CC12 — Rancho Mirage City Council, October 19, 2023 (part 11 of 28)

At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co
n
t
e
n
t
,

%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1
Logged By
Date Drilled
BSS
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.

S
.

C
.

S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e

o
f

T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
12-1665

SPR-6 Poorly graded SAND, medium dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, (norecovery) Drilled to 30'Sampled to 31.5'Groundwater not encounteredBackfilled with soil cuttings (2/26/13) 11 19
24 350'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
.
2-26-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Boring Location Plan
Rancho Mirage
10143
Drilling Method
7"
Sa
m
p
l
e

N
o
.

Fe
e
t
320
315
310
305
300
295
290
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r

6 I
n
c
h
e
s

Page 2 of 2 ends

At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co
n
t
e
n
t
,

%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1
Logged By
Date Drilled
BSS
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.

S
.

C
.

S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e

o
f

T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
12-1666

SP
R-1
S-2
S-3
R-4
S-5
Quaternary Sand Dunes (Qs):Poorly graded SAND, loose, light brownish gray, dry, fine sand medium dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, (no recovery as ring,recovered as bag) medium dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, micaceous
medium dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, micaceous, some silt Quaternary Alluvium (Qa)
medium dense, gray, dry, fine sand, some silt
medium stiff, gray, dry, fine sand, some silt and mica, very friable 5 8
10 4
5 8
6 9
10 18
19 21
7 11
13 1
1 360'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
.
2-26-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Boring Location Plan
Rancho Mirage
10143
Drilling Method
7"
Sa
m
p
l
e

N
o
.

Fe
e
t
360
355
350
345
340
335
330
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r

6 I
n
c
h
e
s

Page 1 of 2 ends

At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co
n
t
e
n
t
,

%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
Logged By
Date Drilled
BSS
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.

S
.

C
.

S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e

o
f

T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
12-1667

S-6 dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, some silt
Drilled to 30'Sampled to 31.5'Groundwater not encounteredBackfilled with soil cuttings (2/26/13) 7 16
18 360'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
.
2-26-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Boring Location Plan
Rancho Mirage
10143
Drilling Method
7"
Sa
m
p
l
e

N
o
.

Fe
e
t
330
325
320
315
310
305
300
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r

6 I
n
c
h
e
s

Page 2 of 2 ends

At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co
n
t
e
n
t
,

%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
Logged By
Date Drilled
BSS
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.

S
.

C
.

S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e

o
f

T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
12-1668

SP SA, CR,RV
B-1
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
Quaternary Sand Dunes (Qs):Poorly graded SAND, loose, light gray, dry, fine sand, some coarsegrains loose, light gray, dry, fine sand, some mica, friable
loose, light gray, dry, fine to medium sand, some mica
medium dense, light gray, dry, fine to medium sand
Quaternary Alluvium (Qa)
Poorly graded SAND, medium dense, light gray, dry, fine sand medium dense, light brownish gray, dry, fine sand, some silt 3 5
5 3
3 5
3 6
10 8
13 16
6 9
10 1
1 1
360'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
.
2-26-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Boring Location Plan
Rancho Mirage
10143
Drilling Method
7"
Sa
m
p
l
e

N
o
.

Fe
e
t
360
355
350
345
340
335
330
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r

6 I
n
c
h
e
s

Page 1 of 2 ends

At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co
n
t
e
n
t
,

%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3
Logged By
Date Drilled
BSS
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.

S
.

C
.

S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e

o
f

T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
12-1669

SP-SM
SP
R-6
S-7
S-8
S-9
S-10
dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, friable
Poorly graded SAND with SILT, dense, grayish brown, dry, finesand dense, light brownish gray, dry, very fine to fine sand, friable Poorly graded SAND, dense, light brown to light brownish gray,dry, fine sand, some silt, micaceous, friable dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, some silt, micaceous, friable Drilled to 50'Sampled to 51.5'Groundwater not encounteredBackfilled with soil cuttings (2/26/13) 30 50-6''
5 15
26 17
25 28
14 26
30 22
29 39
360'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
.
2-26-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Boring Location Plan
Rancho Mirage
10143
Drilling Method
7"
Sa
m
p
l
e

N
o
.

Fe
e
t
330
325
320
315
310
305
300
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r

6 I
n
c
h
e
s

Page 2 of 2 ends

At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co
n
t
e
n
t
,

%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3
Logged By
Date Drilled
BSS
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.

S
.

C
.

S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e

o
f

T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
12-1670

SP
SP
SP-SM
SW
CO
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
Quaternary Sand Dunes (Qs):Poorly graded SAND, loose, light gray, dry, fine sand medium dense, gray, dry to moist, fine sand, some silt (water addedto hole) medium dense, dark gray, dry to moist, fine sand, some silt Quaternary Alluvium (Qa)
Poorly graded SAND, dense, light gray, dry to moist, fine sand,micaceous, some silt (water added to the hole) Poorly graded SAND with SILT, dense, olive brown, dry to moist,fine sand, micaceous (water added to the hole) Well-graded SAND, dense, olive brown, dry to moist, fine to coarsesand, some silt, micaceous (water added to the hole) 5 9
9 11
19 28
16 32
40 14
33 42
21 31
43 20
17 4
13 102
106
103
109
260'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
.
2-26-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Boring Location Plan
Rancho Mirage
10143
Drilling Method
7"
Sa
m
p
l
e

N
o
.

Fe
e
t
260
255
250
245
240
235
230
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r

6 I
n
c
h
e
s

Page 1 of 2 ends

At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co
n
t
e
n
t
,

%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4
Logged By
Date Drilled
BSS
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.

S
.

C
.

S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e

o
f

T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
12-1671

SW
SP
SM
SP-SM
R-6
R-7
S-8
R-9
S-10
Well-graded SAND, dense, olive brown, dry to moist, fine to coarsesand, some silt, micaceous (water added to the hole)dense, dark grayish brown, dry to moist, fine to coarse sand, somesilt and mica (water added to the hole) with gravel, very dense, light brownish gray, dry, fine to coarse sand,micaceous, some cobbles Poorly graded SAND, dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, micaceous,some silt SILTY SAND, dense, light brown, dry, fine sand, to sandy silt Poorly graded SAND with SILT, dense, grayish brown, dry to moist,fine sand, micaceous Drilled to 50'Sampled to 51.5'Groundwater not encounteredBackfilled with soil cuttings (2/26/13) 28 50-5''
44 50-6''
19 25
23 20
23 50
11 11
13 7
5 131
103
260'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
.
2-26-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Boring Location Plan
Rancho Mirage
10143
Drilling Method
7"
Sa
m
p
l
e

N
o
.

Fe
e
t
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r

6 I
n
c
h
e
s

Page 2 of 2 ends

At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co
n
t
e
n
t
,

%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4
Logged By
Date Drilled
BSS
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.

S
.

C
.

S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e

o
f

T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
12-1672

SP
SP
SP-SM
SP
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
Quaternary Sand Dunes (Qs):Poorly graded SAND, loose, light gray, dry, fine sand, micaceous Quaternary Alluvium (Qa)medium dense, grayish brown, dry to moist, fine sand, micaceous,some silt Poorly graded SAND with SILT, medium dense, light brownishgray, dry to moist, fine sand, micaceous (water added to the hole) dense, light brownish gray, dry to moist, very fine sand, micaceous,friable (water added to the hole) Poorly graded SAND, dense, light gray, dry to moist, fine sand,micaceous, some silt (water added to the hole) very dense, light gray, dry to moist, fine sand, friable (water added tothe hole) Drilled to 25'Sampled to 26'Groundwater not encounteredBackfilled with soil cuttings (2/27/13) 11 20
31 13
26 37
13 36
50-6''
20 50-6''
26 50-5''
2 7
7 108
103
101
270'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Auto Hammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
.
2-27-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Boring Location Plan
Rancho Mirage
10143
Drilling Method
7"
Sa
m
p
l
e

N
o
.

Fe
e
t
270
265
260
255
250
245
240
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r

6 I
n
c
h
e
s

Page 1 of 1 ends

At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co
n
t
e
n
t
,

%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5
Logged By
Date Drilled
BSS
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.

S
.

C
.

S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e

o
f

T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
12-1673

SP
SW
SP
B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
S-5
Quaternary Sand Dunes (Qs):Poorly graded SAND, loose, light gray, dry, fine sand, friable, somemica medium dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, friable, trace silt (wateradded to the hole) Quaternary Alluvium (Qa)Well-graded SAND, dense, light gray, dry, fine to coarse sand,friable, some silt in the top part of sample (water added to thehole) dense, light brownish gray, dry, fine to medium sand, friable (wateradded to the hole) dense, light gray, dry, fine to medium sand, friable, some silt (wateradded to the hole) Poorly graded SAND, dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, some silt 8 14
24 16
30 50-5''
17 29
48 23
50-5''
19 26
30 9
1 109
104
290'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
.
2-27-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Boring Location Plan
Rancho Mirage
10143
Drilling Method
7"
Sa
m
p
l
e

N
o
.

Fe
e
t
290
285
280
275
270
265
260
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r

6 I
n
c
h
e
s

Page 1 of 2 ends

At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co
n
t
e
n
t
,

%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6
Logged By
Date Drilled
BSS
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.

S
.

C
.

S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e

o
f

T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
12-1674

SP-SMS-6 Poorly graded SAND with SILT, dense, light gray, dry, fine sand,friable, some mica Drilled to 30'Sampled to 31.5'Groundwater not encounteredBackfilled with soil cuttings (2/27/13) 21 27
31 290'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
.
2-27-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Boring Location Plan
Rancho Mirage
10143
Drilling Method
7"
Sa
m
p
l
e

N
o
.

Fe
e
t
260
255
250
245
240
235
230
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r

6 I
n
c
h
e
s

Page 2 of 2 ends

At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co
n
t
e
n
t
,

%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6
Logged By
Date Drilled
BSS
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.

S
.

C
.

S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e

o
f

T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
12-1675

SP
SP
SP-SM
SP
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
S-5
Quaternary Sand Dunes (Qs):Poorly graded SAND, loose, light gray, dry, fine sand, micaceous,some silt Quaternary Alluvium (Qa)medium dense, light gray, dry, medium sand, micaceous dense, grayish brown, dry to moist, fine sand, some silt (water addedto the hole) Poorly graded SAND with SILT, dense, light brownish gray, dry tomoist, fine sand, micaceous (water added to the hole) Poorly graded SAND, dense, light gray, dry to moist, fine sand,micaceous, some silt dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, some silt
14 21
33 17
50-6''
13 31
50-5''
16 50-6''
16 24
30 3
13 7
109
112
105
290'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
.
2-27-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Boring Location Plan
Rancho Mirage
10143
Drilling Method
7"
Sa
m
p
l
e

N
o
.

Fe
e
t
290
285
280
275
270
265
260
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r

6 I
n
c
h
e
s

Page 1 of 2 ends

At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co
n
t
e
n
t
,

%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-7
Logged By
Date Drilled
BSS
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.

S
.

C
.

S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e

o
f

T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
12-1676

S-6 dense, light brownish gray, dry, very fine sand, micaceous, more silt Drilled to 30'Sampled to 31.5'Groundwater not encounteredBackfilled with soil cuttings (2/27/13) 8 18
29 290'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
.
2-27-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Boring Location Plan
Rancho Mirage
10143
Drilling Method
7"
Sa
m
p
l
e

N
o
.

Fe
e
t
260
255
250
245
240
235
230
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r

6 I
n
c
h
e
s

Page 2 of 2 ends

At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co
n
t
e
n
t
,

%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-7
Logged By
Date Drilled
BSS
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.

S
.

C
.

S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e

o
f

T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
12-1677

SP
SP-SM
SP
SP
R-1
R-2
B-1
R-3
R-4
S-5
Quaternary Sand Dunes (Qs):Poorly graded SAND, loose, light gray, fine sand, some mica medium dense, light brownish gray, dry to moist, fine sand, friable,some silt and mica (water added to the hole) Poorly graded SAND with SILT, medium dense, grayish brown, dryto moist, fine sand, micaceous (water added to the hole) Poorly graded SAND, medium dense, light brownish gray, dry tomoist, medium sand, some silt and mica (water added to the hole) Quaternary Alluvium (Qa)dense, light gray, dry to moist, medium sand, micaceous, friable,some silt dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, friable
7 15
16 4
16 18
7 14
25 19
24 42
7 16
17 2
3 4
100
113
117
340'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
.
2-27-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Boring Location Plan
Rancho Mirage
10143
Drilling Method
7"
Sa
m
p
l
e

N
o
.

Fe
e
t
340
335
330
325
320
315
310
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r

6 I
n
c
h
e
s

Page 1 of 2 ends

At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co
n
t
e
n
t
,

%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-8
Logged By
Date Drilled
BSS
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.

S
.

C
.

S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e

o
f

T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
12-1678

S-6 medium dense, light gray, dry, very fine sand, with silt Drilled to 30'Sampled to 31.5'Groundwater not encounteredBackfilled with soil cuttings (2/27/13) 4 9
12 340'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
.
2-27-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Boring Location Plan
Rancho Mirage
10143
Drilling Method
7"
Sa
m
p
l
e

N
o
.

Fe
e
t
310
305
300
295
290
285
280
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r

6 I
n
c
h
e
s

Page 2 of 2 ends

At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co
n
t
e
n
t
,

%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-8
Logged By
Date Drilled
BSS
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.

S
.

C
.

S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e

o
f

T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
12-1679

SP
SP-SM
SP-SM
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
S-5
Quaternary Sand Dunes (Qs):Poorly graded SAND, loose, light brownish gray, dry, fine sand,some silt medium dense, light gray, dry, fine sand, some silt and mica (wateradded to the hole) medium dense, light brownish gray, dry to moist, fine sand, more silt Poorly graded SAND with SILT, medium dense, light brownishgray, dry, fine sand, some mica Quaternary Alluvium (Qa)Poorly graded SAND, dense, light olive brown, dry to moist, finesand, some mica medium dense, light olive brown, dry to moist, fine sand, more silt,some mica 7 9
9 6
10 13
7 13
19 7
15 31
6 8
10 2
7 3
3 107
106
102
113
330'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
.
2-27-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Boring Location Plan
Rancho Mirage
10143
Drilling Method
7"
Sa
m
p
l
e

N
o
.

Fe
e
t
330
325
320
315
310
305
300
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r

6 I
n
c
h
e
s

Page 1 of 2 ends

At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co
n
t
e
n
t
,

%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-9
Logged By
Date Drilled
BSS
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.

S
.

C
.

S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e

o
f

T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
12-1680

S-6 medium dense, grayish brown, dry to moist, fine sand Drilled to 30'Sampled to 31.5'Groundwater not encounteredBackfilled with soil cuttings (2/27/13) 6 11
15 330'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
BSS
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Automatic - 30" Drop
So
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
.
2-27-13

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Boring Location Plan
Rancho Mirage
10143
Drilling Method
7"
Sa
m
p
l
e

N
o
.

Fe
e
t
300
295
290
285
280
275
270
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r

6 I
n
c
h
e
s

Page 2 of 2 ends

At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:

Pacific Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co
n
t
e
n
t
,

%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-9
Logged By
Date Drilled
BSS
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.

S
.

C
.

S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e

o
f

T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
12-1681

Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014
Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003

APPENDIX B

Results of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

12-1682

Project Name:Tested By:JAP Date:03/04/13
Project No.:10143.002 Checked By:JMB Date:03/06/13
Exploration No.:B-1 Depth (feet):0-5.0
Sample No.:B-1
Soil Identification:POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), light gray.

DE 921.2
921.2 918.9
408.8 408.8
510.1 0.5
DE
890.9
408.8
482.1
(in.)(mm.)
3"75.000
1"25.000
3/4"19.000
1/2"12.500
3/8"9.500
#4 4.750
#8 2.360
#16 1.180
#30 0.600
#50 0.300
#100 0.150
#200 0.075
GRAVEL:0 %
SAND:94 %
FINES:6 %
GROUP SYMBOL:(SP-SM)5.28

0.81 Remarks:
100.0
100.0

97.5 100.00.1
100.0

68.3161.7

12.5 5.9
386.5 24.2
**
480.2

47.4 PAN
268.1
Percent Passing (%)
Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
After Wet Sieve Wt. of Dry Soil + Container (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g)
Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
Container No.

Wt. of Container (g)
100.0
Cu = D60/D10 =
Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) =

0.0 100.0
U. S. Sieve Size
Wt. of Container No._____ (g)
Wt. of Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g)
Moisture Content (%)
100.0
Dry Wt. of Soil (g)
Cumulative Weight
Dry Soil Retained (g)

PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION)
ASTM D 6913
Container No.:

RANCHO MIRAGE
of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS
Moisture Content of Total Air - Dry Soil
12-1683

3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER

GRAVEL FINES

FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM
10143.002
SAND

SILT FINE

HYDROMETER

RANCHO MIRAGE
Project No.:B-1 Sample No.:

Soil Type :

PARTICLE - SIZE

DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification:POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), light gray. (SP-SM)
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Exploration No.:

Depth (feet):0-5.0
Project Name:B-1
Mar-130:94 :6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
PE
R
C
E
N
T

F
I
N
E
R

B
Y

W
E
I
G
H
T

PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
"

Sieve Landscape; B-1, B-1 ( 2-26-13 )12-1684

Project Name:Tested By:MRV / JAP Date:03/04/13
Project No.:10143.002 Checked By:JMB Date:03/06/13
Exploration No.:B-3 Depth (feet):0-5.0
Sample No.:B-1
Soil Identification:POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), light gray.

GH 746.2
746.2 743.3
217.4 217.4
525.9 0.6
GH
723.3
217.4
505.9
(in.)(mm.)
3"75.000
1"25.000
3/4"19.000
1/2"12.500
3/8"9.500
#4 4.750
#8 2.360
#16 1.180
#30 0.600
#50 0.300
#100 0.150
#200 0.075
GRAVEL:0 %
SAND:96 %
FINES:4 %
GROUP SYMBOL:SP 5.40

0.95 Remarks:
100.0
100.0

97.7 100.00.0
100.0

65.7180.5

11.9 4.4
419.2 20.3
**
502.5

41.0 PAN
310.2
Percent Passing (%)
Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
After Wet Sieve Wt. of Dry Soil + Container (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g)
Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
Container No.

Wt. of Container (g)
100.0
Cu = D60/D10 =
Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) =
100.0
U. S. Sieve Size
Wt. of Container No._____ (g)
Wt. of Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g)
Moisture Content (%)
100.0
Dry Wt. of Soil (g)
Cumulative Weight
Dry Soil Retained (g)

PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION)
ASTM D 6913
Container No.:

RANCHO MIRAGE
of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS
Moisture Content of Total Air - Dry Soil
12-1685

3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER

GRAVEL FINES

FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM
10143.002
SAND

SILT FINE

HYDROMETER

RANCHO MIRAGE
Project No.:B-3 Sample No.:

Soil Type :

PARTICLE - SIZE

DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification:POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), light gray.

SP
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Exploration No.:

Depth (feet):0-5.0
Project Name:B-1
Mar-130:96 :4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
PE
R
C
E
N
T

F
I
N
E
R

B
Y

W
E
I
G
H
T

PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
"

Sieve Landscape; B-3, B-1 ( 2-26-13 )12-1686

Tested By :RS Date:3-4-13
Input By : JMB Date:3-6-13
Depth (ft.)0-5.0
X Moist Mechanical Ram
Dry Manual Ram
Mold Volume (ft³)0.03325 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in. 250 325 400 175
1 2 3 4 5 6
6162 6196 6151 6065
4209 4209 4209 4209 AS-REC'
1953 1987 1942 1856 M/C
966.0 1051.6 1200.0 1242.7 921.2
891.2 944.4 1051.3 1167.9 918.9
157.9 144.2 150.0 151.9 408.8

10.2 13.4 16.5 7.4 0.5
129.5 131.7 128.8 123.1
117.5 116.2 110.5 114.6
118.0 11.5

PROCEDURE USED
x Procedure A
Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
May be used if +#4 is 20% or less
Procedure B
Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is
20% or less
Procedure C
Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve
Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six)
Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in.
is <30%
Particle-Size Distribution:

GR:SA:FIAtterberg Limits:

LL,PL,PI
Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) TEST NO.

Wet Density (pcf)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Weight of Mold (g)
Net Weight of Soil (g)
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g)

MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D 1557
Project No.:

Location:

RANCHO MIRAGEProject Name:
10143.002
B-1
Soil Identification:

Sample No. :

Moisture Added (ml)
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), light gray.

B-1
Preparation Method:
100.0
105.0
110.0
115.0
120.0
125.0
130.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Dr
y

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
p
c
f
)

Moisture Content (%)
SP. GR. = 2.65 SP. GR. = 2.70 SP. GR. = 2.75
X
X
Compaction A&B; B-1, B-1 ( 2-26-13 )12-1687

One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546) -- Method 'B'

Project Name:Tested By:JAP Date:3/4/13
Project No.:Checked By:JMB Date:3/6/13
Boring No.:B-4 Sample Type:IN SITU
Sample No.:R-2 Depth (ft.)10.0
Sample Description:

Source and Type of Water Used for Inundation: Arrowhead ( Distilled ) ** Note: Loading After Wetting (Inundation) not Performed Using this Test Method.

Initial Dry Density (pcf):102.3 Final Dry Density (pcf):103.7 Initial Moisture (%):18.8 Final Moisture (%) :20.1
Initial Height (in.):0.9830 Initial Void ratio:0.6478
Initial Dial Reading (in):0.0500 Specific Gravity (assumed):2.70 Inside Diameter of Ring (in):2.434 Initial Degree of Saturation (%):78.2

1.050 0.9947 0.00 1.19 1.19

2.010 0.9921 0.00 0.93 0.93
H2O 0.9893 0.00 0.64 0.64
-0.28

Rev. 01-10
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Pressure (p)
(ksf)

0.6674

0.6630
Final Reading
(in)Void Ratio

RANCHO MIRAGE

0.6583

0.0553

0.0579

0.0607
WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SW-SM), gray.
10143.002
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
De
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

Log Pressure (ksf)
Deformation % - Log Pressure Curve
Inundate With
Distilled Water
12-1688

TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT
CHLORIDE CONTENT and pH of SOILS
Project Name: Tested By :JAP Date:3/6/13
Project No. :10143.002 Data Input By:JMB Date:3/7/13
Boring No.B-1
Sample No.B-1
Sample Depth (ft)0-5.0
Visual Soil Classification
Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g)921.2
Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g)918.9
Weight of Container (g)408.8
Moisture Content (%)0.5
Weight of Soaked Soil (g)100.0
Dillution : 1 3
Water Fraction (ml)25
Tube Reading <50
PPM Sulfate <150
ml of Chloride Soln. For Titration (B)25
ml of AgNO3 Soln. Used in Titration (C)0.6
PPM of Chloride (C -0.2) * Titre (1) * 1000 / 10g 12
PPM of Chloride, Dry Wt. Basis 12
Container No.A
Temperature (C°)22.8
pH Value ( METHOD A )7.40
Rev. 11-09
<0.0150% Sulfate

RANCHO MIRAGE
pH TEST, ASTM D-4972
CHLORIDE CONTENT, AASHTO T-291
SULFATE CONTENT, Hach Kit Method
(SP-SM)
12-1689

SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST
ASTM G-187
Project Name:Tested By :JAP Date:3/6/13
Project No. :10143.002 Data Input By:JMB Date:3/7/13
Boring No.:B-1 Checked By:JMB Date:3/7/13
Sample No. :B-1 Depth (ft.) : 0-5.0
Visual Soil Identification:
** NOTE: ASTM G-187 REQUIRES SOIL SPECIMENS TO PASS THROUGH NO.8 SIEVE PRIOR TO TESTING. THEREFORE, THIS TEST METHOD MAY NOT BE REPRESENTATIVE FOR COARSER MATERIALS.

Initial Moisture Content (%)
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)921.2 Initial Soil Weight (gm)(Wt)1500.0 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)918.9 Box Constant:6.7522
Wt. of Container (g)408.8
Moisture Content (%) (MCi)0.45 MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100 Remolded Specimen
Water Added (ml) (Wa)125 175 225 275 325
Adj. Moisture Content (%) (MC)8.82 12.17 15.52 18.87 22.22 Resistance Rdg. (ohm)10000 5900 3500 2600 2600
Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm)67522 39838 23633 17556 17556
Rev. 11-04
(SP-SM)

RANCHO MIRAGE
Moisture Adjustments
(
0 10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
So
i
l

R
e
s
i
s
t
i
v
i
t
y

(
o
h
m
-cm
)

Moisture Content (%)
Minimum Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
17556 18.87
Chloride Content
(ppm)
Moisture Content
(%) Sulfate Content
ppm / % Soil pH
ASTM G-187, D-2216 HACH KIT METHOD AASHTO T-291 ASTM D-4972 12 7.40 <150 <0.015
12-1690

Soluble Sulfates
(Hach Sulfate Test Kit)
Project Name:

Project Number:

Date:3/6/13
Technician:JAP
Sample Identification % Sulfates
Water Fraction Tube Reading
Boring No.:B-3 3 :1 3 <50 <0.0150
Sample No:B-1 =<150
Depth (ft.):0-5.0
Dilution Reading (PPM)

RANCHO MIRAGE
10143.002
12-1691

R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
DOT CA Test 301
PROJECT NAME: Rancho Mirage PROJECT NUMBER: 10143.002
BORING NUMBER:B-3 DEPTH (FT.):0-5
SAMPLE NUMBER:B-1 TECHNICIAN:S. Felter
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Gray SP DATE COMPLETED: 3/8/2013
TEST SPECIMEN a b c
MOISTURE AT COMPACTION %7.6 8.0 8.4
HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.54 2.52 2.56
DRY DENSITY, pcf 112.9 113.6 113.1
COMPACTOR PRESSURE, psi 350 275 150
EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi 566 353 151
EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 0 0 0
STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi)20 29 40
TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.70 5.05 5.36
R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 79 69 58
R-VALUE CORRECTED 79 69 59
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c
GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0
TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0
STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft.0.34 0.50 0.66
EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft.0.00 0.00 0.00

EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART
R-VALUE BY EXPANSION:N/A
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION:66
EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE: 66

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
CO
V
E
R

T
H
I
C
K
N
E
S
S

B
Y

S
T
A
B
I
L
O
M
E
T
E
R

i
n

f
e
e
t
COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION in feet
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
0100200300400500600700800
R-
V
A
L
U
E
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
12-1692

Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014
Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003

APPENDIX C

EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
12-1693

-i-

APPENDIX C

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 GENERAL 1

1.1 Intent 1

1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record 1

1.3 The Earthwork Contractor 2

2.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED 2

2.1 Clearing and Grubbing 2

2.2 Processing 3

2.3 Overexcavation 3

2.4 Benching 3

2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas 3

3.0 FILL MATERIAL 4

3.1 General 4

3.2 Oversize 4

3.3 Import 4

4.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION 4

4.1 Fill Layers 4

4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning 5

4.3 Compaction of Fill 5

4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes 5

4.5 Compaction Testing 5

4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing 5

4.7 Compaction Test Locations 6

5.0 SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION 6

6.0 EXCAVATION 6

7.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS 6

7.1 Safety 6

7.2 Bedding & Backfill 7

7.3 Lift Thickness 7

7.4 Observation and Testing 7

Standard Details

A - Keying and Benching Rear of Text
B - Oversize Rock Disposal Rear of Text
C - Canyon Subdrains Rear of Text
D - Buttress or Replacement Fill Subdrains Rear of Text E - Transition Lot Fills and Side Hill Fills Rear of Text Retaining Wall Rear of Text
12-1694

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-1-

1.0 General

1.1 Intent

These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).

1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record

Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.

Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.

During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.

12-1695

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-2-

1.3 The Earthwork Contractor

The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications.

The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations.

The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.

2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled

2.1 Clearing and Grubbing

Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.

12-1696

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-3-
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area.

As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed.

2.2 Processing

Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches.

Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.

2.3 Overexcavation

In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.

2.4 Benching

Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill.

2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas

All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant 12-1697

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-4-
prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.

3.0 Fill Material

3.1 General

Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.

3.2 Oversize

Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction.

3.3 Import

If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed.

4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction

4.1 Fill Layers

Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness.

The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.
12-1698

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-5-

4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning

Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum.

Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557).

4.3 Compaction of Fill

After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.

4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes

In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557.

4.5 Compaction Testing

Field-tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered.

Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).

4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing

Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met.

12-1699

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-6-

4.7 Compaction Test Locations

The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided.

5.0 Subdrain Installation

Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys.

6.0 Excavation

Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.

7.0 Trench Backfills

7.1 Safety

The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations.
12-1700

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-7-

7.2 Bedding and Backfill

All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of relative compaction from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction.

At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.

7.3 Lift Thickness

Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method.

7.4 Observation and Testing

The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant.

12-1701

All. SLOPE
PROJECTED PLANE 1: 1
(HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL)

MAXIMUM FROM TOE

OF SLOPE TO

APPROVED GROUND

EXISTING

GROUND SURFACE
Rll. -ovet-cur SLOPE
CUT -ovER-ALl. SLOPE

PROJECTED PLANE
1 TO 1 MAXIMUM

FROM TOE OF SLOPE

TO APPROVED GROUND

KEYING AND BENCHING
REMOVE

UNSUITABLE

MATERIAL
REMOVE

UNSUITABLE

MATERIAL

UT FACE SHALL BE

CONSTRUCTED PRIOR

TO FILL PLACEMENT

BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPE'S
ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5: 1.

MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET
AND MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET.

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING

SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS A Leighton 12-1702

FINISH GRADE
- - - - - -"10'-- - -- - - - - - - -_____________ COMPACTED FILl_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -MIN.-- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-~-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------~---------------~-- ---=-=-=-=-=~=n-=-=-=-=-=-~0.-=-=-=-=-=-=-="--.J--~ ------------/_--------------------------------------_-_____ ?-______________________ _ -_-_-_-_-_-_ ---~----=-~=-7)---_-_-_-_-_-~_-_-_-_---_-_-_-_-,C_-_-_\Jo----~-~----_-_-_-_---:J-_/o----_- _-_-_~~~~----/----_-_-_-_-_-_-_ -, . _-:_-!-:----~.~N~--~t.--------_____ -~ _____ - - - - -4 MIN. - - - - - - - - ----y-~-----------------------_-_-_-_-_-_-_ ----~---_-_-_-_-_-/\~----_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- ---------------~-....,r--_----------_-_-_-_-_--7-----_-_-_-_--_-_-_-_-__ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--- - -7 - - - - - - - -OVERSIZE - - - - - - - - - - --------_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-WINDROW·_-_-_-_---.
~-~--------------
• Oversize rock is larger than 8 inches
in largest dimension.
• Backfill with approved soil jetted or
flooded in place to fill all the voids.
• Do not bury rock within 10 feet of
finish grade.
• Windrow of buried rock shall be
parallel to the finished slope face.

PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=--:A~ := --:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:= -~ ~-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=--:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-A'~:=-_-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-:=-~----_-_-_-

JETTED OR FLOODED

APPROVED SOIL
~
f .li
i ~--------------------~--------------~--------~!

OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING

SPEOFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS B Leighton
I
E
i
I
L_------------------------------------~~------------------------~L-------------------~~ 12-1703

NATURAL
GROUND

SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A PERFORATED PIPE SURROUNDED

WITH FILTER MATERIAL
FILTER MATERIAL (9FT 3/FT)

SUB DRAIN
(See Alternates A and B)

FILTER MATERIAL
FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL PER STATE OF CALlFORNIA STANDARD SPECIFICATION, OR APPROVED AlTERNATE.

CLASS 2 GRADING AS FOLLOWS;
Sieve Size
1"
3/4"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No.JO
No. 50
No.200
Percent Passing
100
9D-100
10-100
25-40
18-33
5-15
D-7
0-3
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A-1 SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A-2
ALTERNATE B-1

PERFORATED PIPE
6" Ill MIN.

SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B
3/4" MAX. GRAVEL OR

APPROVED EQUIVALENT
(9FT3/FT)
ALTERNATE B-2

PERFORATED PIPE IS OPTIONAL PER

GOVERNING AGENCY'S REQUIREMENTS
DESIGN

FINISHED GRADE

DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINAL
~ 15' MIN.----o~~~-= I S'MIN
· • 6'fiJ MIN.----I I NON-PERFORAliD
~
t
-~
~
~------------~-------------------~~---------~1
CANYON

SUB DRAIN

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING

SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS C Leighton
I
E
i
I
~------------~-------------------~~---------~~ 12-1704

1'±

OUTLET PIPES
4"+ NON-PERFORATED PIPE,
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY
30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------2% MIN.~--------- I ,15' MIN; I

BACK CUT
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B =?J -----======~~~~==========-=--== 0 KEY DEPTH I . K~· ~~~TH I
2' MIN.

SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A
CAL TRANS QASS 2
FILTER MATERIAL (3FT.3/FT)
H:ONNECTION FROM

COUECTION PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE
POSmvE SEAL SHOULD BE PROVIDED----...

AT THE JOINT
3/4" ROO< (3FT 31Ffl------

WRAPPED IN FILTER
• SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION -Subdrain collector pipe shall be installed with perforations down or, unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant. Outlet pipes shall be non-perforated pipe. The subdrain pipe shall have at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot. Perforation shall •
be 1/4" to 1/2" if drilled holes are used. All subdrain pipes shall have a gradient at least 2% towards the outlet.
~ SUBDRAIN PIPE -Subdrain pipe shall be ASTM D2751, ASTM D1527 (Schedule 40) or SDR 23.5 ABS pipe ! or ASTM D3034 (Schedule 40) or SDR 23.5 PVC pipe. -
•
All outlet pipe shall be placed in a trench and, after fill is placed above it, rodded to verify integrity. ~ f------------r----------.----i ~

BUTTRESS OR

REPLACEMENT FILL

SUBDRAINS

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING

SPECIFICATIONS

STANDARD DETAILS D
.,
Leighton i
" ~---------------~---------------L---------~~ 12-1705

OVERBURDEN

OR UNSUITABLE

MATERIAL

CUT-FILL TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION
--------
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE\_
GROUND \...-___..
--------
----
----

SIDE HILL FILL FOR CUT PAD NATIJRAL
GROUND~ .....-

OVEREXCAVATE

AND RECOMPACT
{REPLACEMENT FILL)
.....-
--------/
/ FINISHED QJT PAD
/
L...:::::::~~..-U<-------SEE STANDARD DETAIL FOR SUBDRAINS ~' Ml~. •I WHEN REQUIRED BY GEOTR:HNICAL CONSULTANT
~ UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR MATERIAL APPROVED
BY THE GEOTR:HNICAL CONSULTANT
~
t
..Ill
~
:8 ~------------------------------------~~------------------------~~------------------~1

TRANSITION LOT FILLS

AND SIDE HILL FILLS

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING

SPEOFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS E Leighton
I
E
i
I
~------------------------------------~~------------------------~~------------------~~ 12-1706

SUBDRAIN OPTIONS AND BACKFILL WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF ~0 OPTION 1: PIPE SURROUNDED WITH
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL OPTION 2: GRAVEL WRAPPED

IN FILTER FABRIC
.

LEVEL OR
SLOPE
GENERAL NOTES:

SLOPE

OR LEVEL
12" MINIMUM
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE

FILTER MATERIAL
(SEE GRADATION)
4 INCH DIAMETER

PERFORATED PIPE
(SEE NOTE 3)
WATERPROOFING ----+--1
(SEE GENERAL NOTES)
Class 2 Filter Permeable Material Gradation
Per caltrans Specifications
Sieve Size Percent Passing
1" 100
3/4" 90-100
3/8" 40-100
No.4 25-40
No.8 18-33
No. 30 5-15
No. so 0-7
No. 200 D-3
* Waterproofing should be provided where moisture nuisance problem through the wall is undesirable. * Water proofing of the walls is not under purview of the geotechnical engineer * All drains should have a gradient of 1 percent minimum SLOPE

OR LEVEL
Fll TER FABRIC
(SEE NOTE4)
*Outlet portion of the subdrain should have a 4-inch diameter solid pipe discharged into a suitable disposal area designed by the project engineer. The subdrain pipe should be accessible for maintenance (rodding) *Other subdrain backfill options are subject to the review by the geotechnical engineer and modification of design parameters.

