's claimed rights to use the storage space.

CVWD
and DWA have filed answers to the complaint, denying the tribe's allegations and asserting various affirmative defenses, including that any claimed aboriginal water rights have been extinguished by law, that the reserved water rights theory is not applicable to groundwater, that CVWD and DWA have the right to recharge the sub -basins with water diverted from surface streams and imported from the Colorado River, and that the balance of equities weigh in favor of CWVD's and DWA's efforts to address overdraft and preclude granting relief to the tribe.

12-2290
20 Footnotes
a. From "State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report 2013" dated December 2013 b. Portions from CVWD website, www.cvwd.org
d. Portions from draft EIR on Monterey Plus October 2007 e. Portions from website saltonsea.ca.gov, “Salton Sea Authority” f. Portions from Southern Nevada Water Authority website, www.snwa.com g. Portions from Reclamation's Yuma Area Office website, www.usbr.gov/lc/yuma h. Portions from Reclamation's Lower Colorado River Region website, www.usbr.gov/lc/ l. Portions from "Reconciling Projections of Future Colorado River Stream Flow" by Robert Webb, et al.

12-2291

APPENDIX B
Water Demand Calculations
12-2292
To provide an estimate of the proposed Project's contribution to CVWD water deman d, the proposed Project is assumed to build out in a 20 -year span between 2017 and 2036 with an average annual increase in demand of 254.4 afy for the Active Adult Community, and 137.6 afy for the Tribal Planning Areas, as illustrated in Table 1, Projected Annual Project Demand.

Table 1
Projected Annual Project Demand (afy)
Year Annual Buildout* Demand (afy) Cumulative Buildout
Cumulative Project
Demand (afy)
2017 120.3 du

2.37 acre commercial

0.33 acre office

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

88.98 120.3 du

2.37 acre commercial

0.33 acre office

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

88.98 2018 120.3 du

2.37 acre commercial

0.33 acre office

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

88.98 240.6 du

4.75 acre commercial

0.66 acre office

1.81 acre restaurant
1,200 sq. ft. clubhouse

26.10 acre open space
177.96
2019 120.3 du

2.37 acre commercial

0.33 acre office

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

88.98 360.9 du

7.12 acre commercial

0.99 acre office

2.71 acre restaurant
1,800 sq. ft. clubhouse

39.15 acre open space
266.94
2020 120.3 du

2.37 acre commercial

0.33 acre office

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

88.98 481.2 du

9.49 acre commercial

1.32 acre office

3.62 acre restaurant
2,400 sq. ft. clubhouse

52.20 acre open pace
355.92
2021 120.3 du

2.37 acre commercial

0.33 acre office

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

88.98 601.5 du

11.86 acre commercial

1.65 acre office

4.52 acre restaurant
3,000 sq. ft. clubhouse

65.25 acre open space
444.90
2022 120.3 du

2.37 acre commercial

0.33 acre office

88.98 721.8 du

14.24 acre commercial

1.98 acre office
533.88
12-2293
Year Annual Buildout* Demand (afy) Cumulative Buildout
Cumulative Project
Demand (afy)

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

5.42 acre restaurant
3,600 sq. ft. clubhouse

78.30 acre open space
2023 120.3 du

2.37 acre commercial

0.33 acre office

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

88.98 842.1 du

16.61 acre commercial

2.31 acre office

6.33 acre restaurant
4,200 sq. ft. clubhouse

91.35 acre open space
622.86
2024 120.3 du

2.37 acre commercial

0.33 acre office

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

88.98 962.4 du

18.98 acre commercial

2.64 acre office

7.23 acre restaurant
4,800 sq. ft. clubhouse
104.4 acre open space
711.84
2025 120.3 du

2.37 acre commercial

0.33 acre office

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

88.98 1,082.7 du

21.35 acre commercial

2.97 acre office

8.14 acre restaurant
5,400 sq. ft. clubhouse
117.5 acre open space
800.82
2026 120.3 du

2.37 acre commercial

0.33 acre office

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

88.98 1,203.0 du

23.73 acre commercial

3.30 acre office

9.04 acre restaurant
6,000 sq. ft. clubhouse
130.5 acre open space
889.80
2027 120.3 du

2.37 acre commercial

0.33 acre office

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

88.98 1,323.3 du

26.10 acre commercial

3.63 acre office

9.94 acre restaurant
6,600 sq. ft. clubhouse
143.6 acre open space
978.78
2028 120.3 du

2.37 acre commercial

0.33 acre office

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

88.98 1,443.6 du

28.47 acre commercial

3.95 acre office

10.85 acre restaurant
7,200 sq. ft. clubhouse
156.6 acre open space
1,067.76
2029 120.3 du

2.37 acre commercial

0.33 acre office

88.98 1,563.9 du

30.84 acre commercial

4.28 acre office
1,156.74
12-2294
Year Annual Buildout* Demand (afy) Cumulative Buildout
Cumulative Project
Demand (afy)

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

11.75 acre restaurant
7,800 sq. ft. clubhouse
169.7 acre open space
2030 120.3 du2.37 acre
commercial

0.33 acre office

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

88.98 1,684.2 du

33.22 acre commercial

4.61 acre office

12.66 acre restaurant
8,400 sq. ft. clubhouse
182.7 acre open space
1,245.72
2031 120.3 du

2.37 acre commercial

0.33 acre office

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

88.98 1,804.3 du

35.59 acre commercial

4.94 acre office

13.56 acre restaurant
9,000 sq. ft. clubhouse
195.8 acre open space
1,334.70
2032 120.3 du

2.37 acre commercial

0.33 acre office

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

88.98 1,924.8 du

37.96 acre commercial

5.27 acre office

14.46 acre restaurant
9,600 sq. ft. clubhouse
208.8 acre open space
1,423.68
2033 120.3 du

2.37 acre commercial

0.33 acre office

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

88.98 2,045.1 du

40.33 acre commercial

5.60 acre office

15.37 acre restaurant
10,200 sq. ft. clubhouse
221.9 acre open space
1,512.66
2034 120.3 du

2.37 acre commercial

0.33 acre office

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

88.98 2,165.4 du

42.71 acre commercial

5.93 acre office

16.27 acre restaurant
10,800 sq. ft. clubhouse
234.9 acre open space
1,601.64
2035 120.3 du

2.37 acre commercial

0.33 acre office

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

88.98 2,285.7 du

45.08 acre commercial

6.26 acre office

17.18 acre restaurant
11,400 sq. ft. clubhouse
247.95 acre open space
1,690.62
2036 120.3 du

2.37 acre commercial

0.33 acre office

88.98 2,406 du

47.75 acre commercial

6.59 acre office
1,779.53
12-2295
Year Annual Buildout* Demand (afy) Cumulative Buildout
Cumulative Project
Demand (afy)

0.90 acre restaurant
600 sq. ft. clubhouse

13.05 acre open space

18.08 acre restaurant
12,000 sq. ft. clubhouse
261 acre open space

− Note: afy = acre-feet per year, du = dwelling unit
− *Planning estimate based on a 20-year linear buildout. Since the actual buildout is projected to continue beyond 20 years, the 20-year estimate is considered conservative.

12-2296

APPENDIX C
Coachella Valley Water District
2010 Water Management Plan Executive Summary
12-2297

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
12-2298

COACHELLA VALLEY WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN 2010 UPDATE

Executive Summary

January 2012

Prepared for:

Coachella Valley Water District

Steve Robbins
General Manager-Chief Engineer

Patti Reyes
Planning and Special Program Manager

Prepared by:

MWH
618 Michillinda Ave., Suite 200
Arcadia, CA 91007

Water Consult
535 North Garfield Avenue
Loveland, CO 80537

12-2299

12-2300
Table of Contents

Section Name Page Number
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ ES-1 ES-1 The Coachella Valley ...............................................................................................ES-1 ES-2 Water Management in the Coachella Valley ...........................................................ES-3 ES-3 Current Condition of Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin ...................................ES-4 ES-4 The 2002 Water Management Plan ..........................................................................ES-5 ES-4.1 Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................ES-5 ES-4.2 Accomplishments Since 2002 .........................................................................ES-6 ES-5 2010 WMP Update ................................................................................................ES-13 ES-5.1 Population and Water Demand .....................................................................ES-13 ES-5.2 Future Water Supply Needs ..........................................................................ES-16 ES-5.3 What is New in the 2010 WMP Update? ......................................................ES-18 ES-5.4 2010 WMP Update Elements........................................................................ES-19 ES-6 Water Quality Management ...................................................................................ES-25 ES-7 Monitoring and Data Management ........................................................................ES-25 ES-7.1 Water Quality ................................................................................................ES-26 ES-7.2 Subsidence ....................................................................................................ES-26 ES-7.3 Water Resources Database ............................................................................ES-26 ES-7.4 Groundwater Model Update and Recalibration ............................................ES-26 ES-7.5 Water Quality Model ....................................................................................ES-26 ES-7.6 Water Demand and Conservation Monitoring ..............................................ES-26 ES-8 Plan Costs...............................................................................................................ES-26 ES-9 Implementation and Implementation Costs ...........................................................ES-27 ES-10 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................ES-29