Notes:
1) Sand should have a sand equivalent of 30 or greater and may be densified by water jetting. 2) 1 Cu. ft. per ft. of 1/+ to 1 1/2-inch size gravel wrapped in filter fabric 3) Pipe type should be ASTM 01527 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) SDR35 or ASTM 01785 Polyvinyl Chloride plastic (PVC), Schedule 40, Armco A2000 PVC, or approved equivalent. Pipe should be installed with perforations down. Perforations should be 3/8 inch in diameter placed at the ends of a 120-degree arc in two rows at 3-inch on center (staggered) 4) Filter fabric should be Mirafi 140NC or approved equivalent. 5) Weephole should be 3-inch minimum diameter and provided at 10-foot maximum intervals. If exposure is permitted, weepholes should be located 12 inches above finished grade. If exposure is not permitted such as for a wall adjacent to a sidewalk/curb, a pipe under the sidewalk to be discharged through the curb face or equivalent should be provided. For a basement-type wall, a proper subdrain outlet system should be provided.
6) Retaining wall plans should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer. 7) Walls over six feet in height are subject to a special review by the geotechnical engineer and modifications to the above requirements.

RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL
FOR WALLS 6 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT
WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF <50 Leighton Figure 12-1707

Soils/Geology Review May 15, 2014
Section 24 Specific Plan - Rancho Mirage Area, Riverside County, California Project No. 10143.003

APPENDIX D

ASFE Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering Report 12-1708

Important Information About Your
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

The following information is provided to help you manage your risks .

Geotechnical Services Are Performed lor
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one -not even you -should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated .

Read the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.

Do not read selected elements only.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on
A Unique-Set ol Project-Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
• not prepared for you,
• not prepared for your project,
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or
• completed before important project changes were made.

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse,
• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure,
• composition of the design team, or
• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their impact.

Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.

Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems .

Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ-sometimes significantly- from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

A Report's Recommendations Are 11/ot Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual 12-1709

subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to
Misinterpretation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences , and by providing construction observation.

Do Not Redraw the Engineer•s Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.

Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

Give Contractors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.

Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces . To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry.

While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant ; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved.

Rely, on Your ASH-Member Geotechncial
Engmeer lor Additional Assistance
Membership in ASFE/THE BEST PEOPLE ON EARTH exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.

ASFE

THE BEST PEOPLE ON EARTH
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G1 06, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone : 301/565-2733 Facsimile : 301/589-2017
e-mail : [email protected] www.asfe.org
Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

IIGER08041.0MRP 12-1710

APPENDIX E
Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 12-1711

75-400 Gerald Ford Drive, Unit 107 75-400 Gerald Ford Drive, Unit 107 Palm Desert, CA 92211Palm Desert, CA 92211 760.776.4192 760.776.4192  760.776.4080 Fax 760.776.4080 Fax  www.leightongroup.com www.leightongroup.com 

June 23, 2014
Project No. 10143.001
Pulte Homes
27101 Puerta Real, Suite 300
Mission Viejo, California 92691

Attention: Mr. Bob Paradise

Subject: Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA Addendum Letter Rancho Mirage 1200
Assessor Parcel Numbers 673-120-021 through -025
Rancho Mirage, Unincorporated Area of Riverside County, California

Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) presents this Addendum to the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the subject site in 2013 (Leighton, 2013). The purpose of this Phase I ESA Addendum is to incorporate the additional property (Assessor Parcel Numbers [APNs] 673-120-021 and 673-120-022) that are now associated with the subject site (see Figure 1 – Site Location Map). The scope of work for this Phase I ESA Addendum Letter included: an updated review of historical aerial photographs and topographic maps (to include the new APNs), review of an online database resources such as Geotracker and Envirostor, a site reconnaissance, and preparation of this addendum letter.

SITE RECONNAISSANCE
On June 20, 2014, Leighton personnel conducted a reconnaissance-level visit of the subject site to observe and document existing site conditions. The two new APNs consist of approximately 72 acres of vacant land. The eastern half of the northeastern parcel (APN 673-120-022) appears to have been paved with asphalt and possibly used as a construction staging/parking or overflow parking lot for the casino (based on aerial photographs). The entrance to this paved area is now blocked and the asphalt is degraded and covered in windblown sand. Small areas of asphalt and construction debris were observed in the middle portion of the northeastern parcel separating the paved area from the vacant land. A stormwater retention basin was observed in the northwestern portion of this parcel. The southeastern parcel was observed to be a 12-1712

10143.001
- 3 -
vacant land, with the exception of a pole mounted billboard in the corner of the parcel, and a small stockpile of aggregate base and asphalt debris on the eastern border of the subject parcel (APN 673-120-021). Significant changes were not observed on the original parcels, with the exception of more blown sand on the eastern and southern borders of the subject site.

ONLINE DATABASE RESOURCES
A search of the selected online government databases was conducted by Leighton on June 19, 2014. A review of The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) website Envirostor and the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) online database GeoTracker did not reveal any environmental sites of concern within one mile of the of the subject site.

REVIEW OF HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
Historical aerial photographs were reviewed for information regarding past subject site uses. Aerial photographs dated 1953, 1969, 1978, 1984, 1989, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2010 were reviewed.

In the 1953 aerial photograph, the subject site and adjacent properties are vacant, undeveloped land. Paved Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive are observed to the north and the east of the subject site, respectively. Southern Pacific railroad is observed approximately 650 feet to the northeast of the subject site.

Significant changes were not observed in the 1969, 1978 and 1984 aerial photographs, with the exception of the addition of Interstate 10 (northeast of the railroad) and its on- ramps and off-ramps located to the northeast of the subject site, and what appears to be part of Dinah Shore Drive to the southeast of the subject site.

In the 1989 aerial photograph, the subject site and adjacent properties to the north and east are observed to be vacant, undeveloped land. Paved Dinah Shore Drive and additional residential development are depicted to the south of the subject site, and a golf course was observed to the west of the subject site. Los Alamos Road is a dirt road.

In the 2002 aerial photograph, the subject site and adjacent properties to the north and east are observed to be vacant, undeveloped land. Adjacent properties to the west and south of the subject site were observed to be in development as the present day 12-1713

10143.001
- 4 -
residential homes and golf courses. Adjacent to the northeast was observed the original Agua Caliente Casino and Resort. Los Alamos Road is a paved road.

In the 2005 aerial photograph, significant changes were not observed on the subject site and adjacent properties.

In a 2007 aerial photograph viewed on the Riverside County Land Information System (RCLIS) website for APN 673-120-022, it appears that the northeastern section of the subject site appears to have graded and used for staging construction materials, equipment, vehicles, and modular offices (RCLIS, 2014). There is what appears to be a depression in the northeast corner of the staging area. Construction activities for the Agua Caliente Casino and Resort were observed in the adjacent property to northeast of the subject site. Significant changes were not observed on the adjacent properties.

In the 2009 aerial photograph it appears that the construction activities for the Agua Caliente Casino and Resort have ceased and the graded area appears to be vacant.

Significant changes were not observed on the majority of the subject site and adjacent properties.

In the 2010 aerial photograph, the subject site and adjacent properties appear in the present day configuration.

REVIEW OF HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS
Historical topographic maps were reviewed to obtain information regarding past site uses. Topographic map coverage of the site vicinity is provided by “Indio, California” Quadrangle (1904) and “Edom, California” Quadrangle (1941), “Thousand Palms, California” Quadrangle (1947, and 1958), and “Cathedral City, California” Quadrangle (1958, 1972, and 1981). References are provided in Appendix A.

Indio 1904: Structures, tanks, or wells were not depicted on the subject site or adjacent properties.

Edom 1941: Structures, tanks, or wells were not depicted on the subject site or adjacent properties. Southern Pacific railroad is observed approximately 650 feet to the northeast of the subject site.

12-1714

10143.001
- 5 -
Thousand Palms 1947: Land use changes were not depicted on the subject site or adjacent properties.

Thousand Palms 1958: Land use changes were not depicted on the subject site or adjacent properties. Ramon Road is observed to the north of the subject site, and Rio Del Sol (present day Bob Hope Drive) is observed to the east of the subject site.

Cathedral City 1958: Land use changes were not depicted on the subject site or adjacent properties, with the exception of some residential development to the southeast of the subject site.

Cathedral City 1972: Land use changes were not depicted on the subject site or adjacent properties.

Cathedral City 1981: Land use changes were not depicted on the subject site or adjacent properties.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Historically, the subject site has been vacant, undeveloped land. Portions of the subject site have been graded, used for construction staging, and possibly offsite casino parking.

Based on our review of information on the subject site and the addition of the two APNs, there are no changes to the conclusions and recommendations of the Phase I and Phase II ESA.

We have performed a Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E1527-05 on of the Rancho Mirage 1200 Property, APNs 673- 120-021 through -025, Rancho Mirage, an Unincorporated Area of Riverside County, California, the property. Exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.5 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property.

In general, observations should be made during future site development for areas of possible contamination such as, but not limited to, the presence of underground facilities, buried debris, waste drums, and tanks, stained soil or odorous soils. Should 12-1715

10143.001
- 6 -
such materials be encountered, further investigation and analysis may be necessary at that time.

If you have questions regarding this report, please contact us. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to Pulte Homes.

Respectfully submitted,

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Kristin Stout
Senior Project Scientist

Attachments: Appendix A – References
Figure 1 – Site Location Map

Distribution: (1) Addressee (electronically)

12-1716

10143.001
A-1

APPENDIX A

References

ASTM International, 2013, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, Designation E1527-13, dated November 6, 2013.

EDR, The EDR Historical Topographic Map Report, February 8, 2013.

EDR, The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package, February 14, 2013.

County Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency, Riverside County Land Information System,
http://tlmabld5.agency.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/website/rclis/ , 2007 Aerial Photograph, accessed June 19, 2014.

Leighton and Associates Inc., Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Rancho Mirage 1200, Assessor Parcel Numbers 673-120-023, - 024, and -025, Area Rancho Mirage, Unincorporated Area of Riverside County, California, Project No. 10143.001, dated March 15, 2013.

State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker Online Database, http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ . Accessed June 19, 2014.

Department of Toxic Substance Control, EnviroStor Online Database, http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ , Accessed June 19, 2014.

12-1717

Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors,Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community ³0 4,000 8,000
Feet
Figure 1
Scale:

Leighton
Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2014
Thematic Information: Leighton
1 " = 4,000 '
Project: 10143.001 Eng/Geol:

Map Saved as V:\drafting\10143\001\Maps\10143-001_F01_SLM_20140623.mxd on 6/23/2014 11:46:54 AM Author: Leighton Geomatics (cgiovando)
Date: June 2014 SITE LOCATION MAP
Pulte Rancho Mirage 1200Riverside County, California
ApproximateSite Location
APN: 673-120-022
APN: 673-120-021
12-1718

T R A N S M I T T A L

To: Pulte Home Corporation Date: March 15, 2013
27101 Puerta Real, Suite 300
Mission Viejo, California 92691 Project No. 10143.001

Attention: Mr. Darren Warren

Transmitted: The Following: For:

X Mail/Overnight Draft Report X Your Use
Courier X Final Report As Requested
Pick Up Extra Report
Proposal
Other

Subject: Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Rancho Mirage 1200, Assessor Parcel Numbers 673-120-023, -024, and -025, Rancho Mirage, Unincorporated Area of Riverside County, California

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

By: Kristin Stout

Distribution: (1) Addressee (electronic)
12-1719

PHASE I AND LIMITED PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL

SITE ASSESSMENT
RANCHO MIRAGE 1200

ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS
673-120-023, -024, AND -025

RANCHO MIRAGE, UNINCORPORATED AREA OF

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Prepared For:

PULTE HOME CORPORATION
27101 Puerta Real, Suite 300
Mission Viejo, California 92691

Project No. 10143.001

March 15, 2013
12-1720

March 15, 2013

Project No. 10143.001

Pulte Home Corporation
27101 Puerta Real, Suite 300
Mission Viejo, California 92691

Attention: Mr. Darren Warren

Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) is pleased to present this Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report for Rancho Mirage 1200, located in Rancho Mirage, an Unincorporated Area of Riverside County, California (subject site).

Leighton declares that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 312, and the ASTM International (ASTM) Standard E1527-05.

Leighton has the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject site. Leighton has developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.

If you have questions regarding this report, please contact us. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to Pulte Home Corporation.

Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Kristin Stout, REA I Brynn McCulloch, PG
Sr. Project Scientist Project Geologist

Distribution: (1) Addressee (electronic)
12-1721

10143.001
- i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1

1.1 Authorization ........................................................................................ 1

1.2 Purpose ................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Scope of Work ...................................................................................... 1

1.4 Significant Assumptions ......................................................................... 2

1.5 Limitations and Exceptions .................................................................... 2

1.6 Special Terms and Conditions ................................................................ 3

1.7 User Reliance ........................................................................................ 3

1.8 Important Information about Geoenvironmental Reports ......................... 4

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 5

2.1 Location and Legal Description .............................................................. 5

2.2 Property and Vicinity General Characteristics .......................................... 5

2.3 Current Use of the Subject Property ....................................................... 5

2.4 Descriptions of Structures, Roads and Other Improvements on the Property ............................................................................................... 5

2.5 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties ...................................................... 5

3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION ...................................................................... 6

3.1 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations ................................ 6

3.2 Specialized Knowledge .......................................................................... 6

3.3 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information .................... 6

3.4 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues ......................................... 6

3.5 Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information ............................. 6

3.6 Reason for Performing Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA ........................ 7

3.7 Other ................................................................................................... 7

4.0 RECORDS REVIEW .......................................................................................... 8

4.1 Physical Setting Source(s) ..................................................................... 8

4.1.1 Topography ................................................................................. 8

4.1.2 Surface Water .............................................................................. 8

4.1.3 Geology and Soils ......................................................................... 8

4.1.4 Hydrogeology............................................................................... 9

4.1.5 Oil and Gas Fields ........................................................................ 9

4.2 Standard Environmental Record Sources ................................................ 9

4.2.1 Subject Property .......................................................................... 9

4.2.2 Offsite ....................................................................................... 10

4.2.3 Regulatory Agency Contacts........................................................ 11

4.2.4 Other Reports ............................................................................ 11

4.3 Historical Use Information on the Property ........................................... 11

4.3.1 Aerial Photographs ..................................................................... 12

4.3.2 Historical Topographic Maps ....................................................... 13 12-1722

10143.001

- ii -

4.3.3 Fire Insurance Maps ................................................................... 14

4.3.4 Historical City Directories ............................................................ 14

4.3.5 Other Historical Sources ............................................................. 14

4.3.6 Summary of Historical Land Use .................................................. 14

5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ................................................................................ 15

5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions ................................................... 15

5.2 General Property Setting ..................................................................... 15

5.3 Exterior and Interior Observations ........................................................ 15

5.3.1 Hazardous Substances, Drums, and Other Chemical Containers .... 15

5.3.2 Storage Tanks ............................................................................ 15

5.3.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) ................................................. 15

5.3.4 Waste Disposal .......................................................................... 16

5.3.5 Dumping.................................................................................... 16

5.3.6 Pits, Ponds, Lagoons, Septic Systems, Wastewater, Drains, Cisterns, and Sumps ......................................................................................... 16

5.3.7 Pesticide Use ............................................................................. 16

5.3.8 Staining, Discolored Soils, Corrosion ............................................ 16

5.3.9 Stressed Vegetation ................................................................... 16

5.3.10 Unusual Odors ........................................................................... 16

5.3.11 Onsite Wells ............................................................................... 17

5.3.12 Other Observations .................................................................... 17

6.0 INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................ 18

6.1 Interview with Owner .......................................................................... 18

6.2 Interview with Site/Property Manager .................................................. 18

6.3 Interviews with Occupants ................................................................... 18

6.4 Interviews with Local Government Officials ........................................... 18

6.5 Interviews with Others ........................................................................ 18

7.0 LIMITED PHASE II ESA .................................................................................. 19

8.0 FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 20

8.1 Onsite ................................................................................................ 20

8.2 Offsite ................................................................................................ 20

8.3 Data Gaps .......................................................................................... 21

9.0 OPINION ...................................................................................................... 22

9.1 Onsite ................................................................................................ 22

9.2 Offsite ................................................................................................ 22

10.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................. 23

11.0 DEVIATIONS................................................................................................. 24

12.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES................................................................................. 25

13.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS ............................... 26

13.1 Corporate ........................................................................................... 26

13.2 Individual ........................................................................................... 26

13.3 Environmental Professional Statement .................................................. 26

12-1723

10143.001

- iii -

List of Accompanying Illustrations and Appendices

Figure 1 – Property Location Map
Figure 2 – Site Plan

Appendix A – References
Appendix B – Site Reconnaissance Photos
Appendix C – Client Supplied Documentation
Appendix D – Environmental Lien Report
Appendix E – Environmental Radius Report
Appendix F – Regulatory Records Documentation
Appendix G – Historical Research Documentation
Appendix H – Laboratory Reports
Appendix I – ASFE Geoenvironmental Report

12-1724

10143.001
- 1 -

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Authorization
Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) performed a Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the Rancho Mirage 1200 Property, Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 673-120-023, -024, and -025, Rancho Mirage, an Unincorporated Area of Riverside County, California (subject site – Figure 1) in accordance with the authorization of Pulte Home Corporation.

1.2 Purpose
The purpose of the Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA was to identify, to the extent feasible pursuant to the processes prescribed in ASTM International (ASTM) Standard E1527-05, recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the subject site. Recognized environmental conditions are defined as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. The term is not intended to include de minimus conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimus are not recognized environmental conditions” (ASTM E1527-05, 2005).

1.3 Scope of Work
The scope of work was performed in accordance with Leighton’s proposal and included the following tasks:

 A reconnaissance-level visit of the subject site for evidence of the release(s) of hazardous materials and petroleum products and to assess the potential for onsite releases of hazardous materials and petroleum products;  Records review (including review of previous environmental reports, selected governmental databases, and historical review);
 Interviews;
12-1725

10143.001
- 2 -
 Limited soil sampling; and
 Preparation of a report presenting our findings.

1.4 Significant Assumptions
Leighton assumes that the information provided by the Client and its agents, regulatory database provider, and regulatory agencies is true and reliable.

1.5 Limitations and Exceptions
Leighton performed the Phase I and Phase II Limited ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-05 of the subject site. Other than the non-scope items shown in Section 1.6 that were not applicable, there were no exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice.

Property-specific activities performed by Leighton and information collected regarding these activities are summarized within this report. The findings of this Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA are presented in Section 8.0. Opinions and conclusions drawn by Leighton, based on the information collected as part of the Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA, are presented in Sections 9.0 and 10.0, respectively. References are included as Appendix A. Site Photographs are presented in Appendix B. Client Supplied documentation is included as Appendix C. Research of Environmental Liens is documented in Appendix D.

The Environmental Radius Report is included as Appendix E. Regulatory records requests and responses are included as Appendix F. Historical documentation is provided in Appendix G. Laboratory reports are provided in Appendix H.

This Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA was conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions.

The observations and conclusions presented in this report are professional opinions based on the scope of activities, work schedule, and information obtained through the Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA described herein.

Opinions presented herein apply to property conditions existing at the time of our study and cannot necessarily be taken to apply to property conditions or changes that we are not aware of or have not had the opportunity to evaluate. It must be recognized that conclusions drawn from these data are limited to the amount, 12-1726

10143.001
- 3 -
type, distribution, and integrity of the information collected at the time of the investigation, the methods utilized to collect and evaluate the data, and that a full and complete determination of environmental risks cannot be made. Although Leighton has taken steps to obtain true copies of available information, we make no representation or warranty with respect to the accuracy or completeness of this information.

This practice does not address whether requirements in addition to all appropriate inquiry have been met in order to qualify for the landowner liability protections including the continuing obligation not to impede the integrity and effectiveness of activity and use limitations, or the duty to take reasonable steps to prevent releases, or the duty to comply with legally required release reporting obligations. Users should also be aware that there are likely to be other legal obligations with regard to hazardous substances or petroleum products discovered on the subject site that are not addressed in this practice and that may pose risks of civil and/or criminal sanctions for non-compliance.

1.6 Special Terms and Conditions
The scope of work for this Phase I and Limited Phase II did not include non- scope considerations, such as, but not limited to, those listed in Section 13 of ASTM E1527-05. This scope of work did not include items such as testing of electrical equipment for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or collection of other environmental samples, such as, water, air, building materials, paint or other media; assessment of natural hazards such as naturally occurring asbestos, radon gas, methane gas, or mold; assessment of the potential presence of radionuclides, biological agents, or lead in drinking water; assessment of indoor air quality (such as vapor intrusion assessment); or assessment of nonchemical hazards such as the potential for damage from earthquakes or floods, or the presence of endangered species or wildlife habitats. This Phase I and Limited Phase II also did not include an extensive assessment of the environmental compliance status of the Subject Property or of businesses operating at the Subject Property, or a health-based risk assessment.

1.7 User Reliance
This report is for the exclusive use of Pulte Home Corporation and SCC Rancho Mirage Holdings. Use of this report by any other party shall be at such party’s sole risk.
12-1727

10143.001
- 4 -

1.8 Important Information about Geoenvironmental Reports Pulte Home Corporation is referred to Appendix I regarding important information provided by ASFE on geoenvironmental studies and reports. 12-1728

10143.001
- 5 -

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 Location and Legal Description
The subject site is located southwest of the intersection of Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive, north of Dinah Shore Drive, Unincorporated Area of Riverside County, California (Figure 1). The County of Riverside Assessor’s Office designates the subject site as APNs 673-120-023, -024, and -025. Addresses were not found to be associated with the subject site. A legal description of the subject site is included in the Environmental LienSearch Report provided by EDR (Appendix D).

2.2 Property and Vicinity General Characteristics
The site vicinity and the surrounding area are generally developed as vacant land, residential and golf properties, and a casino.

2.3 Current Use of the Subject Property
The subject site consists of approximately 488 acres of vacant land (Photos 1 through 8, Appendix B).

2.4 Descriptions of Structures, Roads and Other Improvements on the Property There are no structures or roads on the subject site.

The following utilities provide or will provide future service to the subject site.

Natural Gas: The Southern California Gas Company
Source of Potable Water: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Electric: Southern California Edison (SCE)
Sewage Disposal: CVWD
Solid Waste Disposal: Not applicable (currently vacant)

2.5 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties
The subject site is currently bordered by Los Alamos Road, a golf course and single family residential homes to the west; Dinah Shore Drive, a golf course and single family residential homes to the south; Ramon Road and vacant land to the north; and Bob Hope Drive, vacant land and Agua Caliente Casino to the east. 12-1729

10143.001
- 6 -

3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION

The user of this Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA is identified as Pulte Home Corporation. As a part of the ASTM E1527-05 process, Mr. Bob Paradise, Project Manager at Pulte Home Corporation, completed a questionnaire regarding the property.

A copy of this questionnaire is provided in Appendix C.

3.1 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations Mr. Paradise indicated that they were not aware of environmental liens or activity and use limitations filed or recorded for the subject site.

Leighton also researched environmental liens through Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). According to the Environmental LienSearch dated March 4, 2013, environmental liens or activity use limitations were not identified for the subject site. A copy of the lien search is included in Appendix D and references are provided in Appendix A.

3.2 Specialized Knowledge
Mr. Paradise indicated that they do not have specialized knowledge or experience related to the subject site.

3.3 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information Mr. Paradise is not aware of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information related to the subject site.

3.4 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues
Mr. Paradise stated that the purchase price being paid for the subject site is based on fair market value.

3.5 Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information
The subject site is currently owned by Michael Prieto, Cecil Ruiz, and Denise Duran. Refer to Section 6.0 for interview information.

12-1730

10143.001
- 7 -

3.6 Reason for Performing Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA According to the user questionnaire, the reason for requesting this Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA is for due diligence for property acquisition.

3.7 Other
Additional information was not provided by Pulte Home Corporation. 12-1731

10143.001
- 8 -

4.0 RECORDS REVIEW

4.1 Physical Setting Source(s)
Leighton reviewed pertinent maps and readily available literature for information on the physiography and hydrogeology of the subject site. A summary of this information is presented in the following subsections.

4.1.1 Topography
The subject site is located in Section 24 of Township 4 South, Range 5 east of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. Topographic map coverage of the site vicinity is provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) “Cathedral City, California” Quadrangle (1981). The elevation of the property is approximately 240 to 360 feet above mean sea level and slopes to the southwest and northeast from the central portion of the subject site.

4.1.2 Surface Water
Surface water was not observed on the subject site.

4.1.3 Geology and Soils
According to the Geotechnical Investigation (Leighton, 2013), the subject site is underlain by Dune Sand over Quaternary Alluvium. Dune sand materials are expected to mantle the majority of the subject site. The depth of the dune sand materials cannot be easily verified based on the limited geotechnical investigation and relatively homogenous onsite alluvium. It is estimated that the dune sands generally extend to a depth varying from 5 to 20 feet below ground surface (bgs). These materials generally consist of light brown gray to darker gray and loose to medium dense silty sand to poorly-graded fine sand. Quaternary-aged alluvial deposits were encountered in all of the borings to the maximum depth explored (51 feet bgs). As encountered, the alluvium typically consists of light brown to brownish gray, medium dense to very dense, poorly-graded fine sand to sand with silt.

12-1732

10143.001
- 9 -

4.1.4 Hydrogeology
The subject site is located in the Colorado River Basin. Beneficial uses of groundwater included municipal or domestic supply, agricultural supply, industrial service supply, and industrial process supply (Colorado River Water Quality Plan, 2006).

According to Well 04S05E29A001S, dated April 1, 1968 (Water Data Library, 1968), located on the property adjacent to the site, groundwater depth is about 173 feet bgs.

Direction of groundwater flow is not known; however it is generally known to follow topography.

4.1.5 Oil and Gas Fields
Leighton and Associates reviewed the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Online Mapping System, updated July 23, 2012. Evidence of oil wells or oil field- related facilities was not indicated on the subject site or adjacent properties.

4.2 Standard Environmental Record Sources
A search of selected government databases was conducted by Leighton using the Environmental EDR Radius Report environmental database report system. Details and descriptions of the database search are provided in the EDR report. The report meets the government records search requirements of ASTM E1527-05 Standard Practice for Environmental Property Assessments: Phase I Environmental Property Assessment Process. The database listings were reviewed within the specified radii established by the ASTM E1527-05. A copy of this report is included in Appendix E.

4.2.1 Subject Property
The subject site was identified in the EDR database report as an INDIAN RESERVATION, part of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation.

12-1733

10143.001
- 10 -

4.2.2 Offsite
Seven facilities were listed on the HAZNET listings:

 Westin Mission Hills Resort, 70705 Ramon Road, Rancho Mirage, located adjacent to the west of the subject site;
 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla, 32250 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, located adjacent to the northeast of the subject site;  Westin Mission Hills Resort, 71501 Dinah Shore Drive, Rancho Mirage, adjacent to the west of the subject site; and
 Westin Mission Hills Resort, 71333 Dinah Shore Drive, Rancho Mirage, located adjacent to the west of the subject site.

These facilities were listed for waste disposal and mixing categories and violations or enforcements were not noted; therefore there is a low potential for these facilities to adversely affect the subject site.

The MACCO CONSTRUCTORS, INC., 34200 Rio Del Sol, Thousand Palms, was listed on the SWEEPS and UST listings, and is mapped by EDR 0.02 miles east- southeast of the subject site. Based on the site reconnaissance, this property is located 0.50 miles to the northeast of the subject site. Violations or enforcements were not noted on this facility, therefore there is a low potential for this facility to adversely affect the subject site.

Mission Hills Country Club, 34600 Mission Hills Drive, Rancho Mirage, was listed on the INDIAN and LUST listings, and is located 0.42 miles west- southwest of the subject site. Based on the EDR report, this facility was issued case closure. According to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) online Geotracker database the facility was issued closure on October 7, 2010. Based on the case closure status, there is a low potential for this facility to adversely affect the subject site.

Flying J Travel Plaza, 72235 Varner Road, Thousand Palms, was listed on the LUST listing, and is located 0.46 miles northeast of the subject site.

Based on the EDR report, this facility was issued case closure. According to the SWRCB online Geotracker database the facility was issued closure on October 10, 2003. Based on the case closure status, there is a low potential for this facility to adversely affect the subject site. 12-1734

10143.001
- 11 -

Unmapped Listings: Several properties were listed within Environmental EDR Report as “non-geocoded listings”. Non-geocoded or unmapped listings are properties without a complete street address and therefore cannot be located on a map. Leighton reviewed these listings to evaluate if the properties were possibly located near the subject site. Based on information provided in the Environmental EDR Report and area reconnaissance, these unmapped sites are unlikely to have the potential to adversely impact the subject site.

4.2.3 Regulatory Agency Contacts
On February 7, 2013, Leighton requested regulatory records from the following agencies for the APNs 673-120-021, 673-120-022, 673-120-023, 673-120-024, and 673-120-025. It should be noted that the subject site does not have a physical address; therefore, the APNs and a Thomas Guide Map were utilized. It is Leighton’ experience that records often cannot be found without a site address.
 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) – Cypress and Chatsworth Divisions;
 National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS);
 Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Region (RWQCB);
 Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH); and
 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)

Records were not found at the agencies contacted. Copies of records requests and responses are provided in Appendix F.

4.2.4 Other Reports
Additional reports were not provided to Leighton for review.

4.3 Historical Use Information on the Property
Leighton reviewed selected historical information on the subject site. These references were reviewed for evidence of activities, which would suggest the presence of hazardous substances at the subject site and to evaluate the 12-1735

10143.001
- 12 -
potential for the subject site to be impacted by offsite sources of contamination.

The following paragraphs are a chronological summary of the review.

4.3.1 Aerial Photographs
Historical aerial photographs were reviewed for information regarding past subject site uses. Aerial photographs dated 1953, 1969, 1978, 1984, 1989, 2002, 2005, 2009, and 2010 were reviewed. References are provided in Appendix A.

Southern Pacific railroad is observed approximately 900 feet to the northeast of the subject site.

Significant changes were not observed in the 1969 and 1978 aerial photographs, with the exception of the addition of Interstate 10 (northeast of the railroad) and its on-ramps and off-ramps to the northeast of the subject site, and what appears to be part of Dinah Shore Drive to the southeast of the subject site.

In the 1984 aerial photograph, the subject site remains vacant, undeveloped land. A golf course and residential development is observed south of the subject site.

Adjacent to the northeast was observed the Agua Caliente Casino and Resort. Los Alamos Road is a paved road.
12-1736

10143.001
- 13 -
In the 2005, 2009, and 2010, aerial photograph, the subject site and adjacent properties appear in the present day configuration.

4.3.2 Historical Topographic Maps
Historical topographic maps were reviewed to obtain information regarding past site uses. Topographic map coverage of the site vicinity is provided by “Indio, California” Quadrangle (1904) and “Edom, California” Quadrangle (1941), “Thousand Palms, California” Quadrangle (1947, and 1958), and “Cathedral City, California” Quadrangle (1958, 1972, and 1981).

References are provided in Appendix A.

Indio 1904: Structures, tanks, or wells were not depicted on the subject site or adjacent properties.

Edom 1941: Structures, tanks, or wells were not depicted on the subject site or adjacent properties. Southern Pacific railroad is observed approximately 900 feet to the northeast of the subject site.

Thousand Palms 1947: Land use changes were not depicted on the subject site or adjacent properties.

Cathedral City 1958: Land use changes were not depicted on the subject site or adjacent properties, with the exception of some residential development to the southeast of the subject site.

Cathedral City 1972: Land use changes were not depicted on the subject site or adjacent properties.

Cathedral City 1981: Land use changes were not depicted on the subject site or adjacent properties.

12-1737

10143.001
- 14 -

4.3.3 Fire Insurance Maps
Fire insurance maps, or Sanborn® maps, are detailed city plans showing building footprints, construction details, use of structure, street address, etc. The maps were designed to assist fire insurance agents in determining the degree of hazard associated with a particular property.

Sanborn Maps were produced from approximately 1867 to the present for commercial, industrial, and residential sections of approximately 12,000 cities and towns in the United States.

According to the report by EDR, there is no Sanborn Fire Insurance Map coverage for the subject site. A copy of this report has been provided in Appendix G.

4.3.4 Historical City Directories
Historical City Directories were reviewed by EDR for information regarding past subject site uses. City directories were reviewed for the following years: 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010. Adjacent properties of concern were not noted during the city directory review. A copy of this report has been provided in Appendix G.

4.3.5 Other Historical Sources
Additional resources were not researched as a part of this assessment.

4.3.6 Summary of Historical Land Use
Based on historical records, land usage is summarized as follows:

Time Period Land Usage Reference
Prior to 1904 Unknown None Available
Approximately 1904 to
present
Vacant,
Undeveloped Land
Site Reconnaissance
Interviews
12-1738

10143.001
- 15 -

5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE

5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions
On February 26, 2013, a representative of Leighton conducted a reconnaissance–level assessment of the subject site. The property reconnaissance consisted of observing and documenting existing conditions of the subject site and nature of the neighboring development within 0.25-miles of the subject site. Photographs of the subject site are presented in Appendix B and their view directions are noted on Figure 2. Items noted during the property reconnaissance are also depicted on Figure 2.

5.2 General Property Setting
The subject site consists of approximately 488 acres of vacant land (Photos 1 through 8, Appendix B).

The subject site currently consists of a vacant land (Photos 1 through 8, Appendix B).

5.3 Exterior and Interior Observations

5.3.1 Hazardous Substances, Drums, and Other Chemical Containers Hazardous or regulated substance containers were not observed on the subject site.

5.3.2 Storage Tanks
Evidence of underground storage tanks (USTs) or aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) (such as vent lines, fill or overfill ports) was not observed on the subject site.

5.3.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
One pad-mounted transformer was observed in the eastern portion of the subject site along Bob Hope Drive (Photo 9, Appendix B). Visual evidence of leakage or staining was not observed near the transformers. It is not known if the transformer contains PCBs; however the transformer is likely owned, operated, and maintained by SCE.
12-1739

10143.001
- 16 -

5.3.4 Waste Disposal
The subject site is unoccupied and there is currently no waste disposal.

5.3.5 Dumping
Soil stockpiles were observed in the western portion of the subject site (Photo 6, Appendix B). The source of the stockpiles may have been generated from nearby grading activities but this could not be confirmed.

Refer to Section 7.0 for sampling activities associated with these stockpiles.

Construction debris, such as concrete blocks and metal gate were observed onsite (Photo 7, Appendix B).

5.3.6 Pits, Ponds, Lagoons, Septic Systems, Wastewater, Drains, Cisterns, and Sumps
Evidence of pits, ponds, lagoons, septic systems, wastewater, drains, sumps, and cisterns was not observed on the subject site.

5.3.7 Pesticide Use
Pesticides were not observed on the subject site.

5.3.8 Staining, Discolored Soils, Corrosion
Staining, discolored soils, or corrosion were not observed on the subject site.

5.3.9 Stressed Vegetation
Stressed vegetation was not observed on the subject site.

5.3.10 Unusual Odors
Unusual odors were not detected on the subject site.

12-1740

10143.001
- 17 -

5.3.11 Onsite Wells
Wells were not observed or reported onsite.

5.3.12 Other Observations
A PVC riser (Photo 7, Appendix B) was observed in the south portion of the subject site. The purpose of this PVC riser could not be determined. 12-1741

10143.001
- 18 -

6.0 INTERVIEWS

Leighton conducted interviews with persons having knowledge of current or past subject site usage. Interviews were conducted either orally or in the form of a written questionnaire. Written responses are included as Appendix C.

6.1 Interview with Owner
On February 8, 2013, Mr. Shaun Murphy, attorney and representative of site owners, completed a Site Contact Interview Form. Mr. Murphy indicated that he is not aware of any environmental concerns associated with the subject site or any adjacent properties.

6.2 Interview with Site/Property Manager
Leighton did not interview the Site or Property Manager as the site is not occupied.

6.3 Interviews with Occupants
Leighton did not interview the occupants as the site is not occupied.

6.4 Interviews with Local Government Officials
Leighton did not interview employees with local government agencies to request information regarding historic and current uses of the subject site with the exception of those noted in Section 4.3.1.

6.5 Interviews with Others
Leighton did not conduct additional interviews for this Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA with the exception of the User interview discussed in Section 3.

12-1742

10143.001
- 19 -

7.0 LIMITED PHASE II ESA

Leighton conducted a Limited Phase II ESA on the property based on the findings of site use identified during this Phase I ESA. Soil stockpiles of unknown sources were identified on the western portion of the subject site. The volume of the soil piles is estimated to be 7,800 cubic yards.

On March 12, 2013, a Leighton representative collected 15 representative soil samples from the five homogeneous soil stockpiles. The 15 soil samples were composited in the laboratory into five composite samples. Soil samples G-1-0.5, G-2-0.5, G-3-0.5, G-4-0.5, and G-5-0.5 were composited into sample C-1. Soil samples G-6-0.5 and G-7-0.5 were composited into sample C-2. Soil samples G-8-0.5, G-9-0.5, and G-10-0.5 were composited into sample C-3. Soil samples G-11-0.5, G-12-0.5, and G-13-0.5 were composited into sample C-4. Soil samples G-14-0.5 and G-15-0.5 were composited into sample C-5 (see Figure 2). Freshly exposed soils were excavated from each sample location by removing the surficial 6- to 12-inches of soil and retrieving the sample from depth. Samples were collected in new laboratory supplied 4-ounce glass jars with Teflon- lined lids. The soil samples were labeled with sample identification, date, and time of collection and placed in an ice-chilled cooler and transported under chain-of-custody procedures to Enviro-Chem, Inc. in Pomona, California for analysis.