LIST OF TABLES
Table Name Page Number

Table ES-1 CVWD Deliveries under the Quantification Settlement Agreement .................ES-8 Table ES-2 State Water Project Sources ...............................................................................ES-9 Table ES-3 Current (2010) SWP Supply Availability (60% Reliability) ...........................ES-10 Table ES-4 2045
Baseline Water Demand Projection for the Coachella Valley ................ES-15 Table ES-5 Water Supply Needs – 2045 ............................................................................ES-17 Table ES-6 Ranges of Potential Water Conservation Savings – 2045 ...............................ES-19 Table ES-7 Range of Additional Supplies Through 2045 ..................................................ES-21 Table ES-8 Range of Groundwater Pumping Reductions Due To Source Substitution .....ES-22 Table ES-9 Range of Groundwater Recharge .....................................................................ES-24 Table ES-10 Cost by Plan Component 2011-2045 ...............................................................ES-27

Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page i
12-2301
Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ES-1 2010 Water Management Plan Update Study Area ...........................................ES-2 Figure ES-2 Comparison of Population Projections for the Coachella Valley ...................ES-14 Figure ES-3 Projected Water Demands in the Study Area ..................................................ES-15 Figure ES-4 Water Supply Mix for 2010 WMP Update ......................................................ES-17

Page ii Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
12-2302
Executive Summary
The Coachella Valley Water Management Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors, Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) in September 2002. The goal of the Water Management Plan is to reliably meet current and future water demands in a cost -effective and sustainable manner. The Board recognized the need to update the Plan periodically to respond to changing external and internal conditions. This 2010 Water Management Plan Update ( 2010 WMP Update) meets that n eed. It defines how the goal will be met given changing conditions and new uncertainties regarding water supplies , water demands, and evolving federal and state laws and regulations.

ES-1 THE COACHELLA VALLEY
The Coachella Valley is located in the central por tion of Riverside County. For purposes of this Water Management Plan, the Coachella Valley is divided into the West Valley and the East Valley. Geographically, the East Valley is southeast of a line extending from Washington Street and Point Happy northe ast to the Indio Hills near Jefferson Street, and the West Valley is northwest of this line (Figure ES-1).

The West Valley includes the cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, and Palm Desert, a portion of the city of Indio, and the unincorpo rated communities of Sun City and Thousand Palms. The West Valley has a predominately resort/recreation-based economy. Water demand in the West Valley is supplied by several sources: groundwater, surface water from local streams, and recycled water. T he East Valley includes the cities of Coachella, Indio, and La Quinta , and the unincorporated communities of Bermuda Dunes, Mecca, Oasis, Thermal, and Vista Santa Rosa. Historically, the East Valley has had an agricultural-based economy. Urban growth is occurring in the East Valley and is projected to continue in the future. East Valley water sources consist primarily of Coachella Canal water and groundwater, with a small amount of recycled fish farm effluent for agricultural uses.

The Coachella Valley’s principal groundwater basin, the Whitewater River (Indio 1) Subbasin,
extends from Whitewater in the northwest to the Salton Sea in southeast. The basin has a n estimated storage capacity of approximately 30 million acre -feet2 (AF) (DWR, 1964). Water placed on the ground surface in the West Valley will percolate through the sands and gravels directly into the groundwater aquifer. In the East Valley, however, several impervious clay layers lie between the ground surface and the main groundwater aquifer. Water applied to the surface in the East Valley does not readily reach the lower groundwater aquifers due to these impervious clay layers. The only outlet s for groundwater in the Coachella Valley are through subsurface outflow under the Salton Sea or through collection in drains and transport to the Salton Sea via the Coachella Valley Storm Channel (CVSC).

1 The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) assigned the name “Indio Subbasin” in its Bulletin 108.

CVWD and Desert Water Agency use the designation “Whitewater River Subbasin.” 2 One acre -foot (AF) is the amount of water that would cover one acre of land (approximately the size of a football field), one foot deep or about 326,000 gallons.

Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-1

12-2303
12-2304
Executive Summary
ES-2 WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY
Water management in the Valley began as early as 1915. With groundwater levels falling, the need for a supplemental water source was recognized for the Valley to continue to flourish.

The Coachella Valley Stormwater District was formed in 1915 followed by formation of CVWD in January 1918. CVWD’s first directors quickly filed paperwork to secure rights to all unclaimed Whitewater River water, an important source for aquifer recharge. In 1918, a contract was awarded for construction of water spreading and recharge facilities in the Whitewater River northwest of Palm Springs.

CVWD next focused on obtaining imported Colorado River water. In 1934, negotiations with the federal government were completed, and plans were put in place for the construction of the Coachella Branch of the All American Canal. Construction of the Canal began in 1938, but was interrupted by World War II . T he first deliveries of imported Colorado River water to East Valley growers began in 1949. The service area for Canal water delivery under the CVWD’s contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is defined as Improvement District No. 1 (ID-1). The impact of imported water on the Valley was almost im mediate. By the early 1960s, water levels in the East Valley had returned to their historical high levels.

Although groundwater levels in the East Valley had stabilized, water levels in the West Valley continued to decline as growth occurred. Desert Wat er Agency (DWA) was formed in 1961 to import State Water Project (SWP) water into the Palm Springs and Desert Hot Springs areas. In 1962 and 1963 respectively, DWA and CVWD entered into contracts with the State of California for 61,200 acre-feet per year ( AFY) of SWP water. To avoid the then estimated $150 million cost of constructing an aqueduct to bring SWP water directly to the Valley, CVWD and DWA entered into an agreement with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) to exchange SWP water for Colorado River water.

Starting in 1973, the CVWD and DWA began exchanging their annual SWP allocation with Metropolitan for Colorado River water to recharge West Valley groundwater at the Whitewater River Recharge Facility. CVWD, DW A, and Metropolitan also signed an advance delivery agreement in 1984 that allows Metropolitan to store additional water in the Valley . Since 1973, the spreading facility had percolated in excess of 2.6 million AF of Colorado River water exchanged for SWP water.

By the 1980s, groundwater demand in the East Valley had again exceeded suppl ies, resulting in significant groundwater level decreases in some parts of the East Valley. Because relatively impervious clay layers in the Valley floor impede groundwater recharge in the East Valley, CVWD began looking for sites sufficiently far away from the main clay layer to allow groundwater recharge. In 1995, the CVWD began operating the Dike No. 4 pilot recharge facility located on the west side of the East Valley in La Quinta . The pilot successfully demonstrated the feasibility of East Valley groundwater recharge. The facility was expanded in 1998 to determine the ultimate recharge capacity at this location. In October 2009, the Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility (Levy facility, formerly Dike 4) was dedicated. It has a current recharge capacity of 32,000 AFY, upgradable to 40,000 AFY.

Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-3
12-2305
Executive Summary
Recycled water has been a priority water supply in the Valley since 1965. Currently, CVWD and DWA provide more than 14,000 AFY of recycled water for golf course and greenbelt irrigation purposes from four wastewater treatment facilities. While recycled water is available in the East Valley, it is not currently treated to sufficient levels for unrestricted reu se. Water conservation is also a key element of managing water demands.

ES-3 CURRENT CONDITION OF COACHELLA VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN The demand for groundwater has annually exceeded the limited natural recharge of the groundwater basin. The condition of a groundwater basin in which the outflows (demands) exceed the inflows (supplies) to the groundwater basin over the long term is called “overdraft.” Overdraft has caused groundwater levels to decrease in significant portions of the East Valley.

Groundwater levels in the West Valley have also decreased substantially, except in the areas near the Whitewater Recharge Facility where artificial recharge has successfully raised water levels.

Overdraft has serious consequences. The immediate and direct effect is increased groundwater pumping costs for all water users. With continued overdraft, wells will have to be deepened, pumps that are more powerful will have to be installed , and energy costs will increase as the pump lifts increase. The need for deeper wells and more powerful pumps will increase the cost of water for agriculture, municipalities, resorts, homes , and businesses. Continued decline of groundwater levels could result in a substantial and possibly irreversible degradation of water quality in the groundwater basin due to the intrusion of lower quality , high TDS water applied at the surface for irrigation and reduced drain flows carrying the salts out of the basin. Continued overdraft also increases the possibility of land subsidence. As groundwater is removed, the dewatered soil begins to compress from the weight of the ground above, causing subsidence.

Subsidence can cause ground fissures and damage to buildings, homes, sidewalks, streets, and buried pipelines – all of the structures that make the Valley livable. Subsidence also reduces storage capacity in the aquifer. Continued overdraft would eventually stifle growth in the Valley, as it would not be possible to demonstrate that adequate water supplies exist to support growth.