Each of the composite soil samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) full carbon chain by EPA Method 8015M, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and PCBs by EPA Method 8081A/8082, Title 22 metals by EPA Method 6010B and 7471A, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260B, and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270C.

Concentrations of TPH, OCPs, PCBs, VOCs, and SVOCs were not reported above the laboratory reporting limits in each of the composite samples analyzed.

Title 22 Metals were detected below their respective EPA Region 9 Regional Screening Levels for residential property (RSL-R) and California Human Health Screening Level for residential property (CHHSL-R) with the exception of arsenic. Arsenic was detected in four of the five composite samples analyzed at concentrations ranging from 0.290 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to 0.627 mg/kg, well below the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) established background level of 12 mg/kg (DTSC, 2008).

Concentrations of chemicals of potential concern were not identified exceeding the RSLs or CHHSLs for unrestricted land use in the soil stockpiles.

A copy of the laboratory report is provided in Appendix H. 12-1743

10143.001
- 20 -

8.0 FINDINGS

Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) performed a Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA of the Rancho Mirage 1200 Property, Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 673-120-023, -024, and -025, Unincorporated Area of Riverside County, California in accordance with Pulte Home Corporation’s authorization.

8.1 Onsite
Historically, the subject site has been vacant, undeveloped land. The subject site consists of approximately 488 acres of vacant land (Photos 1 through 8, Appendix B). Undocumented soil stockpiles were noted onsite in the western portion of the subject site. Sources for the large soil stockpile and soils placed on the southwestern portion of the site are unknown. Soil sampling activities of these soil stockpiles indicated that chemicals of potential concern were not identified.

A PVC riser (Photo 7, Appendix B) was observed in the south portion of the subject site. The purpose of this PVC riser could not be determined.

A search of selected government databases was conducted by Leighton using the EDR Radius Report environmental database report system. Details of the database search along with descriptions of each database researched are provided in the EDR report. The report meets the government records search requirements of ASTM E1527-05 Standard Practice for Environmental Property Assessments: Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Property Assessment Process. The database listings were reviewed within the specified radii established by the ASTM E1527-05. The subject site was listed in the database report as being a part of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation.

8.2 Offsite
Historically, the adjacent properties were vacant, undeveloped land. The subject site is currently bordered by Los Alamos Road, a golf course and single family residential homes to the west; Dinah Shore Drive, a golf course and single family residential homes to the south; Ramon Road and vacant land to the north; and Bob Hope Drive, vacant land and Agua Caliente Casino to the east.

12-1744

10143.001
- 21 -
Surrounding properties with environmental concern were not identified on the EDR report.

8.3 Data Gaps
Data gaps were identified by Leighton:

 Historical records prior to 1909 were not available. It is Leighton’s opinion that this data gap is not significant to identifying recognized environmental conditions on the subject site.
 A response from the RCDEH has not been received as of the date of this report. Leighton will forward any received response altering the conclusions and recommendations of this report in an addendum letter. It is Leighton’s opinion that this data gap is not significant to identifying recognized environmental conditions on the subject site. 12-1745

10143.001
- 22 -

9.0 OPINION

9.1 Onsite
It is Leighton’s opinion that the soil stockpiles are suitable for reuse on the subject site. Construction debris should be disposed of in accordance with regulatory guidelines.

Leighton recommends caution when grading in the area of the PVC riser. If it is determined that the riser leads to an underground storage area or is indicative of hazardous materials or wastes, additional investigation may be recommended in this area.

9.2 Offsite
No offsite recognized environmental conditions were identified that would negatively impact the subject site.
12-1746

10143.001
- 23 -

10.0 CONCLUSIONS

We have performed a Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E1527-05 on of the Rancho Mirage 1200 Property, APNs 673- 120-023, -024, and -025, Rancho Mirage, an Unincorporated Area of Riverside County, California, the property. Exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.5 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property.

In general, observations should be made during future property development for areas of possible contamination such as, but not limited to, the presence of underground facilities, buried debris, waste drums, and tanks, stained soil or odorous soils. Should such materials be encountered, further investigation and analysis may be necessary at that time.
12-1747

10143.001
- 24 -

11.0 DEVIATIONS

Leighton did not deviate from or alter the scope of work, as defined in Section 1.3 of this report. Significant data gaps were not identified that affect the ability of Leighton to identify recognized environmental conditions at the subject site.

12-1748

10143.001
- 25 -

12.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES

Leighton did not perform work outside the scope of work as defined in Section 1.3 and 1.6 of this report.
12-1749

10143.001
- 26 -

13.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS

13.1 Corporate
Leighton is a California corporation, providing geotechnical and environmental consulting services throughout California. We are solely a consulting firm without interests in real property other than our office locations in Southern California.

We provide professional environmental consulting services including application of science and engineering to environmental compliance, hazardous materials/waste assessment and cleanup, and management of hazardous, solid and industrial waste. Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Property Assessments are a part of this practice area and have been conducted by us.

13.2 Individual
The qualifications of the Project Scientist and the other Leighton environmental professionals involved in this Phase I and Limited Phase II ESA meet the Leighton corporate requirements for performing Phase I and Limited Phase II ESAs as specified by ASTM E1527-05. In addition, Ms. Kristin Stout is a Registered Environmental Assessor I.

13.3 Environmental Professional Statement
I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional, as defined by §312.10 of 40 CFR Part 312.

I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject site. I have developed and performed all the appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.

_____________________________
Kristin Stout, REA I
Senior Project Scientist
12-1750

³
0 5,000 10,000
Feet
Figure 1
Scale:

Leighton
Base Map: ESRI Resource Center, 2010
Thematic Info: Leighton
1 " = 5,000 '
Project: 10143.001 Eng/Geol: SIS/RFR
Map Saved as P:\drafting\10143\001\GIS\of_2013-03-07\Figure1.mxd on 3/7/2013 10:09:19 AM Author: Leighton Geomatics (mmurphy)
Date: March, 2013 SITE LOCATION MAP
Pulte Rancho Mirage 1200
Riverside County, California
12-1751

³
0 800 1,600
Feet
!"`$
Map Saved as V:\drafting\10143\001\GIS\of_2013-03-07\Figure2.mxd on 3/14/2013 5:10:52 PM

SITE PLAN
Pulte Rancho Mirage 1200
Riverside County, California
Figure 2
Scale:Date: March, 2013
Leighton
Base Map: Aerials Express, 2008
Author: Leighton Geomatics (mmurphy)
Thematic Info: Leighton
1 " = 800 '
Project: 10143.001 Eng/Geol: KAS
Legend
!(Approximate Sample Location
Approximate Photo Location
and Direction
Approximate Site Boundary
10 G-14-0.5
12-1752

10043.001
A-1

APPENDIX A

References

American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM, 2005, Standard Practice for Environmental Property Assessments: Phase I Environmental Property Assessment Process, Designation E1527-05, dated November 1, 2005.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Online Mapping System, Accessed February 7, 2013, Updated July 23, 2012.

California Department of Health Services, California Indoor Radon Levels Sorted by Zip Code, May 4, 2010.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), 1994, Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin (7), August 3, 1994.

DTSC, 2008, Determination of a Southern California Regional Background Arsenic Concentration in Soil, presented at the Society of Toxicology Conference, March, 2008.

Leighton and Associates, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Rancho Mirage 1200, APN 673-120-023, -024, and -025, Riverside County, California, Project No. 10143.002, March 8, 2013.

Environmental Data Resources, Inc., EDR Environmental LienSearch Report, March 4, 2013.

Environmental Data Resources, Inc., The EDR Historical Aerial Photo Decade Package.

Environmental Data Resources, Inc., FirstSearch Area/Linear Report, dated February 7, 2013.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Human Health Screening Levels, http://oehha.ca.gov/risk/chhsltable.html , September 23, 2010.

State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker Online Database, Accessed February 7, 2013.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Regional Screening Levels, November 2012.

United States Geological Survey Topographic Map, “Indio, California” Quadrangle, 1904.

United States Geological Survey Topographic Map, “Edom, California” Quadrangle, 1941.

United States Geological Survey Topographic Map, “Thousand Palms, California” Quadrangle, 1947 and 1958.

United States Geological Survey Topographic Map, “Cathedral City, California” Quadrangle, 1958, 1972, and 1981.

Water Data Library, Department of Water Resources, Well 04S05E29A001S, dated April 1, 1968.
12-1753

APPENDIX B
12-1754

10143.001
PULTE RANCHO MIRAGE 1200, RANCHO MIRAGE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

SITE PHOTOS
PHOTO NO. 1:

View of the north portion of the site, looking east along Ramon Road, note power poles (no transformers) and wind-blown trash.

PHOTO NO. 2:

View of the north portion of the site, looking west along Ramon Road, note power poles (no transformers).

12-1755

10143.001
PULTE RANCHO MIRAGE 1200, RANCHO MIRAGE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

SITE PHOTOS

PHOTO NO. 3:

View of the western portion of the site, showing site access gates along Los Alamos, about midway along property line.

PHOTO NO. 4:

View of the previous borrows area, northwest quadrant of property, near Los Alamos.

12-1756

10143.001
PULTE RANCHO MIRAGE 1200, RANCHO MIRAGE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

SITE PHOTOS

PHOTO NO. 5:

View of the stock piled construction materials at southwest corner, boulders, concrete, PVC pieces, broken block and brick, some vegetation debris.

PHOTO NO. 6:

View of the large stockpile in the southwestern portion of the subject site.

12-1757

10143.001
PULTE RANCHO MIRAGE 1200, RANCHO MIRAGE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

SITE PHOTOS

PHOTO NO. 7:

View of construction debris along the western portion of the subject site.

PHOTO NO. 8:

View of the PVC riser in the southern portion of the subject site, along Dinah Shore Drive.

12-1758

10143.001
PULTE RANCHO MIRAGE 1200, RANCHO MIRAGE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

SITE PHOTOS

PHOTO NO. 9:

View of the two transformers in the eastern portion of the subject site along Bob Hope Drive.

PHOTO NO. 10:

View of the Southern California Edison below ground vault, along Bob Hope Drive

12-1759

APPENDIX C
12-1760

12-1761

12-1762

12-1763

12-1764

12-1765

APPENDIX D
12-1766

440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, CT 06461
800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
Ramon Rd
Ramon Rd
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270

Inquiry Number: 3514709.7S
March 04, 2013
12-1767

EDR Environmental LienSearch™ Report
The EDR Environmental LienSearch Report provides results from a search of available current land title records for environmental cleanup liens and other activity and use limitations, such as engineering controls and institutional controls.

A network of professional, trained researchers, following established procedures, uses client supplied address information to:
• search for parcel information and/or legal description; • search for ownership information;
• research official land title documents recorded at jurisdictional agencies such as recorders' offices, registries of deeds, county clerks' offices, etc.;
• access a copy of the deed;
• search for environmental encumbering instrument(s) associated with the deed; • provide a copy of any environmental encumbrance(s) based upon a review of key words in the instrument(s) (title, parties involved, and description); and • provide a copy of the deed or cite documents reviewed.

Thank you for your business.

Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.

Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This report was prepared for the use of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., and Discovery Research Solutions, LLC, exclusively. This report is neither a guarantee of title, a commitment to insure, or a policy of title insurance. NO WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WTH THIS REPORT. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) and Discovery Research Solutions, LLC, specifically disclaim the making of any such warranties, including without limitation, merchantability or fitness for a particular use or purpose. The information contained in this report is retrieved as it is recorded from the various agencies that make it available. The total liability is limited to the fee paid for this report.

Copyright 2010 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.

EDR and its logos are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.

12-1768

EDR Environmental LienSearch™ Report

TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION

ADDRESS

Ramon Rd
Ramon Rd
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270

RESEARCH SOURCE

Source 1: Riverside County, California Assessor

Source 2: Riverside County, California Recorder

PROPERTY INFORMATION

Deed 1:

Type of Deed: Quitclaim Deed
Title is vested in: The Prieto Bob Hope Family Limited Partnership, a California limited partnership (as to an undivided ½ interest)
Title received from: Frank Prieto, II
Deed Dated: 05/02/2005
Deed Recorded: 05/13/2005
Instrument: 2005-0381893

Deed 2:

Type of Deed: Grant Deed
Title is vested in: Diana Richards, Trustee of The Frank Prieto Irrevocable Grandchildren’s Trust dated 11/02/2004 Title received from: The Prieto Bob Hope Family Limited Partnership, a California limited partnership (as to an undivided ½ interest)
Deed Dated: 08/01/2012
Deed Recorded: 08/27/2012
Instrument: 2012-0406410

Legal Description: All that certain piece or parcel of land being the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 4 South, Range 5 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, situate and lying in the County of Riverside, State of California.

Legal Current Owner: Diana Richards, Trustee of The Frank Prieto Irrevocable Grandchildren’s Trust dated 11/02/2004, et al

Property Identifiers: 673-120-021

12-1769

EDR Environmental LienSearch™ Report
Deed 3:

Type of Deed: Grant Deed
Title is vested in: The United States of America in Trust for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Title received from: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe Deed Dated: 09/13/2004
Deed Recorded: 09/21/2004
Instrument: 2004-0747586

Legal Description: All that certain piece or parcel of land being a portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 4 South, Range 5 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, situate and lying in the County of Riverside, State of California.

Legal Current Owner: The United States of America in Trust for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

Property Identifiers: 673-120-022

Deed 4:

Legal Description: All that certain piece or parcel of land being the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 4 South, Range 5 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, situate and lying in the County of Riverside, State of California.

Legal Current Owner: The United States of America in Trust for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

Property Identifiers: 673-120-023

Deed 5:

Legal Description: All that certain piece or parcel of land being the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 4 South, Range 5 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, situate and lying in the County of Riverside, State of California.

Legal Current Owner: The United States of America in Trust for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

Property Identifiers: 673-120-024

12-1770

EDR Environmental LienSearch™ Report
Deed 6:

Legal Description: All that certain piece or parcel of land being the South Half of the Northeast Quarter and the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and North Half of the Southwest Quarter and the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, all in Section 24, Township 4 South, Range 5 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, situate and lying in the County of Riverside, State of California.

Legal Current Owner: The United States of America in Trust for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians; United States of America, Bureau of Indian Affairs

Property Identifiers: 673-120-025

12-1771

EDR Environmental LienSearch™ Report

ENVIRONMENTAL LIEN

Environmental Lien: Found Not Found
If found:

1st Party:

2nd Party:

Dated:

Recorded:

Book:

Page:

Docket:

Volume:

Instrument:

Comments:

Miscellaneous:

OTHER ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATIONS (AULs)

Other AUL's: Found Not Found

If found:

1st Party:

2nd Party:

Dated:

Recorded:

Book:

Page:

Docket:

Volume:

Instrument:

Comments:

Miscellaneous:

12-1772

EDR Environmental LienSearch™ Report

DEED EXHIBIT

12-1773

12-1774

12-1775

12-1776

12-1777

12-1778

12-1779

12-1780

12-1781

12-1782

12-1783

APPENDIX E
12-1784

FORM-FSD-KKT
tropeR raeniL/aerA hcraeStsriF
440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, CT 06461
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com

RAMON RD

RAMON RD
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Inquiry Number: 3514709.2s
February 07, 2013
12-1785

Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,

ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.

Copyright 2013 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.

EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. 18 6 0 2 0 10 0- Totals --
11 3 - - - 8 0YOther
0 0 - - - - 0YSpills
0 0 - 0 0 0 0YLocal Land Records 1 0 - - 0 1 0YOther Tanks
0 0 - - - - 0YOther Haz Sites
0 0 - 0 0 0 0YOther SWF
0 0 - 0 0 0 0YUS Brownfields 0 0 - 0 0 0 0YState/Tribal VCP 0 0 - - 0 0 0YState/Tribal Tanks 2 0 - 2 0 0 0YState/Tribal LTANKS 0 0 - 0 0 0 0YState/Tribal SWL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0YState/Tribal CERCLIS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0YState/Tribal NPL 2 2 - - - - 0YERNS
0 0 - 0 0 0 0YFederal IC / EC 1 0 - - 0 1 0YRCRA GEN
0 0 - 0 0 0 0YRCRA TSD
0 0 0 0 0 0 0YRCRA COR ACT
0 0 - 0 0 0 0YNFRAP
0 0 - 0 0 0 0YCERCLIS
0 0 0 0 0 0 0YNPL Delisted
0 0 0 0 0 0 0YNPL
Search Summary Report

TARGET SITE RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
Category Sel Site 1/8 1/4 1/2 > 1/2 ZIP TOTALS
12-1786

12/10/2012 0 0 - 0 0 0 0.500 0US BROWNFIELDSUS Brownfields 12/05/2012 0 0 - 0 0 0 0.500 0VCPState/Tribal VCP 04/12/2012 0 0 - - 0 0 0.250 0INDIAN UST 08/01/2009 0 0 - - 0 0 0.250 0AST 12/17/2012 0 0 - - 0 0 0.250 0USTState/Tribal Tanks 04/12/2012 1 0 - 1 0 0 0.500 0INDIAN LUST 12/17/2012 0 0 - 0 0 0 0.500 0SLIC 12/17/2012 1 0 - 1 0 0 0.500 0LUSTState/Tribal LTANKS 11/19/2012 0 0 - 0 0 0 0.500 0SWF/LFState/Tribal SWL 12/05/2012 1 1 0 0 0 0 1.000 0ENVIROSTORState/Tribal CERCLIS 12/05/2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.000 0RESPONSEState/Tribal NPL 04/02/2012 2 2 - - - - TP 0ERNSERNS 07/18/2012 0 0 - 0 0 0 0.500 0US INST CONTROL 07/18/2012 0 0 - 0 0 0 0.500 0US ENG CONTROLSFederal IC / EC 09/11/2012 0 0 - - 0 0 0.250 0RCRA-CESQG 09/11/2012 1 0 - - 0 1 0.250 0RCRA-SQG 09/11/2012 0 0 - - 0 0 0.250 0RCRA-LQGRCRA GEN 09/11/2012 0 0 - 0 0 0 0.500 0RCRA-TSDFRCRA TSD 08/19/2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.000 0CORRACTSRCRA COR ACT 11/02/2012 0 0 - 0 0 0 0.500 0CERC-NFRAPNFRAP 11/02/2012 0 0 - 0 0 0 0.500 0CERCLISCERCLIS 10/01/2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.000 0Delisted NPLNPL Delisted 10/01/2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.000 0Proposed NPL 10/01/2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.000 0NPLNPL Search Summary Report
TARGET SITE: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
Category Database Update Radius Site 1/8 1/4 1/2 > 1/2 ZIP TOTALS 12-1787

18 6 0 2 0 10 0- Totals --
10/01/2012 0 0 - - - - TP 0PRP 01/18/2012 0 0 - - - - TP 0US AIRS 06/19/2007 0 0 - - - - TP 0WDS 12/31/2005 1 0 0 0 0 1 1.000 0INDIAN RESERV 12/31/2011 10 3 - - 0 7 0.250 0HAZNET 0 0 - - 0 0 0.250 0CUPA Listings 10/01/2012 0 0 - 0 0 0 0.500 0Cortese 04/17/1995 0 0 - - - - TP 0RAATS 10/23/2011 0 0 - - - - TP 0FINDS 10/02/2012 0 0 - - - - TP 0RADINFO 06/21/2011 0 0 - - - - TP 0MLTS 11/01/2010 0 0 - - - - TP 0PADS 07/20/2011 0 0 - - - - TP 0ICIS 12/31/2009 0 0 - - - - TP 0SSTS 04/09/2009 0 0 - - - - TP 0FTTS 12/31/2006 0 0 - - - - TP 0TSCA 12/31/2009 0 0 - - - - TP 0TRIS 09/11/2012 0 0 - - - - TP 0RCRA NonGen / NLROther 03/28/2012 0 0 - - - - TP 0CHMIRS 04/01/2012 0 0 - - - - TP 0HMIRSSpills 12/10/2012 0 0 - 0 0 0 0.500 0DEEDLocal Land Records 06/01/1994 1 0 - - 0 1 0.250 0SWEEPS UST 10/31/1994 0 0 - - 0 0 0.250 0CA FID USTOther Tanks 12/05/2012 0 0 - - 0 0 0.250 0SCH 07/11/2012 0 0 - - - - TP 0US CDLOther Haz Sites 04/01/2000 0 0 - 0 0 0 0.500 0WMUDS/SWATOther SWF Search Summary Report
TARGET SITE: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
Category Database Update Radius Site 1/8 1/4 1/2 > 1/2 ZIP TOTALS 12-1788

0%0%100%1.700 pCi/LBasement
0%0%100%0.450 pCi/LLiving Area - 2nd Floor
0%0%100%0.117 pCi/LLiving Area - 1st Floor
% >20 pCi/L% 4-20 pCi/L% 20 pCi/L% 4-20 pCi/L% = 2 pCi/L and 4 pCi/L.

Federal EPA Radon Zone for RIVERSIDE County: 2
Demographics
Sites:Non-Geocoded:Population:

RADON:
12 6 N/A
Site Location
Degrees (Decimal)Degrees (Min/Sec)UTMs
Longitude:

Latitude:

Elevation:

Easting:

Northing:

Zone:
116.415500 116.4155000 - 116˚ 24’ 55.80’’ 554099.9

33.808200 33.8082000 - 33˚ 48’ 29.52’’ 3740849.5
350 ft. above sea level Zone 11
Site Information Report
Request Date:

Request Name:

Search Type:

Job Number:

Target Site:

FEBRUARY 7, 2013

KRISTIN STOUT
COORD
NA

RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
12-1789

22092270
______________________
> 4 pCi/LNum TestsZipcode
Radon Test Results
State Database: CA Radon
Site Information Report
RADON
12-1790

No sites found for target address
Target Site Summary Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
TOTAL: 18 GEOCODED: 12 NON GEOCODED: 6
Map ID
DB Type
--Status/ID Site Name Address Dist/Dir ElevDiff Page No. 12-1791

--980062
--200521941
--Completed - Case Closed
--9 - Case Closed
11 LUST FLYING J TRAVEL PLAZA 72235 VARNER RD 0.46 NE - 118 18

THOUSAND PALMS, CA
10 INDIAN LUST MISSION HILLS COUNTRY CLUB 34-600 MISSION HILLS DRIV 0.42 WSW - 10 17 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
9 HAZNET WESTIN MISSION HILLS RESORT 71333 DINAH SHORE DRIVE 0.09 SSW - 23 15 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92253
A8 HAZNET SAM’S CYCLE SERVICE 34-044 BOB HOPE DR 0.06 SE - 6 13 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
A7 RCRA-SQG SAMS CYCLE SERVICE 34 044 BOB HOPE DR 0.06 SE - 6 11 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
A6 HAZNET WALGREENS #9641 72027 DINAH SHORE DR 0.05 SE - 8 9 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
5 HAZNET WESTIN MISSION HILLS RESORT 71501 DINAH SHORE DR 0.03 South - 16 7 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
--A
4 SWEEPS UST MACCO CONSTRUCTORS, INC. 34200 RIO DEL SOL 0.02 ESE - 35 6 THOUSAND PALMS, CA 92276
3 HAZNET AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA 32250 BOB HOPE DR 0.02 NE - 93 4 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
2 HAZNET BRAILLE INSTITUTE 70251 RAMON RD 0.02 NW - 34 3 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
1 HAZNET WESTIN MISSION HILLS RESORT/NO 70=705 RAMON RD 0.00 - 97 2 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
Reg INDIAN RESERV AGUA CALIENTE INDIAN RESERVATI 0.00 1 , CA
Sites Summary Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
TOTAL: 18 GEOCODED: 12 NON GEOCODED: 6
Map ID
DB Type
--Status/ID Site Name Address Dist/Dir ElevDiff Page No. 12-1792

ERNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF KADIAN AT THE INTERSECTION OF KA NON GC N/A N/A

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA
ERNS 33276 FOX RD 33276 FOX RD NON GC N/A N/A

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA

HAZNET F & M MISSION HILLS DINAH SHORE DR & RAMON R NON GC N/A N/A RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
--Inactive - Needs Evaluation
--71002592
ENVIROSTOR EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER 3900 BOB HOPE DR NON GC N/A N/A RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
HAZNET FRED SMITH JAGUAR ROLLS ROYCE 41387 HWY 111 NON GC N/A N/A RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
HAZNET POWELLS CARPET BLDG 7677 HWY 111 NON GC N/A N/A
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
Sites Summary Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
TOTAL: 18 GEOCODED: 12 NON GEOCODED: 6
Map ID
DB Type
--Status/ID Site Name Address Dist/Dir ElevDiff Page No. 12-1793

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA

INDIAN RESERV
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:

CIND100430 0.000 0

AGUA CALIENTE INDIAN RESERVATION
, CA

AGUA CALIENTE INDIAN RESE

US USGS
12/31/2005
State: CA
Agency: BIA
Name: Agua Caliente Indian Reservation
Feature: Indian Reservation
INDIAN RESERV:
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 112-1794

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
HAZNET
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:

S107149373 0.000 253 1

WESTIN MISSION HILLS RESORT/NORTH
70=705 RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270

RIVERSIDE
CA California Environmental Protection Agency
12/31/2011
Facility County: Riverside
Tons: 0.22
Disposal Method: Transfer Station
Waste Category: Unspecified organic liquid mixture
TSD County: Riverside
TSD EPA ID: CAD982444481
Gen County: Riverside
Mailing City,St,Zip: RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
Mailing Address: 71333 DINAH SHORE DR
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 7607702110
Contact: SUREN RASANAYAGAM
Gepaid: CAL000274408
Year: 2003
HAZNET:
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 212-1795

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
HAZNET
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:

S109929189 0.017 NW 316 2

BRAILLE INSTITUTE
70251 RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270

RIVERSIDE
CA California Environmental Protection Agency
12/31/2011
Facility County: Riverside
Tons: 2.1
(H010-H129) Or (H131-H135)
Disposal Method: Storage, Bulking, And/Or Transfer Off Site--No Treatment/Reovery Waste Category: Aqueous solution with total organic residues less than 10 percent TSD County: Los Angeles
TSD EPA ID: CAD981696420
Gen County: Riverside
Mailing City,St,Zip: RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 922705202
Mailing Address: 70251 RAMON RD
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 7603211111
Contact: BECKY GRAVES
Gepaid: CAC002630009
Year: 2008
HAZNET:
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 312-1796

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
HAZNET
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:

S108196941 0.019 NE 257 3

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS DBA AGUA CALIENTE 32250 BOB HOPE DR
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270

RIVERSIDE
CA California Environmental Protection Agency
12/31/2011
- Continued on next page -
Disposal Method: Fuel Blending Prior To Energy Recovery At Another Site Waste Category: Unspecified sludge waste
TSD County: Not reported
TSD EPA ID: TXD077603371
Gen County: Not reported
Mailing City,St,Zip: RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 922700000
Mailing Address: 32250 BOB HOPE DR
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 7602022690
Contact: JAKE BRITTON
Gepaid: CAL000262398
Year: 2011
Facility County: Riverside
Tons: Not reported
Disposal Method: Not reported
Waste Category: Other organic solids
TSD County: Not reported
TSD EPA ID: NVT330010000
Gen County: Not reported
Mailing City,St,Zip: RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 922700000
Mailing Address: 32250 BOB HOPE DR
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 7602022690
Contact: JAKE BRITTON
Gepaid: CAL000262398
Year: 2011
Facility County: Riverside
Tons: 1.375
Organics Recovery Ect
Disposal Method: Other Recovery Of Reclamation For Reuse Including Acid Regeneration, Waste Category: Latex waste
TSD County: Not reported
TSD EPA ID: NVT330010000
Gen County: Not reported
Mailing City,St,Zip: RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 922700000
Mailing Address: 32250 BOB HOPE DR
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 7602022690
Contact: JAKE BRITTON
Gepaid: CAL000262398
Year: 2011
HAZNET:
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 412-1797

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
HAZNET
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:

S108196941 0.019 NE 257 3

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS DBA AGUA CALIENTE 32250 BOB HOPE DR
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270

RIVERSIDE
CA California Environmental Protection Agency
12/31/2011
21 additional CA_HAZNET: record(s) in the EDR Site Report.

Click this hyperlink while viewing on your computer to access Facility County: Riverside
Tons: 0.0375
Disposal Method: Fuel Blending Prior To Energy Recovery At Another Site Waste Category: Unspecified sludge waste
TSD County: Not reported
TSD EPA ID: TXD077603371
Gen County: Not reported
Mailing City,St,Zip: RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 922700000
Mailing Address: 32250 BOB HOPE DR
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 7602022690
Contact: JAKE BRITTON
Gepaid: CAL000262398
Year: 2010
Facility County: Riverside
Tons: 0.1375
Organics Recovery Ect
Disposal Method: Other Recovery Of Reclamation For Reuse Including Acid Regeneration, metals)
Waste Category: Organic liquids with metals (Alkaline solution (pH >= 12.5) with TSD County: Not reported
TSD EPA ID: NVT330010000
Gen County: Not reported
Mailing City,St,Zip: RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 922700000
Mailing Address: 32250 BOB HOPE DR
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 7602022690
Contact: JAKE BRITTON
Gepaid: CAL000262398
Year: 2011
Facility County: Riverside
Tons: 0.0875
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 512-1798

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA

SWEEPS UST
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:

U001574240 0.019 ESE 315 4
MACCO CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
34200 RIO DEL SOL
THOUSAND PALMS, CA 92276

RIVERSIDE
CA State Water Resources Control Board
06/01/1994
ID/Status: A
Number Of Tanks: Not reported
Content: REG UNLEADED
Stg: P
Tank Use: M.V. FUEL
Capacity: 1000
Actv Date: 11-16-92
Swrcb Tank Id: 33-000-034794-000002
Owner Tank Id: 000667
Tank Status: A
Created Date: 02-29-88
Action Date: 11-16-92
Referral Date: 11-16-92
Board Of Equalization: 44-007681
Number: 1
Comp Number: 34794
Status: Active
Number Of Tanks: 2
Content: REG UNLEADED
Stg: P
Tank Use: M.V. FUEL
Capacity: 1000
Actv Date: 11-16-92
Swrcb Tank Id: 33-000-034794-000001
Owner Tank Id: 000667
Tank Status: A
Created Date: 02-29-88
Action Date: 11-16-92
Referral Date: 11-16-92
Board Of Equalization: 44-007681
Number: 1
Comp Number: 34794
Status: Active
SWEEPS UST:
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 612-1799

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
HAZNET
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:

S106090774 0.025 South 334 5

WESTIN MISSION HILLS RESORT
71501 DINAH SHORE DR
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270

RIVERSIDE
CA California Environmental Protection Agency
12/31/2011
- Continued on next page -
Tons: 0.39
Disposal Method: Transfer Station
Waste Category: Aqueous solution with total organic residues less than 10 percent TSD County: Riverside
TSD EPA ID: CAT000613927
Gen County: Riverside
Mailing City,St,Zip: RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 922701501
Mailing Address: 71333 DINAH SHORE DR
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 7603285955
Contact: SUREN RASANAYAGAM/CONTROLLER
Gepaid: CAL000042183
Year: 2003
Facility County: Not reported
Tons: 0.17
Disposal Method: Transfer Station
Waste Category: Aqueous solution with total organic residues less than 10 percent TSD County: San Bernardino
TSD EPA ID: CAT000613927
Gen County: Riverside
Mailing City,St,Zip: RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 922701501
Mailing Address: 71333 DINAH SHORE DR
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 7603285955
Contact: SUREN CONTROLLER
Gepaid: CAL000042183
Year: 2004
Facility County: Riverside
Tons: 0.15
Disposal Method: Fuel Blending Prior To Energy Recovery At Another Site Waste Category: Other organic solids
TSD County: Not reported
TSD EPA ID: TXD077603371
Gen County: Not reported
Mailing City,St,Zip: RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 922701501
Mailing Address: 71333 DINAH SHORE DR
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 7603285955
Contact: SUREN CONTROLLER
Gepaid: CAL000042183
Year: 2011
HAZNET:
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 712-1800

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
HAZNET
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:

S106090774 0.025 South 334 5

WESTIN MISSION HILLS RESORT
71501 DINAH SHORE DR
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270

RIVERSIDE
CA California Environmental Protection Agency
12/31/2011
Facility County: Not reported
Tons: 0.13
Disposal Method: Transfer Station
Waste Category: Aqueous solution with total organic residues less than 10 percent TSD County: San Bernardino
TSD EPA ID: Not reported
Gen County: Riverside
Mailing City,St,Zip: RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 922701501
Mailing Address: 71333 DINAH SHORE DR
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: --
Contact: --
Gepaid: CAL000042183
Year: 2002
Facility County: Riverside
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 812-1801

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
HAZNET
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:

S109935268 0.050 SE 342 A6
WALGREENS #9641
72027 DINAH SHORE DR
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
CA California Environmental Protection Agency
12/31/2011
- Continued on next page -
Waste Category: Unspecified aqueous solution
TSD County: Not reported
TSD EPA ID: INR000110197
Gen County: Not reported
Mailing City,St,Zip: DEERFIELD, IL 600150000
Mailing Address: 104 WILMOT RD MS 1434
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 8473152602
Contact: ANDREW MARKS
Gepaid: CAL000327758
Year: 2011
Facility County: Riverside
Tons: 0.006
Blending)
Disposal Method: Energy Recovery At This Site--Use As Fuel(Includes On-Site Fuel Waste Category: Unspecified solvent mixture
TSD County: Not reported
TSD EPA ID: OHD083377010
Gen County: Not reported
Mailing City,St,Zip: DEERFIELD, IL 600150000
Mailing Address: 104 WILMOT RD MS 1434
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 8473152602
Contact: ANDREW MARKS
Gepaid: CAL000327758
Year: 2011
Facility County: Riverside
Tons: 0.006
Blending)
Disposal Method: Energy Recovery At This Site--Use As Fuel(Includes On-Site Fuel Waste Category: Unspecified solvent mixture
TSD County: Not reported
TSD EPA ID: OHD083377010
Gen County: Not reported
Mailing City,St,Zip: DEERFIELD, IL 600150000
Mailing Address: 104 WILMOT RD MS 1434
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 8473152602
Contact: ANDREW MARKS
Gepaid: CAL000327758
Year: 2011
HAZNET:
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 912-1802

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
HAZNET
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:

S109935268 0.050 SE 342 A6
WALGREENS #9641
72027 DINAH SHORE DR
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
CA California Environmental Protection Agency
12/31/2011
19 additional CA_HAZNET: record(s) in the EDR Site Report.