The 2010 WMP U pdate uses a calculation of change in storage based on long -term local hydrology and imported water deliveries to estimate long- term overdraft . Since the local hydrology varies significantly from year to year, a long term average provides a better method for estimating the local inflows, which are dampened by the large storage volume of the basin.

Because imported water recharge deliveries in the West Valley also vary widely from year to year, recharge is based on estimated long -term average SWP Exchange reliability rather than year-to-year values. Other inflows and outflows are estimated using the groundwater model.

This approach dampens the variations in the annual change in storage and gives a more accurate indication of long-term overdraft. Based on these adjustments, the average annual overdraft for 2000 through 2009 is estimated to be 70,000 AFY. When the 2010 WMP Update was adopted in January 2012, CVWD and DWA experienced two years of very high recharge with nearly 461,000 AF recharged at Whitewater (including advanced deliveries).

Page ES-4 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
12-2306
Executive Summary
ES-4 THE 2002 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Continued decline of groundwater levels and ongoing overdraft is unacceptable. CVWD and DWA are charged with providing a reliable, safe water supply now and in the future. In order to fulfill obligations to Valley residents, these agencies must take action to prevent continuing decline of groundwater levels and degradation of water quality on a long- term basis. To meet responsibilities for ensuring adequate water supplies in the future, the CVWD and DWA initiated planning in the early 1990s. The comprehensive Water Management Plan dev eloped in 2002 guides CVWD and DWA in efforts to eliminate overdraft, prevent groundwater level decline, protect water quality, and prevent land subsidence.

The 2002 Water Management Plan clearly identified the significant groundwater overdraft that had occurred over decades and, equally important, the threat of continued overdraft to the economy and quality of life in the Valley . It was based on then current projections of growth and corresponding water demand. The Plan identified the actions needed to eliminate overdraft while maintaining the quality of life and avoiding adverse impacts to the environment. The Plan area originally included the Whitewater River and Garnet Hill Subbasins. Portions of Desert Hot Springs Subbasin east of Indio and Coachella were added to the planning area for this Update , as shown in Figure ES-1.

ES-4.1 Goals and Objectives
The goal of the 2002 Water Management Plan is to reliably meet current and future water demands in a cost effective and sustainable manner. To meet this goal, four objectives were identified for the 2002 WMP:

1. Eliminate groundwater overdraft and its associated adverse impacts, including:
• groundwater storage reductions
• declining groundwater levels
• land subsidence, and
• water quality degradation,

2. Maximize conjunctive use opportunities,

3. Minimize adverse economic impacts to Coachella Valley water users, and

4. Minimize environmental impacts.

The 2002 WMP included five major elements:

• water conservation (urban, golf course, and agricultural), • substitution of surface water supplies (Colorado River water, SWP water, recycled water) for urban, agricultural, and golf course uses in lieu of pumping groundwater, • continued groundwater recharge at the Whitewater Recharge Facility and development of two new groundwater recharge facilities in the East Valley, Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-5
12-2307
Executive Summary
• increasing surface water supplies, and
• monitoring of groundwater production, levels, water quality and land subsidence.

Within each element, the 2002 WMP identified specific actions to aid in eliminating overdraft.

Many of the elements of the 2002 WMP have been accomplished as described in Section ES-

4.2. ES-4.2 Accomplishments Since 2002
The actions to eliminate overdraft pursuant to the 2002 WMP taken by CVWD, DWA, other water agencies, municipalities, and tribes are summarized below.

ES-4.2.1 Water Conservation
A broad range of water conservation actions was included in the 2002 WMP . Most of those actions have been achieved, some ahead of schedule.

Urban Conservation
CVWD first passed a Landscape Ordinance in 2003. The ordinance was updated in 2007, and changes were made in 2009 for consistency with the State’s updated model landscape ordinance.

The ordinance has been adopted by nearly all Valley cities. The ordinance sets a maximum applied water allowance for new developments, requires efficient irrigation systems, specifies the use of climate appropriate plant materials, reduces applied water runoff and overflow, reduces non-recreational turf at golf courses, and mandates smart irrigation controllers on all new landscapes. The ordinance, in combination with other water conservation measures, results in a significant reduction in existing and new water use.

CVWD established an urban water conservation program in 1988. A water conservation coordinator was appointed in 2007, and the program now has a full -time staff of twelve employees. In 2009, CVWD established tiered domestic water pricing for customers based on individual water budgets. A turf buy-out partnership was established with the cities of Cathedral City, La Quinta, and Palm Desert. CVWD also provides weather -based irrigation controllers t o eligible customers in participating cities. CVWD maintains water efficient demonstration gardens at the CVWD offices in Coachella and Palm Desert. CVWD sponsors well -attended semi-annual landscape workshops and tours, and creates displays for special e vents. CVWD produces the popular book, “ Lush & Efficient: Landscape Gardening in the Coachella Valley ,” and various other publications. Analysis of water use for CVWD’s 2011 Urban Water Management Plan shows water usage has declined by 18 percent compared to average usage from 1996 through 2005.

DWA offers large water users (condominiums, public parks , and businesses) comprehensive irrigation s ystem water audits at no charge and assists in implementing recommended improvements. In partnership with CVWD and Cathedral City, DWA furnishes irrigation controllers at cost to customers. Free controllers are provided with new water meter installation.

In addition, DWA recently installed artificial turf and recycled water drip -irrigation for Page ES-6 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
12-2308
Executive Summary
xeriscaping at it s operations center (DWA website, 2010). The City of Palm Springs also promotes water efficiency programs including landscape water training programs and rebates for water efficient toilets (City of Palm Springs website, 2010). Analysis of per capita water use for DWA’s 2011 Urban Water Management Plan indicates a comparable 18 percent reduction in water use. Indio and Coachella have also implemented water conservation programs that are described in their respective Urban Water Management Plans . Their plans show 14 percent and 20 percent per capita demand reductions compared to their respective demand baselines.

Agricultural Conservation
The 2002 WMP established a goal of seven ( 7) percent agricultural water use reduction through conservation. Based on a comparison of the average water use per acre in the 2000 through 2002 period, agricultural water use has generally declined about 9.9 percent through 2008. While this estimate may be due in part to variations in weather conditions , crop water n eeds, and crop patterns, it represent s a significant decrease in agricultural water use over the period.

Agricultural water conservation measures i ncluded irrigation scheduling, salinity management , and irrigation uniformity evaluation programs for irrigators.

Golf Course Conservation
The 2002 WMP goal was to reduce water demand at existing courses by at least five percent by 2010 and for new courses by up to 25 percent compared to historical use by existing courses.

Actual use per irrigated acre in the West Valley, where data are available, indicates a reduction of about 14 percent compared to the 2000 to 2002 average. Adoption of the 2009 Landscape Ordinance throughout the Valley is expected to reduce water use by new courses through turf limitations by about 22 percent compared to existing courses. CVWD initiated a program of monitoring golf course water use to ensure that maximum water allowances are not exceeded. A symposium for golf course operators to promote gol f course water conservation is he ld each year.

Stakeholder Review and Input
In 2006, CVWD completed, with extensive stakeholder involvement, a Water Management Plan Implementation Program. This effort included review , evaluation, and prioritization of water conservation programs and other elements of the 2002 WMP by stakeholders with recommendations to the CVWD Board (Water Consult, 2006). The Board uses the recommendations in the Implementation Program to guide development of annual budgets.

ES-4.2.2 Additional Water Supplies
The 2002 WMP identified the need for CVWD and DWA to acquire additional water supplies to manage current and future groundwater overdraft. Supplies identified included the Colorado River, State Water Project, other transfers, recycled water, and desalinated drain water.

Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-7
12-2309
Executive Summary
Quantification Settlement Agreement
In 2003, CVWD, IID, and Metropolitan, along with the State of California and Reclamation, successfully completed negotiation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA). The QSA quantifies the Colorado River water allocation s of California’s agricultural water contractors for 75 years and provides for the transfer of water between agencies . Under the QSA, CVWD has a base allocation of 330,000 AFY. In accordance with the QSA, CVWD has entered into water trans fer agreements with Metropolitan and IID that increase CVWD supplies by an additional 159,000 AFY as shown in Table ES-1.

As of 2010, CVWD receive d 368,000 AFY of Colorado River water deliveries under the QSA.

This includes the base allocation of 330,000 AFY, the Metropolitan/IID transfer of 20,000 AFY, 12,000 AFY of the IID/CVWD First transfer, and 35,000 AFY of Metropolitan/SWP transfer.

CVWD’s al location will increase to 459,000 AFY of Colorado River water by 2026. After deducting conveyance and distribution losses, approximately 428,000 AFY will be available for CVWD use.

Table ES-1
CVWD Deliveries under the Quantification Settlement Agreement Component 2010 Amount
(AFY)
2045 Amount
(AFY)
Base Allocation 330,000 330,000
1988 Metropolitan/IID Approval
Agreement 20,000 20,000
Coachella Canal Lining (to SDCWA) -26,000 -26,000
To Miscellaneous/Indian PPRs -3,000 -3,000
IID/CVWD First Transfer 12,000 50,000
IID/CVWD Second Transfer 0 53,000
Metropolitan/SWP Transfer 35,000 35,000
Total Diversion at Imperial Dam 368,000 459,000
Less Conveyance Losses 1 -31,000 -31,000
Total Deliveries to CVWD 337,000 428,000
Note:
1 Assumed total losses after completion of All-American and Coachella Canal lining projects

State Water Project
CVWD and DWA have made significant progress toward meeting the 2002 WMP goal of 140,000 AFY average delivery target (103,000 AFY to Whitewater Recharge Facility; 37,000 AFY via Mid -Valley Pipeline (MVP)) of SWP E xchange water in the Whitewater River Subbasin. CVWD’s and DWA’s SWP Table A Amounts
3 are used to replenish both the Upper
Whitewater River and the Miss ion Creek subbasins. Per an interagency agreement , water for 3 Each SWP contract contains a “Table A” exhibit that defines the maximum annual amount of water each contractor can receive excluding certain interruptible deliveries. Table A Amounts are used by DWR to allocate available SWP supplies and some of the SWP project costs among the contractors.

Page ES-8 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update

12-2310
Executive Summary
recharge is allocated in proportion to pumping in each subbasin. CVWD’s and DWA’s Table A water is exchanged with Metropolitan for a like amount of Colorado River water from Metropolitan’s Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA).

Under the 2003 Exchange Agreement, CVWD and DWA acquired 100,000 AFY (88,100 AFY and 11,900 AFY, respectively) of Metropolitan’s SWP Table A water as a permanent transfer.

In any given year, the agreement allows Metropolitan to call -back the 100,000 AFY and assume the entire cost of delivery if it needs the water. This transfer became effective in January 2005.

In 2004, CVWD purchased an additional 9,900 AFY of SWP Table A water from the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Distr ict (Tulare Lake) in Kings County, CA. In 2007, CVWD and DWA made a second purchase of 7,000 AFY of SWP Table A water from Tulare Lake: 5,250 AFY for CVWD and 1,750 AFY for DWA. In 2007, CVWD and DWA completed the transfer of 16,000 AFY of SWP Table A w ater (12,000 AFY and 4,000 AFY, respectively) from the Berrenda Mesa Water District (Berrenda Mesa), effective in January 2010. With these transfers, the combined SWP Table A Amounts for CVWD and DWA total 194,100 AFY, with CVWD’s portion equal to 138,350 AFY and DWA’s portion equal to 55,750 AFY . Table ES -2 summarizes CVWD and DWA total allocations of SWP Table A water.

Table ES-2
State Water Project Sources

Original SWP
Table A
(AFY)
Tulare Lake
Basin 2004
Transfer
(AFY)
Metropolitan
2003
Transfer1
(AFY)
Tulare Lake
Basin 2007
Transfer2
(AFY)
Berrenda
Mesa 2007
Transfer2
(AFY)
Total
(AFY)
CVWD 23,100 9,900 88,100 5,250 12,000 138,350
DWA 38,100 — 11,900 1,750 4,000 55,750
Total 61,200 9,900 100,000 7,000 16,000 194,100
Notes:
1 Transfer became effective on January 1, 2005.
2 Transfer became effective on January 1, 2010.

SWP supplies vary annually due to weather and runoff variations and regulatory limitations on exports from the Delta. When the 2002 WMP was prepared, average SWP supply reliability was estimated to be about 82 percent. Under current conditions , DWR estimates the SWP can only provide about 60 percent of the Table A Amounts indicated in CVWD’s and DWA’s contracts based on an 82-year hydrologic average (DWR, 2011). The current availability of SWP Table A Amounts is presented in Table ES-3. In the absence of state and federal actions in the Bay Delta to improve supply reliability and to protect and enhance the Delta ecosystem, it is anticipated that long-term average SWP reliability (deliveries) could decrease to 50 percent of the Table A Amounts over the next twenty years. Additionally, growth and associated groundwater production increases in the Mission Creek Subbasin will result in more SWP Exchange water being delivered to that subbasin reducing supplies for the Whitewater River.

Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-9
12-2311
Executive Summary
Other Water Transfers
In March 2008, CVWD and DWA entered into separate agreements with DWR for the purchase and conveyance of supplemental SWP water under the Yuba River Accord Dry Year Water Purchase Program. This program provides dry year supplies . The amount of water available for purchase in a given year varies and is based on DWR’s determination of the Water Year Classification. The available water is allocated among participating SWP contractors based on their Table A Amounts. CVWD and DWA may be able to purchase up to 5,600 AFY, and 1,820 AFY, respectively. These agreements provide for the exchange of these supplies with Metropolitan for Colorado River water in accordance with the existing exchange agreements.

CVWD and DWA received a total of 5,300 AF of water from this source in 2008 and 2009.

Table ES-3
Current (2010) SWP Supply Availability (60% Reliability) SWP Components AFY 1
Table A Amount (Base) 194,100
Average Deliveries with Current SWP Reliability (60%) 2 116,500 Less Average Metropolitan Callback 3 (32,900)
Net Average SWP Supply 4 83,600
Whitewater River Subbasin Recharge (93% of net) 5 77,800 Mission Creek Subbasin Recharge (7% of net) 5,800
Notes:
1 Values shown are rounded to nearest 100 AFY.
2 Current reliability is based on California DWR’s 2009 SWP Reliability Report. 3 Average supply conservatively assumes Metropolitan calls back its 100,000 AFY transfer in four wet years during a 10-year period.
4 Net supply is calculated by deducting the Metropolitan callback from the Table A Amount with current SWP Reliability.
5 Allocation of SWP water to Upper Whitewater River and Mission Creek subbasins is based on production in each basin.

In 2008, CVWD also executed an agreement with Rosedale -Rio Bravo Water Storage District (Rosedale) in Kern County for a one- time transfer of 10,000 AF of banked Kern River flood water that is exportable to CVWD. D eliveries to CVWD began in 2008 and will be completed by December 31, 2012.

Desalinated Drain Water
The 2002 WMP recommended that a drain water desalination facility commence operation between 2010 and 2015 with a 4,000 AFY facility to treat agricultural drainage water for irrigation purposes. The facility would be expanded to 11,000 AFY by 2025. Product water would be delivered to the Coachella Canal distribution system for non-potable use.

A brackish groundwater treatment pilot study and feasibility study was completed in 2008 (Malcolm-Pirnie, 2008a and 2008b). R everse osmosis (RO) was recommended to meet water quality goals and provide additional flexibility in the level of water quality produced should the facility’s objectives change in the future. The recommended approach to brine management was Page ES-10 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
12-2312
Executive Summary
to convey the RO concentrate via pipeline to constructed wetlands located at the north shore of the Salton Sea. This study concluded that agricultural drainage water can be treated for reuse as non-potable water and potentially as new potable water.

Recycling of Municipal Effluent
CVWD and DW A currently deliver approximately 14,000 AFY of r ecycled water in the West Valley for golf course and other large irrigation uses . Wastewater generated in the West Valley that is not reused for irrigation is percolated into the groundwater basin. Current recycled water usage in the East Valley is approximately 700 AFY for agricultural irrigation. East Valley wastewater that is not reused is discharged to the CVSC.

ES-4.2.3 Source Substitution
Source substitution involves the delivery of alternative water supplie s, such as Coachella Canal water or recycled water, to replace of groundwater pumping. Significant efforts have been made to implement source substitution projects in the Valley.

Mid-Valley Pipeline (MVP)
In the West Valley, the demand for non-potable water typically exceeds the available recycled water supply, especially in the summer months. Golf courses using recycled water currently must supplement that supply with local groundwater to meet their demands. This limits the amount of overdraft reduction that is possible to the available recycled water supply.

Groundwater modeling shows a local pumping deficit (overdraft condition) that cannot be remedied by recharge at Whitewater. The MVP is a pipeline distribution system to deliver Colorado River water to the Mid- Valley area for use with CVWD’s recycled water for golf course and open space irrigation. This source substitution project will reduce groundwater pumping for these uses. Construction of the first phase of the MVP from the Coachella Canal in Indio to CVWD’s Water Reclamation Plant No. 10 ( WRP-10) (6.6 miles in length) was completed in 2009.

At WRP-10, Canal water supplements recycled water for delivery to large irrigators. There are eight golf courses and five other users in the West Valley currently connected to the WRP -10 recycled water system that can receive both recycled water and C anal water via the MVP. If these courses meet at least 90 percent of their irrigation needs with non- potable water, 2,700 AFY of additional groundwater pumping will be eliminated. There are four golf courses adjacent to the MVP that can be connected to the system with minimal construction, thus making them ideal candidates to receive Canal water through the MVP. C onstruction of Phase 1 of the MVP included outlets along the pipeline to serve these courses. However, pipeline connections to deliver Canal water from the MVP to each course have yet to be constructed. When these four courses are connected, about 4,500 AFY of additional pumping could be eliminated. At least ten additional courses can be connected to the MVP downstream of WRP -10 with relatively simple pipeline connections, reducing pumping by another 11,200 AFY. When fully implemented, the MVP system will be capable of eliminating about 50,000 AFY of groundwater pumping.

Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-11
12-2313
Executive Summary
Pilot Study of Canal Water Treatment for Urban Use
As projected growth occurs in the East Valley and farms are converted to urban land uses, agricultural demand for Canal water will decrease. To avoid increased urban groundwater pumping and to use the Valley’s Colorado River water supply fully, there will be a need to treat Canal water for urban use. The 2002 WMP anticipated this need and proposed that treatment be provided beginning in the late 2020s with about 32,000 AFY be ing treated by 2035. Present projected domestic water demand coupled with reduced agricultural demand is expected to increase this amount substantially. Potable use will require Canal water treatment to meet drinking water standards. In anticipation of constructing potable water treatment facilities, CVWD completed a pilot treatability study for Canal water in 2008 (Malcolm -Pirnie, 2008c).

This study investigated alternative approaches to treatment of Colorado River water delivered for urban use. The study recommended that blending treated Colorado River water with local groundwater be further evaluated to ensure customer satisfaction.

ES-4.2.4 Groundwater Recharge
Groundwater recharge is a critical component of basin management that involves putting water directly into the groundwater basin through surface percolation ponds . The 2002 WMP included continuing recharge at the existing Whitewater Recharge Facility in the West Valley, proposed recharge in the East Valley using Colorado River water at Dike 4, now the Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility ( Levy facility), and recommended another major recharge facility at Martinez Canyon.

Whitewater Recharge Facility – West Valley
The 2002 WMP established a future average annual recharge target at this facility of about 100,000 AFY. The Whitewater River Recharge Facility has a recharge capacity in excess of 300,000 AFY. Because this capacity is enough to capture the full SWP Table A amount with additional capacity for supplemental recharge, no recharge capacity expansion is required. The available capacity is v aluable for conjunctive use operations by CVWD and DWA as well as Metropolitan or other interested parties. Currently, the SWP Exchange supply is expected to provide about 78,000 AFY for the Whitewater facility on average. Under future conditions, it is possible that average recharge at Whitewater could be limited to the available future supply of about 61,400 AFY of SWP Exchange, unless it is augmented with other supplies. To reach the 100,000 AFY recharge goal for the Whitewater facility, CVWD and DWA would need to acquire additional SWP Table A Amounts or other imported water sources.

Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility - East Valley Construction of the full -scale Levy facility was completed in mid -2009. Located on the west side of the Valley in La Quinta , this facility has an estimated average recharge capacity of 40,000 AFY. The current capacity may be limited by hydraulic, water delivery, and maintenance constraints within the Canal water distribution system to an average of about 32,000 AFY .

Construction of an additional pipeline to the Levy facility and pumping station from Lake Cahuilla may be required in the future to reach the 40,000 AFY capacity on a consistent basis.

Page ES-12 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
12-2314
Executive Summary
Martinez Canyon Pilot Recharge Facility Feasibility Assessment – East Valley The Martinez Canyon pilot recharge facility began operation in 2005 and currently recharges about 3,000 AFY. When this project is expanded to full scale, it is expected to recharge up to 40,000 AFY.

ES-4.2.5 Groundwater/Subsidence Monitoring
CVWD maintains an extensive ongoing groundwater production, level, and water quality monitoring program throughout the Valley. The program includes monitoring of potential saltwater intrusion from the Salton Sea. The data are periodically reviewed to determine impacts of management actions on overdraft and water quality. The data are also applied to re -calibrate the groundwater model that assesses the impact of proposed management actions.

The U nited S tates Geological Survey ( USGS), working with CVWD, completed subsidence monitoring reports for the Coachella Valley in 2001 and 2007. The reports indicated that subsidence was taking place in varying degrees throughout the Valley.

These studies to date have not confirmed the relationship between land subsidence and declining water levels. The USGS Scientific Investigation Report 2007- 5251 states, “Although the localized character of the subsidence signals is typical of the type of subsidence characteristically caused by localized ground- water pumping, the subsidence may also be related to tectonic activity in the valley. ” This report also concludes additional monitoring is needed to permit meaningful interpretations of the aquifer -system response to water level changes. CVW D’s Board of Directors has approved additional funding to continue these cooperative subsidence studies with the USGS. Future studies include additional monitoring designed to evaluate the potential relationship between declining water levels and land sub sidence. Potential land subsidence caused by declining water levels was addressed by mitigation measures described in the 2002 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (CVWMP PEIR).

ES-5 2010 WMP UPDATE
Significant actions have been taken since 2002 to alleviate overdraft in the long term. C hanges in internal and external factors mandate new activities and increased levels of current activities to eliminate overdraft and assure reliable long term water supplies to the Valley. These new activities are identified in the 2010 WMP Update.

ES-5.1 Population and Water Demand
Since 2002, significant changes have occurred in projections of population and future water demands, including:

• Significantly increased population growth, mainly in the East Valley (Figure ES-2); • Changes in land use from agricultural to urban land use and water demand in terms of both quantity and quality;
Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-13
12-2315
Executive Summary
• Development on tribal lands and related water demands; • Potential development located northeast of the San Andreas fault in the spheres of influence (SOI) of the cities of Indio and Coachella;
• Projected ur ban development outside the 2002 WMP study area and corresponding increases in water demands;
• Uncertainty in the timing of growth and water demands.

Figure ES -2 shows the difference in population projections used in the 2002 WMP and projections used in the 2010 WMP Update. The 2010 WMP Update provides water for approximately 500,000 more people in 2045 than the 2002 WMP.

Figure ES-2
Comparison of Population Projections
for the Coachella Valley

ES-5.1.1 Future Water Demands
Projected water demands for 2045 resulting from projected population growth and associated assumptions regarding land uses and water demands for land uses are shown by economic sector in Table ES-4. Water use by new development is expected to be more efficient due to plumbing code requirements and the Landscape Ordinance. Consequently, water demands are expected to be less than projected in the 2002 WMP. Factoring potential variations in future land use and growth forecasts into these demand projections, water demands in 2045 could range from 793,600 AFY to 971,500 AFY wit h a mid -range planning value of 885,400 AFY as shown on Figure ES -3. If the growth projection in the 2002 WMP, with assumed water conservation measures, were projected to 2045, the projected demand would be approximately 950,000 AFY.

East Valley
West Valley
Outside Basin
2002 WMP
0 200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Population
Year
Page ES-14 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
12-2316
Executive Summary
The reduction in projected demand results primarily from the conversion of agricultural lands to urban use and increased water conservation factored into the 2010 WMP Update.

Table ES-4
2045 Baseline Water Demand Projection for the Coachella Valley Component 2045
Agricultural
Crop Irrigation 166,300
Total Agricultural Demand 166,300
Urban
Municipal 537,000
Industrial 2,300
Total Urban Demand 539,300
Golf Course Demand 169,500
Fish Farms and Duck Clubs
Fish Farms 8,500
Duck Clubs 2,000
Total Fish Farms and Duck Clubs 10,500
TOTAL DEMAND 885,400

Figure ES-3
Projected Water Demands in the Study Area

Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-15
12-2317
Executive Summary
ES-5.1.2 Demand Uncertainty
Future water demands are based on the latest approved population growth projections (2006) by Riverside County and assumptions regarding impacts of population growth on land uses, impacts of water conservation on water uses, and resulting water demand associated with each type of land use. There are a number of uncertainties inherent in the demand projections, including:

• Growth forecasts or rates of growth may be too high or too low • Impacts of economic booms and busts
• Reductions in fish farm operations
• Rates of development on Tribal lands
• Rate of agricultural/vacant land conversion to urban use • Future water demand factors for various land uses
• Growth outside the Whitewater River subbasin
• Number of future golf courses developed in the East Valley • Acceptance and effects of water conservation measures

Figure ES-3 shows the range in potential future water demands for the study area.

ES-5.2 Future Water Supply Needs
In addition to changing water demands , changing external factors could affect Valley water supplies:

• SWP allocations fluctuate annually due to snowpack and runoff variations, and the environmental needs in the Bay-Delta.
• Recent environmental rulings have restricted the State’s ability to move water through the Delta to the SWP , potentially decreasing supply reliability and deliveries. The degree to which the long-term supply of the SWP will be affected is uncertain. • The outcome of efforts underway to prepare the Bay -Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) , which is intended to restore the Delta’s ecosystem and improve water supply reliability , is uncertain.
• The QSA has been upheld in the appeals court but , as of plan adoption, environmental litigation is still pending, creating uncertainty in future Colorado River supplies. • Climate change could aff ect the long term supplies of both the SWP and Colorado River and water demands within the Valley.

These changing conditions and uncertainties reinforce the need for a flexible long term Plan and for updating the Plan periodically.