Click this hyperlink while viewing on your computer to access Facility County: Riverside
Tons: 0.0025
Disposal Method: Not reported
Waste Category: Pharmaceutical waste
TSD County: Not reported
TSD EPA ID: INR000110197
Gen County: Not reported
Mailing City,St,Zip: DEERFIELD, IL 600150000
Mailing Address: 104 WILMOT RD MS 1434
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 8473152602
Contact: ANDREW MARKS
Gepaid: CAL000327758
Year: 2011
Facility County: Riverside
Tons: 0.0255
Disposal Method: Not reported
Waste Category: Unspecified aqueous solution
TSD County: Not reported
TSD EPA ID: INR000110197
Gen County: Not reported
Mailing City,St,Zip: DEERFIELD, IL 600150000
Mailing Address: 104 WILMOT RD MS 1434
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 8473152602
Contact: ANDREW MARKS
Gepaid: CAL000327758
Year: 2011
Facility County: Riverside
Tons: 0.0255
Disposal Method: Not reported
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 1012-1803

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA

RCRA-SQG
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:
1004677261 0.056 SE 344 A7

SAMS CYCLE SERVICE
34 044 BOB HOPE DR
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
US Environmental Protection Agency
09/11/2012
- Continued on next page -
User oil refiner: No
Used oil processor: No
Used oil fuel burner: No
Furnace exemption: No
On-site burner exemption: No
Underground injection activity: No
Treater, storer or disposer of HW: No
Transporter of hazardous waste: No
Recycler of hazardous waste: No
Mixed waste (haz. and radioactive): No
U.S. importer of hazardous waste: No
Handler Activities Summary:

Owner/Op end date: Not reported
Owner/Op start date: Not reported
Owner/Operator Type: Owner
Legal status: Private
Owner/operator telephone: (760) 343-3131
Owner/operator country: Not reported
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
Owner/operator address: 34 044 BOB HOPE DR
Owner/operator name: SAM PLONSKI
Owner/Operator Summary:
hazardous waste at any time
waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month and accumulates less than 6000 kg of Description: Handler: generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardous Classification: Small Small Quantity Generator
EPA Region: 09
Contact email: Not reported
Contact telephone: (760) 343-3131
Contact country: US
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
Contact address: 34 044 BOB HOPE DR
Contact: SAM PLONSKI
EPA ID: CAR000095158
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
Facility address: 34 044 BOB HOPE DR
Facility name: SAMS CYCLE SERVICE
Date form received by agency: 04/18/2001
RCRA-SQG:
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 1112-1804

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA

RCRA-SQG
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:
1004677261 0.056 SE 344 A7

SAMS CYCLE SERVICE
34 044 BOB HOPE DR
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
US Environmental Protection Agency
09/11/2012
Violation Status: No violations found
Waste name: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
Waste code: D039
Waste name: Not Defined
Waste code: D000
Hazardous Waste Summary:

Used oil transporter: No
Used oil transfer facility: No
Used oil Specification marketer: No
Used oil fuel marketer to burner: No
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 1212-1805

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
HAZNET
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:

S102815891 0.056 SE 344 A8
SAM’S CYCLE SERVICE
34-044 BOB HOPE DR
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270

RIVERSIDE
CA California Environmental Protection Agency
12/31/2011
- Continued on next page -
Disposal Method: Recycler
Waste Category: Aqueous solution with total organic residues less than 10 percent TSD County: Los Angeles
TSD EPA ID: CAD050099696
Gen County: Riverside
Mailing City,St,Zip: RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 922701731
Mailing Address: 34044 BOB HOPE DR
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 7603242309
Contact: SAM PLONSKI
Gepaid: CAL000082083
Year: 1995
Facility County: Riverside
Tons: .2085
Disposal Method: Transfer Station
Waste Category: Aqueous solution with total organic residues less than 10 percent TSD County: Los Angeles
TSD EPA ID: CAD981696420
Gen County: Riverside
Mailing City,St,Zip: RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 922701731
Mailing Address: 34044 BOB HOPE DR
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 7603242309
Contact: SAM PLONSKI
Gepaid: CAL000082083
Year: 1998
Facility County: Riverside
Tons: 0.0099
(H010-H129) Or (H131-H135)
Disposal Method: Storage, Bulking, And/Or Transfer Off Site--No Treatment/Reovery Waste Category: Off-specification, aged or surplus organics TSD County: Los Angeles
TSD EPA ID: CAD028409019
Gen County: Riverside
Mailing City,St,Zip: RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 922701731
Mailing Address: 34044 BOB HOPE DR
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 7603433131
Contact: SAM PLONSKI
Gepaid: CAL000082083
Year: 2009
HAZNET:
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 1312-1806

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
HAZNET
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:

S102815891 0.056 SE 344 A8
SAM’S CYCLE SERVICE
34-044 BOB HOPE DR
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270

RIVERSIDE
CA California Environmental Protection Agency
12/31/2011
Facility County: Riverside
Tons: .1668
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 1412-1807

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
HAZNET
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:

S102820592 0.092 SSW 327 9

WESTIN MISSION HILLS RESORT
71333 DINAH SHORE DRIVE
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92253

RIVERSIDE
CA California Environmental Protection Agency
12/31/2011
- Continued on next page -
Disposal Method: Fuel Blending Prior To Energy Recovery At Another Site Waste Category: Unspecified solvent mixture
TSD County: Not reported
TSD EPA ID: TXD077603371
Gen County: Not reported
Mailing City,St,Zip: RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 922701501
Mailing Address: 71333 DINAH SHORE DR
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 7607702110
Contact: KELLY LADNER
Gepaid: CAL000338521
Year: 2011
Facility County: Riverside
Tons: 0.0375
Organics Recovery Ect
Disposal Method: Other Recovery Of Reclamation For Reuse Including Acid Regeneration, Waste Category: Unspecified oil-containing waste
TSD County: Not reported
TSD EPA ID: NVT330010000
Gen County: Not reported
Mailing City,St,Zip: RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 922701501
Mailing Address: 71333 DINAH SHORE DR
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 7607702110
Contact: KELLY LADNER
Gepaid: CAL000338521
Year: 2011
Facility County: Riverside
Tons: 0.25
Disposal Method: Fuel Blending Prior To Energy Recovery At Another Site Waste Category: Oxygenated solvents (acetone, butanol, ethyl acetate, etc.) TSD County: Not reported
TSD EPA ID: TXD077603371
Gen County: Not reported
Mailing City,St,Zip: RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 922701501
Mailing Address: 71333 DINAH SHORE DR
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 7607702110
Contact: KELLY LADNER
Gepaid: CAL000338521
Year: 2011
HAZNET:
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 1512-1808

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
HAZNET
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:

S102820592 0.092 SSW 327 9

WESTIN MISSION HILLS RESORT
71333 DINAH SHORE DRIVE
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92253

RIVERSIDE
CA California Environmental Protection Agency
12/31/2011
17 additional CA_HAZNET: record(s) in the EDR Site Report.

Click this hyperlink while viewing on your computer to access Facility County: Not reported
Tons: 0.88
Disposal Method: Recycler
Waste Category: Waste oil and mixed oil
TSD County: Los Angeles
TSD EPA ID: CAD099452708
Gen County: Riverside
Mailing City,St,Zip: RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 922701501
Mailing Address: 71333 DINAH SHORE DR
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 7607702110
Contact: SUREN CONTROLLER
Gepaid: CAL000117283
Year: 2004
Facility County: Not reported
Tons: 0.88
Disposal Method: Recycler
Waste Category: Waste oil and mixed oil
TSD County: Los Angeles
TSD EPA ID: CAD099452708
Gen County: Riverside
Mailing City,St,Zip: RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 922701501
Mailing Address: 71333 DINAH SHORE DR
Mailing Name: Not reported
Telephone: 7607702110
Contact: SUREN CONTROLLER
Gepaid: CAL000117283
Year: 2005
Facility County: Riverside
Tons: 0.725
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 1612-1809

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA

INDIAN LUST
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:
1012054007 0.422 WSW 340 10

MISSION HILLS COUNTRY CLUB
34-600 MISSION HILLS DRIVE
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
US EPA Region 1
04/12/2012
LUST Status Date: 6/4/2004
LUST Status: Site Investigation Completed
Tribe Name: AGUA CALIENTE
Alt Facility ID: AGUA016
Region: 9
Facility ID: 808
LUST Status Date: 6/4/2004
LUST Status: Site Assessment Stage
Tribe Name: AGUA CALIENTE
Alt Facility ID: AGUA016
Region: 9
Facility ID: 808
LUST Status Date: 9/3/2009
LUST Status: CLEANUP COMPLETED
Tribe Name: AGUA CALIENTE
Alt Facility ID: AGUA016
Region: 9
Facility ID: 808
INDIAN LUST:
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 1712-1810

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
LUST
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:

S103670421 0.461 NE 232 11

FLYING J TRAVEL PLAZA
72235 VARNER RD

Phone Number: Not reported
Email: [email protected]
City: PALM DESERT
Address: 73-720 FRED WARING DR. STE 100
Organization Name: COLORADO RIVER BASIN RWQCB (REGION 7) Contact Name: KAI DUNN
Contact Type: Regional Board Caseworker
Global Id: T0606592603
Phone Number: 7608637570
Email: [email protected]
City: Indio
Address: 47950 Arabia Street, Suite A
Organization Name: RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOP
Contact Name: LINDA SHURLOW
Contact Type: Local Agency Caseworker
Global Id: T0606592603
LUST:

Click here to access the California GeoTracker records for this facility:

Site History: See case closure summary and site file for cleanup details.

Potential Contaminants of Concern: Diesel, Gasoline
Potential Media Affect: Soil
File Location: Local Agency Warehouse
LOC Case Number: 200521941
RB Case Number: Not reported
Local Agency: RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOP
Case Worker: LS
Lead Agency: RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOP
Status Date: 04/10/2009
Status: Completed - Case Closed
Case Type: LUST Cleanup Site
Longitude: -116.403300762177
Latitude: 33.8180908453131
Global Id: T0606592603
Region: STATE
LUST:
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 1812-1811

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
LUST
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:

S103670421 0.461 NE 232 11

FLYING J TRAVEL PLAZA
72235 VARNER RD

THOUSAND PALMS, CA
CA State Water Resources Control Board
12/17/2012
- Continued on next page -
ID/Status: 9 - Case Closed
ID/Status: Completed - Case Closed
ID/Status: 200521941
ID/Status: 980062
Action: Staff Letter - #RCDEH112508
Date: 11/25/2008
Action Type: ENFORCEMENT
Global Id: T0606592603
Action: Other Workplan
Date: 11/30/2007
Action Type: RESPONSE
Global Id: T0606592603
Action: Staff Letter - #120607
Date: 12/06/2007
Action Type: ENFORCEMENT
Global Id: T0606592603
Action: Leak Discovery
Date: 01/01/1950
Action Type: Other
Global Id: T0606592603
Action: Staff Letter - #100507
Date: 10/05/2007
Action Type: ENFORCEMENT
Global Id: T0606592603
Action: Staff Letter - #040507
Date: 04/05/2007
Action Type: ENFORCEMENT
Global Id: T0606592603
Action: Technical Correspondence / Assistance / Other - #081607 Date: 08/21/2007
Action Type: ENFORCEMENT
Global Id: T0606592603
Action: Leak Stopped
Date: 01/01/1950
Action Type: Other
Global Id: T0606592603
Action: Other Report / Document
Date: 03/06/2008
Action Type: RESPONSE
Global Id: T0606592603
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 1912-1812

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
LUST
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:

S103670421 0.461 NE 232 11

FLYING J TRAVEL PLAZA
72235 VARNER RD

THOUSAND PALMS, CA
CA State Water Resources Control Board
12/17/2012
- Continued on next page -
ID/Status: 9 - Case Closed
ID/Status: Completed - Case Closed
ID/Status: 200521941
ID/Status: 980062
Phone Number: Not reported
Email: [email protected]
City: PALM DESERT
Address: 73720 FRED WARING DRIVE SUITE #100
Organization Name: COLORADO RIVER BASIN RWQCB (REGION 7) Contact Name: Phan Le
Contact Type: Regional Board Caseworker
Global Id: T0606501103
LUST:

Click here to access the California GeoTracker records for this facility:

Site History: Not reported
Potential Contaminants of Concern: Gasoline
Potential Media Affect: Soil
File Location: Not reported
LOC Case Number: 980062
RB Case Number: 7T2276008
Local Agency: RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOP
Case Worker: RIV
Lead Agency: RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOP
Status Date: 10/10/2003
Status: Completed - Case Closed
Case Type: LUST Cleanup Site
Longitude: -116.404185
Latitude: 33.817941
Global Id: T0606501103
Region: STATE
Action: Closure/No Further Action Letter - #RCDEH Closure Date: 04/10/2009
Action Type: ENFORCEMENT
Global Id: T0606592603
Action: Leak Reported
Date: 01/01/1950
Action Type: Other
Global Id: T0606592603
Action: Well Destruction Report
Date: 02/17/2009
Action Type: RESPONSE
Global Id: T0606592603
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 2012-1813

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
LUST
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:

S103670421 0.461 NE 232 11

FLYING J TRAVEL PLAZA
72235 VARNER RD

THOUSAND PALMS, CA
CA State Water Resources Control Board
12/17/2012
- Continued on next page -
ID/Status: 9 - Case Closed
ID/Status: Completed - Case Closed
ID/Status: 200521941
ID/Status: 980062
Action: Leak Reported
Date: 01/01/1950
Action Type: Other
Global Id: T0606501103
Action: File review - #RCDEH Upload Site File 3/3/2011 Date: 10/09/2003
Action Type: ENFORCEMENT
Global Id: T0606501103
Action: Technical Correspondence / Assistance / Other Date: 10/09/2003
Action Type: ENFORCEMENT
Global Id: T0606501103
Action: Leak Discovery
Date: 01/01/1950
Action Type: Other
Global Id: T0606501103
Action: Leak Stopped
Date: 01/01/1950
Action Type: Other
Global Id: T0606501103
Action: Closure/No Further Action Letter
Date: 10/10/2003
Action Type: ENFORCEMENT
Global Id: T0606501103
Action: Technical Correspondence / Assistance / Other Date: 03/17/2003
Action Type: ENFORCEMENT
Global Id: T0606501103
LUST:

Phone Number: 9519558982
Email: Not reported
City: RIVERSIDE
Address: PO Box 1280
Organization Name: RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOP
Contact Name: Riverside County LOP Closed Cases
Contact Type: Local Agency Caseworker
Global Id: T0606501103
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 2112-1814

Site Detail Report
Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
LUST
EDR ID:DIST/DIR:ELEVATION:MAP ID:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

SOURCE:

Rev:

S103670421 0.461 NE 232 11

FLYING J TRAVEL PLAZA
72235 VARNER RD

THOUSAND PALMS, CA
CA State Water Resources Control Board
12/17/2012
ID/Status: 9 - Case Closed
ID/Status: Completed - Case Closed
ID/Status: 200521941
ID/Status: 980062
Facility Status: closed/action completed
Case Type: Soil only
Site Closed: Yes
Employee: Shurlow-LOP
Facility ID: 980062
Region: RIVERSIDE
Facility Status: closed/action completed
Case Type: Soil only
Site Closed: Yes
Employee: Shurlow-LOP
Facility ID: 200521941
Region: RIVERSIDE
RIVERSIDE CO. LUST:

Case Worker: YO
Lead Agency: Local Agency
Global ID: T0606501103
ID: 768
Substance: Gasoline - Automotive
Case Num: 7T2276008
Status: 9 - Case Closed
Region: 7
LUST REG 7:
3514709.2s Site Details Page - 2212-1815

NPL: NPL National Priorities List (Superfund). The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, EDR provides polygon coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA’s Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) and regional EPA offices. NPL - National Priority List Proposed NPL - Proposed National Priority List Sites.

NPL Delisted: DELISTED NPL The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. DELISTED NPL - National Priority List Deletions CERCLIS: CERCLIS CERCLIS contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities, private companies and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List (NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. CERCLIS - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
NFRAP: CERCLIS-NFRAP Archived sites are sites that have been removed and archived from the inventory of CERCLIS sites. Archived status indicates that, to the best of EPA’s knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and that EPA has determined no further steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL), unless information indicates this decision was not appropriate or other considerations require a recommendation for listing at a later time. This decision does not necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that, based upon available information, the location is not judged to be a potential NPL site. CERCLIS-NFRAP - CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned RCRA COR ACT: CORRACTS CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity. CORRACTS - Corrective Action Report
RCRA TSD: RCRA-TSDF RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Transporters are individuals or entities that move hazardous waste from the generator offsite to a facility that can recycle, treat, store, or dispose of the waste. TSDFs treat, store, or dispose of the waste. RCRA-TSDF - RCRA - Treatment, Storage and Disposal
RCRA GEN: RCRA-LQG RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Large quantity generators (LQGs) generate over 1,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. RCRA-LQG - RCRA - Large Quantity Generators RCRA-SQG - RCRA - Small Quantity Generators. RCRA-CESQG - RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators.

Federal IC / EC: US ENG CONTROLS A listing of sites with engineering controls in place. Engineering controls include various forms of caps, building foundations, liners, and treatment methods to create pathway elimination for regulated substances to enter environmental media or effect human health. US ENG CONTROLS - Engineering Controls Sites List US INST CONTROL - Sites with Institutional Controls.

ERNS: ERNS Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous substances. ERNS - Emergency Response Notification System Database Descriptions
12-1816

State/Tribal NPL: RESPONSE Identifies confirmed release sites where DTSC is involved in remediation, either in a lead or oversight capacity. These confirmed release sites are generally high-priority and high potential risk.

RESPONSE - State Response Sites
State/Tribal CERCLIS: ENVIROSTOR The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program’s (SMBRP’s) EnviroStor database identifes sites that have known contamination or sites for which there may be reasons to investigate further. The database includes the following site types: Federal Superfund sites (National Priorities List (NPL)); State Response, including Military Facilities and State Superfund; Voluntary Cleanup; and School sites. EnviroStor provides similar information to the information that was available in CalSites, and provides additional site information, including, but not limited to, identification of formerly-contaminated properties that have been released for reuse, properties where environmental deed restrictions have been recorded to prevent inappropriate land uses, and risk characterization information that is used to assess potential impacts to public health and the environment at contaminated sites. ENVIROSTOR - EnviroStor Database State/Tribal SWL: SWF/LF (SWIS) Active, Closed and Inactive Landfills. SWF/LF records typically contain an inve ntory of solid waste disposal facilities or landfills. These may be active or i nactive facilities or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal sites. SWF/LF (SWIS) - Solid Waste Information System
State/Tribal LTANKS: LUST SONOMA CO. LUST - Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites. LUST REG 9 - Leaking Underground Storage Tank Report. LUST REG 3 - Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database. SAN MATEO CO. LUST - Fuel Leak List.

LUST REG 6L - Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing. RIVERSIDE CO. LUST - Listing of Underground Tank Cleanup Sites. LUST REG 6V - Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing. LUST REG 1 - Active Toxic Site Investigation.

VENTURA CO. LUST - Listing of Underground Tank Cleanup Sites. SOLANO CO. LUST - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks.

LUST SANTA CLARA - LOP Listing. LUST REG 8 - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. NAPA CO. LUST - Sites With Reported Contamination. LUST REG 7 - Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing. LUST REG 5 - Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database. LUST REG 4 - Underground Storage Tank Leak List. LUST REG 2 - Fuel Leak List. SAN FRANCISCO CO.

LUST - Local Oversite Facilities. ORANGE CO. LUST - List of Underground Storage Tank Cleanups. A listing of leaking underground storage tank sites located in San Francisco county. ORANGE CO. LUST - Local Oversite Facilities SLIC - Statewide SLIC Cases. SLIC REG 1 - Active Toxic Site Investigations. SLIC REG 2 - Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing. SLIC REG 3 - Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing. SLIC REG 4 - Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing. SLIC REG 5 - Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing. SLIC REG 6V - Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing. SLIC REG 6L - SLIC Sites. SLIC REG 7 - SLIC List. SLIC REG 8 - Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing. Sacramento Co. CS - Toxic Site Clean-Up List. SLIC REG 9 - Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing. SAN DIEGO CO. SAM - Environmental Case Listing. INDIAN LUST R6 - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land. INDIAN LUST R10 - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land. INDIAN LUST R8 - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land. INDIAN LUST R4 - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land. INDIAN LUST R7 - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land. INDIAN LUST R9 - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land. INDIAN LUST R1 - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land.

State/Tribal Tanks: UST Active UST facilities gathered from the local regulatory agencies UST - Active UST Facilities AST - Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Facilities. INDIAN UST R8 - Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land.

INDIAN UST R6 - Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land. INDIAN UST R5 - Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land. INDIAN UST R4 - Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land. INDIAN UST R9 - Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land. INDIAN UST R7 - Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land. INDIAN UST R10 - Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land. INDIAN UST R1 - Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land.

State/Tribal VCP: VCP Contains low threat level properties with either confirmed or unconfirmed releases and the project proponents have request that DTSC oversee investigation and/or cleanup activities and have agreed to provide coverage for DTSC’s costs. VCP - Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties Database Descriptions
12-1817

US Brownfields: US BROWNFIELDS Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.

Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties takes development pressures off of undeveloped, open land, and both improves and protects the environment. Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) stores information reported by EPA Brownfields grant recipients on brownfields properties assessed or cleaned up with grant funding as well as information on Targeted Brownfields Assessments performed by EPA Regions. A listing of ACRES Brownfield sites is obtained from Cleanups in My Community. Cleanups in My Community provides information on Brownfields properties for which information is reported back to EPA, as well as areas served by Brownfields grant programs. US BROWNFIELDS - A Listing of Brownfields Sites Other SWF: SAN DIEGO CO. LF VENTURA CO. LF - Inventory of Illegal Abandoned and Inactive Sites. CA LA LF - City of Los Angeles Landfills. LOS ANGELES CO. LF - List of Solid Waste Facilities. San Diego County Solid Waste Facilities.

LOS ANGELES CO. LF - Solid Waste Facilities WMUDS/SWAT - Waste Management Unit Database.

Other Haz Sites: US CDL A listing of clandestine drug lab locations. The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department") provides this web site as a public service. It contains addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites. In most cases, the source of the entries is not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry and does not guarantee its accuracy. Members of the public must verify the accuracy of all entries by, for example, contacting local law enforcement and local health departments. US CDL - Clandestine Drug Labs SCH - School Property Evaluation Program. SAN DIEGO CO. HMMD - Hazardous Materials Management Division Database.

Other Tanks: CA FID UST The Facility Inventory Database (FID) contains a historical listing of active and inactive underground storage tank locations from the State Water Resource Control Board. Refer to local/county source for current data. CA FID UST - Facility Inventory Database ALAMEDA CO. UST - Underground Tanks. KERN CO. UST - Underground Storage Tank Sites & Tank Listing. MARIN CO. UST - Underground Storage Tank Sites. NAPA CO. UST - Closed and Operating Underground Storage Tank Sites. ORANGE CO. UST - List of Underground Storage Tank Facilities. RIVERSIDE CO. UST - Underground Storage Tank Tank List. SAN FRANCISCO CO. UST - Underground Storage Tank Information. SOLANO CO.

UST - Underground Storage Tanks. SUTTER CO. UST - Underground Storage Tanks. VENTURA CO. UST - Underground Tank Closed Sites List. YOLO CO. UST - Underground Storage Tank Comprehensive Facility Report. EL SEGUNDO UST - City of El Segundo Underground Storage Tank. LONG BEACH UST - City of Long Beach Underground Storage Tank. TORRANCE UST - City of Torrance Underground Storage Tank. UST SAN JOAQUIN - San Joaquin Co. UST. UST MENDOCINO - Mendocino County UST Database. SWEEPS UST - SWEEPS UST Listing.

Local Land Records: DEED Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Facility Sites with Deed Restrictions & Hazardous Waste Management Program Facility Sites with Deed / Land Use Restriction. The DTSC Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program (SMBRP) list includes sites cleaned up under the program’s oversight and generally does not include current or former hazardous waste facilities that required a hazardous waste facility permit.

The list represents deed restrictions that are active. Some sites have multiple deed restrictions. The DTSC Hazardous Waste Management Program (HWMP) has developed a list of current or former hazardous waste facilities that have a recorded land use restriction at the local county recorder’s office. The land use restrictions on this list were required by the DTSC HWMP as a result of the presence of hazardous substances that remain on site after the facility (or part of the facility) has been closed or cleaned up. The types of land use restriction include deed notice, deed restriction, or a land use restriction that binds current and future owners. DEED - Deed Restriction Listing
Spills: HMIRS Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT. HMIRS - Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System CHMIRS - California Hazardous Material Incident Report System. Orange Co. Industrial Site - List of Industrial Site Cleanups.

Other: RCRA NonGen / NLR RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Non-Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste. RCRA NonGen / NLR - RCRA - Non Generators TRIS - Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System.

TSCA - Toxic Substances Control Act. FTTS - FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). FTTS INSP - FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). SSTS - Section 7 Tracking Systems.

ICIS - Integrated Compliance Information System. PADS - PCB Activity Database System. MLTS - Material Licensing Tracking System. RADINFO - Radiation Information Database. FINDS - Facility Index System/Facility Registry System.

RAATS - RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System. BRS - Biennial Reporting System. CORTESE - "Cortese" Hazardous Waste & Substances Sites List. CUPA FRESNO - CUPA Resources List. CUPA SANTA BARBARA - CUPA Facility Listing.

CUPA MONTEREY - CUPA Facility Listing. CUPA SANTA CRUZ - CUPA Facility List. CUPA MERCED - CUPA Facility List.

CUPA SAN LUIS OBISPO - CUPA Facility List. CUPA SHASTA - CUPA Facility List. CUPA HUMBOLDT - CUPA Facility List.

CUPA INYO - CUPA Facility List. CUPA KINGS - CUPA Facility List. CUPA MADERA - CUPA Facility List. CUPA NEVADA - CUPA Facility List. CUPA BUTTE - CUPA Facility Listing. CUPA COLUSA - CUPA Facility List. CUPA YUBA - CUPA Facility List. CUPA EL DORADO - CUPA Facility List. CUPA - CUPA Resources List. CUPA IMPERIAL - CUPA Facility List. LA Co. Site Mitigation - Site Mitigation List. Sacramento Co. ML - Master Hazardous Materials Facility List. San Bern. Co. Permit - Hazardous Material Permits. HAZNET - Facility and Manifest Data. INDIAN RESERV - Indian Reservations.

FEDLAND - Federal and Indian Lands. WDS - Waste Discharge System. US AIRS MINOR - Air Facility System Data. US AIRS (AFS) - Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem (AFS). PRP - Potentially Responsible Parties.

Database Descriptions
12-1818

Database Sources
NPL: EPA
Updated Quarterly
NPL Delisted: EPA
Updated Quarterly
CERCLIS: EPA
Updated Quarterly
NFRAP: EPA
Updated Quarterly
RCRA COR ACT: EPA
Updated Quarterly
RCRA TSD: Environmental Protection Agency
Updated Quarterly
RCRA GEN: Environmental Protection Agency
Updated Quarterly
Federal IC / EC: Environmental Protection Agency
Varies
ERNS: National Response Center, United States Coast Guard Updated Annually
State/Tribal NPL: Department of Toxic Substances Control Updated Quarterly
State/Tribal CERCLIS: Department of Toxic Substances Control Updated Quarterly
State/Tribal SWL: Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Updated Quarterly
State/Tribal LTANKS: Department Of Public Health San Francisco County Updated Quarterly
12-1819

Database Sources
State/Tribal Tanks: SWRCB
Updated Semi-Annually
State/Tribal VCP: Department of Toxic Substances Control Updated Quarterly
US Brownfields: Environmental Protection Agency
Updated Semi-Annually
Other SWF: Engineering & Construction Division
Varies
Other Haz Sites: Drug Enforcement Administration
Updated Quarterly
Other Tanks: California Environmental Protection Agency No Update Planned
Local Land Records: Department of Toxic Substances Control Updated Semi-Annually
Spills: U.S. Department of Transportation
Updated Annually
Other: Environmental Protection Agency
Varies
12-1820

Street Name Report for Streets within .25 Miles of Target Property Target Property: RAMON RD
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270
JOB: NA
Street Name Dist/Dir Street Name Dist/Dir
12-1821

EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.12-1822

APPENDIX F
12-1826

12-1827

12-1828

12-1829

12-1830

12-1831

12-1832

12-1833

12-1834

12-1835

12-1836

12-1837

APPENDIX G
12-1838

The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package

RAMON RD

RAMON RD
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Inquiry Number: 3519566.1
February 14, 2013
12-1839

EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR’s professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo per decade.

When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more information contact your EDR Account Executive.

Thank you for your business.

Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.

Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc.

It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,

ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report AS IS. Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.

Date EDR Searched Historical Sources:

Aerial Photography February 14, 2013
Target Property:

RAMON RD
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Year Scale Details Source
1953 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=700'Flight Year: 1953 Pacific Air 1969 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=700'Flight Year: 1969 USGS 1978 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=700'Flight Year: 1978 AMI 1984 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=700'Flight Year: 1984 USGS 1989 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=700'Flight Year: 1989 USGS 2002 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'/DOQQ - acquisition dates: 2002 EDR 2002 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'/DOQQ - acquisition dates: 2002 EDR 2002 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'/DOQQ - acquisition dates: 2002 EDR 2002 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'/DOQQ - acquisition dates: 2002 EDR 2005 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'Flight Year: 2005 EDR 2005 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'Flight Year: 2005 EDR 2005 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'Flight Year: 2005 EDR 2005 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'Flight Year: 2005 EDR 2009 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'Flight Year: 2009 EDR 2009 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'Flight Year: 2009 EDR 2009 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'Flight Year: 2009 EDR 2009 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'Flight Year: 2009 EDR 2010 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'Flight Year: 2010 EDR 2010 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'Flight Year: 2010 EDR 3519566.1
2 12-1841

Year Scale Details Source
2010 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'Flight Year: 2010 EDR 2010 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'Flight Year: 2010 EDR 3519566.1
3 12-1842

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
1953
= 700'12-1843

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
1969
= 700'12-1844

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
1978
= 700'12-1845

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
1984
= 700'12-1846

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
1989
= 700'12-1847

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
2002
= 500'12-1848

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
2002
= 500'12-1849

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
2002
= 500'12-1850

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
2002
= 500'12-1851

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
2005
= 500'12-1852

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
2005
= 500'12-1853

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
2005
= 500'12-1854

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
2005
= 500'12-1855

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
2009
= 500'12-1856

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
2009
= 500'12-1857

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
2009
= 500'12-1858

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
2009
= 500'12-1859

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
2010
= 500'12-1860

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
2010
= 500'12-1861

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
2010
= 500'12-1862

INQUIRY #:

YEAR:
3519566.1
2010
= 500'12-1863

EDR Historical Topographic Map Report

RAMON RD

RAMON RD
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Inquiry Number: 3514709.4
February 08, 2013
12-1864

EDR Historical Topographic Map Report
Environmental Data Resources, Inc.s (EDR) Historical Topographic Map Report is designed to assist professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDRs Historical Topographic Map Report includes a search of a collection of public and private color historical topographic maps, dating back to the early 1900s.

Thank you for your business.

Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.

Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc.

ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report AS IS. Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.

Historical Topographic Map
Unsurveyed Area on the Topographic Map
Õ
N

TARGET QUADTARGET QUAD
NAME: INDIO
MAP YEAR: 1904
SERIES: 30
SCALE: 1:125000
SITE NAME: RAMON RD
ADDRESS: RAMON RD
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
LAT/LONG: 33.8082 / -116.4155
CLIENT: Leighton & Associates, Inc.

CONTACT: Kristin Stout
INQUIRY#: 3514709.4
RESEARCH DATE: 02/08/2013
12-1866

Historical Topographic Map
Õ
N

TARGET QUADTARGET QUAD
NAME: EDOM
MAP YEAR: 1941
SERIES: 15
SCALE: 1:62500
SITE NAME: RAMON RD
ADDRESS: RAMON RD
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
LAT/LONG: 33.8082 / -116.4155
CLIENT: Leighton & Associates, Inc.

CONTACT: Kristin Stout
INQUIRY#: 3514709.4
RESEARCH DATE: 02/08/2013
12-1867

Historical Topographic Map
Õ
N

TARGET QUADTARGET QUAD
NAME: THOUSAND PALMS
MAP YEAR: 1947
SERIES: 15
SCALE: 1:50000
SITE NAME: RAMON RD
ADDRESS: RAMON RD
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
LAT/LONG: 33.8082 / -116.4155
CLIENT: Leighton & Associates, Inc.

CONTACT: Kristin Stout
INQUIRY#: 3514709.4
RESEARCH DATE: 02/08/2013
12-1868

Historical Topographic Map
Õ
N

TARGET QUADTARGET QUAD
NAME: THOUSAND PALMS
MAP YEAR: 1958
SERIES: 15
SCALE: 1:62500
SITE NAME: RAMON RD
ADDRESS: RAMON RD
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
LAT/LONG: 33.8082 / -116.4155
CLIENT: Leighton & Associates, Inc.

CONTACT: Kristin Stout
INQUIRY#: 3514709.4
RESEARCH DATE: 02/08/2013
12-1869

Historical Topographic Map
Õ
N

TARGET QUADTARGET QUAD
NAME: CATHEDRAL CITY
MAP YEAR: 1958
SERIES: 7.5
SCALE: 1:24000
SITE NAME: RAMON RD
ADDRESS: RAMON RD
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
LAT/LONG: 33.8082 / -116.4155
CLIENT: Leighton & Associates, Inc.

CONTACT: Kristin Stout
INQUIRY#: 3514709.4
RESEARCH DATE: 02/08/2013
12-1870

Historical Topographic Map
Õ
N

TARGET QUADTARGET QUAD
NAME: CATHEDRAL CITY
MAP YEAR: 1972
PHOTOREVISED FROM :1958
SERIES: 7.5
SCALE: 1:24000
SITE NAME: RAMON RD
ADDRESS: RAMON RD
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
LAT/LONG: 33.8082 / -116.4155
CLIENT: Leighton & Associates, Inc.

CONTACT: Kristin Stout
INQUIRY#: 3514709.4
RESEARCH DATE: 02/08/2013
12-1871

Historical Topographic Map
Õ
N

TARGET QUADTARGET QUAD
NAME: CATHEDRAL CITY
MAP YEAR: 1981
PHOTOREVISED FROM :1958
SERIES: 7.5
SCALE: 1:24000
SITE NAME: RAMON RD
ADDRESS: RAMON RD
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
LAT/LONG: 33.8082 / -116.4155
CLIENT: Leighton & Associates, Inc.

CONTACT: Kristin Stout
INQUIRY#: 3514709.4
RESEARCH DATE: 02/08/2013
12-1872

RAMON RD

RAMON RD
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Inquiry Number: 3514709.8
February 13, 2013
The EDR-City Directory Image Report
440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, CT 06461
800.352.0050
www.edrnet.comEnvironmental Data Resources IncEnvironmental Data Resources IncEnvironmental Data Resources IncEnvironmental Data Resources Inc 12-1873

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION
Executive Summary
Findings
City Directory Images
Thank you for your business.

Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.

DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR

OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction orforecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.

Copyright 2013 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates is prohibited without prior written permission.

EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates.

All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. 12-1874

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION
Environmental Data Resources, Inc.’s (EDR) City Directory Report is a screening tool designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities.

EDR’s City Directory Report includes a search of available city directory data at 5 year intervals.

RESEARCH SUMMARY
The following research sources were consulted in the preparation of this report. A check mark indicates where information was identified in the source and provided in this report.

Year Target Street Cross Street Source
2010 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
2005 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
2000 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1995 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1990 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1985 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1980 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1975 Haines Criss-Cross Directory

RECORD SOURCES
EDR is licensed to reproduce certain City Directory works by the copyright holders of those works. The purchaser of this EDR City Directory Report may include it in report(s) delivered to a customer.

Reproduction of City Directories without permission of the publisher or licensed vendor may be a violation of copyright.
3514709-8 Page 1
12-1875

FINDINGS

TARGET PROPERTY STREET

RAMON RD
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Year CD Image Source

RAMON RD
2010 pg A1 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
2005 pg A2 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
2000 pg A3 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1995 pg A4 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
1990 -Haines Criss-Cross Directory Street not listed in Source 1985 -Haines Criss-Cross Directory Street not listed in Source 1980 -Haines Criss-Cross Directory Street not listed in Source 1975 -Haines Criss-Cross Directory Street not listed in Source 3514709-8 Page 2
12-1876

FINDINGS

CROSS STREETS
Year CD Image Source
Bob Hope Dr
2010 pg. A5 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
2005 pg. A6 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
2005 pg. A7 Haines Criss-Cross Directory
2000 -Haines Criss-Cross Directory Target and Adjoining not listed in Source 1995 -Haines Criss-Cross Directory Target and Adjoining not listed in Source 1990 -Haines Criss-Cross Directory Target and Adjoining not listed in Source 1985 -Haines Criss-Cross Directory Target and Adjoining not listed in Source 1980 -Haines Criss-Cross Directory Target and Adjoining not listed in Source 1975 -Haines Criss-Cross Directory Target and Adjoining not listed in Source 3514709-8 Page 3
12-1877

City Directory Images
12-1878

RAMON RD
Haines Criss-Cross Directory
3514709.8 Page: A1
SourceTarget Street Cross Street
2010
12-1879

RAMON RD
Haines Criss-Cross Directory
3514709.8 Page: A2
SourceTarget Street Cross Street
2005
12-1880

RAMON RD
Haines Criss-Cross Directory
3514709.8 Page: A3
SourceTarget Street Cross Street
2000
12-1881

RAMON RD
Haines Criss-Cross Directory
3514709.8 Page: A4
SourceTarget Street Cross Street
1995
12-1882

-
Bob Hope Dr
Haines Criss-Cross Directory
3514709.8 Page: A5
SourceTarget Street Cross Street
2010
12-1883

-
Bob Hope Dr
Haines Criss-Cross Directory
3514709.8 Page: A6
SourceTarget Street Cross Street
2005
12-1884

-
Bob Hope Dr
Haines Criss-Cross Directory
3514709.8 Page: A7
SourceTarget Street Cross Street
2005
12-1885

APPENDIX H
12-1886

12-1887

12-1888

12-1889

12-1890

12-1891

12-1892

12-1893

12-1894

12-1895

12-1896

12-1897

12-1898

12-1899

12-1900

12-1901

12-1902

12-1903

12-1904

12-1905

12-1906

12-1907

12-1908

12-1909

12-1910

12-1911

12-1912

12-1913

12-1914

12-1915

12-1916

12-1917

12-1918

12-1919

12-1920

12-1921

12-1922

12-1923

12-1924

12-1925

12-1926

12-1927

12-1928

12-1929

12-1930

12-1931

APPENDIX I
12-1932

Important lnfor mation About Your
--Geoenvironmental Report
Geoenvironmental studies are commissioned to gain information Should you become aware of any change, do not rely on a geoenvi- about environmental conditions on and beneath the surface of a site. ronmenta~reporl. Advise your geoenvironmental professional imme- The more comprehensive the study, the more reliable the assessment diately; follow the professional's advice. is likely to be. But remember: Any such assessment is to a greater or lesser extent based on professional opinions about conditions that ~ec~gnile the Impact 01 Time cannot be seen or tested. Accordingly, no matter how many data are A geoenvironmental professional's findings, recommendations, and developed, risks created by unanticipated conditions will always conctusions cannot remain valid indefinitely. The more time that remain. Have realistic expectations. Work with your geoenvironrnental passes, the more likely it is that important latent changes will occur. consultant to manage known and unknown risks. Part ol that process Do not rely on a geoenvironmental report if too much //me has should already have been accomplished, through the risk allocation elapsed since it was completed Ask your environmental professional provisions you and your geoenvironrnental professional discussed to define "too much time." In the case 01 Phase I Environmental Site and included in your contract's general terms and conditions. This Assessments (ESAs), for example, more than 180 days after submis- document is intended to explain some of the concepts that may be sion is generally considered "too much." included in your agreement, and to pass along information and sug- gestions to help you manage your risk. Prepare TO Ileal with Unrlic- Cadillra The findings, recommendations, and conclusions of a Phase I ESA Beware 01 Change; Keep Your Geoenvirmmental report typically are based on a review of historical information, inter- Pr~fessionill Advised views, a site "walkover," and other forms ot noninvasive research.