Page ES-16 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
12-2318
Executive Summary
Additional water supplies needed by 2045 are evaluated for four water supply scenarios that incorporate the uncertainties associated with current supply sources, with the exception of climate change. A 10 percent supply buffer addresses potential climate change impacts and other currently unforeseeable factors affecting future water supplies. Table ES -5 shows the future water supply needs range from 300,000 to 461,000 AFY. The 2010 WMP Update identifies how this future need will be met through a combination of water conservation measures and new supply development. Figure ES -4 presents the future water supply plan assuming Scenario 2 without the supply buffer.

Table ES-5
Water Supply Needs – 2045
Scenario QSA
Validated
Delta
Conveyance
Improvements
Demand
(AFY)
Demand
with 10%
Buffer
(AFY)
Available
Supply
(AFY) 1
Additional
Supply
Required
(AFY)
1 Yes Yes 885,400 974,000 674,300 299,700
2 Yes No 885,400 974,000 640,900 333,700
3 No Yes 885,400 974,000 546,300 427,700
4 No No 885,400 974,000 512,900 461,100
Note:
1 Available supplies consist of local runoff and streamflow, recycled water, returns from use, Canal water and SWP Exchange water minus anticipated drain flows and subsurface outflows from the basin as explained in Section

7.2. Figure ES-4
Water Supply Mix for 2010 WMP Update
Canal Water
Net Groundwater
Pumping
SWP Exchange Surface Water
Recycled Water
Desal Drain Water
New Sources &
Transfers
Water Conservation
QSA Build-up
0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
AFY
Year
Historical Forecast
Baseline Demand
Note: Excludes Supply Buffer
Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-17
12-2319
Executive Summary
ES-5.3 What is New in the 2010 WMP Update?
The 2010 WMP Update identifies proposed ways and means of meeting future water needs in light of changing conditions and uncertainties. To meet future needs, the 2010 WMP Update includes many new features in the areas of water conservation, source substitution, new supplies, and groundwater recharge. The 2010 WMP Update emphasizes enhanced cooperation in Plan implementation. The 2010 WMP Update incorporates a “bookends” approach to define target ranges for each major supply group and incremental “building blocks” of projects to deal with uncertainties in future demands and supplies.

Revised Goals: The basic goal of the WMP remains the same but has been modified to reflect a more holistic planning approach: “to reliably meet current and future water demands in a cost - effective and sustainable manner.” The underlying objectives of the WMP have been refined as follows to reflect the water resources uncertainties facing the Valley:
• Meet current and future demands with a 10 percent supply buffer • Eliminate long-term groundwater overdraft
• Manage and project water quality
• Comply with state and federal laws and regulations
• Manage future costs
• Minimize adverse environmental impacts

Bookends on Demands and Supplies: To account for the uncertainty and potential variability in demands, the 2010 WMP Update assigns bookend targets (ranges) for each of the major categories of water supplies (see Section 6). The book- ends represent reasonable minimum and maximum amounts for potential supply and project development. Depending on the actual demands that are encountered in the future, the 2010 WMP Update elements can be implemented within these ranges to meet demands.

Building Block Approach: The 2010 WMP Update incorporates a flexible approach to meeting future needs that reflects uncertainties in supplies, demands and future circumstances by combinations of Plan elements. For example, the 2010 WMP Update includes an aggressive program of water conservation for urban, golf course and agricultural water users. However, there are limits in terms of cost, effectiveness , and acceptability of water conservation activities.

As those limits are reached, other Plan elements for meeting future needs also can be adjusted.

One source of supply is desalination of drain water, the most expensive alternative for providing new supplies. This source will only be implemented as other sources of supplies reach pra ctical limits. Therefore, the P lan includes a range of 55 ,000 to 85,000 AFY for desalination of drain water. The actual amount of water from this source will depend upon how much can be obtained first from other, lower cost sources.

Enhanced Cooperation in Plan Implementation: The Plan emphasizes cooperation among municipalities, local water agencies and tribes in regional planning and implementation. This occurs through the implementation of activities described in the 2010 WMP Update, Page ES-18 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
12-2320
Executive Summary
implementation of related planning activities (see Section 1.0), and the development of monitoring and data sharing programs among CVWD, other water agencies, cities, and tribes to better manage Valley water resources.

ES-5.4 2010 WMP Update Elements
In developing the 2010 WMP Update, CVWD evaluated the success of 2002 WMP elements and determined future needs, supplies, and uncertainties. Like the 2002 WMP, the 2010 WMP Update has the same five major elements:

• Water conservation (urban, golf course, and agricultural) • Increasing surface water supplies for the Valley from outsides sources • Substitution of surface water supplies for groundwater (source substitution) • Groundwater recharge
• Monitoring and evaluation of subsidence and groundwater levels and quality to provide the information needed to manage the Valley’s groundwater resources

Activities included in the 2010 WMP Update in each of these elements are described below.

ES-5.4.1 Water Conservation
New water conservation targets and actions are included for agriculture, urban, and golf course water users. In addition to the water conservation included in the baseline demand projections, the 2010 WMP Update includes a minimum water conservation target of 117,300 AFY by 2045 as shown in Table ES-6. This amount could increase to 147,000 AFY to provide a portion of the supply buffer.

Table ES-6
Ranges of Potential Water Conservation Savings – 2045
Type of Conservation Low Range 1
(AFY)
High Range 2
(AFY)
Urban 82,400 106,200
Agriculture 3 23,300 23,300
Golf Courses 11,600 17,400
Total 117,300 146,900
Notes:
1 The low range represents the minimum amount of demand reduction required assuming successful completion of the BDCP and provides a portion of the supply buffer. 2 The high range represents the amount of demand reduction required if the BDCP is not successful and provides a portion of the 10 percent supply buffer.
3 Agricultural savings decline over time as agricultural land is converted to urban uses.

Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-19
12-2321
Executive Summary
Agricultural Conservation
The new agricultural conservation target is a 14 percent savings by 20 20 utilizing a phased approach. The first phase will involve low cost volunt ary programs. Depending on the success of those programs, more expensive and vigorous programs could be implemented, as needed . If the 14 percent target can be achieved, the agricultural conservation program is expected to sav e about 39,500 AFY of water in 2020, decreasing to 23,300 AFY by 2045 as agricultural land uses transition to urban uses. Progress toward meeting agricultural conservation goals will be evaluated and reported every five years.

Urban Conservation
The urban water conservation program will be expanded and enhanced in order to meet changing demands and to comply with the State’s requirement of a 20 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2020 compared to average per capita usage for the period of 1995 through 2004. This program could save at least 39,700 AFY by 2020 and achieve a 39 percent reduction in per capita demand by 2030 as it is applied to new growth.

Achievement of the state’s 20 percent conservation target in conjunction with on-going conservation programs could result in urban water savings of 82,400 to 106,200 AFY by 2045 depending on the water supply scenario. Progress toward achieving the urban water conservation goals will be reported in urban water management plans prepared on five year intervals.

Golf Course Conservation
The golf course conservation target is a savings of 11,600 to 17,400 AFY by 2045. For existing courses, the minimum target is a 10 percent reduction in water use through golf course irrigation system audit, and soil moisture monitoring services . The 2009 Landscape Ordinance will apply to all new golf courses with turf limitations of 4 acres of per hole and 10 acres for practice areas .

Progress toward meeting golf course conservation goals will be evaluated and reported every five years.

ES-5.4.2 Additional Supplies
Table ES-7 summarizes the range of additional supplies that will be developed.

Acquisition of Imported Supplies
CVWD and DWA will continue to acquire additional imported SWP water supplies by transfer or lease where cost -effective, given Delta environmental restrictions and conveyance capacity limitations. For this update, a planning range of 50,000 to 80,000 AFY of average annual supply has been identified to meet future needs including the supply buffer. This amount includes about 35,000 AFY to meet estimated demand east of the San Andreas fault; the amount will be refined as planning proceeds for this area. Changes to the assumed call -back frequency for the MWD 100,000 AFY SWP transfer could provide up to 33,000 AFY of additional supply to the Page ES-20 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
12-2322
Executive Summary
Whitewater River Subbasin. Option- type contracts could be considered to meet a portion of the supply buffer.

Table ES-7
Range of Additional Supplies Through 2045
Action Low Range
(AFY)
High Range
(AFY)
Bay-Delta Conveyance Improvements 0 33,400
Purchases and Transfers 1 50,000 80,000
Changes to MWD Call-back Provisions 1 0 32,700
Increased Recycled Water - East and West
Valleys
14,000 63,000
Recycled Water Use East of San Andreas Fault 10,800 10,800 Canal Water Loss Reduction 0 10,000
Desalinated Drain Water 55,000 85,000
Stormwater Capture – East Valley 0 5,000
Groundwater for Non-potable Use East of San
Andreas Fault
9,700 9,700
Total 139,500 329,600
Note:
1 High range represents potential supplies with Bay Delta conveyance improvements and no call-back.