The design of a geoenvironmental study considers a variety of factors When site subsurface conditions are not sampled in any way, the risk that are subject to change. Changes can undermine the applicability of unanticipated conditions is higher than it would otherwise be. of a report's findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Advise yowgeoenvironmentalprofessionalabout any changes you become While borings, installation of monitoring wells, and similar invasive aware of. Geoenviionrnental professionals cannot accept responsibili- test methods can help reduce the risk of unanticipated conditions, do ty or liability for problems that occur because a report fails to consid- not overvalue the effectiveness of /esting. Testing provides informa- er conditions that did not exist when the study was designed. Ask tion about actual conditions only at the precise locations where sam- your geoenvironmental professional about the types of changes you ples are taken, and only when they are taken. Your geoenvironmental should be particularly alert to. Some of the most common include: prolessional has applied that specific information to develop a gener- modification of the proposed development or ownership group: al opinion about environmental conditions. AcW conditions in areas sale or other property transfer, not sampled may differ (sometimes shgplyl from those predicted in a replacement of or additions to the financing entity, report. For example, a site may contain an unregistered underground amendment of existing regulations or introduction of new ones, storage tank that shows no surface trace of its existence. Even candi- or [ions in areas [hat were tested can change, sometimes suddenly, due changes in the use or condition of adjacent property. to any number of events, not the least of which include occurrences at 12-1933

adjacent siles. Recognize, too, that even some conditions in iesied areas may go undiscovered, because lhe tests or analytical methods used were designed to detect only those conditions assumed to exist.

Manage your risks by retaining your geoenvironmental professional to work with you as the project proceeds. Establish a contingency fund or other means to enable your geoenvironmental professional to respond rapidly, in order to limit the impact of unforeseen conditions.

And to help prevent any misunderstanding, identify those empowered to authorize changes and the administrative procedures that should be followed.
lo No1 Permit Any Other Party To Rely on Le Report
Geoenvironmental professionals design their studies and prepare their reports to meet the specific needs of the clients who retain them, in light of the risk management methods that the client and geoenvi- ronmental professional agree to, and the statutory, regulatory, or other requirements that apply. i'he study designed for a developer may dit- fer sharply from one designed for a lender, insurer, public agency ... or even another developer. Unless the reporf specifically states other- wise, it was developed foryouand onlyyou. Do not unilaterally per- mit any other party to rely on it. The report and the study underlying it may not be adequate for another party's needs, and you could be held liable for shortcomings your geoenvironmental professional was pow- erless to prevent or anticipate, Inform your geoenvironmental profes- sional when you know or expect that someorle else-a third-parly- will want to use or rely on the report. Do notpermit third-pa/tyuse or reliance un!il you first confer with the geoenvironmental professional who prepared the report. Additional testing, analysis, or study may be required and, in any event, appropriate terms and conditions should be agreed to so both you and your geoenvironmental professional are protected from th ird-party risks. Any party who relies on a geoenvi- ronmental report without !he express written permission of the pro- fessional who prepared it and the client for whom it was prepared may be solely liable for any problems that arise.

Avoid Mi-on ol the Report
Design professionals and other parties may want to rely on the report in developing plans and specifications. They need to be advised, in writing, that their needs may not have been considered when the study's scope was developed, and, even if their needs were consid- ered, they might misinterpret geoenvironmental findings, conctu- sions, and recommendations. Commission your geoenvironmenfal professional to explain pertinent elements of the report to others who are permitted to rely on it, arjd to review any plans, specifications or other inslruments of professional service that incorporate any of the repod5 findings, conclusions, or recommendations. Your geoenviron- mental professional has the best understanding of the issues involved, including the fundamental assumptions that underpinned the study's scope.

Ghre Conlraclors Access to Ihe Rqert
Reduce the risk ot delays, claims, and disputes by giving contractors access to the full report, providing !hat it is accompanied by a letter of transmittal that can protect you by making it unquestionably clear that: 1) the study was not conducted and the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development, and 2) the findings, conclusions, and recommendations included in the report are based on a variety of opinions, inferences, and assumptions and are subject to interpreta- tion. Use the letter to also advise contractors to consult with your geoenvironmental professional to obtain clarifications, interpretations, and guidance (a fee may be required for this service), and that-in any event-they should conduct additional studies to obtain the spe- cific type and extent of information each prefers for preparing a bid or cost estimate. Providing access to the full report, with the appropri- ate caveats, helps prevent formation ot adversarial attitudes and claims of concealed or differing conditions. If a contractor elects to ignore the warnings and advice in the letter of transmittal, it would do so at its own risk. Your geoenvironmental professional should be able to help you prepare an effective letter.

OD Nol Separate Documenlation Cm Le l@ul
Geoenvironmental reports often include supplemental documentation, such as maps and copies of regulatory files, permits, registrations, citations, and correspondence with regulatory agencies. If subsurface explorations were performed, the report may contain final boring logs and copies of laboratory data. If remediation activities occurred on site, the report may include: copies of daily field reports; waste mani- fests; and information about Ihe disturbance of subsurface materials, the type and thickness of any fill placed on site, and fill placement practices, among other types of documentation. Do not sepa,afe sup- plemental documentation from the report. Do nof, and do not permit any other pady to redraw or modify any of the supplemental docu- mentalion for incorporation into other professionals' instruments of service.

U~detstand Le Role of Standards
Unless they are incorporated into statutes or regulations, standard practices and standard guides developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and other recognized standards-devel- oping organizations (SDOs) are little more than aspirational methods agreed to by a consensus of a committee. The committees that devel- op standards may not comprise those best-qualified to establish methods and, no matter what, no standard method can possibly con- sider the infinite client- and project-specific variables that fly in the face of the theoretical "standard conditions" to which standard prac- tices and slandard guides apply. In fact, these variables can be so pronounced that geoenvironmental professionals who comply with every directive of an ASTM or other standard procedure could run afoul of local custom and practice, thus violating the standard of care. 12-1934

Accordingly, when geoenvironmental professionals indicate in their reports that they have performed a service "in general compliance1' with one standard or another, it means they have applied professional judgement in creating and implementing a scope of service designed for the specific client and project involved, and which follows some of the general precepts laid out in the referenced standard. To the extent that a report indicates "general compliance" with a standard, you may wish to speak with your geoenvironmental professional lo learn more about what was and was not done. Do nolassume a given standard was followed to the lefte~: Research indicates that that seldom is the case.

Realize Thal Recommendations May No1 Be Fiml
The technical reco~nmendations included in a geoenvironmental report arc based on assumptions about actual conditions, and so are preliminary or tentative. Final recommendations can bc prepared only by observing actual conditions as they are exposed. For that reason, you should retain the geoenvironmental professional of record to observe construction and/or remediation activities on site, lo permit rapid response to unanticipated conditions. Thegeuenvironmenfal professional who prepared the report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the reporth recommendations if that professional is ~d retained to observe relevant sire operations.

Understand Thal Geotechnical Issues Have Nol Beu Addressed Unless geotechnical engineering was specifically included in the scope of professional service, a report is not likely to relate any find- ings, conclusions, or recommendations about the suitability of sub- surface materials for construction purposes, especially when site remediation has been accomplished through the removal, replace- ment, encapsulation, or chemical treatment of on-site soils. The equipment, techniques, and testing used by geotechnical engineers ditter markedly from those used by geoenvironmental professionals; their education, training, and experience are also significantly differ- ent. ff you plan to build on the subject site, but have not yet had a geotechnical engineering study conducted, your geoenvironmental professional should be able to provide guidance about the next steps you should take. The same firm may provide the services you need. lPerl Responsibiliiy Rrvirions Closely
Geoenvironmental studies cannot be exact; they are based on prdes- sional judgement and opinion. Nonetheless, some clients, contractors, 2nd others assume geoenvironmental reports arc or certainly should be unerringly precise. Such assumptions have created unrealistic expectations that have led to wholly unwarranted claims and disputes.

To help prevent such problems, geaenvironmenlal professionals have developed a number of report provisions and contract terms that explain who is responsible for what, and how risks are to be allocated.

Sorne people mistake these for "exculpatory clauses," that is, provi- sions whose purpose is to transfer one party's rightful responsibilities and liabilities lo someone else. Read the responsibility provisions included in a report and in the contract you and your geoenvironrnental professional agreed to. Responsibility provisions are not "boi/ef- plate. "They are important.

Rely a V~P 6eoenuironrmtsl Pllokssional fw
Addsliwd Aasis$R
Membership in ASFE exposes geoenvironmental professionals to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a geoenvironmental project. Confer with your ASFE-member geoenvironmental professional for more information.

IRE BEST PEOPLE OH EARTH
8811 Colesville RoadISuite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 3011565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail: infoQasfe.org w.asfe.org
Co~yriphl 2000 by ASFE, /kc. Ouplimlion, reproduc!jon, or copying 01 ll~is dmumenl, in whole or in parl, by any means wh~soewc is strictly prohibited, except wilh ASFE's specific wrilfen permission. Ewcefpling, quoting, of othewise exlracl~ny vflrdi~ig frofn Mis dm~~menl a pernjined only wjlh tk ekpm willen permission ol ASFE. and only for purposes of scholar/y resta~ch or book review: Only ASFE Member Firms may inserl lhis docwnent in their reporb. 12-1935

APPENDIX F
Roadway Noise Calculations
12-1936

Meridian Consultants LLC
Date: 5/28/14
Section 24 EIS
Off-Site Noise Contours Using Riverside County 24-Hour Traffic Distribution Existing Conditions
Rev: 11/12/2012
Number
of Lanes Design Vehicle M ix Distance from Center of Roadway ROADWAY NAME in Each M edian ADT Speed Alpha M edium Heavy CNEL at DISTANCE TO CONTOUR Direction Width Volume (mph)Factor (1)Trucks Trucks 75 Feet 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL

DA VALL DRIVE
2 0 10,430 40 0 3.0%5.0%70.4 -82 253 788
South of Ramon Road 1 0 10,910 40 0 3.0%5.0%70.6 -85 265 823 North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 11,550 40 0 3.0%5.0%70.8 -90 280 871 South of Dinah Shore Drive 2 20 11,820 40 0 3.0%5.0%70.9 -92 287 891

RATLLER ROAD -
North of Ramon Road 1 15 2,710 40 0 3.0%5.0%64.5 ---209

LOS ALAMOS ROAD -
South of Ramon Road 1 0 1,820 40 0 3.0%5.0%62.8 ---141
North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 2,000 40 0 3.0%5.0%63.2 ---155

BOB HOPE DRIVE -
North of I-10 WB Ramps 2 0 12,530 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.2 -98 304 944 North of I-10 EB Ramps 2 0 17,370 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.6 -135 419 1,302 North of Ramon Road 3 0 18,750 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.9 -145 452 1,403 South of Ramon Road 2 30 19,130 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.0 -148 461 1,431 North of Dinah Shore Drive 3 20 17,860 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.7 -139 431 1,338 South of Dinah Shore Drive 2 25 20,340 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.3 -157 489 1,521 North of Gerald Ford Drive 2 25 19,120 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.0 -148 460 1,431 South of Gerald Ford Drive 2 30 20,090 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.2 -156 483 1,502

KEY LARGO -
North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A South of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 1,340 40 0 3.0%5.0%61.5 ---104

MONTEREY AVENUE -
North of Dinah Shore Drive 3 25 46,340 40 0 3.0%5.0%76.8 114 354 1,101 3,421 South of Dinah Shore Drive 3 30 31,620 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.2 78 243 756 2,348

RAMON ROAD -
West of Da Vall Drive 3 15 20,340 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.3 -157 489 1,521 East of Da Vall Drive 3 20 23,760 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.9 -184 570 1,772 West of Los Alamos Road 3 20 24,030 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.0 -186 577 1,792 East of Los Alamos Road 3 20 24,680 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.1 -191 592 1,840 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 20 17,180 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.5 -133 414 1,288 East of EB I-10 Ramp 2 0 11,230 40 0 3.0%5.0%70.7 -88 273 847

DINAH SHORE DRIVE -
West of Da Vall Drive 2 20 22,370 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.7 -173 537 1,670 East of Da Vall Drive 2 20 17,950 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.7 -139 433 1,344 West of Los Alamos Road 2 20 18,350 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.8 -142 442 1,374 East of Los Alamos Road 2 20 18,070 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.8 -140 436 1,353 East of Westin Mission Hills 2 20 18,680 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.9 -145 450 1,398 West of Bob Hope Drive 2 20 18,570 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.9 -144 447 1,390 East of Bob Hope Drive 3 25 18,800 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.9 -146 453 1,407 East of Key Largo 3 20 19,150 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.0 -148 461 1,433 West of Monterey Avenue 3 20 26,570 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.4 -205 637 1,978 East of Monterey Avenue 2 15 16,470 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.4 -128 398 1,235

GERALD FORD DRIVE -
West of Bob Hope Drive 2 25 16,840 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.5 -131 406 1,263 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 15 14,900 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.9 -116 360 1,119 INTERSTATE 10 -
West of Bob Hope Drive 2 35 100,000 40 0 3.0%5.0%80.2 243 756 2,348 7,296 East of Ramon Road 3 25 102,000 40 0 3.0%5.0%80.3 248 771 2,394 7,440 BOB HOPE DR. I-10 RAMPS -
Westbound On-Ramp 2 0 5,990 40 0 3.0%5.0%68.0 --147 456 Westbound Off-Ramp 2 0 8,600 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.5 --210 651 Eastbound On-Ramp 2 0 2,070 40 0 3.0%5.0%63.3 ---160
Eastbound Off-Ramp 2 0 7,570 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.0 --185 574 RAMON ROAD I-10 RAMPS -
Eastbound On-Ramp 1 0 7,970 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.2 --195 604

VIA BELLA -
West of Los Alamos Road 1 0 730 40 0 3.0%5.0%58.8 ----
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

CASINO -
West of Bob Hope Drive 0 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A East of Bob Hope Drive 2 0 2,050 40 0 3.0%5.0%63.3 ---159

WESTIN MISSION HILLS
North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A South of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 1,580 40 0 3.0%5.0%62.2 ---123

WESTIN RESORT AND VILLAS
North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A South of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 800 40 0 3.0%5.0%59.2 ----

STREET A
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET B
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET C
South of Ramon Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET D
South of Ramon Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A West of Bob Hope Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET E
West of Bob Hope Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Weighted Traffic Distribution (%)Riverside County Traffic Distribution Day Evening Night Totals Day Evening Night Totals

75.54%14.02%10.43%100.00%69.50%12.90%9.60%92.00%

48.00%2.00%50.00%100.00%1.44%0.06%1.50%3.00%

48.00%2.00%50.00%100.00%2.40%0.10%2.50%5.00%
Day Evening Night Totals

73.60%13.60%10.22%97.42%

0.90%0.04%0.90%1.84%

0.35%0.04%0.35%0.74%
Medium-Duty Trucks
Source: Riverside County Department of Public Health, 15 January 2004.

Segment
North of Ramon Road
Auto
Heavy-Duty Trucks
Notes to Modeler: This model is for roadways designated as "major," "arterial" highways or "expressways by Riverside County." For roadways designated as "secondary," "collectors," or smaller, use the traffic distribution shown below. Vehicle mix for medium- and heavy-duty trucks was provided by Riverside County. Obtain traffic volumes from the traffic engineer. For state and federal highways, obtain percentages and traffic distribution data from the Caltrans website. Column H under Notes: should total 100%.

Riverside County Traffic Distribution
For roadways designated as "secondary,"
"collectors," or smaller
Notes:
(1) Alpha Factor:Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface.An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard"site,such as aspalt.An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such, as heavily vegetated ground cover.
"-" = contour is located within the roadway lanes or within 75 feet of the roadway centerline.

Noise levels and distances to contours do not assume any natural or constructed barriers that may attenuate noise. 24-Hour Traffic Distribution for Roadways Designated as "Major," "Arterial" Highways or "Expressways" by Riverside County 12-1937

Meridian Consultants LLC
Date: 5/28/14
Section 24 EIS
Off-Site Noise Contours Using Riverside County 24-Hour Traffic Distribution Project Phase I
Rev: 11/12/2012
Number
of Lanes Design Vehicle M ix Distance from Center of Roadway ROADWAY NAME in Each M edian ADT Speed Alpha M edium Heavy CNEL at DISTANCE TO CONTOUR Direction Width Volume (mph)Factor (1)Trucks Trucks 75 Feet 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL

DA VALL DRIVE
2 0 130 40 0 3.0%5.0%51.3 ----
South of Ramon Road 1 0 90 40 0 3.0%5.0%49.7 ----
North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 90 40 0 3.0%5.0%49.7 ---- South of Dinah Shore Drive 2 20 220 40 0 3.0%5.0%53.6 ----

RATLLER ROAD -
North of Ramon Road 1 15 10 40 0 3.0%5.0%40.2 ----

LOS ALAMOS ROAD -
South of Ramon Road 1 0 1,030 40 0 3.0%5.0%60.3 ---81
North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 360 40 0 3.0%5.0%55.8 ----

BOB HOPE DRIVE -
North of I-10 WB Ramps 2 0 40 40 0 3.0%5.0%46.2 ----
North of I-10 EB Ramps 2 0 560 40 0 3.0%5.0%57.7 ----
North of Ramon Road 3 0 810 40 0 3.0%5.0%59.3 ----
South of Ramon Road 2 30 1,170 40 0 3.0%5.0%60.9 ---91
North of Dinah Shore Drive 3 20 580 40 0 3.0%5.0%57.8 ---- South of Dinah Shore Drive 2 25 720 40 0 3.0%5.0%58.8 ---- North of Gerald Ford Drive 2 25 720 40 0 3.0%5.0%58.8 ---- South of Gerald Ford Drive 2 30 720 40 0 3.0%5.0%58.8 ----

KEY LARGO -
South of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

MONTEREY AVENUE -
North of Dinah Shore Drive 3 25 190 40 0 3.0%5.0%53.0 ---- South of Dinah Shore Drive 3 30 450 40 0 3.0%5.0%56.7 ----

RAMON ROAD -
West of Da Vall Drive 3 15 990 40 0 3.0%5.0%60.1 ---77
East of Da Vall Drive 3 20 1,030 40 0 3.0%5.0%60.3 ---81 West of Los Alamos Road 3 20 1,030 40 0 3.0%5.0%60.3 ---81 East of Los Alamos Road 3 20 180 40 0 3.0%5.0%52.7 ---- East of Bob Hope Drive 2 20 360 40 0 3.0%5.0%55.8 ----
East of EB I-10 Ramp 2 0 90 40 0 3.0%5.0%49.7 ----

DINAH SHORE DRIVE -
West of Da Vall Drive 2 20 360 40 0 3.0%5.0%55.8 ----
East of Da Vall Drive 2 20 670 40 0 3.0%5.0%58.4 ----
West of Los Alamos Road 2 20 670 40 0 3.0%5.0%58.4 ---- East of Los Alamos Road 2 20 580 40 0 3.0%5.0%57.8 ---- East of Westin Mission Hills 2 20 1,210 40 0 3.0%5.0%61.0 ---94 West of Bob Hope Drive 2 20 1,210 40 0 3.0%5.0%61.0 ---94 East of Bob Hope Drive 3 25 900 40 0 3.0%5.0%59.7 ----
East of Key Largo 3 20 900 40 0 3.0%5.0%59.7 ----
West of Monterey Avenue 3 20 900 40 0 3.0%5.0%59.7 ---- East of Monterey Avenue 2 15 260 40 0 3.0%5.0%54.3 ----

GERALD FORD DRIVE -
West of Bob Hope Drive 2 25 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A East of Bob Hope Drive 2 15 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A INTERSTATE 10 -
West of Bob Hope Drive 2 35 440 40 0 3.0%5.0%56.6 ----
East of Ramon Road 3 25 580 40 0 3.0%5.0%57.8 ----
BOB HOPE DR. I-10 RAMPS -
Westbound On-Ramp 2 0 220 40 0 3.0%5.0%53.6 ----
Westbound Off-Ramp 2 0 290 40 0 3.0%5.0%54.8 ----
Eastbound On-Ramp 2 0 20 40 0 3.0%5.0%43.2 ----
Eastbound Off-Ramp 2 0 220 40 0 3.0%5.0%53.6 ----
RAMON ROAD I-10 RAMPS -
Eastbound On-Ramp 1 0 270 40 0 3.0%5.0%54.5 ----

VIA BELLA
West of Los Alamos Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 1,120 40 0 3.0%5.0%60.7 ---88

CASINO -
West of Bob Hope Drive 0 0 1,570 40 0 3.0%5.0%62.1 ---122 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

WESTIN MISSION HILLS
North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 1,790 40 0 3.0%5.0%62.7 ---139 South of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

WESTIN RESORT AND VILLAS
North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A South of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET A
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET B
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET C
South of Ramon Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET D
South of Ramon Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A West of Bob Hope Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET E
West of Bob Hope Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Weighted Traffic Distribution (%)Riverside County Traffic Distribution Day Evening Night Totals Day Evening Night Totals

75.54%14.02%10.43%100.00%69.50%12.90%9.60%92.00%

48.00%2.00%50.00%100.00%1.44%0.06%1.50%3.00%

48.00%2.00%50.00%100.00%2.40%0.10%2.50%5.00%
Day Evening Night Totals

73.60%13.60%10.22%97.42%

0.90%0.04%0.90%1.84%

0.35%0.04%0.35%0.74%
Auto
Segment
North of Ramon Road
Notes:
(1) Alpha Factor:Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface.An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard"site,such as aspalt.An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such, as heavily vegetated ground cover.
"-" = contour is located within the roadway lanes or within 75 feet of the roadway centerline.

Medium-Duty Trucks
Heavy-Duty Trucks
Notes to Modeler: This model is for roadways designated as "major," "arterial" highways or "expressways by Riverside County." For roadways designated as "secondary," "collectors," or smaller, use the traffic distribution shown below. Vehicle mix for medium- and heavy-duty trucks was provided by Riverside County. Obtain traffic volumes from the traffic engineer. For state and federal highways, obtain percentages and traffic distribution data from the Caltrans website. Column H under Notes: should total 100%.

Riverside County Traffic Distribution
For roadways designated as "secondary,"
"collectors," or smaller
Noise levels and distances to contours do not assume any natural or constructed barriers that may attenuate noise. 24-Hour Traffic Distribution for Roadways Designated as "Major," "Arterial" Highways or "Expressways" by Riverside County Source: Riverside County Department of Public Health, 15 January 2004. 12-1938

Meridian Consultants LLC
Date: 5/28/14
Section 24 EIS
Off-Site Noise Contours Using Riverside County 24-Hour Traffic Distribution Existing + Phase I
Rev: 11/12/2012
Number
of Lanes Design Vehicle M ix Distance from Center of Roadway ROADWAY NAME in Each M edian ADT Speed Alpha M edium Heavy CNEL at DISTANCE TO CONTOUR Direction Width Volume (mph)Factor (1)Trucks Trucks 75 Feet 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL

DA VALL DRIVE
2 0 10,560 40 0 3.0%5.0%70.4 -83 257 797
South of Ramon Road 1 0 11,000 40 0 3.0%5.0%70.6 -86 267 830 North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 11,640 40 0 3.0%5.0%70.8 -91 282 878 South of Dinah Shore Drive 2 20 12,040 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.0 -94 292 907

RATLLER ROAD -
North of Ramon Road 1 15 2,720 40 0 3.0%5.0%64.5 ---210

LOS ALAMOS ROAD -
South of Ramon Road 1 0 2,850 40 0 3.0%5.0%64.7 ---220
North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 2,360 40 0 3.0%5.0%63.9 ---182

BOB HOPE DRIVE -
North of I-10 WB Ramps 2 0 12,570 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.2 -98 305 947 North of I-10 EB Ramps 2 0 17,930 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.7 -139 432 1,343 North of Ramon Road 3 0 19,560 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.1 -152 471 1,463 South of Ramon Road 2 30 20,300 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.3 -157 488 1,518 North of Dinah Shore Drive 3 20 18,440 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.8 -143 444 1,381 South of Dinah Shore Drive 2 25 21,060 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.4 -163 506 1,574 North of Gerald Ford Drive 2 25 19,840 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.2 -154 477 1,484 South of Gerald Ford Drive 2 30 20,810 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.4 -161 500 1,555

KEY LARGO -
South of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 1,340 40 0 3.0%5.0%61.5 ---104

MONTEREY AVENUE -
North of Dinah Shore Drive 3 25 46,530 40 0 3.0%5.0%76.9 114 356 1,105 3,435 South of Dinah Shore Drive 3 30 32,070 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.2 79 247 766 2,381

RAMON ROAD -
West of Da Vall Drive 3 15 21,330 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.5 -165 513 1,593 East of Da Vall Drive 3 20 24,790 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.1 -191 595 1,848 West of Los Alamos Road 3 20 25,060 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.2 -193 601 1,867 East of Los Alamos Road 3 20 24,860 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.1 -192 596 1,853 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 20 17,540 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.6 -136 423 1,314 East of EB I-10 Ramp 2 0 11,320 40 0 3.0%5.0%70.7 -88 275 854

DINAH SHORE DRIVE -
West of Da Vall Drive 2 20 22,730 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.8 -176 546 1,696 East of Da Vall Drive 2 20 18,620 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.9 -144 449 1,394 West of Los Alamos Road 2 20 19,020 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.0 -147 458 1,423 East of Los Alamos Road 2 20 18,650 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.9 -145 449 1,396 East of Westin Mission Hills 2 20 19,890 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.2 -154 479 1,487 West of Bob Hope Drive 2 20 19,780 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.2 -153 476 1,479 East of Bob Hope Drive 3 25 19,700 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.1 -153 474 1,473 East of Key Largo 3 20 20,050 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.2 -155 482 1,499 West of Monterey Avenue 3 20 27,470 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.6 -212 658 2,044 East of Monterey Avenue 2 15 16,730 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.4 -130 404 1,254

GERALD FORD DRIVE -
West of Bob Hope Drive 2 25 16,840 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.5 -131 406 1,263 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 15 14,900 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.9 -116 360 1,119 INTERSTATE 10 -
West of Bob Hope Drive 2 35 100,440 40 0 3.0%5.0%80.2 244 759 2,358 7,328 East of Ramon Road 3 25 102,580 40 0 3.0%5.0%80.3 249 775 2,408 7,481 BOB HOPE DR. I-10 RAMPS -
Westbound On-Ramp 2 0 6,210 40 0 3.0%5.0%68.1 --152 473 Westbound Off-Ramp 2 0 8,890 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.7 --217 673 Eastbound On-Ramp 2 0 2,090 40 0 3.0%5.0%63.4 ---162
Eastbound Off-Ramp 2 0 7,790 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.1 --190 591 RAMON ROAD I-10 RAMPS -
Eastbound On-Ramp 1 0 8,240 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.3 --201 625

VIA BELLA -
West of Los Alamos Road 1 0 730 40 0 3.0%5.0%58.8 ----
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 1,120 40 0 3.0%5.0%60.7 ---88

CASINO -
West of Bob Hope Drive 1 0 1,570 40 0 3.0%5.0%62.1 ---122 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 0 2,050 40 0 3.0%5.0%63.3 ---159

WESTIN MISSION HILLS
North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 1,790 40 0 3.0%5.0%62.7 ---139 South of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 1,580 40 0 3.0%5.0%62.2 ---123

WESTIN RESORT AND VILLAS
North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A South of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 800 40 0 3.0%5.0%59.2 ----

STREET A
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET B
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET C
South of Ramon Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET D
South of Ramon Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A West of Bob Hope Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET E
West of Bob Hope Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Weighted Traffic Distribution (%)Riverside County Traffic Distribution Day Evening Night Totals Day Evening Night Totals

75.54%14.02%10.43%100.00%69.50%12.90%9.60%92.00%

48.00%2.00%50.00%100.00%1.44%0.06%1.50%3.00%

48.00%2.00%50.00%100.00%2.40%0.10%2.50%5.00%
Day Evening Night Totals

73.60%13.60%10.22%97.42%

0.90%0.04%0.90%1.84%

Meridian Consultants LLC
Date: 5/28/14
Section 24 EIS
Off-Site Noise Contours Using Riverside County 24-Hour Traffic Distribution Project Buildout
Rev: 11/12/2012
Number
of Lanes Design Vehicle M ix Distance from Center of Roadway ROADWAY NAME in Each M edian ADT Speed Alpha M edium Heavy CNEL at DISTANCE TO CONTOUR Direction Width Volume (mph)Factor (1)Trucks Trucks 75 Feet 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL

DA VALL DRIVE
2 0 2,260 40 0 3.0%5.0%63.7 ---175
South of Ramon Road 1 0 2,230 40 0 3.0%5.0%63.7 ---172
North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 2,230 40 0 3.0%5.0%63.7 ---172 South of Dinah Shore Drive 2 20 3,410 40 0 3.0%5.0%65.5 --84 262

RATLLER ROAD -
North of Ramon Road 1 15 130 40 0 3.0%5.0%51.3 ----

LOS ALAMOS ROAD -
South of Ramon Road 1 0 5,380 40 0 3.0%5.0%67.5 --132 410 North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 3,160 40 0 3.0%5.0%65.2 --78 243

BOB HOPE DRIVE -
North of I-10 WB Ramps 2 0 1,160 40 0 3.0%5.0%60.8 ---91 North of I-10 EB Ramps 2 0 11,040 40 0 3.0%5.0%70.6 -86 268 833 North of Ramon Road 3 0 15,970 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.2 -124 386 1,198 South of Ramon Road 2 30 16,620 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.4 -129 401 1,246 North of Dinah Shore Drive 3 20 14,470 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.8 -113 350 1,087 South of Dinah Shore Drive 2 25 8,390 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.4 --205 636 North of Gerald Ford Drive 2 25 8,390 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.4 --205 636 South of Gerald Ford Drive 2 30 5,790 40 0 3.0%5.0%67.8 --142 441

KEY LARGO -
South of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

MONTEREY AVENUE -
North of Dinah Shore Drive 3 25 1,830 40 0 3.0%5.0%62.8 ---142 South of Dinah Shore Drive 3 30 4,260 40 0 3.0%5.0%66.5 --105 326

RAMON ROAD -
West of Da Vall Drive 3 15 8,680 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.6 --212 657 East of Da Vall Drive 3 20 13,040 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.3 -102 316 981 West of Los Alamos Road 3 20 13,160 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.4 -103 319 990 East of Los Alamos Road 3 20 12,410 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.1 -97 301 935 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 20 6,700 40 0 3.0%5.0%68.4 --164 509 East of EB I-10 Ramp 2 0 1,750 40 0 3.0%5.0%62.6 ---136

DINAH SHORE DRIVE -
West of Da Vall Drive 2 20 4,890 40 0 3.0%5.0%67.1 --120 374 East of Da Vall Drive 2 20 6,200 40 0 3.0%5.0%68.1 --152 472 West of Los Alamos Road 2 20 6,200 40 0 3.0%5.0%68.1 --152 472 East of Los Alamos Road 2 20 4,360 40 0 3.0%5.0%66.6 --107 334 East of Westin Mission Hills 2 20 4,820 40 0 3.0%5.0%67.0 --119 368 West of Bob Hope Drive 2 20 3,700 40 0 3.0%5.0%65.9 --91 284 East of Bob Hope Drive 3 25 8,520 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.5 --208 645 East of Key Largo 3 20 8,520 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.5 --208 645 West of Monterey Avenue 3 20 8,520 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.5 --208 645 East of Monterey Avenue 2 15 2,440 40 0 3.0%5.0%64.1 ---188

GERALD FORD DRIVE -
West of Bob Hope Drive 2 25 1,040 40 0 3.0%5.0%60.4 ---81 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 15 1,560 40 0 3.0%5.0%62.1 ---121 INTERSTATE 10 -
West of Bob Hope Drive 2 35 8,720 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.6 --213 660 East of Ramon Road 3 25 11,060 40 0 3.0%5.0%70.6 -86 269 835 BOB HOPE DR. I-10 RAMPS -
Westbound On-Ramp 2 0 4,360 40 0 3.0%5.0%66.6 --107 334 Westbound Off-Ramp 2 0 5,530 40 0 3.0%5.0%67.6 --136 422 Eastbound On-Ramp 2 0 580 40 0 3.0%5.0%57.8 ----
Eastbound Off-Ramp 2 0 4,360 40 0 3.0%5.0%66.6 --107 334 RAMON ROAD I-10 RAMPS -
Eastbound On-Ramp 1 0 4,950 40 0 3.0%5.0%67.1 --122 378

VIA BELLA -
West of Los Alamos Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 830 40 0 3.0%5.0%59.4 ----

CASINO -
West of Bob Hope Drive 1 0 13,630 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.5 -106 330 1,025 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 0 520 40 0 3.0%5.0%57.3 ----

WESTIN MISSION HILLS
North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 1,320 40 0 3.0%5.0%61.4 ---103 South of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N./A

WESTIN RESORT AND VILLAS
North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 3,800 40 0 3.0%5.0%66.0 --94 291 South of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET A
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 420 40 0 3.0%5.0%56.4 ----

STREET B
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 2,600 40 0 3.0%5.0%64.3 ---201

STREET C
South of Ramon Road 1 0 5,880 40 0 3.0%5.0%67.9 --144 448

STREET D
South of Ramon Road 1 0 8,630 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.5 --210 654 West of Bob Hope Drive 1 0 6,860 40 0 3.0%5.0%68.6 --168 521

STREET E
West of Bob Hope Drive 1 0 4,060 40 0 3.0%5.0%66.3 --100 311 Weighted Traffic Distribution (%)Riverside County Traffic Distribution Day Evening Night Totals Day Evening Night Totals

75.54%14.02%10.43%100.00%69.50%12.90%9.60%92.00%

48.00%2.00%50.00%100.00%1.44%0.06%1.50%3.00%

48.00%2.00%50.00%100.00%2.40%0.10%2.50%5.00%
Day Evening Night Totals

73.60%13.60%10.22%97.42%

0.90%0.04%0.90%1.84%

Meridian Consultants LLC
Date: 5/28/14
Section 24 EIS
Off-Site Noise Contours Using Riverside County 24-Hour Traffic Distribution Existing + Project Buildout
Rev: 11/12/2012
Number
of Lanes Design Vehicle M ix Distance from Center of Roadway ROADWAY NAME in Each M edian ADT Speed Alpha M edium Heavy CNEL at DISTANCE TO CONTOUR Direction Width Volume (mph)Factor (1)Trucks Trucks 75 Feet 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL

DA VALL DRIVE
2 0 12,690 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.2 -99 308 955
South of Ramon Road 1 0 13,140 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.4 -102 318 989 North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 13,780 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.6 -107 333 1,036 South of Dinah Shore Drive 2 20 15,230 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.0 -118 368 1,144

RATLLER ROAD -
North of Ramon Road 1 15 2,840 40 0 3.0%5.0%64.7 ---219

LOS ALAMOS ROAD -
South of Ramon Road 1 0 7,200 40 0 3.0%5.0%68.8 --176 547 North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 5,160 40 0 3.0%5.0%67.3 --127 394

BOB HOPE DRIVE -
North of I-10 WB Ramps 2 0 13,690 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.6 -107 331 1,030 North of I-10 EB Ramps 2 0 28,410 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.7 -219 680 2,113 North of Ramon Road 3 0 34,720 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.6 86 267 829 2,574 South of Ramon Road 2 30 35,750 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.7 88 274 853 2,650 North of Dinah Shore Drive 3 20 32,330 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.3 80 249 772 2,400 South of Dinah Shore Drive 2 25 28,730 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.8 -221 688 2,136 North of Gerald Ford Drive 2 25 27,510 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.6 -212 659 2,047 South of Gerald Ford Drive 2 30 25,880 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.3 -200 620 1,928

KEY LARGO -
South of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 1,340 40 0 3.0%5.0%61.5 ---104

MONTEREY AVENUE -
North of Dinah Shore Drive 3 25 48,170 40 0 3.0%5.0%77.0 118 368 1,144 3,554 South of Dinah Shore Drive 3 30 35,880 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.7 89 275 856 2,659

RAMON ROAD -
West of Da Vall Drive 3 15 29,020 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.8 -223 694 2,158 East of Da Vall Drive 3 20 36,800 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.8 91 282 877 2,726 West of Los Alamos Road 3 20 37,190 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.9 92 285 887 2,755 East of Los Alamos Road 3 20 37,090 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.9 92 285 884 2,747 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 20 23,880 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.0 -184 573 1,781 East of EB I-10 Ramp 2 0 12,980 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.3 -101 314 977

DINAH SHORE DRIVE -
West of Da Vall Drive 2 20 27,260 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.5 -210 653 2,029 East of Da Vall Drive 2 20 24,150 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.0 -186 579 1,801 West of Los Alamos Road 2 20 24,550 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.1 -190 589 1,830 East of Los Alamos Road 2 20 22,430 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.7 -173 539 1,674 East of Westin Mission Hills 2 20 23,500 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.9 -182 564 1,753 West of Bob Hope Drive 2 20 22,270 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.7 -172 535 1,662 East of Bob Hope Drive 3 25 27,320 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.6 -211 654 2,033 East of Key Largo 3 20 27,670 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.6 -213 663 2,059 West of Monterey Avenue 3 20 35,090 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.6 87 269 837 2,601 East of Monterey Avenue 2 15 18,910 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.0 -147 455 1,415

GERALD FORD DRIVE -
West of Bob Hope Drive 2 25 17,880 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.7 -139 431 1,339 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 15 16,460 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.4 -128 397 1,234 INTERSTATE 10 -
West of Bob Hope Drive 2 35 108,720 40 0 3.0%5.0%80.6 264 821 2,550 7,922 East of Ramon Road 3 25 113,060 40 0 3.0%5.0%80.7 274 853 2,650 8,234 BOB HOPE DR. I-10 RAMPS -
Westbound On-Ramp 2 0 10,350 40 0 3.0%5.0%70.3 -81 252 782 Westbound Off-Ramp 2 0 14,130 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.7 -110 342 1,062 Eastbound On-Ramp 2 0 2,650 40 0 3.0%5.0%64.4 ---204
Eastbound Off-Ramp 2 0 11,930 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.0 -93 289 899 RAMON ROAD I-10 RAMPS -
Eastbound On-Ramp 1 0 12,920 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.3 -101 313 973

VIA BELLA -
West of Los Alamos Road 1 0 730 40 0 3.0%5.0%58.8 ----
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 830 40 0 3.0%5.0%59.4 ----

CASINO -
West of Bob Hope Drive 0 0 13,630 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.5 -106 330 1,025 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 0 2,570 40 0 3.0%5.0%64.3 ---198

WESTIN MISSION HILLS
North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 1,320 40 0 3.0%5.0%61.4 ---103 South of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 1,580 40 0 3.0%5.0%62.2 ---123

WESTIN RESORT AND VILLAS
North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 3,800 40 0 3.0%5.0%66.0 --94 291 South of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 800 40 0 3.0%5.0%59.2 ----

STREET A
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 420 40 0 3.0%5.0%56.4 ----

STREET B
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 2,600 40 0 3.0%5.0%64.3 ---201

STREET C
South of Ramon Road 1 0 5,880 40 0 3.0%5.0%67.9 --144 448

STREET D
South of Ramon Road 1 0 8,630 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.5 --210 654 West of Bob Hope Drive 1 0 6,860 40 0 3.0%5.0%68.6 --168 521

STREET E
West of Bob Hope Drive 1 0 4,060 40 0 3.0%5.0%66.3 --100 311 Weighted Traffic Distribution (%)Riverside County Traffic Distribution Day Evening Night Totals Day Evening Night Totals

75.54%14.02%10.43%100.00%69.50%12.90%9.60%92.00%

48.00%2.00%50.00%100.00%1.44%0.06%1.50%3.00%

48.00%2.00%50.00%100.00%2.40%0.10%2.50%5.00%
Day Evening Night Totals

73.60%13.60%10.22%97.42%

0.90%0.04%0.90%1.84%

Meridian Consultants LLC
Date: 5/28/14
Section 24 EIS
Off-Site Noise Contours Using Riverside County 24-Hour Traffic Distribution Year 2022 Ambient
Rev: 11/12/2012
Number
of Lanes Design Vehicle M ix Distance from Center of Roadway ROADWAY NAME in Each M edian ADT Speed Alpha M edium Heavy CNEL at DISTANCE TO CONTOUR Direction Width Volume (mph)Factor (1)Trucks Trucks 75 Feet 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL

DA VALL DRIVE
2 0 13,840 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.6 -108 335 1,041
South of Ramon Road 1 0 13,170 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.4 -103 319 991 North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 12,390 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.1 -97 300 933 South of Dinah Shore Drive 2 20 14,140 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.7 -110 342 1,063

RATLLER ROAD -
North of Ramon Road 1 15 7,350 40 0 3.0%5.0%68.9 --180 558

LOS ALAMOS ROAD -
South of Ramon Road 1 0 3,430 40 0 3.0%5.0%65.5 --85 263 North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 3,390 40 0 3.0%5.0%65.5 --84 260

BOB HOPE DRIVE -
North of I-10 WB Ramps 2 0 17,350 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.6 -135 418 1,300 North of I-10 EB Ramps 2 0 24,570 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.1 -190 589 1,831 North of Ramon Road 3 0 25,770 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.3 -199 618 1,919 South of Ramon Road 2 30 22,820 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.8 -176 548 1,703 North of Dinah Shore Drive 3 20 24,640 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.1 -190 591 1,837 South of Dinah Shore Drive 2 25 23,880 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.0 -184 573 1,781 North of Gerald Ford Drive 2 25 22,010 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.6 -170 529 1,643 South of Gerald Ford Drive 2 30 22,100 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.6 -171 531 1,650

KEY LARGO -
North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A South of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 1,390 40 0 3.0%5.0%61.6 ---108

MONTEREY AVENUE -
North of Dinah Shore Drive 3 25 48,210 40 0 3.0%5.0%77.0 119 368 1,145 3,557 South of Dinah Shore Drive 3 30 33,790 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.5 84 260 807 2,506

RAMON ROAD -
West of Da Vall Drive 3 15 27,030 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.5 -208 647 2,012 East of Da Vall Drive 3 20 34,000 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.5 84 261 812 2,522 West of Los Alamos Road 3 20 34,230 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.5 85 263 817 2,539 East of Los Alamos Road 3 20 33,610 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.5 83 258 802 2,493 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 20 21,100 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.4 -163 507 1,576 East of EB I-10 Ramp 2 0 12,830 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.3 -100 311 966

DINAH SHORE DRIVE -
West of Da Vall Drive 2 20 23,380 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.9 -181 561 1,744 East of Da Vall Drive 2 20 20,310 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.3 -157 489 1,518 West of Los Alamos Road 2 20 21,670 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.5 -168 521 1,618 East of Los Alamos Road 2 20 21,190 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.4 -164 509 1,583 East of Westin Mission Hills 2 20 21,400 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.5 -166 514 1,599 West of Bob Hope Drive 2 20 19,400 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.1 -150 467 1,451 East of Bob Hope Drive 3 25 23,200 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.8 -179 557 1,731 East of Key Largo 3 20 24,660 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.1 -190 592 1,838 West of Monterey Avenue 3 20 29,900 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.9 -230 715 2,222 East of Monterey Avenue 2 15 17,210 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.5 -134 415 1,290

GERALD FORD DRIVE -
West of Bob Hope Drive 2 25 20,760 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.4 -161 499 1,551 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 15 19,310 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.0 -150 465 1,445 INTERSTATE 10 -
West of Bob Hope Drive 2 35 136,818 40 0 3.0%5.0%81.5 331 1,029 3,197 9,935 East of Ramon Road 3 25 141,527 40 0 3.0%5.0%81.7 342 1,064 3,306 10,271 BOB HOPE DR. I-10 RAMPS -
Westbound On-Ramp 2 0 7,430 40 0 3.0%5.0%68.9 --182 564 Westbound Off-Ramp 2 0 11,260 40 0 3.0%5.0%70.7 -88 273 849 Eastbound On-Ramp 2 0 2,500 40 0 3.0%5.0%64.2 ---193
Eastbound Off-Ramp 2 0 8,660 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.6 --211 656 RAMON ROAD I-10 RAMPS -
Eastbound On-Ramp 1 0 9,680 40 0 3.0%5.0%70.0 -76 236 732

VIA BELLA -
West of Los Alamos Road 1 0 760 40 0 3.0%5.0%59.0 ----
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

CASINO -
West of Bob Hope Drive 0 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A East of Bob Hope Drive 2 0 2,130 40 0 3.0%5.0%63.5 ---165

WESTIN MISSION HILLS
North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A South of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 1,640 40 0 3.0%5.0%62.3 ---127

WESTIN RESORT AND VILLAS
North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A South of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 830 40 0 3.0%5.0%59.4 ----

STREET A
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET B
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET C
South of Ramon Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET D
South of Ramon Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A West of Bob Hope Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET E
West of Bob Hope Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Weighted Traffic Distribution (%)Riverside County Traffic Distribution Day Evening Night Totals Day Evening Night Totals

75.54%14.02%10.43%100.00%69.50%12.90%9.60%92.00%

48.00%2.00%50.00%100.00%1.44%0.06%1.50%3.00%

48.00%2.00%50.00%100.00%2.40%0.10%2.50%5.00%
Day Evening Night Totals

73.60%13.60%10.22%97.42%

0.90%0.04%0.90%1.84%

Meridian Consultants LLC
Date: 5/28/14
Section 24 EIS
Off-Site Noise Contours Using Riverside County 24-Hour Traffic Distribution Year 2022 With Phase I
Rev: 11/12/2012
Number
of Lanes Design Vehicle M ix Distance from Center of Roadway ROADWAY NAME in Each M edian ADT Speed Alpha M edium Heavy CNEL at DISTANCE TO CONTOUR Direction Width Volume (mph)Factor (1)Trucks Trucks 75 Feet 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL

DA VALL DRIVE
2 0 13,970 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.6 -109 338 1,050
South of Ramon Road 1 0 13,260 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.4 -103 321 998 North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 12,480 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.2 -97 302 940 South of Dinah Shore Drive 2 20 14,360 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.8 -112 347 1,079

RATLLER ROAD -
North of Ramon Road 1 15 7,360 40 0 3.0%5.0%68.9 --180 559

LOS ALAMOS ROAD -
South of Ramon Road 1 0 4,460 40 0 3.0%5.0%66.7 --110 341 North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 3,750 40 0 3.0%5.0%65.9 --93 288

BOB HOPE DRIVE -
North of I-10 WB Ramps 2 0 17,390 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.6 -135 419 1,303 North of I-10 EB Ramps 2 0 25,130 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.2 -194 603 1,873 North of Ramon Road 3 0 26,580 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.4 -205 637 1,979 South of Ramon Road 2 30 23,990 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.0 -185 576 1,789 North of Dinah Shore Drive 3 20 25,220 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.2 -195 605 1,879 South of Dinah Shore Drive 2 25 24,600 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.1 -190 590 1,834 North of Gerald Ford Drive 2 25 22,730 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.8 -176 546 1,696 South of Gerald Ford Drive 2 30 22,820 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.8 -176 548 1,703

KEY LARGO -
North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A South of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 1,390 40 0 3.0%5.0%61.6 ---108

MONTEREY AVENUE -
North of Dinah Shore Drive 3 25 48,400 40 0 3.0%5.0%77.0 119 370 1,149 3,571 South of Dinah Shore Drive 3 30 34,240 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.5 85 263 817 2,539

RAMON ROAD -
West of Da Vall Drive 3 15 28,020 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.7 -216 671 2,084 East of Da Vall Drive 3 20 35,030 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.6 87 269 836 2,597 West of Los Alamos Road 3 20 35,260 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.7 87 271 841 2,614 East of Los Alamos Road 3 20 33,790 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.5 84 260 807 2,506 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 20 21,460 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.5 -166 516 1,603 East of EB I-10 Ramp 2 0 12,920 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.3 -101 313 973

DINAH SHORE DRIVE -
West of Da Vall Drive 2 20 23,740 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.9 -183 570 1,771 East of Da Vall Drive 2 20 20,980 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.4 -162 505 1,568 West of Los Alamos Road 2 20 22,340 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.7 -173 537 1,668 East of Los Alamos Road 2 20 21,770 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.6 -168 523 1,626 East of Westin Mission Hills 2 20 22,610 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.7 -175 543 1,687 West of Bob Hope Drive 2 20 20,610 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.3 -160 496 1,540 East of Bob Hope Drive 3 25 24,100 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.0 -186 578 1,797 East of Key Largo 3 20 25,560 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.3 -197 613 1,904 West of Monterey Avenue 3 20 30,800 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.1 76 237 736 2,288 East of Monterey Avenue 2 15 17,470 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.6 -136 421 1,309

GERALD FORD DRIVE -
West of Bob Hope Drive 2 25 20,760 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.4 -161 499 1,551 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 15 19,310 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.0 -150 465 1,445 INTERSTATE 10 -
West of Bob Hope Drive 2 35 137,258 40 0 3.0%5.0%81.6 332 1,032 3,207 9,966 East of Ramon Road 3 25 142,107 40 0 3.0%5.0%81.7 344 1,068 3,319 10,313 BOB HOPE DR. I-10 RAMPS -
Westbound On-Ramp 2 0 7,650 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.0 --187 580 Westbound Off-Ramp 2 0 11,550 40 0 3.0%5.0%70.8 -90 280 871 Eastbound On-Ramp 2 0 2,520 40 0 3.0%5.0%64.2 ---194
Eastbound Off-Ramp 2 0 8,880 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.7 --216 672 RAMON ROAD I-10 RAMPS -
Eastbound On-Ramp 1 0 9,950 40 0 3.0%5.0%70.2 -78 242 752

VIA BELLA -
West of Los Alamos Road 1 0 760 40 0 3.0%5.0%59.0 ----
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 1,120 40 0 3.0%5.0%60.7 ---88

CASINO -
West of Bob Hope Drive 0 0 1,570 40 0 3.0%5.0%62.1 ---122 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 0 2,130 40 0 3.0%5.0%63.5 ---165

WESTIN MISSION HILLS
North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 1,790 40 0 3.0%5.0%62.7 ---139 South of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 1,640 40 0 3.0%5.0%62.3 ---127

WESTIN RESORT AND VILLAS
North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A South of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 830 40 0 3.0%5.0%59.4 ----

STREET A
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET B
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET C
South of Ramon Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET D
South of Ramon Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A West of Bob Hope Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET E
West of Bob Hope Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Weighted Traffic Distribution (%)Riverside County Traffic Distribution Day Evening Night Totals Day Evening Night Totals

75.54%14.02%10.43%100.00%69.50%12.90%9.60%92.00%

48.00%2.00%50.00%100.00%1.44%0.06%1.50%3.00%

48.00%2.00%50.00%100.00%2.40%0.10%2.50%5.00%
Day Evening Night Totals

73.60%13.60%10.22%97.42%

0.90%0.04%0.90%1.84%

Meridian Consultants LLC
Date: 5/28/14
Section 24 EIS
Off-Site Noise Contours Using Riverside County 24-Hour Traffic Distribution Year 2035 Ambient
Rev: 11/12/2012
Number
of Lanes Design Vehicle M ix Distance from Center of Roadway ROADWAY NAME in Each M edian ADT Speed Alpha M edium Heavy CNEL at DISTANCE TO CONTOUR Direction Width Volume (mph)Factor (1)Trucks Trucks 75 Feet 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL

DA VALL DRIVE
2 0 18,390 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.8 -143 443 1,377
South of Ramon Road 1 0 14,380 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.8 -112 348 1,081 North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 12,710 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.2 -99 308 957 South of Dinah Shore Drive 2 20 14,880 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.9 -116 360 1,118

RATLLER ROAD -
North of Ramon Road 1 15 8,260 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.4 --201 626

LOS ALAMOS ROAD -
South of Ramon Road 1 0 3,950 40 0 3.0%5.0%66.2 --97 303 North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 4,280 40 0 3.0%5.0%66.5 --105 328

BOB HOPE DRIVE -
North of I-10 WB Ramps 2 0 26,490 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.4 -204 635 1,972 North of I-10 EB Ramps 2 0 29,160 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.8 -225 698 2,168 North of Ramon Road 3 0 24,550 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.1 -190 589 1,830 South of Ramon Road 2 30 21,040 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.4 -163 506 1,572 North of Dinah Shore Drive 3 20 24,430 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.1 -189 586 1,821 South of Dinah Shore Drive 2 25 22,370 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.7 -173 537 1,670 North of Gerald Ford Drive 2 25 21,030 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.4 -163 506 1,571 South of Gerald Ford Drive 2 30 22,100 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.6 -171 531 1,650

KEY LARGO -
North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 5,010 40 0 3.0%5.0%67.2 --123 383 South of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 1,470 40 0 3.0%5.0%61.9 ---114

MONTEREY AVENUE -
North of Dinah Shore Drive 3 25 50,970 40 0 3.0%5.0%77.3 125 389 1,209 3,757 South of Dinah Shore Drive 3 30 34,780 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.6 86 267 830 2,579

RAMON ROAD -
West of Da Vall Drive 3 15 30,670 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.1 76 236 733 2,278 East of Da Vall Drive 3 20 42,060 40 0 3.0%5.0%76.4 104 322 1,001 3,110 West of Los Alamos Road 3 20 41,940 40 0 3.0%5.0%76.4 103 321 998 3,101 East of Los Alamos Road 3 20 37,660 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.9 93 289 898 2,789 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 20 21,520 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.5 -166 517 1,607 East of EB I-10 Ramp 2 0 13,760 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.6 -107 333 1,035

DINAH SHORE DRIVE -
West of Da Vall Drive 2 20 24,610 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.1 -190 590 1,834 East of Da Vall Drive 2 20 19,750 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.1 -153 475 1,477 West of Los Alamos Road 2 20 21,910 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.6 -169 527 1,636 East of Los Alamos Road 2 20 22,720 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.8 -176 546 1,696 East of Westin Mission Hills 2 20 22,260 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.7 -172 535 1,662 West of Bob Hope Drive 2 20 20,430 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.3 -158 491 1,527 East of Bob Hope Drive 3 25 23,350 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.9 -180 561 1,742 East of Key Largo 3 20 27,400 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.6 -211 656 2,039 West of Monterey Avenue 3 20 29,230 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.8 -225 699 2,173 East of Monterey Avenue 2 15 18,120 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.8 -141 437 1,357

GERALD FORD DRIVE -
West of Bob Hope Drive 2 25 27,050 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.5 -209 648 2,013 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 15 26,410 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.4 -204 633 1,966 INTERSTATE 10 -
West of Bob Hope Drive 2 35 198,456 40 0 3.0%5.0%83.2 478 1,484 4,611 14,329 East of Ramon Road 3 25 207,633 40 0 3.0%5.0%83.4 499 1,552 4,821 14,981 BOB HOPE DR. I-10 RAMPS -
Westbound On-Ramp 2 0 6,590 40 0 3.0%5.0%68.4 --161 501 Westbound Off-Ramp 2 0 10,870 40 0 3.0%5.0%70.6 -85 264 820 Eastbound On-Ramp 2 0 2,680 40 0 3.0%5.0%64.5 ---207
Eastbound Off-Ramp 2 0 8,330 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.4 --203 631 RAMON ROAD I-10 RAMPS -
Eastbound On-Ramp 1 0 8,770 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.6 --214 664

VIA BELLA -
West of Los Alamos Road 1 0 800 40 0 3.0%5.0%59.2 ----
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

CASINO -
West of Bob Hope Drive 0 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A East of Bob Hope Drive 2 0 2,260 40 0 3.0%5.0%63.7 ---175

WESTIN MISSION HILLS
North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A South of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 1,740 40 0 3.0%5.0%62.6 ---135

WESTIN RESORT AND VILLAS
North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A South of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 880 40 0 3.0%5.0%59.6 ----

STREET A
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET B
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET C
South of Ramon Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET D
South of Ramon Road 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A West of Bob Hope Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

STREET E
West of Bob Hope Drive 1 0 0 40 0 3.0%5.0%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Weighted Traffic Distribution (%)Riverside County Traffic Distribution Day Evening Night Totals Day Evening Night Totals

75.54%14.02%10.43%100.00%69.50%12.90%9.60%92.00%

48.00%2.00%50.00%100.00%1.44%0.06%1.50%3.00%

48.00%2.00%50.00%100.00%2.40%0.10%2.50%5.00%
Day Evening Night Totals

73.60%13.60%10.22%97.42%

0.90%0.04%0.90%1.84%

Meridian Consultants LLC
Date: 5/28/14
Section 24 EIS
Off-Site Noise Contours Using Riverside County 24-Hour Traffic Distribution Year 2035 With Project
Rev: 11/12/2012
Number
of Lanes Design Vehicle M ix Distance from Center of Roadway ROADWAY NAME in Each M edian ADT Speed Alpha M edium Heavy CNEL at DISTANCE TO CONTOUR Direction Width Volume (mph)Factor (1)Trucks Trucks 75 Feet 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL

DA VALL DRIVE
2 0 20,650 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.3 -160 497 1,543
South of Ramon Road 1 0 16,610 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.4 -129 401 1,246 North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 14,940 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.9 -116 361 1,122 South of Dinah Shore Drive 2 20 18,290 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.8 -142 441 1,369

RATLLER ROAD -
North of Ramon Road 1 15 8,390 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.4 --205 636

LOS ALAMOS ROAD -
South of Ramon Road 1 0 9,330 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.9 --227 706 North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 7,440 40 0 3.0%5.0%68.9 --182 565

BOB HOPE DRIVE -
North of I-10 WB Ramps 2 0 27,650 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.6 -213 662 2,057 North of I-10 EB Ramps 2 0 40,200 40 0 3.0%5.0%76.2 99 308 957 2,974 North of Ramon Road 3 0 40,520 40 0 3.0%5.0%76.3 100 310 965 2,997 South of Ramon Road 2 30 37,660 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.9 93 289 898 2,789 North of Dinah Shore Drive 3 20 38,900 40 0 3.0%5.0%76.1 96 298 927 2,879 South of Dinah Shore Drive 2 25 30,760 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.1 76 237 735 2,285 North of Gerald Ford Drive 2 25 29,420 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.9 -227 704 2,187 South of Gerald Ford Drive 2 30 27,890 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.6 -215 668 2,075

KEY LARGO -
North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 5,010 40 0 3.0%5.0%67.2 --123 383 South of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 1,470 40 0 3.0%5.0%61.9 ---114

MONTEREY AVENUE -
North of Dinah Shore Drive 3 25 52,800 40 0 3.0%5.0%77.4 130 403 1,252 3,890 South of Dinah Shore Drive 3 30 39,040 40 0 3.0%5.0%76.1 96 299 930 2,890

RAMON ROAD -
West of Da Vall Drive 3 15 39,350 40 0 3.0%5.0%76.1 97 302 937 2,912 East of Da Vall Drive 3 20 55,100 40 0 3.0%5.0%77.6 135 420 1,306 4,057 West of Los Alamos Road 3 20 55,100 40 0 3.0%5.0%77.6 135 420 1,306 4,057 East of Los Alamos Road 3 20 50,070 40 0 3.0%5.0%77.2 123 382 1,188 3,692 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 20 28,220 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.7 -217 676 2,099 East of EB I-10 Ramp 2 0 15,510 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.1 -121 375 1,164

DINAH SHORE DRIVE -
West of Da Vall Drive 2 20 29,500 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.9 -227 706 2,193 East of Da Vall Drive 2 20 25,950 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.3 -200 622 1,933 West of Los Alamos Road 2 20 28,110 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.7 -217 673 2,091 East of Los Alamos Road 2 20 27,080 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.5 -209 649 2,016 East of Westin Mission Hills 2 20 27,080 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.5 -209 649 2,016 West of Bob Hope Drive 2 20 24,130 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.0 -186 579 1,799 East of Bob Hope Drive 3 25 31,870 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.2 79 245 762 2,366 East of Key Largo 3 20 35,920 40 0 3.0%5.0%75.7 89 276 857 2,662 West of Monterey Avenue 3 20 37,750 40 0 3.0%5.0%76.0 93 290 900 2,796 East of Monterey Avenue 2 15 20,560 40 0 3.0%5.0%73.3 -159 495 1,537

GERALD FORD DRIVE -
West of Bob Hope Drive 2 25 28,090 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.7 -216 672 2,090 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 15 27,970 40 0 3.0%5.0%74.7 -216 670 2,081 INTERSTATE 10 -
West of Bob Hope Drive 2 35 207,716 40 0 3.0%5.0%83.4 500 1,552 4,823 14,987 East of Ramon Road 3 25 218,693 40 0 3.0%5.0%83.6 526 1,633 5,074 15,767 BOB HOPE DR. I-10 RAMPS -
Westbound On-Ramp 2 0 10,950 40 0 3.0%5.0%70.6 -86 266 826 Westbound Off-Ramp 2 0 16,400 40 0 3.0%5.0%72.3 -127 396 1,230 Eastbound On-Ramp 2 0 3,260 40 0 3.0%5.0%65.3 --81 251
Eastbound Off-Ramp 2 0 12,690 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.2 -99 308 955 RAMON ROAD I-10 RAMPS -
Eastbound On-Ramp 1 0 13,720 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.6 -107 332 1,032

VIA BELLA -
West of Los Alamos Road 1 0 800 40 0 3.0%5.0%59.2 ----
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 830 40 0 3.0%5.0%59.4 ----

CASINO -
West of Bob Hope Drive 0 0 13,360 40 0 3.0%5.0%71.4 -104 323 1,005 East of Bob Hope Drive 2 0 2,780 40 0 3.0%5.0%64.6 ---214

WESTIN MISSION HILLS
North of Dinah Shore Drive 0 0 1,320 40 0 3.0%5.0%61.4 ---103 South of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 1,740 40 0 3.0%5.0%62.6 ---135

WESTIN RESORT AND VILLAS
North of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 3,800 40 0 3.0%5.0%66.0 --94 291 South of Dinah Shore Drive 1 0 880 40 0 3.0%5.0%59.6 ----

STREET A
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 420 40 0 3.0%5.0%56.4 ----

STREET B
East of Los Alamos Road 1 0 2,600 40 0 3.0%5.0%64.3 ---201

STREET C
South of Ramon Road 1 0 5,880 40 0 3.0%5.0%67.9 --144 448

STREET D
South of Ramon Road 1 0 8,630 40 0 3.0%5.0%69.5 --210 654 West of Bob Hope Drive 1 0 6,860 40 0 3.0%5.0%68.6 --168 521

STREET E
West of Bob Hope Drive 1 0 4,060 40 0 3.0%5.0%66.3 --100 311 Weighted Traffic Distribution (%)Riverside County Traffic Distribution Day Evening Night Totals Day Evening Night Totals

75.54%14.02%10.43%100.00%69.50%12.90%9.60%92.00%

48.00%2.00%50.00%100.00%1.44%0.06%1.50%3.00%

48.00%2.00%50.00%100.00%2.40%0.10%2.50%5.00%
Day Evening Night Totals

73.60%13.60%10.22%97.42%

0.90%0.04%0.90%1.84%

Meridian Consultants LLC
Date: 5/28/14
Section 24 EIS
Off-Site Noise Contours Using Riverside County 24-Hour Traffic Distribution Cumulative
Rev: 11/12/2012
Number
of Lanes Design Vehicle M ix Distance from Center of Roadway ROADWAY NAME in Each M edian ADT Speed Alpha M edium Heavy CNEL at DISTANCE TO CONTOUR Direction Width Volume (mph)Factor (1)Trucks Trucks 75 Feet 75 CNEL 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Cumulative
1 0 1,250 40 0 3.0%5.0%61.2 ---98
Rancho Mirage Rehab Hospital 1 0 1,070 40 0 3.0%5.0%60.5 ---84 Weighted Traffic Distribution (%)Riverside County Traffic Distribution Day Evening Night Totals Day Evening Night Totals

75.54%14.02%10.43%100.00%69.50%12.90%9.60%92.00%

48.00%2.00%50.00%100.00%1.44%0.06%1.50%3.00%

48.00%2.00%50.00%100.00%2.40%0.10%2.50%5.00%
Day Evening Night Totals

73.60%13.60%10.22%97.42%

0.90%0.04%0.90%1.84%

0.35%0.04%0.35%0.74%
Medium-Duty Trucks
Heavy-Duty Trucks
Notes to Modeler: This model is for roadways designated as "major," "arterial" highways or "expressways by Riverside County." For roadways designated as "secondary," "collectors," or smaller, use the traffic distribution shown below. Vehicle mix for medium- and heavy-duty trucks was provided by Riverside County. Obtain traffic volumes from the traffic engineer. For state and federal highways, obtain percentages and traffic distribution data from the Caltrans website. Column H under Notes: should total 100%.

Auto
Segment
Pelagic Residential
Notes:
(1) Alpha Factor:Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface.An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard"site,such as aspalt.An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such, as heavily vegetated ground cover.
"-" = contour is located within the roadway lanes or within 75 feet of the roadway centerline. 12-1946

APPENDIX G
Traffic Study
12-1947

Se
c
t
i
o
n 2
4 S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

P
l
a
n
Se
c
t
i
o
n 2
4 S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

P
l
a
n
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
Se
c
t
i
o
n 2
4 S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

P
l
a
n
Tra
f
fi
c

I
m
p
a
ct

S
tu
d
y
12-1948

12-1949

Conceptual Land Use Plan
FIGURE 3.0-3
044-001-13
N
SECTION 24 SPECIFIC PLAN

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
10005000 2000
SOURCE: MSA Consulting Inc. - September 2014.
12-1950

28811 Woodcock Drive, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677-1330
Phone: (949) 362-0020 E-Mail:[email protected]
October 27, 2014
Mr. Tony Locacciato
Meridian Consultants
860 Hampshire Road, Suite P
Westlake Village, California 91361
SUBJECT: Section 24 Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study Dear Mr. Locacciato;
Endo Engineering is pleased to submit this analysis of the full range of potentially significant transportation consequences associated with implementation of the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan being prepared by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. The Section 24 Specific Plan would coordinate the planning and future development of 577 acres under separate ownerships within the boundaries of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation. The project site is undeveloped and located south of Interstate 10 and Ramon Road, north of Dinah Shore Drive, west of Bob Hope Drive, and east of Los Alamos Road. The site is west of the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa, within unincorporated Riverside County and the City of Rancho Mirage Sphere of Influence. The Section 24 Specific Plan area is surrounded on all four sides by the City of Rancho Mirage. Following action on the EIS and the Section 24 Specific Plan by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Specific Plan area may be annexed to the City of Rancho Mirage.

The Riverside County General Plan would change the historical growth pattern of random sprawl by moving toward a pattern of concentrated growth and increased job creation in strategic areas, which provide various transportation options for access to the region. In view of its prominent and centralized location within the Coachella Valley, the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan would provide a unique opportunity to implement that vision. The proposed project would create a vital mixed-use development, within the context of a destination resort community, that is supportive of transit and other alternative transportation modes. The development would be pedestrian-friendly and located within an area where the use of golf carts and NEVs is commonplace and multi-use paths exist and are being expanded to accommodate cycling, pedestrians, and golf carts.

The development proposed would take maximum advantage of the opportunities afforded by the seasonal influx of tourists and part-year residents but also provide a mix of future uses that would support the local community and be economically viable year-round. To promote walking and cycling as healthy alternatives to commuting long distances by automobile, the Section 24 Specific Plan would provide a variety of housing options and create employment and entertainment opportunities in close proximity. Cohesive design elements would protect unique viewsheds and introduce streetscapes with coordinated landscaping to reinforce and enhance community aesthetics. The project would create a safe environment within which the use of alternative transportation modes for short trips would increase over time and continue to be a viable option as the population ages. 12-1951

12-1952

DRAFT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
SECTION 24 SPECIFIC PLAN

AGUA CALIENTE INDIAN RESERVATION

UNINCORPORATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared
APRIL 2, 2014
Revised
JULY 24, 2014
2nd Revision
OCTOBER 27, 2014
Prepared For:

Mr. Tony Locacciato
Meridian Consultants
860 Hampshire Road, Suite P
Westlake Village, California 91361
Phone: (805) 367-5725
Prepared By:

Endo Engineering
28811 Woodcock Drive
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
Phone: (949) 362-0020
E-Mail: [email protected]
12-1953

i
Table of Contents
Section Title Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY............................................................ 1-1 Purpose and Objectives
Site Location and Study Area
Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations
Development Description
Principal Findings
Recommendations

2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 2-1 Project Location
Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations
Project Description
Project Alternatives

3.0 AREA CONDITIONS ............................................................................ 3-1 Study Area and Key Intersections
Study Area Land Use
Site Accessibility
Existing Transportation System
Relevant Circulation Plans
Alternative Transportation Modes
Mobility for Persons With Special Needs

4.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC......................................................................... 4-1 Analysis Periods and Horizon Years Evaluated
Site Traffic
Existing Plus Site Traffic
Future Through Traffic
Future Total Traffic

5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 5-1 Thresholds of Significance
Local and Regional Performance Standards
Capacity and Level of Service Analysis
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Site Access and Internal Circulation
Other Considerations

6.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 6-1 Thresholds of Significance
Traffic Impact Findings
Site Access and Internal Circulation Findings
Standard Mitigation Required of All Developments
Roadway Improvements Needed

APPENDICES

1.Traffic Count Locations and Data

2.RIVTAM TAZ Map, Modifications, and Socioeconomic Data

3.Intersection Analysis Methodology and Worksheets

4.Traffic Signal Warrants

5.List of Acronyms and Traffic Glossary

6.City of Rancho Mirage Review Comments and Responses
12-1954

ii
List of Figures
Number Title Following Page
2-1 Regional Location ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2-2 Vicinity Map.................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2-3 Proposed Land Use, Site Access, and Internal Circulation............................................. 2-1 3-1 Study Area and Key Intersections .......................................................................................... 3-1 3-2 Surrounding Street System ..................................................................................................... 3-5 3-3 Existing Weekday Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................ 3-10 3-4 Existing Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................................... 3-10 3-5 Anticipated Circulation System- County of Riverside General Plan ............................. 3-11 3-6 Riverside County Typical Street Sections ........................................................................... 3-11 3-7 City of Rancho Mirage Circulation Plan .............................................................................. 3-12 3-8 City of Rancho Mirage Typical Street Cross Sections ...................................................... 3-12 3-9 City of Rancho Mirage Bicycle/Golf Cart/Pedestrian Paths ............................................. 3-18 4-1 Site Traffic Distribution – Initial Phase .................................................................................. 4-8 4-2 Site Traffic Distribution – Project Buildout ........................................................................... 4-9 4-3 Site Buildout Traffic Distribution
At Proposed Site Access Locations ....................................................................................... 4-9 4-4 Site Traffic Volumes – Initial Phase ....................................................................................... 4-9 4-5 Site Traffic Volumes Upon Project Buildout ........................................................................ 4-9 4-6 Site Traffic Volumes Upon Project Buildout
At Proposed Right-Turn Only Driveways ............................................................................. 4-9 4-7 Existing Plus Initial Phase Weekday Traffic Volumes ....................................................... 4-9 4-8 Existing Plus Project Buildout Weekday Traffic Volumes ................................................ 4-9 4-9 Through Traffic Volumes – Year 2022 ................................................................................ 4-13 4-10 Through Traffic Volumes – Year 2035 ................................................................................ 4-13 4-11 Total Traffic Volumes – Year 2022 With Initial Phase ...................................................... 4-14 4-12 Total Traffic Volumes – Year 2035 ........................................................................................ 4-14 6-1 Existing Lane Geometrics ....................................................................................................... 6-1 6-2 Minimum Lane Geometrics Required for Initial Phase of Project ................................. 6-1 6-3 Minimum Lane Geometrics Required for Existing Plus Project Buildout .................... 6-2 6-4 Minimum Lane Geometrics Required for Year 2035 Plus Project Buildout ............... 6-2 12-1955

iii
List of Tables
Number Title Page
2-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Compared to
County/City General Plan Land Uses ................................................................................ 2-4 2-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Land Use Summary .................................................................. 2-6 3-1 Recent Weekday Traffic Count Data................................................................................... 3-9 3-2 Riverside County Access Standards
by Corridor Classification....................................................................................................... 3-11 4-1 Unadjusted Weekday Site Trip-Generation Forecast .................................................. 4-4 4-2 Adjusted Weekday Site Trip-Generation Forecast ......................................................... 4-6 4-3 Existing Weekday Traffic Projections
With and Without Site Traffic ................................................................................................ 4-10 4-4 Cumulative Weekday Trip-Generation Forecast ............................................................ 4-13 4-5 Future Weekday Traffic Projections
With and Without Site Traffic ................................................................................................ 4-15 4-6 Horizon Year 2035 Weekday Traffic Projections By Alternative ................................. 4-17 5-1 Intersection Level of Service Criteria ................................................................................. 5-5 5-2 Existing Weekday Peak Hour Delay and LOS at the
Unsignalized Key Intersections With and Without the Initial Phase ........................... 5-7 5-3 Existing Weekday Peak Hour Delay and LOS at the
Signalized Key Intersections With and Without the Initial Phase ................................ 5-8 5-4 Existing Weekday Peak Hour Delay and LOS at the
Unsignalized Key Intersections With and Without Project Buildout ........................... 5-11 5-5 Existing Weekday Peak Hour Delay and LOS at the
Signalized Key Intersections With and Without Project Buildout ................................ 5-12 5-6 Future Year 2022 Weekday Peak Hour Delay and LOS at the Unsignalized Key Intersections With and Without the Initial Phase............................ 5-15 5-7 Future Year 2022 Weekday Peak Hour Delay and LOS at the Signalized Key Intersections With and Without the Initial Phase................................. 5-16 5-8 Horizon Year 2035 Weekday Peak Hour Delay and LOS at the Unsignalized Key Intersections With and Without Project Buildout............................ 5-18 5-9 Horizon Year 2035 Weekday Peak Hour Delay and LOS at the Signalized Key Intersections With and Without Project Buildout ................................. 5-19 5-10 Horizon Year 2035 Weekday Peak Hour Delay and LOS at the At the Signalized Site Access Intersections........................................................................ 5-23 12-1956

1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

1.1 Purpose and Objectives
This traffic impact study was developed for use in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan in Riverside County, California. The project site is located entirely within the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation and within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Rancho Mirage as defined by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). In compliance with their Environmental Policy Act (Tribal Ordinance No. 28) the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (“Tribe”) is acting as the lead agency for the preparation of the EIS.