Increased Recycled Water Use
Recycled water in the West Valley is currently used beneficially, either through direct non - potable use or percolation for wastewater disposal. At least 90 percent of all wastewater generated in the West Valley will be recycled for direct non- potable use . All wastewater generated by new growth in the East Valley will be recycled. All wastewater from development east of the San Andreas fault could be recycled for irrigation or groundwater recharge to meet demands in that area and reduce the need for additional imported water supplies. Up to 34,500 AFY of recycled water could be utilized in the West Valley, and 33,000 AFY of recycled water could be utilized in the East Valley. Up to 10,800 AFY of recycled water could be utilized in the new growth area east of the San Andreas fault for direct non-potable uses by 2045.

Canal Water Loss Reduction
Water losses in the All- American Canal in the first 49 miles of the Coachella Ca nal may be as high as 10,000 AFY. Reducing this loss could increase the amount of water delivered to the Valley. CVWD will determine water lost to leakage in the first 49 miles of the Coachella Canal , evaluate the feasibility of corrective actions to capture the lost water , implement cost-effective water saving measures, and work with IID to share losses.

Desalinated Drain Water
A demonstration scale facility will be constructed to gain operational experience in desalinating drain water and brine disposal. Between 55,000 and 85,000 AFY of drain water and shallow Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-21
12-2323
Executive Summary
groundwater will be recovered, desalinated, and distributed for non- potable and potable uses in the East Valley. The amount of desalinated water needed will depend upon the resolution of Bay-Delta issues and the resulting amount of SWP water available.

Stormwater Capture
Stormwater capture has been identified as a potential method for increasing local water available for either groundwater recharge or direct use. CVWD will conduct a study to investigate the feasibility of additional stormwater capture in the East Valley. Feasible stormwater capture projects will be developed in conjunction with new flood control facilities as development occurs in the East Valley. For planning purposes, the potential yield is assumed to be 5,000 AFY based on a reduction in evaporation losses with more efficient capture and percolation.

Development of Local Groundwater Supplies for Non-Potable Use Growth in the areas northeast of the San Andreas fault will create additional demands for both potable and non-potable water. CVWD, the City of Coachella, and the City of Indio will jointly conduct an investigation of groundwater in Fargo Canyon Subarea of the Desert Hot Springs Subbasin to determine the available supply and suitability for use in meeting non-potable demands (outdoor irrigation) of development east of the San Andreas fault. Based on assumed development, up to 9,700 AFY of groundwater could be developed in this area.

ES-5.4.3 Source Substitution
Due to the expected changes in water use patterns from continued development, source substitution will receive increased emphasis in the future to eliminate overdraft and ensure full use of the Valley’s available surface water supplies. The ranges of reduction in groundwater overdraft due to source substitution programs are shown in Table ES-8.

Table ES-8
Range of Groundwater Pumping Reductions Due To Source Substitution Action Low Range
(AFY)
High Range
(AFY)
Mid-Valley Pipeline 37,000 52,000
Agricultural Canal Water Conversion 5,300 32,000
Oasis Area Conversion to Canal Water 0 27,000
East Valley Golf Course Conversion 43,900 51,700
West Valley Golf Course Conversion 15,200 17,800
Canal Water for Indoor Urban Use – East Valley 48,000 90,000 Canal Water Use for Outdoor Use – East Valley 95,000 115,000 Total 244,400 385,500

Page ES-22 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
12-2324
Executive Summary
Mid-Valley Pipeline
The MVP system delivers Canal water and recycled water to golf courses in lieu of their pumping groundwater. Activities to fully implement the MVP include preparing an MVP system master plan to lay out the future pipeline systems, near -term expansions to connect golf courses along the MVP alignment and extensions of the existing non- potable distribution system, and completion of construction of the remaining phases of the MVP system by 2020 to provide up to 37,000 AFY of Canal water and 15,000 AFY of WRP -10 recycled water on average to West Valley golf courses.

Conversion of Agricultural and Golf Course Use to Canal Water It is expected that agricultural use of groundwater could decrease from about 66,000 AFY in 2009 to about 7,000 AFY by 2045, a decrease of 59,000 AFY or 89 percent. A large portion of this reduction could come from the Oasis area that does not currently have access to Canal water.

The Oasis area distribution system feasibility study will be updated to include future conversion to serve urban non -potable water. Cost -effective facilities will be constructed. If conversion of the Oasis system is feasible, it could deliver up to 27,000 AFY of Canal and desalinated drain water for irrigation.

In the 2010 WMP Update, it is estimated that for existing East Valley golf courses having Canal water access, Canal water use will increase to 90 percent of demand by 2015. Conversion to Canal water by East Valley golf courses will reduce groundwater use by 43,900 AFY or more.

Colorado River Water for Urban Use
In light of the projected increase in population and change of land use from agricultural to urban in the East Valley, treated Colorado River water for indoor residential use will be essential. In addition, untreated Colorado River water will be used in the future in large developments in the East Valley for outdoor purposes, i.e., lawn and park irrigation. These measures are necessary to reduce overdraft and to insure continued full use of the Valley’s Colorado River water supplies.

This program will offset the reduced Canal water use by agriculture as agricultural land use transitions to urban development in the East Valley. Canal water will be treated to meet future indoor urban water demands in the East Valley. The target for urban indoor use of Canal water ranges from 48,000 and 90,000 AFY by 2045.

Dual source plumbing systems will be a feature of new development in the East Valley to provide outdoor use of untreated Canal water. Untreated canal water should provide 67 percent to 80 percent of the landscape demand for new development. This will result in the utilization of 95,000 to 115,000 AFY of non- potable Canal water by 2045. Where found to be cost -effective, existing developments will be retrofitted with distribution systems to provide for outdoor use of untreated Canal water.

Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-23
12-2325
Executive Summary
ES-5.4.4 Groundwater Recharge
Groundwater recharge will be expanded to reduce overdraft. The ranges of groundwater recharge operations at various facilities under the 2010 WMP Update are shown in Table ES-9.

Table ES-9
Range of Groundwater Recharge
Facility Low Range
(AFY)
High Range
(AFY)
Whitewater 61,000 1 100,000
Levy 40,000 40,000
Martinez Canyon 2 20,000 40,000
Indio 0 10,000
Total 121,000 190,000
Notes:
1 Recharge is limited by available supply.
2 High range will depend on overdraft conditions and implementation of East Valley source substitution projects.

Whitewater Recharge Facility
Operation of the Whitewater Recharge Facility will continue with the goal of recharging an average of at least 100,000 AFY of SWP exchange water over the long -term. Unused SWP water and available desalinated drain water from the QSA will be transferred to the Whitewater Recharge Facility. Additional water acquired by transfer or lease will augment the existing SWP exchange water.

Thomas E. Levy Recharge Facility
The Levy facility will recharge 40,000 AFY on average. A second pumping station and pipeline will be constructed if needed to achieve and sustain 40,000 AFY of deliveries for recharge.

Martinez Canyon Recharge
Siting studies, land acquisition, environmental compliance, design, and construction will be conducted for the full -scale Martinez Canyon facility. The project will be implemented in phases with an initial capacity of 20,000 AFY with potential future expansion to as much as to 40,000 AFY based on groundwater overdraft conditions and implementation of East Valley source substitution projects.

Groundwater Recharge in Indio
The City of Indio will evaluate the feasibility of a nominal 10,000 AFY groundwater recharge project in Indio and construct if feasible. The final capacity will be based on pilot s tudies conducted by Indio.

Page ES-24 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
12-2326
Executive Summary
Investigation of Groundwater Storage Opportunities with IID CVWD will work with IID to identify options for storing Colorado River water on behalf of IID with currently planned Valley recharge facilities or additional facilities, including facilities to recover the stored water for use by Canal water users if necessary when IID calls for its stored water.

ES-6 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
ES-6.1.1 Additional Groundwater Treatment for Arsenic
CVWD will work with other agencies to assist communities having high levels of arsenic in groundwater supplies to connect to the potable water system. As needed, CVWD will expand its arsenic treatment facilities to allow treatment of additional wells and construct water transmission pipelines as needed to meet future demands.

ES-6.1.2 Development of Salt/Nutrient Management Plan
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requires preparation of a salt/nutrient management plan by 2014 as part of the 2009 S tate Recycled Water Policy . As stated in the Policy, its purpose is to “establish uniform requirements for recycled water use and to develop sustainable water supplies throughout the state” (SWRCB, 2009). CVWD will work with other Valley water agencies , tribes, and stakeholders to develop a salt/nutrient management plan that meets the State requirements and allows the cost -effective recycling of municipal wastewater in the Valley.

ES-6.1.3 Drainage Control
For both basin management (groundwater level and salt export), as well as the prevention of adverse impacts, the existing drainage system should be maintained, replaced as needed, or expanded as urban development occurs. CVWD will investigate alternative methods for funding the drainage system, conduct an investigation of the improvements needed to continue system operation in the future, and maintain and expand the drainage system.