Following action on the EIS and Section 24 Specific Plan by the Tribe, the Specific Plan area may be annexed to the City of Rancho Mirage. To facilitate compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the City of Rancho Mirage, the EIS will be prepared in compliance with the CEQA Guidelines.

This traffic impact study was conducted to provide an objective and factually supported full-disclosure analysis of the potentially significant transportation consequences associated with implementation of the proposed project as well as anticipated future discretionary actions and approvals. In the process, potential cumulative transportation impacts associated with other existing, approved, and proposed development in the study area were also evaluated. To achieve the objective, information was obtained from field observations in the study area, discussions with representatives of affected agencies and the project design team. Adopted plans and policies were analyzed. Available studies, reports, data, literature, and relevant local and regional transportation models were also reviewed.

The analyses summarized herein were designed to achieve the following objectives. • Describe the thresholds used to determine if a significant impact would occur. •Collect and analyze the data necessary to identify, disclose, and focus on those impacts determined to be potentially significant.
• Identify improvements that would avoid significant effects, where feasible. •Reduce adverse effects through the project design process or the incorporation of appropriate mitigation.
• Foster inter-agency coordination during the project review process. •Clearly document the study methodology, assumptions, findings, and recommendations to support informed decision making.

1.2 Site Location and Study Area
The 577-acre undeveloped project site is centrally located within the Coachella Valley, in unincorporated Riverside County.

Figure 2-1 depicts the project site in its regional context. The site occupies all of Section 24 except the 63 acres located on the east side of Bob Hope Drive. The project site is surrounded on all four sides by land located within the City of Rancho Mirage and is within the City of Rancho Mirage Sphere of Influence. The project site is located south of Interstate 10 (I-10), near the recently constructed Bob Hope Drive interchange. The site extends south of Ramon Road to Dinah Shore Drive and west of Bob Hope Drive to Los Alamos Road (see Figure 2-2). The site is located south of Section 13, west of Section 19, and east of Section 23 (the Mission Hills golf resort community).

The study area extends east of Da Vall Drive to Monterey Avenue and south of I-10 to Gerald Ford Drive. Seventeen existing key intersections within the study area were identified and approved by the Tribe and the City of Rancho Mirage for peak hour delay and level of service analysis (as shown in Figure 3-1) to determine the traffic impacts of the proposed Specific Plan project. The City of Cathedral City is adjacent to the study area to the west and north. The City of Palm Desert is adjacent to the study area to the east.

1.3 Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations
The Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan (Revised 2008) and the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan (October 2003) assign three land use designations to the area within the project site: CR (120 gross acres), CT (217 gross acres), MDR (240 gross acres). These designations would allow up to 1,200 single family dwelling units and approximately 3.85 million square feet of non-residential building space associated with local and regional serving retail and service uses, 12-1957

1-2
tourist commercial, hotel, professional offices, recreational and amusement uses.1 Development at the maximum intensity and density allowed by the Riverside County General Plan could generate up to 88,560 unadjusted weekday trips, as shown in Table 2-1.2
The proposed Section 24 Specific Plan would establish development standards for consistent land uses (i.e., 1,200 single- family dwellings for active senior adults (aged 55 and above) and a maximum non-residential building area that represents

81.4 percent of the maximum allowed under the land use designations in the Riverside County General Plan. A maximum of 1,206 multiple-family residential dwellings not anticipated by the Riverside County General Plan are proposed in close proximity to the proposed local and visitor-serving retail and service uses that would be employment generators within the site. Even though the project would include approximately twice as many residential dwellings as the Riverside County General Plan, they would generate a similar number of residential trips because 1,200 dwellings would be for active adults (age-restricted for residents aged 55 and above). Development at the maximum intensity and density allowed by the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan could generate up to 73,890 unadjusted weekday trips, which is approximately 16.5 percent below the number of trips that would be generated by the amount and type of development allowed by the current Riverside County General Plan land use designations.

The City of Rancho Mirage General Plan applies a C-C designation to approximately 75 net acres within the site with the potential to generate approximately 33,100 weekday trips. The City of Rancho Mirage General Plan designates approximately 39 net acres of the site R-H (9 dwelling units per acre, maximum) which would allow up to 351 multi-family dwelling units. The remaining 414 net acres are designated R-M (4 dwelling units per acre, maximum) which would allow up to 1,656 single-family detached dwelling units. The proposed project includes 84 percent of the residential acreage shown in the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan. However, the multiple-family residential density proposed would be twice that allowed by the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan. The proposed project would include twenty percent more residential dwellings (2,406 versus 2,007 units). However, the residential trip generation of the proposed project would be 64 percent of that associated with the 2,007 dwelling units allowed by the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan (i.e., 5,590 fewer weekday trips, as shown in Table 2-1). The lower trip generation would be attributed to the 1,200 proposed single- family dwelling units for active senior adults (with residency limited to adults aged 55 and above), which would generate substantially fewer trips on weekdays than conventional single-family dwellings. Development at the maximum intensity and density allowed per the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan would generate a total of 48,780 unadjusted weekday trips.

1.4 Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan
The Section 24 Specific Plan would establish a unified vision for the project site to guide the future development of a cohesive and complementary mix of land uses consistent with both local and regional planning goals. The Section 24 Specific Plan provides comprehensive development standards and design guidelines for use in the future development of a mixed-use regional destination resort community with residential uses located near employment opportunities, tourist- related and local-serving commercial and entertainment uses. Offices and hotels would be permitted uses within the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan.

Figure 2-3 depicts the proposed land uses, site access connections, and internal circulation system planned to support the development. A maximum of 2,406 residential dwelling units and 3,138,600 square feet of non-residential development (retail commercial, entertainment, office, hotel) would be allowed by the Section 24 Specific Plan. The mixed-use development proposed would incorporate “complete streets” designed to be supportive of transit and alternative transportation modes. The proposed development reflects the policies and goals set forth in the Riverside County General Plan and the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan which encourage more concentrated growth at key locations with existing regional and local transportation infrastructure.

The 1,200 single-family residential dwelling units proposed within a gated community designed for active senior adults (residency would be limited to adults aged 55 and above) would complement surrounding existing and planned land uses in the City of Rancho Mirage. The higher density multiple-family attached dwelling units would reflect the emerging pattern

1 The Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM) is the approved regional transportation model used to forecast future horizon year 2035 traffic projections for the project site. In RIVTAM, the gross acreage designated in the Riverside County General Plan for commercial land uses is converted to net acreage (by assuming that 25 percent of the gross area would be reserved for roads, rights-of-way, easements, etc.) and the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) represents the non-residential building floor area divided by the net area of each parcel. 2 These “unadjusted” trips represent the sum of the individual trip-generation estimates associated with each land use within the mixed-use development, without adjustments to remove the double counting of internally-captured trips (i.e., trips with both an origin and a destination within the site that would occur without requiring vehicular travel on external streets). 12-1958

1-3
of more concentrated growth and increased job creation to more cost-effectively accommodate the future transit demands created.

The project site encompasses 577 acres of which approximately 528 net acres would ultimately be developed. The remaining 49+ acres within the site would be roadway rights-of-way. Table 2-2 summarizes the proposed land uses within the site by Planning Area. The proposed land use designations include: Retail, Resort Flex, Mixed Use Core, Residential (Multiple-Family), and Residential (Single-Family) for active seniors (age 55 and over). The initial phase of development would include the development of up to 1,200 single-family homes for active adults (aged 55 and above) within Planning Area 8. The Section 24 Specific Plan would include up to 1,206 multiple-family residential dwellings after the initial phase.

Although no time frame has been established for the future development of Planning Areas 1 through 7, these areas are being planned in conjunction with the Section 24 Specific Plan to coordinate streets and other necessary infrastructure and promote land use compatibility.

The RIVTAM model run conducted for the traffic analysis was based on socioeconomic data derived from the proposed residential units and square feet of non-residential uses. The analysis conducted for the study evaluated 3,138,600 square feet of non-residential uses and 2,406 residential units. After this model run was conducted, minor adjustments were made to the configuration of the Planning Areas. The configuration currently proposed for the Draft Section 24 Specific Plan site will allow the development of 529 net acres of the 577-acre site, with 313 net acres in Planning Area 8, 216 net acres in Planning Areas 1 through 7, and 48 acres for roadway rights-of-way. The differences between the size of the Planning Areas originally assumed for the traffic analysis (312 net acres for Planning Area 8, 216 net acres for Planning Areas 1 through 7, and 49 acres of roadway rights-of-way) versus the Draft Specific Plan as currently proposed (313 net acres for PA 8, 216 net acres for PA 1 through 7, and 48 acres for roadway rights-of-way) would not alter the trip generation. The differences between the Specific Plan addressed in the traffic analysis and the currently proposed Specific Plan would not affect the socioeconomic parameters used in the RIVTAM run. Therefore, the analysis presented in this study is consistent with the total non-residential development area and residential units proposed in the Specific Plan.

Proposed Site Access
Figure 2-3 illustrates the proposed site access and internal circulation layout including the internal street designations referred to throughout this report. The initial phase would ultimately be accessed via full-turn access connections proposed opposite three existing T-type intersections (Intersections 8, 9 and 12), as shown in Figure 2-3. However, the extension of Casino Road, from Bob Hope Drive to Planning Area 8, would not be constructed by Pulte Homes as part of the improvements associated with the development of the active adult community in the initial phase.

The timing of the construction of Casino Road on-site, between Planning Area 8 and Bob Hope Drive, is currently unknown.

The extension of Casino Road to Planning Area 8 may not occur until adjacent land within Planning Areas 2, 3, 4, and/or 5 is developed. Although the connection of Casino Road on-site between Planning Area 8 and Bob Hope Drive is planned, there may be an interval when the initial phase is completed without the access afforded by Casino Road. As a result, the evaluation of the traffic impacts associated with the completion of the initial phase of development assumed that Casino Road would not be constructed between Planning Area 8 and Bob Hope Drive by the year 2022.

The site access plan proposed to support the ultimate development within the project site would include two existing signalized intersections (Intersections 9, and 12). In addition, five future signalized full-turn site access intersections are proposed (Intersections 13, 18, 19, 20, and 21) as well as two future unsignalized full-turn access intersections (Intersections 22 and 23). All seven of the proposed right-in/right-out access connections would be associated with phases of site development after the initial phase is completed.

The two future signalized full-turn site access intersections proposed on Ramon Road, between Los Alamos Road and Bob Hope Drive, (Intersections 18 and 19) would be located opposite the future access intersections associated with the adopted City of Rancho Mirage Section 13 Specific Plan to the north. The two future signalized full-turn site access intersections proposed on Bob Hope Drive, between Casino Road and Dinah Shore Drive, (Intersections 20 and 21) would be located opposite future access intersections associated with the adopted City of Rancho Mirage Section 19 Specific Plan to the east.

Project Phasing
Planning Area 8 would be developed as the initial phase of the proposed project. Buildout of Planning Area 8 is expected to require six to eight years to complete and occur by the year 2022. No time frame has been established to date for development within Planning Areas 1 through 7. For the purposes of this traffic impact analysis, buildout of the entire project 12-1959

1-4
was assumed to occur by the year 2035, which is the horizon year used in the approved regional transportation model (RIVTAM).

1.5 Principal Findings
Performance Criteria
The Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan states that for development within the Sphere of Influence of an incorporated jurisdiction, city standards should generally apply where annexation to the city will logically occur in the short to intermediate range future. The City of Rancho Mirage General Plan identifies the adopted performance criteria to be used to evaluate the adequacy of the circulation system to serve the desired future land uses as follows: “While LOS C has long been considered the desirable and optimal level of traffic volume on any given roadway, it represents a standard that is progressively more difficult and less cost-effective to achieve in urban areas. For peak operating periods, LOS D or a maximum volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.90 is now considered the generally acceptable service level.” The City of Cathedral City standard is LOS D. The City of Palm Desert has adopted LOS C as the target for design purposes but considers LOS D provisionally acceptable for intersections that are fully improved and cannot be mitigated to achieve LOS C.

Existing Conditions
All of the seventeen key intersections are currently providing acceptable levels of service in the peak season during the weekday morning and evening peak hours. Peak hour traffic volumes do not currently warrant traffic control signals at the unsignalized key intersection of Los Alamos Road with Via Bella or the intersection of the Westin Resort Villas access with Dinah Shore Drive. The project site has adequate access for the land uses proposed.

Existing Plus Initial Phase Conditions
The initial phase of the proposed development would generate approximately 4,480 weekday trips of which 234 would occur during the morning peak hour and 289 would occur during the evening peak hour on weekdays. Although site traffic generated by the initial phase of development would degrade the peak hour LOS at two of the site access intersections (Intersection 8 and 12) from LOS A to LOS B, this impact would not be significant. All of the key intersections and site access intersections would provide acceptable levels of service upon completion of the initial phase, provided the intersection of Los Alamos Road with Via Bella [Intersection 8] and the intersection of the Westin Mission Hills Access with Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 12] are improved to provide site access, as shown in Figure 6-2. No new traffic signals would be warranted or required by the initial phase of development. Although multiple access points are desirable to minimize circuitous travel, provide alternate access during maintenance activities and enhance emergency access, the two initial access connections would provide sufficient capacity for the initial phase of development. The extension of Casino Road, from Bob Hope Drive to Planning Area 8, would facilitate internal trip interactions between the active adult community and the non-residential land uses developed in subsequent phases of the Section 24 Specific Plan.

Existing Plus Project Buildout Conditions
Development of the project site at the maximum intensity/density that would be permitted by the proposed Specific Plan would add 59,450 weekday trips to the surrounding street system. Of that total, approximately 2,965 trips would be inbound to the site and 2,874 trips would be outbound from the site during the evening peak hour on a typical weekday.

Traffic generated by the project would cause the peak hour traffic signal warrants to be met at five intersections where site access is proposed including: two future intersections proposed on Ramon Road, two future intersections proposed on Bob Hope Drive, and one existing unsignalized intersection on Dinah Shore Drive, where a site access connection is proposed.

All of these intersections would be signalized in conjunction with the proposed project. All of the key intersections are projected to provide acceptable levels of service in the peak hours on weekdays with existing plus project buildout traffic volumes, provided the proposed site access improvements and traffic control signals (shown in Figure 6-3) are constructed when necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed development. No improvements would be required for existing plus project buildout traffic volumes, other than the improvements proposed to facilitate site access. 12-1960

1-5
Future Year 2022 Through Traffic Conditions (With No Site Traffic) Future year 2022 through (non-site) traffic conditions were evaluated by adding to existing traffic volumes: (1) the cumulative traffic associated with two near-term developments, and (2) the portion of the projected future growth between the year 2013 and the year 2035 expected to occur by the year 2022. As shown in Tables 5-6 and 5-7, the key intersections are projected to operate at acceptable peak hour levels or service in the year 2022 without the traffic generated by the initial phase of the proposed project. All of the key intersections except two would operate at LOS C or better during the peak hours with the projected year 2022 through traffic volumes. Two of the signalized key intersections (Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive at Gerald Ford Drive) are projected to operate at LOS D during the morning peak hours and LOS C during the evening peak hours with the year 2022 through traffic volumes. These levels of service are considered acceptable.

Future Year 2022 Plus Initial Phase Conditions
The addition of the site traffic generated by the active adult homes in the initial phase of development to area roadways in the year 2022 would change the peak hour level of service on the minor-street approach at one unsignalized key intersection. During weekday evening peak hours, the site traffic generated by the initial phase is expected to increase the average control delay experienced by eastbound motorists on Via Bella approaching the intersection of Los Alamos Road by 0.6 seconds per vehicle. This increase would cause the peak hour level of service on the approach with the most delay at this intersection to drop from LOS A to LOS B. Since the intersection would have very little control delay and operate at LOS B or better, this impact would be less than significant. The addition of site traffic is not projected to change the peak hour LOS at any of the signalized key intersections in the year 2022.

Horizon Year 2035 Plus Project Buildout Traffic Conditions As shown in Tables 5-8 and 5-9 the ultimate street system shown in both the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan and the Riverside County General Plan would accommodate the traffic associated with buildout of the proposed project in the horizon year 2035 at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better). With the future horizon year 2035 traffic projections, deficiencies were identified at two of the off-site key intersections evaluated: (1) Bob Hope Drive at Gerald Ford Drive, and (2) Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road. Each of these key intersections would require localized mitigation to maintain acceptable levels of service in the form of an additional left-turn lane on one approach, as shown in Figure 6-4. These required improvements would be consistent with the General Plan classifications of Gerald Ford Drive and Da Vall Drive, where the mitigation would be required.

Bob Hope Drive at Gerald Ford Drive [Intersection 17] would require a second eastbound left-turn lane to accommodate projected year 2035 traffic volumes with or without site traffic. The City of Rancho Mirage has included improvements to this intersection in the 2014-2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The planned improvements include the provision of dual left-turn lanes and a dedicated right-turn lane on all four approaches to this intersection. Construction is scheduled to start in May 2015 and end in October, 2015.

Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road [Intersection 3] would require a second southbound left-turn lane to accommodate projected year 2035 traffic volumes with or without traffic from the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan project. Existing development encroaches on the right-of-way required to widen Da Vall Drive to the four-lane divided roadway classification shown in both City and County General Plans. The additional southbound left-turn lane required on Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road would be consistent with the improvements typically required on a four-lane divided roadway.

The 2010 Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) identifies eligible transportation improvement projects on the Regional Arterial system and ranks them based upon various evaluation criteria. CVAG distributes regional transportation improvement funds (including revenue from Measure A and the TUMF program) to supplement local revenues and/or developer contributions required for approved regional road construction projects. CVAG’s policy is to pay 75 percent of eligible project costs, with the public agencies responsible for approving the project contributing the remaining 25 percent.

The widening of Da Vall Drive to its ultimate cross-section, between Ramon Road and Vista Chino, is an eligible and buildable project (designated B-419) in the TPPS. With a score of 9.3 points, it is ranked 88th of the 247 buildable projects therein. The required mitigation for the intersection of Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road should be part of this roadway improvement project.
12-1961

1-6
The remaining key intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service with the improvements proposed for the site access intersections, as shown in Figure 6-4. Five of the proposed site access intersections would require signalization to provide acceptable levels of service. Four of the five site access intersections that would require signalization are future intersections proposed in conjunction with the Section 24 Specific Plan with traffic signal control. The fifth site access point that would require signalization is proposed on Dinah Shore Drive, approximately 1,220 feet west of Bob Hope Drive (opposite the existing Westin Resort Villas access).

1.6 Recommendations
Section 6 provides a detailed discussion of: (1) standard mitigation for individual development projects, (2) recommendations associated with the initial phase of development, and (3) recommendations associated with full development of the Section 24 Specific Plan. The existing approach lane geometrics at the key intersections are shown in Figure 6-1. Figure 6-2 illustrates the minimum lane geometrics required at the key intersections for the initial phase of the proposed development. Figure 6-3 illustrates the minimum approach lane geometrics required and traffic control assumed for existing plus project buildout conditions. Figure 6-4 illustrates the minimum approach lane geometrics required and traffic control assumed for conditions in the horizon year 2035. The approach lanes therein represent: (1) existing lanes; (2) lanes required to eliminate off-site intersection deficiencies; and (3) future lanes recommended to ensure adequate site access and internal circulation.

Initial Phase Improvements
The developer of the initial phase shall provide, at a minimum, the lane geometrics shown in Figure 6-2 at the site access points in conjunction with the development of the initial phase.

1.The developer of the initial phase shall provide, at a minimum, the lane geometrics shown in Figure 6-2 at the site access points in conjunction with the development of the initial phase. -A “STOP” sign shall be installed facing westbound vehicles at the site access proposed on Los Alamos Road, opposite Via Bella [Intersection 8] and a northbound and southbound left-turn bay shall be provided in the median on Los Alamos Road at the intersection of Via Bella. -The existing traffic control signal and approach lane geometrics shall be modified at the intersection of the Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort Access with Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 12] to provide access to the initial phase of development. Two southbound exit lanes shall be provided, including a dedicated right-turn lane and a shared through/left lane. Two northbound entry lanes shall be provided to permit residents to enter while a visitor is awaiting authorization for entry.

2.Adequate stacking distance (100 feet) shall be provided on the approach to each of the three proposed gated entries to store vehicles entering the initial phase. The pavement in advance of the gate shall be wide enough to allow non-accepted vehicles to turn around in advance of the gate. Any gated entry that allows visitor access should provide two entry lanes to allow residents to bypass the vehicles of visitors awaiting entry authorization.

3.The controlled primary entryways to the initial phase of development may be required to include provisions to facilitate access by emergency vehicles. If required, all power-operated controlled access devices shall have a radio-controlled override system capable of opening the gate or barrier when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles and be equipped to facilitate opening in the event of a power failure.

4.An adequate supply of off-street parking in appropriate locations is an essential component of a balanced neighborhood and should be provided within the initial phase to meet the needs of residents and visitors. Regular use of on-street parking should be expected and accommodated because visitor parking will be heavy at times.

Project Buildout Improvements
The minimum required site access improvements shown in Figure 6-4, including the intersection approach lane geometrics, “STOP “ signs, and new traffic control signals, should be provided when necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the development of the Section 24 Specific Plan.
12-1962

1-7
Traffic signals will be warranted and shall be installed along Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive at the following five site access intersections to maintain acceptable levels of service in conjunction with adjacent development:
•The Westin Resort Villas @ Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 13], •Street “C” @ Ramon Road [Intersection 18],
•Street “D” @ Ramon Road [Intersection 19],
•Bob Hope Drive @ Street “D” [Intersection 20], and
•Bob Hope Drive @ Street “E” [Intersection 21].
12-1963

2-1

2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
With its unique natural beauty and resources as well as its history as a retirement destination with seasonal tourism, the Coachella Valley has become a world-class resort destination. As many as 100,000 seasonal residents spend the winter months in the Coachella Valley. Another 3.5 million conventioneers and tourists visit the Coachella Valley each year. The year-round agricultural industry in the Coachella Valley has been augmented by a leisure, hospitality, and retail economy that has developed to accommodate tourists and the influx of seasonal residents.

The proposed project would create a vital mixed-use development, within the context of a destination resort community, that is supportive of transit and other alternative transportation modes. The development would be pedestrian-friendly and located within an area where the use of golf carts and NEVs is commonplace and multi-use paths exist and are being expanded to accommodate cycling, pedestrians, and golf carts. The proposed project would be within walking distance of two sites adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad corridor that are being considered for development as a future regional multi-modal transit center. The development would take maximum advantage of the opportunities afforded by the seasonal influx of tourists and part-year residents but also provide a mix of future uses that would support the local community and be economically viable year-round. The Section 24 Specific Plan would provide a variety of housing options and create employment and entertainment opportunities in close proximity, to promote walking and cycling as healthy alternatives to commuting long distances by automobile. Cohesive design elements would protect unique viewsheds and introduce streetscapes with coordinated landscaping to reinforce and enhance community aesthetics. The project would create a safe environment within which the use of alternative transportation modes for short trips would grow over time and continue to be a viable option as the population ages.

2.1 Project Location
Figure 2-1 illustrates the project site in its regional context within the Coachella Valley region of eastern Riverside County, California. The project site is centrally located within the Coachella Valley, which is approximately 45 miles long and 15 miles wide. The Coachella Valley is separated from the Greater Los Angeles Area to the northwest by the San Gorgonio Pass, through which Interstate 10 (I-10) and the Union Pacific Railroad are the major transportation corridors.

The site is located south of the Union Pacific Railroad corridor and I-10, at the newly constructed Bob Hope Drive interchange. The undeveloped project site is comprised of 577 gross acres entirely within the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation. It is within the Rancho Mirage Sphere of Influence in unincorporated Riverside County. The site occupies approximately 90 percent of Section 24, including all the area west of Bob Hope Drive. The adjacent area within Section 24, located south of Ramon Road and east of Bob Hope Drive, is not a part of the project site and is developed as the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa.

Figure 2-2 depicts the project site in its local context. The site is situated between the desert resort cities of Palm Springs (to the west) and Palm Desert (to the east). Cathedral City is located both west and north of the site. The City of Rancho Mirage surrounds the project site on all sides and the Specific Plan area is an island of unincorporated land.

The site is bounded by and has frontage on four existing arterial streets. It extends south of Ramon Road to Dinah Shore Drive and east of Los Alamos Road to Bob Hope Drive. It is bordered to the south and west by the Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort and Mission Hills community. The Desert Ridge Shopping Center is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive. The Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa is located south of Ramon Road and east of Bob Hope Drive, within the portion of Section 24 that is not a part of the project site.

2.2 Land Ownership Within the Section 24 Specific Plan Area The proposed Specific Plan would establish the 8 planning areas shown in Figure 2-3 for the purposes of planning and regulating land use. A total of 120 gross acres along the south side of Ramon Road (primarily within Planning Areas 1 through 3) are owned by the Tribe. The 97 gross acres located immediately west of and adjacent to Bob Hope Drive (within Planning Areas 4, 5, and 6) are allotted to members of the Tribe and under contract to be acquired by the Tribe. The 40- 12-1964

Sc
a
l
e
:

1 "

2 .
5 M
i
l
e
s
En
d
o

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
In
d
i
a
n
We
l
l
s
Pa
l
m
De
s
e
r
t
Ra
n
c
h
o
Mi
r
a
g
e
Ca
t
h
e
d
r
a
l
Ci
t
y
Pa
l
m
Sp
r
i
n
g
s
La

Q
u
i
n
t
a
In
d
i
o
Co
a
c
h
e
l
l
a
Th
o
u
s
a
n
d
Pa
l
m
s
Vi
s
t
a

C
h
i
n
o
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Pa
l
m

C
a
n
y
o
n

D
r
i
v
e
Indian Canyon Drive
Gene Autry Trail
Varn
e
r

R
o
a
d
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Ge
r
a
l
d

F
o
r
d

D
r
i
v
e
Fr
a
n
k

S
i
n
a
t
r
a

D
r
i
v
e
Co
u
n
t
r
y

C
l
u
b

D
r
i
v
e
Fr
e
d

W
a
r
i
n
g

D
r
i
v
e
Bob Hope Drive
DaVall Drive
30 t
h
Av
e
n
u
e
Landau Boulevard
Palm Drive
Date Palm Drive
Th
o
u
s
a
n
d
Pa
l
m
s
Ca
n
y
o
n
Ro
a
d
Dill
o
n

R
o
a
d
Monterey Avenue
Portola Av.

Cook Street
Washington Boulevard
Jefferson Street
Monroe Street
Jackson Street
Van Buren Street
Hi
g
h
w
a
y

1 1
1 Hi
g
h
w
a
y

1 1
1 Av
e
n
u
e

4 4
Av
e
n
u
e

4 2
Dil
l
o
n
Ro
a
d
Mountain
View Road
Highw
a
y

1 1
1 Pi
n
e
s

t
o
Pa
l
m
s
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Av
e
n
u
e

4 8
Int
e
r
s
t
a
t
e

1 0
Stat
e

R
o
u
t
e

8 6
s
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e

1 0
Fi
g
u
r
e

2 -
1 Re
g
i
o
n
a
l

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

S
i
t
e
Jo
s
h
u
a

T
r
e
e
Na
t
i
o
n
a
l

P
a
r
k
Co
a
c
h
e
l
l
a

V
a
l
l
e
y
Mu
l
t
i
p
l
e

S
p
e
c
i
e
s
Ha
b
i
t
a
t

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n

A
r
e
a
Pa
l
m
Sp
r
i
n
g
s
In
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Ei
s
e
n
h
o
w
e
r
Me
m
o
r
i
a
l
Ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
Co
l
l
e
g
e
of

t
h
e
De
s
e
r
t
Le
g
e
n
d
Fr
e
e
w
a
y

I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
Ci
t
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
12-1965

Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
North City
Extended
Specific Plan
North City
Specific Plan
Section 13
Specific Plan
Agua Caliente
Casino
Resort Spa
Section 19
Specific Plan
North City
Specific Plan
North City
Specific Plan
North City
Specific Plan
Ci
t
y

o
f

P
a
l
m

D
e
s
e
r
t
Section 13
Specific Plan
Agua Caliente
Casino
Resort Spa
Section 19
Specific Plan
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
.

Va
r
n
e
r

R
o
a
d
Int
e
r
s
t
a
t
e

1 0
Uni
o
n

P
a
c
i
f
i
c

R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
30th Ave.

Vista Chino
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
.

Da
t
e

P
a
l
m

D
r
.

Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
.

Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d
Frank Sinatra Dr.

Mission
Hills Project Site
Ci
t
y

o
f

C
a
t
h
e
d
r
a
l

C
i
t
y
Ci
t
y

o
f

R
a
n
c
h
o

M
i
r
a
g
e
Cathedral City
High School
Figure 2-2
Vicinity Map
Ci
t
y

o
f

P
a
l
m

D
e
s
e
r
t
Ri
o

D
e
l

S
o
l

R
o
a
d
Ra
t
t
l
e
r

R
o
a
d
Ke
y

L
a
r
g
o

A
v
e
.

Rancho
Mirage
High
School
Mission Hills
Country Club
Thousand Palms
Legend
Project Site
City of Rancho Mirage
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission
Hills Resort
Via Bella
Desert Ridge
Center
12-1966

Street
B
Street
A
Street C Street D
Casino
Street D
Street E
The Westin Resort Villas
Via Bella
Westin Mission Hills
5 6
8 9
11 12 13 14
20 21
22 23
18 19
Source: MSA Consulting, Inc.; Section 24 Specific Plan Scale: 1” = 975 ‘ Figure 2-3
Proposed Land Use
Site Access and Internal Circulation
12-1967

2-2
acre parcel located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive (Planning Area 7) is allotted to members of the Tribe. The remaining 320 gross acres within the site are located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Los Alamos Road and Dinah Shore Drive (within Planning Area 8) and allotted to members of the Tribe. This area is under contract to be acquired by Pulte Home Corporation/SCC Rancho Mirage Holdings LP and developed as an active adult residential community for residents aged 55 and above.

2.3 Existing Agua Caliente Land Use Ordinance Designations The northernmost 120 acres within the site, located south of Ramon Road (primarily within Planning Areas 1 through 3) are designated “Tribal Enterprise” in the Agua Caliente Land Use Ordinance (amended in January 2011). Future land uses within areas designated Tribal Enterprise are subject to Tribal Council determination. The remainder of the site is designated “Land Use Contract,” a designation applied to land allotted to individual members of the tribe. Future land uses in areas designated Land Use Contract are defined by the applicable city/county zoning code.

2.4 Existing County and City General Plan Land Use Designations Riverside County General Plan and Western Coachella Valley Area Plan The Riverside County General Plan and the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan (October 2003) include three land use designations within the project site: CR, CT, MDR. The “Commercial Retail” (CR) designation applies to the 120 gross acres located along the south side of Ramon Road (within Planning Areas 1, 2 and 3). This designation has a building intensity range of 0.20 to 0.35 FAR and includes local and regional serving retail and service uses.1 A “Commercial Tourist” (CT) designation applies to 217 gross acres including: 57 acres along the west side of Bob Hope Drive in Planning Areas 4 and 6; 40 acres on the northwest corner of the intersection of Bob Hope Drive with Dinah Shore Drive in Planning Area 7; and 120 acres within Planning Area 8. The CT designation has a building intensity range of 0.20 to 0.35 FAR and reflects tourist-related commercial land uses including: hotels, golf courses, and recreational activities.

The Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM) assumes a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.35 for non- residential land uses designated CR and CT. At the maximum permitted building intensity allowed under the land use designations in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan, the site could be developed with approximately 3.85 million square feet of non-residential building space. This building area would accommodate local and regional serving retail and service uses as well as tourist commercial (hotel, visitor-serving commercial, recreation/amusement) uses. The trip-generation potential of commercial retail and tourist commercial development on-site at the maximum intensity allowed by the CR and CT designations would be 78,330 weekday trips. RIVTAM reflects land uses in specific plans, general plans, and zoning; however, the future growth assumed for the horizon year 2035 in RIVTAM was constrained by the SCAG 2004 Growth Forecast distribution. Consequently, all of the potential future trip generation associated with buildout of the City and County General Plans is not included in the RIVTAM model.

A “Medium Density Residential” (MDR) designation applies to 240 gross acres within the site including 200 acres within Planning Area 8 and 40 acres within Planning Areas 4 and 5. This designation allows a residential density of 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre. A total of 240 gross acres within the site could be developed with up 1,200 single-family detached/attached dwelling units, under the MDR land use designation of the site shown in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan. These dwelling units have a potential trip generation of 10,230 weekday trips. The total trip generation of the site if developed at the maximum intensity/density allowed by the Riverside County General Plan would be 88,560 unadjusted weekday trips.

The City of Rancho Mirage General Plan
The Rancho Mirage General Plan includes three land use designations within the project site: C-C, R-H, and R-M. The “Community Commercial” (C-C) designation (with a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 0.35) applies to 75 net acres located south of and adjacent to Ramon Road within Planning Areas 2 and 3. This designation allows regional and community commercial shopping centers and hotels. With a maximum building gross floor area of 1,143,450 square feet, the area designated Community Commercial, could generate up to 33,100 weekday trips.

1 The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the amount of non-residential building square footage in relation to the size of the lot (i.e., the net area of the parcel in square feet). RIVTAM is consistent with the RCIP socioeconomic assumptions and methodology, which convert all gross acreage with non-residential land use designations in the Riverside County General Plan to net acreage (by assuming that 75 percent of the gross area would be developable and 25 percent would be reserved for roads, right-of-way, easements, etc.) prior to determining the associated building area and employment. 12-1968

2-3
A “High Density Residential” (R-H) designation applies to 39 net acres within Planning Area 1. This designation would allow a density of 4 to 9 dwelling units per acre with a maximum of 351 single-family attached or multi-family dwelling units. Based upon the trip-generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation (2008), this area could generate up to 1,920 weekday trips. A “Medium Density Residential” (R-M) designation applies to the remaining 414 net acres within the site. This designation would allow up to four dwelling units per acre or a maximum of 1,656 single- family detached dwelling units. Based upon the trip-generation rates published by the ITE, this area could generate up to 13,760 weekday trips.

The two residential land use designations for the site in the Rancho Mirage General Plan would permit up to 2,007 dwelling units to be developed with the potential to generate up to 15,680 weekday trips. With up to 33,100 non-residential trips and 15,680 residential trips, development within the site at the maximum density and intensity allowed by the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan could generate up to 48,780 unadjusted weekday trips.