ES-7 MONITORING AND DATA MANAGEMENT
Monitoring and data management programs aid in evaluating the effectiveness of the water management programs and projects identified in the Plan and to identify needed changes in management strategy and/or implementation.

The existing hydrologic monitoring program of weather data, streamflow data, well data (drilling logs, production, water levels), surface and ground water quality monitoring, and subsidence monitoring should be maintained and expanded. Key features of the expanded program are described below.

Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-25
12-2327
Executive Summary
ES-7.1 Water Quality
CVWD will work with water agencies, tribes and cities to develop a coordinated water quality monitoring program to ensure that local water quality concerns and state/federal regulatory issues are addressed.

ES-7.2 Subsidence
CVWD will cont inue the USGS subsidence monitoring/reporting program and construct additional extensometers at critical locations to monitor subsidence, as needed.

ES-7.3 Water Resources Database
CVWD will work with water agencies, cities and tribes to develop a shared water r esources database. The database could include well ownership data, well logs, groundwater production, water level and water quality data.

ES-7.4 Groundwater Model Update and Recalibration
Prior to the next Plan update, the CVWD groundwater model will be updated, recalibrated and peer reviewed.

ES-7.5 Water Quality Model
CVWD will initiate development of a model capable of simulating the water quality changes in coordination with preparation of the salt/nutrient management plan.

ES-7.6 Water Demand and Conservation Monitoring
Water purveyors will monitor and report demands by water use sector and correlate demands with implementation of water conservation measures to determine the effectiveness of water conservation measures in achieving goals and the need for additional measures.

ES-8 PLAN COSTS
The cost of not eliminating overdraft would be far more than the cost of the actions needed for eliminating overdraft identified in the 2010 WMP Update. Cost of overdraft includes increased subsidence with its impacts on individual homes, commercial structures, and infrastructure (streets, highways, water and sewer lines, and other utilities), water quality degradation, and increased pumping costs. Colorado River supplies would go unused as agricultural land is converted to urban land, and groundwater pumping would increase without alternative sources of supplies. At some point, it would not be possible to demonstrate the availability of water supplies to support new growth.

The estimated cost to implement the 2010 WMP Update is shown in Table ES -10 for the period 2011 through 2045. Capital, operation and maintenance cost, total cost, and average annual cost are shown for each Plan element in 2010 dollars. These are total costs, not incremental costs, Page ES-26 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
12-2328
Executive Summary
and include the costs of many current activities such as groundwater pumping, acquisition of Colorado River water, current levels of recycling and water conservation, and groundwater recharge. The costs shown are the total costs for the entire Valley.

Table ES-10
Cost by Plan Component
2011-2045
Component
Total Capital
Cost
$millions
Total O&M
Cost
$millions
Total Cost
$millions
Average
Annual Cost1
$millions
Water Conservation $ 1 $ 230 $ 231 $ 6.6
Recycled Water 161 153 314 9.0
Colorado River Water

409 409 11.7
SWP Water

1,907 1,907 54.5
Delta Conveyance

472 472 13.5
Desalinated Drain Water 462 277 739 21.1
Groundwater Pumping and
Treatment 135 1,950 2,085 59.6
Water Transfers 0 282 282 8.1
Other New Water

262 262 7.5
Source Substitution 1,142 782, 1,924 55.0
Recharge 48 181 229 6.5
Total Cost $1,949 $6,907 $8,856 $253.0
Average Annual Cost 1 $56 $197 $253
Note:
1 Average annual cost is the total cost divided by 35 years.

The total estimated capital cost through 2045 is $1.95 billion. Total O & M cost is $6.91 billion bringing the total cost of the Plan implementation to $8.86 billion over 35 years. The average annual cost is $253 million. This annual cost does not reflect the amortized cost of capital projects that may be bond-funded over several decades, thus increasing the annual cost of capital projects.

ES-9 IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
In developing the 2010 WMP Update, CVWD relie d on the latest population projections developed by Riverside County. CVWD does not develop population growth projections for use in water management planning. The 2006 Riverside County projections were prepared before the recent recession, which has slowed growth and is expected to have negative effects on growth in the near term. Over the long term, growth will continue. Future population projections will be adjusted in terms of the timing and magnitude of growth. These realities necessitate adjustment of Plan implementation to meet actual near term needs and continued updates of the Water Management Plan in the future to reflect revised population projections.

Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-27
12-2329
Executive Summary
Near Term Projects to Meet Water Management Needs
Even with the current recession and lack of growth, continuation of existing projects and a few new projects are needed to reduce overdraft and its adverse affects. Ongoing projects that will be continued include:

• Whitewater Recharge with SWP Exchange Water and SWP purchases • Implementation of the QSA
• Levy Recharge operating at current level of 32,000 AFY • Martinez Pilot Recharge at current level of 3,000 AFY • Water conservation programs at current levels, including implementation of the Landscape Ordinance
• Recycling in the West Valley
• Increased use of Canal water by golf courses with Canal water connections • Conversion of East Valley agriculture to Canal water as opportunities arise • Groundwater production/level/quality monitoring
• Cooperative subsidence monitoring with USGS

Assuming that growth remains relative low during the next five years , CVWD will focus on three new or expanded activities to reduce overdraft and comply with state regulations:

• Increased use of the Mid -Valley Pipeline project to reduce overdraft in the West Valley by connecting golf courses and reducing groundwater pumping by those courses. • Implementation of additional water conservation measures, including the Landscape Ordinance, to meet the State’s requirement of 20 percent conservation by 2020. • Preparation of a salt/nutrient ma nagement plan for the Valley by 2014 to meet SWRCB Recycled Water Policy requirements

Long Term Projects
Projects to eliminate and control overdraft that are likely to be needed as future growth occurs are described in the 2010 WMP Update. These projects include:

• Additional water conservation.
• Desalinated drain water.
• Additional water transfers.
• Additional recycled water.
• Canal water treatment for urban indoor use.
• Canal water treatment for urban outdoor irrigation.
• Recharge in the Indio area.

As growth ramps up, the projects will be implemented based on cost effectiveness and need.

Page ES-28 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
12-2330
Executive Summary
Implementation Costs
In 2010, Valley water agencies expended approximately $414 million on all water and wastewater management activities. This total cost includes approximately $106 million per year on activities associated with eliminating overdraft. Since 2002, CVWD and DWA have invested over $240 million in water conservation, supply acquisition and facilities to reduce overdraft.

During the next five years (2011-2015), it is estimated that Valley water agencies will expend an additional $5.4 million on activities to eliminate overdraft, assuming growth remains slow.

As growth occurs, additional projects to control overdraft will be needed. Ultimately, costs associated with growth to eliminate and control overdraft could approach an additional $100 million per year in capital project and annual operations and maintenance costs.

Much of the future costs, both capital and operation and maintenance, will not be borne by CVWD. These costs will be borne by developers, other water organizations, and Valley municipalities. Capital costs and operation and maintenance costs associated with new growth will be paid by new growth. For example, the entire cost of systems for treating and delivering Colorado River Canal water for indoor use in East Valley developments and development of dual plumbing systems to provide untreated water to those developments for outdoor use will be paid for by new development.

ES-10 CONCLUSION
Groundwater overdraft is a significant problem in the Coachella Valley. The 2002 Water Management Plan was developed to identify and guide the long term implementation of measures to eliminate groundwater overdraft in the Valley. Since completion of the 2002 Water Management Plan, much has been accomplished by Valley water agencies and agricultural, municipal/residential, and golf course water users to reduce overdraft. Water conservati on efforts have expanded, out -of-basin water supplies have increased, surface water and recycled water use is being used in lieu of groundwater, and new groundwater recharge facilities are online and an additional facility is being developed.

However, changing future demands and water supply uncertainties require additional actions to eliminate groundwater overdraft in the future, which are identified in the 2010 WMP Update.

Continued implementation of the Water Management Plan will result in unavoidabl e costs for water users and water agencies alike. Each agency, including CVWD, will consider costs, available resources, funding mechanisms and priorities to eliminate overdraft in a timely manner.

The success of the Plan to date indicates broad support for eliminating overdraft and the threats to the economy and quality of life in the Coachella Valley.

The CVWD Board of Directors certified the Supplemental Program EIR and adopted the 2010 WMP Update on January 24, 2012.

Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-29
12-2331
Executive Summary
This page is intentionally blank

Page ES-30 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
12-2332

APPENDIX D
2014 Status Report for the 2010 Coachella Valley
Water Management Plan Update
12-2333

2014 Status Report
for the
2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update

Prepared for:

Board of Directors
of the
Coachella Valley Water District

Prepared by:

Patti Reyes, Planning and Special Programs Manager, Coachella Valley Water District David Ringel, Principal Water Resources Engineer, MWH

12-2334
2014 Status Report
for the
2010 WMP Update

Page 2 ends
← All documents from this meeting