Consistency With General Plan Land Use Designations
Table 2-1 summarizes the maximum residential and non-residential development within the project site for three conditions:
(1) proposed by the Section 24 Specific Plan, (2) allowed by the Riverside County General Plan, and (3) allowed by the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan. The proposed Section 24 Specific Plan would allow more dwelling units than the existing City and County General Plans. However, the initial phase of 1,200 age-restricted dwellings proposed for active adults (age 55 and above) would generate substantially fewer trips than conventional single-family detached dwellings. As a result, the total number of residential weekday trips generated by the 2,406 dwelling units proposed would be slightly less than the trips generated by the 1,200 conventional (not age-restricted) single-family dwellings allowed under the Riverside County General Plan and 35 percent less than the number trips generated by the maximum allowed number of residential dwelling units allowed by the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan. The residential component of the proposed project would generate 5,590 fewer residential trips on weekdays than the maximum number of residential dwellings allowed by the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan.

Consistent with the CR and CT land use designations shown for the site in the Riverside County General Plan, the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan would guide the development of tourist-oriented commercial, local serving retail and service uses, professional offices, entertainment, and hotel uses. The maximum proposed non-residential building floor area would be

18.6 percent less than the maximum allowed by the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan. Since the number of trips generated would be a function of the total size of the non-residential building gross floor space developed, the proposed project would be expected to generate approximately 18.6 percent fewer non-residential trips on weekdays than the maximum allowed by the Riverside County General Plan designations. However, the area proposed as non-residential land uses with the project would be nearly twice the area designated C-C in the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan. As a result, the proposed project would generate nearly twice the number of non-residential trips on weekdays anticipated by the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan.2
The Section 24 Specific Plan would allow development with the potential to generate substantially more weekday trips than the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan designations and substantially fewer trips than the Riverside County General Plan designations. The proposed density of the multi-family residential dwellings within the site would be twice the highest density allowed by the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan. The City of Rancho Mirage General Plan suggests that higher residential densities may be appropriate in special circumstances or where conditions would support the densities, such as planned communities, affordable housing, and senior housing in close proximity to commercial, medical, and other supportive land uses. Residential communities developed through the Specific Plan process allow creative and flexible planning where smaller units and higher densities could provide a wider range of residential product types with integrated access and private internal roadways as well as facilities supportive of a variety of alternative transportation modes. By their very nature, Specific Plans for large and complex mixed-use developments can create opportunities to provide development amenities beyond those that would be feasible in smaller, more conventional developments.

2 Unadjusted trips have not been reduced to reflect the internal trip interactions that occur within a mixed-use development or pass-by trips attracted to the site from the traffic that would be passing the site on adjacent streets without the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan. 12-1969

2-4
Table 2-1
Section 24 Specific Plan
Compared to County/City General Plan Land Uses
Land Use Type/Parameter Section 24 Specific Plan Riverside County G.P.Rancho Mirage G.P.

NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
- Area (Gross)177 Acres 337 Acres 80 Acres
- Net Area With Designation 149 Net Acres 252.75 Net Acres 75 Net Acres - Floor Area Ratioa (Max.)0.48 0.35 0.35
- Building Gross Floor Area (Max.)3,138,600 S.F.3,853,427 S.F.1,143,450 S.F. - Employmentb (Max.)6,277 Jobs 7,707 Jobs 2,287 Jobs
- Weekday Trips Generatedc (Max.)63,800 Trips 78,330 Trips 33,100 Trips

RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Med. Density Residential Area
- Site Area With Designation 312 Net Acres 240 Gross Acres 414 Net Acres - Density Allowedd (Max.)4 DU/Net Acre 5 DU/Gross Acre 4 DU/Net Acre - Maximum Dwelling Units Allowed 1,200 SF Sr. Adult Units 1,200 SF Units 1,656 SF Units - Weekday Trips Generatedc 4,480 Trips 10,230 Trips 13,760 Trips High Density Residential Area
- Site Area With Designation 67 Net Acres --39 Net Acres - Density Allowedd (Max.)18 DU/Net Acre -- 9 DU/Net Acre - Dwelling Units Allowed (Max.)1,206 MFA Units --351 MFA Units - Weekday Trips Generated 5,610 Trips --1,920 Trips
Subtotal Residential Area
- Dwelling Units (Max.)2,406 DU 1,200 DU 2,007 DU
- Weekday Trips Generatedc 10,090 Trips 10,230 Trips 15,680 Trips - Populatione (Max.)4,331 3,564 5,603
UNADJUSTED WEEKDAY TRIPSf 73,890 Trips 88,560 Trips 48,780 Trips a.The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the amount of non-residential building gross floor area (in square feet) divided by the net area of the parcel (in square feet). The RCIP and RIVTAM assume that the net acreage is 75% of the gross acreage with commercial land use designations in the Riverside County General Plan. FAR values for the Commercial Retail designation ranged from a low of 0.20 to a probable value of 0.23 and a maximum value of 0.35.

For areas designated Commercial Tourist, RIVTAM FAR values ranged from a low of 0.20 to a probable value of 0.25 and a maximum value of 0.35. A maximum FAR of 0.35 applies to those areas designated Community Commercial in the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan per Section 17.10.020 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code. The FAR shown for the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan is the average value for all of the non-residential development combined. Minor recent changes to the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan have altered the acreages and land use densities without altering the total proposed residential and non-residential uses, or projected trip generation. The maximum FAR and residential densities will be defined in the Section 24 Specific Plan.
b.For the RCIP and RIVTAM, employment estimates were based upon an employment density factor of 500 S.F. of building gross floor area per employee for areas designated Commercial Retail (CR) and Commercial Tourist (CT) in the Riverside County General Plan. c.The ITE regression equations in Trip Generation (8th Edition, 2008) associated with Land Use Codes 820, 210, 230, and 251 were used to estimate the weekday trip generation potential associated with commercial shopping centers, conventional single-family detached dwellings, multiple-family attached dwelling units, and single-family detached dwellings for active senior adults (age 55 and above), respectively. All weekday trip generation estimates shown reflect “unadjusted” trips (i.e., internal and external trips without reductions associated with internal trip capture or pass-by trips). d.The 1,200 active adult single-family detached age-restricted residential dwellings proposed in Planning Area 8 would have a density of 3.75 dwelling units per gross acre (3.85 units per net acre). The RCIP and RIVTAM use the density allowed and the gross acreage to estimate the number of dwelling units allowed.
e.The population density was assumed to be 2.97 persons/household per the Land Use Element of the Riverside County General Plan. The City population assumed 2.97 persons/household for Medium Density Residential and 1.95 persons/household for High Density Residential dwellings. The Section 24 Specific Plan population assumed the age-restricted single-family units would reduce the overall population density to 1.8 persons/household. f.The City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Traffic Model projected weekday productions and attractions for the site using a different methodology. A trip- generation rate of 350 weekday trips per acre of C-C and a residential trip-generation rate of 4.6 weekday trips per dwelling unit were assumed for the R-H and R-M designations, with an average residential density of 3.2 DU/Acre assumed for R-M areas and 8.0 DU/Acre assumed for R-H areas, rather than the maximum density allowed.
12-1970

2-5

2.5 Project Description
The Section 24 Specific Plan would establish a unified vision for the project site to guide the future development of a cohesive and complementary mix of land uses consistent with both local and regional planning goals. The Section 24 Specific Plan provides a comprehensive set of development standards and design guidelines for use in the future development of a mixed-use regional destination resort community with residential uses located near employment opportunities, tourist-oriented commercial and local-serving retail and service uses, professional office space, hotel, and entertainment uses.

Figure 2-3 shows the location of the various planning areas within the site as well as the proposed land uses and the site access and internal circulation system planned to support the development. A maximum of 2,406 residential dwelling units and 3,138,600 square feet of non-residential development (retail commercial, entertainment, office, hotel) would be allowed by the Section 24 Specific Plan that would complement surrounding existing and planned land uses in the City of Rancho Mirage. A total of 528 net acres on-site would ultimately be developed, as shown in Table 2-2. Approximately 49 acres of the site would be rights-of-way associated with streets and highways.

Non-residential land uses would be constructed along Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive. Single-family detached residential uses would be constructed north of Dinah Shore Drive and east of Los Alamos Road in a gated community for active adults. Multiple-family attached residential development is proposed in five areas located between the lower density single-family residential uses in Planning Area 8 and the higher intensity non-residential land uses along Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive.

The proposed development within each Planning Area is summarized in Table 2-2. The initial phase of the development would include up to 1,200 single-family residential dwelling units for active seniors (aged 55 and above) within a gated community in Planning Area 8. Although no timeframe has been established to date for Planning Areas 1 through 7, this area is being programmatically planned in conjunction with the Section 24 Specific Plan to coordinate streets and other necessary infrastructure and promote land use compatibility.

A total of 67 net acres of multiple-family attached residential development is proposed within five Planning Areas at a density of up to 18 dwelling units per acre. Within this area up to 1,206 multi-family attached dwelling units would be allowed.

Although multi-family residential units would be an allowed use above the retail commercial development under the Mixed Use Core designation of Planning Area 2A, a maximum of 1,206 multi-family residential units would be allowed within the Section 24 Specific Plan area.

The development of up to 1,271,600 square feet of non-residential building floor area would be permitted on the 73 net acres designated as Resort Flex in Planning Areas 1A, 4, and 6A. This development would include a mix of hotel, retail commercial, and entertainment uses. A total of 51 acres are designated for retail commercial uses in Planning Areas 3 and 7A. The development of up to 777,000 square feet of retail building area would be allowed in this area. The 25 net acres designated Mixed Use Core in Planning Area 2A would accommodate up to 1,090,000 square feet of community retail commercial uses, office uses, and possibly attached residential units above the commercial uses.

Proposed Site Access and Internal Circulation
Figure 2-3 shows the site access and internal circulation system planned to support the proposed land uses within the Section 24 Specific Plan area. The letter designations assigned to the internal streets (Street “A” through Street “E”) for ease of reference within this report are shown in Figure 2-3. The number assigned to each existing key intersection for reference in this report is shown on page 3-1 and shown in Figure 3-1. The future full-turn site access intersections and their intersection numbers are shown in Figure 2-3 including each intersection number and the letter designation assigned to each proposed internal street.

Initial Phase Access
The initial phase of development would include the development of up to 1,200 single-family homes for active adults (aged 55 and above) within Planning Area 8. The initial phase would be accessed via full-turn access connections proposed opposite two existing T-type intersections: Los Alamos Road at Via Bella [Intersection 8], and the Westin Mission Hills Access at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 12]. Ultimately, a third access to Planning Area 8 would be provided by the extension of Casino Road, from Bob Hope Drive to Planning Area 8. This extension of Casino Road would not be constructed by Pulte Homes as part of the improvements associated with the development of the active adult community in the initial phase. 12-1971

2-6
Table 2-2
Section 24 Specific Plan Land Use Summarya
Planning
Area
Land Useb
Designation
Area
(Net Acres)
Intensity/Densityc Maximumd
Development
Planning Area 1A Resort Flex 25 0.40 FAR 435.6 T.S.F.

Planning Area 1B Residential (MF)10 18 D.U./Acre 180 D.U.

Planning Area 2A Mixed Use Core 25 1.00 FAR 1,090.0 T.S.F.

Planning Area 2B Residential (MF)10 18 D.U./Acre 180 D.U.

Planning Area 3 Retail 26 0.35 FAR 396.0 T.S.F.

Planning Area 4 Resort Flex 29 0.40 FAR 505.0 T.S.F.

Planning Area 5 Residential (MF)27 18 D.U./Acre 486 D.U.

Planning Area 6A Resort Flex 19 0.40 FAR 331.0 T.S.F.

Planning Area 6B Residential (MF)10 18 D.U./Acre 180 D.U.

Planning Area7A Retail 25 0.35 FAR 381.0 T.S.F.

Planning Area 7B Residential (MF)10 18 D.U./Acre 180 D.U.

Planning Area 8
(Initial Phase)
Active Adult (Age 55+)
Residential (SF)
312 4 D.U./Acre 1,200 D.U.

Total 528
3,138,600 S.F.
1,200 SF Units
1,206 MF Units
a.Source: Meridian Consulting LLC. “Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan, Riverside County.” January 14, 2014. In addition to the net acreage, 49 acres would be associated with roadway rights-of-way for a total gross acreage of 577.0 acres. Minor recent changes to the Section 24 Specific Plan have altered the acreages and land use densities for the individual Planning Areas, without altering the total proposed residential and non-residential uses. The maximum development for each Planning Area will be defined in the Section 24 Specific Plan.
b.MF=Multiple-Family. SF=Single-Family.
c.FAR=Floor Area Ratio. D.U.=Dwelling Units.
d.T.S.F.=Thousand Square Feet of Building Floor Area
The timing of the construction of Casino Road on-site, between Planning Area 8 and Bob Hope Drive, is currently unknown.

The extension of Casino Road to Planning Area 8 may not occur until adjacent land within Planning Areas 2, 3, 4, and/or 5 is developed. As a result, the evaluation of the traffic impacts associated with the completion of the initial phase of development assumed that Casino Road would not be constructed between Planning Area 8 and Bob Hope Drive by the year 2022.
12-1972

2-7
Access Plan to Support Development Upon Project Completion The site access plan proposed to support the ultimate development within the project site would include two existing signalized intersections (Intersections 9 and 12). Five future signalized full-turn site access intersections (Intersections 13, 18, 19, 20, and 21) are proposed. Three unsignalized full-turn site access intersections (Intersections 8, 22 and 23) along Los Alamos Road would serve site traffic. Seven future right-in/right-out site access connections are proposed in conjunction with the proposed project; three on Ramon Road, three on Bob Hope Drive, and one on Dinah Shore Drive. All of these right-in/right-out site access points would all be associated with phases of site development after the initial phase is completed.

Right-In/Right-Out Access Connections
The proposed right-in/right-out access connections were designated by letter in clockwise order, beginning at the northwest corner of the site, as shown in Figure 4-6. Access A through Access C are proposed from west to east along Ramon Road to serve Planning Areas 1A, 2A, and 3, respectively. Access D through Access F are proposed from north to south along Bob Hope Drive to serve Planning Areas 4, 6A, and 7A, respectively. Access G is proposed on Dinah Shore Drive, west of Bob Hope Drive, to serve Planning Area 7A.

Access to Ramon Road
The proposed site access plan for Ramon Road would include the use of the existing signalized intersection of Los Alamos Road with Ramon Road [Intersection 5] to accommodate site traffic destined to and from Planning Areas 1A, 1B and 8. A future signalized full-turn site access would be constructed on the south side of Ramon Road, one-quarter mile east of Los Alamos Road, at Street “C” [Intersection 18] to serve both the Resort uses in Planning Area 1 and the most intense Mixed Use Core uses proposed in Planning Area 2. A future signalized full-turn site access would also be constructed on the south side of Ramon Road, one-quarter mile west of Bob Hope Drive, at Street “D” [Intersection 19] to serve both the more intense Mixed Use Core uses in Planning Area 2 and the Retail uses in Planning Area 3. Street “D” would be improved within the project site as a four-lane divided Minor Arterial Roadway with a raised landscape median (16 feet in width) within a 110- foot right-of-way. Sidewalks (5-feet in width) and bicycle lanes (5-feet in width) would be incorporated on both sides of this roadway.

Access to Bob Hope Drive
The proposed access along Bob Hope Drive would include the construction of a fourth intersection leg at the existing signalized three-leg intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Casino (Intersection 9). This intersection currently has signal mast arms and signal heads on all four approaches. The westerly extension of Casino Road would provide a direct and convenient route to and from the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa for all transportation modes. It would also substantially reduce the volume of site traffic turning right onto and left across Ramon Road, west of Bob Hope Drive.

Two future signalized full-turn intersections are proposed at one-quarter-mile intervals along Bob Hope Drive, between the existing signalized intersections at Dinah Shore Drive and at Casino. The future intersection of Bob Hope Drive with Street “D” (Intersection 20) would connect the proposed internal boulevard through the project site from Ramon Road to Bob Hope Drive. Intersection 20 would be located opposite the street proposed to serve the Section 19 Specific Plan area (east of Bob Hope Drive). The future intersection proposed at Street “E” (Intersection 21) would be located between Planning Areas 6 and 7, opposite the future access proposed to serve the Section 19 Specific Plan area to the east.

Access to Dinah Shore Drive
The existing signalized intersection of Los Alamos Road with Dinah Shore Drive (Intersection 11) is located on the southwest corner of the initial phase of the Section 24 Specific Plan. The primary gated entry for the initial phase of development would be located approximately 1,770 feet east of Los Alamos Road, opposite the existing signalized access on Dinah Shore Drive 12-1973

2-8
associated with the Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort (Intersection 12). This access would require the construction of a north leg at the existing intersection and the modification of the existing traffic control signals.

The future access for Planning Area 7B would be located approximately 1,220 feet west of Bob Hope Drive, opposite the existing unsignalized access on Dinah Shore Drive associated with the Westin Mission Hills Resort Villas (Intersection 13).

The ultimate site traffic volumes at this intersection are expected to meet traffic signal warrants. Traffic signal control would be constructed at this intersection in conjunction with the proposed site access improvements. This signalized intersection would be approximately 2,300 feet east of the signalized Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort access (Intersection 12).

Access to Los Alamos Road
The proposed project would take access to Los Alamos Road at three proposed unsignalized full-turn site access intersections. The initial phase of the proposed project would take access to Los Alamos Road opposite Via Bella at the existing unsignalized intersection [Intersection 8]. This intersection is located approximately 1,430 feet south of Ramon Road and 3,860 feet north of Dinah Shore Drive. It would be two-way stop controlled in the future.

Subsequent phases of development would take access to Los Alamos Road for the multiple-family residential land uses proposed within Planning Area 1B via Street “A” [Intersection 22]. This future site access connection on Los Alamos Road is not expected to accommodate sufficient future traffic volumes to warrant traffic control signals. The proposed Resort uses within Planning Area 1 would take access to Los Alamos Road via Street “B” [Intersection 23]. This intersection is also expected to be two-way stop controlled.

Street “D” (Proposed Internal Boulevard)
Street “D” would provide two travel lanes in each direction, separated by a raised landscape median 16 feet in width. This internal multi-modal corridor would extend from its signalized intersection with Ramon Road to its signalized intersection with Bob Hope Drive. It would be aligned with Planning Areas 3 and 4 to the east and Planning Areas 2, 5 and 6 to the west.

The alignment would facilitate the phased construction of various Planning Areas within the Specific Plan without interrupting access to the initial phase or previous phases of the development.

Street “D” would be accessible to automobiles, service vehicles, emergency vehicles, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), golf carts, and neighborhood circulator vehicles. This boulevard would provide landscaped buffers between the 5-foot sidewalks proposed on both sides of the roadbed right-of-way/property line. A 5-foot wide on-street Class II bicycle lane would be provided on each side of Street “D”, separated from the travel lanes by a 2-foot buffer. The bicycle lanes would be visually separated from the sidewalks by an 8-foot landscape buffer.

Proposed Neighborhood Circulator Service
Neighborhood circulator vehicles (NCVs) are envisioned as a viable means of providing free public transportation services for the community over a relatively small area via shuttles circulating on a fixed route with an established schedule. A typical mini-bus that could be used for a neighborhood circulator service would accommodate 19 passengers and provide two wheelchair positions, a wheelchair lift, and a rack for bicycles. The neighborhood circulator vehicles would improve local access for individuals with limited mobility.

Project Phasing
The initial phase of development would include the 1,200 dwelling units proposed within Planning Area 8 as a gated community for active adult aged 55 and above. The development within Planning Area 8 is expected to require six to eight years to complete. Full development and occupancy of the initial phase of the proposed development was assumed to occur by the year 2022.

No time frame has been established to date for development within Planning Areas 1 through 7. For the purposes of this traffic impact analysis, full development and occupancy of the entire project was assumed to occur by the horizon year of 2035 used in the RIVTAM model. This is a conservative assumption made for the purpose of assessing the potential traffic impact of the proposed project. The Agua Caliente Tribe currently has no plans or timing defined for development of Planning Areas 1 through 7, and it is anticipated that development of the uses that would be allowed by the Specific Plan would extend beyond 2035.
12-1974

3-1

3.0 AREA CONDITIONS

3.1 Study Area and Key Intersections
The area of potential influence and key intersections to be evaluated were identified through coordination with Ms. Margaret Parks, the Director of Planning and Natural Resources for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Mr. Bud Kopp, the City of Rancho Mirage Planning Manager, and Mr. Bill Enos, the Rancho Mirage City Engineer. The study area extends east of Da Vall Drive to Monterey Avenue and south of I-10 to Gerald Ford Drive, as shown in Figure 3-1. The seventeen existing key intersections include:
[1]Bob Hope Drive @ the I-10 Westbound Ramps, [10]Da Vall Drive @ Dinah Shore Drive, [2]Bob Hope Drive @ the I-10 Eastbound Ramps, [11]Los Alamos Road @ Dinah Shore Drive, [3]Da Vall Drive @ Ramon Road, [12]Westin Mission Hills Access @ Dinah Shore Drive, [4]Rattler Road @ Ramon Road, [13]Westin Resort Villas Access @ Dinah Shore Drive, [5]Los Alamos Road @ Ramon Road, [14]Bob Hope Drive @ Dinah Shore Drive, [6]Bob Hope Drive @ Ramon Road, [15]Key Largo Avenue @ Dinah Shore Drive, [7]I-10 Eastbound Ramp @ Ramon Road,[16]Monterey Avenue @ Dinah Shore Drive, and [8]Los Alamos Road @ Via Bella,[17]Bob Hope Drive @ Gerald Ford Drive. [9]Bob Hope Drive @ Casino,
Five of the existing key intersections are located on Ramon Road (including one at the I-10 eastbound onramp). Seven of the existing key intersections are located on Dinah Shore Drive. Six of the existing key intersections are located on Bob Hope Drive (including two at the new I-10 interchange). Two of the existing key intersections are located on Da Vall Drive and two are located on Los Alamos Road. One existing key intersection is located on Gerald Ford Drive.

The key intersections are referenced throughout this report with the north-south street name first, followed by the east-west street name. The existing key intersections were numbered from north to south and from west to east. This provided graphic continuity to facilitate visual comparisons between neighboring intersections.

All of the proposed future full-turn site access intersections were evaluated to ensure that they will provide acceptable levels of service in the horizon year 2035 with the project completed. The internal streets were labeled from Street “A” to Street “E”, as shown in Figure 2-3. The proposed future full-turn site access intersections were numbered for reference as key intersections 18 through 23 (see Figure 2-3) and include:
[18]Street “C”@ Ramon Road,[21]Bob Hope Drive @ Street “E”, [19]Street “D”@ Ramon Road,[22]Los Alamos Road @ Street “A” (the multiple-family access), and [20]Bob Hope Drive @ Street “D”,[23]Los Alamos Road @ Street “B” (the resort access).

Future internal streets are proposed opposite four existing tee intersections [Intersection 8, 9, 12 and 13]. Rather than assigning these internal streets letter designations, these intersections were referenced by the existing street names.

An operational analysis was not conducted for the proposed right-in/right-out site access points. These access connections will have few conflicting movements and most motorists passing through them will experience relatively little or no control delay. Even though the peak hour delay at these access points was not evaluated, the future site traffic volumes were identified (see Figure 4-3). For reference, the proposed right-in/right-out site access points were designated beginning at the northwest corner of the site and continuing in a clockwise direction to the southeast corner of the site as Access A through Access G.

3.2 Study Area Land Use
The City of Rancho Mirage is largely comprised of low-density residential land uses and golf resort communities accessed via a grid network of arterials streets. The arterial streets provide connections to the neighboring cities of Cathedral City and Palm Springs to the west and Palm Desert and Indian Wells to the east as well as the unincorporated areas of Riverside County. Popular destinations within the study area include: the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa, the Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort and Spa, the Rancho Mirage High School, the Braille Institute of America, the Mission Hills Country Club, the Monterey Shore Shopping Center, the Monterey MarketPlace, the Desert Gateway regional commercial center, the Children’s Discovery Museum, and Sunnylands (the Annenberg Estate). 12-1975

Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
.

Va
r
n
e
r

R
o
a
d
Int
e
r
s
t
a
t
e

1 0
Uni
o
n

P
a
c
i
f
i
c

R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
30th Ave.

V
a
l
l

D
r
.

Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
.

Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d
Project
Site
Casino
We
s
t
i
n
Re
s
o
r
t

V
i
l
l
a
s
We
s
t
i
n
Mi
s
s
i
o
n

H
i
l
l
s
Via
Bella
Ra
t
t
l
e
r

R
o
a
d
Ke
y
La
r
g
o

A
v
e
.

Rio Del Sol
1 5
2 3 4 6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 Legend
Existing Key Intersection
Project Site
1 Figure 3-1
Study Area and Key Intersections
Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering 12-1976

3-2
Development within the City of Rancho Mirage includes: major resort hotels, vacation rentals, resort-based golf courses, upscale retail centers, and professional services related largely to meeting the needs generated by permanent residents and seasonal tourism. Rancho Mirage has numerous golf resorts and country clubs including: Tamarisk, the Springs, Sunrise, Omni Rancho Las Palmas Resort and Spa, the Mission Hills Country Club, Rancho Las Palmas, Rancho Mirage, Morningside, Mission Hills North, and Tuscania. Commercial office and high-end retail centers like The River shopping complex are located south of the study area, along Highway 111. The Eisenhower Medical Center and the Betty Ford Center are also located south of the study area.

There are no industrial land uses within the City of Rancho Mirage. However, light industrial development is located east of Monterey Avenue and south of Interstate 10, in the neighboring City of Palm Desert. Dinah Shore Drive provides access to this area. A light industrial area is also located north of Interstate 10 and east of Bob Hope Drive/Rio Del Sol Road in the Thousand Palms community.

The 2010 United States Census reported that 7,089 housing units (50 percent) of the 14,243 housing units in Rancho Mirage were owner occupied. Renters occupied 1,740 housing units (12 percent). The remaining 38 percent of the housing units (5,414 units) were vacant homeowner units (second homes) or vacant rental units. The homeowner vacancy rate was 5 percent and the rental vacancy rate was 17.2 percent. In 2010, 19 percent of the population (17,154) lived in rental housing units and 81 percent of the population lived in owner-occupied housing units. The owner-occupied housing units had an average of 1.95 residents per household and the rentals had an average of 1.90 residents per rental unit.

Nearly 35 percent of the households were occupied by only one resident. More than 22 percent were occupied by one resident aged 65 or older. The median age in Rancho Mirage in 2010 was 62.3 years and 44 percent of the population was 65 years of age or older. The average family size was 2.46. Only 11.7 percent of the 8,829 households had children under the age of 18 living in them.

The area east of the site surrounding the intersection of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive is developed with numerous big box retail stores (Costco, Wal-Mart, Sam’s Club, Home Depot, home improvement stores, Joann’s Craft Store) that will attract consumers from the project site in the future. The Monterey MarketPlace, the Monterey Shores Shopping Center, the Desert Gateway Shopping Center, and the SBB College are all located south of I-10 at the Monterey Avenue Interchange. A Lowe’s Home Improvement Center is located east of Monterey Avenue and north of Gerald Ford Drive. The Pavilions Shopping Center is located on the southwest corner at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Gerald Ford Drive.

A Fire Station and the Children’s Discovery Museum are located south of Gerald Ford Drive, west of this commercial center.

Desert Ridge Plaza, a neighborhood shopping center with a Walgreens Drug Store as an anchor, is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive.

Bob Hope Drive provides access to the south for trips associated with development within the City of Rancho Mirage such as Sunnylands (the Walter and Leonore Annenberg Estate), the Eisenhower Memorial Hospital and Medical Center, The River commercial/entertainment complex, and the Shops on El Paseo. Da Vall Drive, Bob Hope Drive, and Monterey Avenue provide access to Highway 111, which connects several cities and popular destinations within the Coachella Valley.

Highway 111 also provides access to the Palm Desert Civic Center and the College of the Desert via Fred Waring Drive.

The Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa occupies a 36-acre parcel within Section 24 that is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road. This adjacent development is not a part of the project site but will be connected to the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan area via the future extension of Casino, west of Bob Hope Drive, between the retail development proposed for Planning Area 3 and the future resort uses in Planning Area 4. The signalized intersection of Bob Hope Drive with Casino will provide a direct and convenient connection between the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa and the future residential and non-residential development proposed within the project site designed to encourage trips between the project site and the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa while minimizing vehicular travel on Ramon Road and Dinah Shore Drive.

The Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa includes: a 340-room hotel; 70,000 square feet of gaming floor space with 1,800 slots machines; a 2,000 seat theater for live concert performances; 13,000 square feet of flexible meeting space; six dining venues; a resort pool, spa, and fitness center; and 2,500 parking spaces in a three-story parking structure. This development takes access to and from Ramon Road via a right-in/right-out driveway located east of Bob Hope Drive. It also takes access to Bob Hope Drive, via a signalized full-turn access located at Casino and an unsignalized right-in/right-out driveway located south of Casino.
12-1977

3-3
Existing Land Uses
The 577-acre project site is currently undeveloped. Section 13 is located north of the project site and also undeveloped.

The portion of Section 13 located south of Interstate 10 and north of Ramon Road, on both sides of Bob Hope Drive, was annexed by the City of Rancho Mirage in 2012. The General Plan land use designation for this area is regional interstate commercial, a designation that allows mixed-use development with commercial retail, office, resort hotel and restaurant uses. The City’s General Plan requires the preparation and approval of a Specific Plan prior to development of this area.

Prior to approval, the Section 13 Specific Plan will be subject to environmental review and development review by the City of Rancho Mirage.

The Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort and Spa is located south of the project site at 71333 Dinah Shore Drive, in Rancho Mirage. The main access (key intersection 12) is signalized and located on the south side of Dinah Shore Drive, east of Los Alamos Road. This development includes a hotel with 512 guest rooms, 65,000 square feet of indoor meeting space, 26,000 square feet of outdoor meeting space, a 17,326 square foot ballroom, spa facilities, a fitness center, three swimming pools, a 60-foot water slide, restaurants (signature, café, bar, lounge, grill), two championship golf courses, and seven lighted tennis courts. The Gary Player Signature Golf Course is located west of the project site, within Section 23. The Pete Dye Championship Golf Course is located south of Dinah Shore Drive and west of Bob Hope Drive.

The Westin Mission Hills Resort Villas are also located south of the project site and west of Bob Hope Drive, at 71777 Dinah Shore Drive, Rancho Mirage. This development includes 316 guest rooms, the Restaurant Bella Vista, the Season’s Grill, and poolside grills. Access is via an unsignalized gated entry on the south side of Dinah Shore Drive, opposite Planning Area 7B (key intersection 13).

The area located east of the project site is within the Section 19 Specific Plan area and currently undeveloped. Although the Section 19 Specific Plan was approved by the City of Rancho Mirage in 2010, no development has occurred in Section 19.

The Section 19 Specific Plan includes planned access connections to Bob Hope Drive, Dinah Shore Drive, and Key Largo Avenue. It also includes access to a future overcrossing of Interstate 10 via the northerly extension of Key Largo Avenue.

The intersection of Key Largo Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive is evaluated as key intersection 15.

The Rancho Mirage High School was recently constructed north of Ramon Road and west of Rattler Road. It is located on 60 acres west of Rattler Road and north of Ramon Road. The Rancho Mirage High School opened in August 2013 with a Fall 2013 enrollment of 900 students (freshmen and sophomores only). It is projected to have an enrollment of 1,600 students by the year 2016. The 332,000 square foot school is expected to have an ultimate capacity of 2,300 students in grades 9 through 12. It has a 600-seat theater as well as stadium seating for 3,895. It provides 390 staff parking places and 420 parking spaces for students. A 20-acre site for a future elementary school is located west of Rattler Road, immediately north of the Rancho Mirage High School.

The Palm Valley School is located on the west side of Da Vall Drive, north of Dinah Shore Drive. This school accommodates students in grades K-12 and has an enrollment of approximately 400 students. The campus has substantial space for future expansion. The Cathedral City High School is located north of Dinah Shore Drive and west of Plumley Road. The enrollment of 2,800 dropped by approximately 25 percent, following the opening of the new Rancho Mirage High School.

Anticipated Future Development
General Plans identify land uses based upon a 20-year or longer planning horizon. Zoning identifies specific immediate uses of the land to implement the long-term intent of the General Plan. City General Plans have authority over territory located within the city limits. Land within a city’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) can be given land use designations by both the city and the County of Riverside. The city’s designation applies if the land is annexed into the city. Otherwise, the county’s designation prevails. Spheres of influence established by the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission are intended to reflect the probable physical boundaries and service area of cities. The project site is located with the Sphere of Influence of the City of Rancho Mirage.

Near-Term Cumulative Projects Evaluated
The City of Rancho Mirage identified two near-term developments for evaluation with the initial phase of the Section 24 Specific Plan in the year 2022. The traffic associated with each of these two developments was assigned to the surrounding streets and added to the future year 2022 non-site (through) traffic volumes (shown in Table 4-4, Figures 4-9 and 4-11) and evaluated in Table 5-7.
12-1978

3-4
One near-term cumulative development was Tentative Tract Map 36553 and Preliminary Development Plan 13005 for 122 single-family detached homes on 36.68 acres located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Rattler Road and Ramon Road. These dwellings would take access from Rattler Road.

The second near-term cumulative development was Tentative Parcel Map 31761 and Preliminary Development Plan 07012 (FDP08002) for 9.69 acres located on the southeast corner of Ramon Road and Da Vall Drive. Approximately 6.79 acres would be developed as a single-story physical rehabilitation hospital with 70 beds and 64,768 square feet. It was assumed that this development would have access connections on both Ramon Road and Da Vall Drive.

Long-Term Cumulative Development
The Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM) was used to forecast non-site traffic volumes for the future horizon year 2035. Riverside County, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and the members of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) have approved RIVTAM as the regional traffic model for Riverside County, including the Coachella Valley. Future traffic projections from RIVTAM represent the best available projections for the study area and the horizon year 2035.

The traffic analysis zones in RIVTAM reflect SCAG modeling by Census Tract. Base year and future land use forecasts provided by individual jurisdictions and Riverside County are used in developing the socio-economic input data required by RIVTAM. The 2035 SCAG population and employment growth projections were allocated by area, based on the existing and proposed future land use forecasts identified by each city. Riverside County planners provided estimates for Tribal lands and unincorporated areas. RIVTAM reflects the transportation network shown in the approved general plans of the jurisdictions within the Coachella Valley.

North City Specific Plan (Cathedral City)
The North City Specific Plan was approved by Cathedral City in 2009. The North City Specific Plan addressed the future development of 4,664 acres located north of Interstate 10, between the future northerly extension of Da Vall Drive and Palm Drive. Approximately 235 acres are designated BP (Business Park). Another 518 acres are designated MU-U (Mixed Use- Urban). A total of 402 acres are designated MU-N (Mixed Use-Neighborhood). A light industrial designation applies to 267 acres. An OS-R (Open Space-Residential) applies to 832 acres. In all, 2,900 acres would remain in OS (Open Space- Conservation).

The North City Specific Plan mixed-use development was projected to require 50 years to complete. No construction activity has been initiated to date on this development. The development is transected by Varner Road and the future alignment of Valley Center Boulevard, both of which are shown aligned parallel to Interstate 10. Access to Interstate 10 would be via four interchanges located at: Gene Autry Trail/Palm Drive, Landau Boulevard, Date Palm Drive, and Da Vall Drive. The Interstate 10 interchanges at Landau Boulevard and at Da Vall Drive do not currently exist.

North City Extended Specific Plan (Cathedral City)
The North City Extended Specific Plan was approved in the year 2013 by Cathedral City and included annexation of the 591.38-acre site. This site is located north of I-10 north and south of Varner Road on both sides of Bob Hope Drive. The land uses approved include approximately 65 acres zoned Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U), 116 acres zoned Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MU-N), 74 acres zoned Industrial (I-1), and 240 acres of Open Space (OS). The remaining 96 acres were roadway right-of-way. No construction activity has been initiated to date on this development.

Section 19 Specific Plan (Rancho Mirage)
Section 19 extends north of Dinah Shore Drive, between Bob Hope Drive and Key Largo Avenue. The goal of the planning process for the Section 19 Specific Plan initially involved attracting large retailers within a planned commercial district context. However, the Monterey Avenue corridor in Palm Desert was determined to have absorbed nearly all of the big box retail uses that would have been feasible for the Section 19 Specific Plan area.

On February 18, 2010, the 270-acre Section 19 Specific Plan was approved by the City of Rancho Mirage. The Specific Plan area is located north of Dinah Shore Drive and south of the Union Pacific Railroad, between Bob Hope Drive and Key Largo Avenue. The development plan includes residential uses and non-residential (commercial/retail, office, resort, and mixed- 12-1979

3-5
use) development including an 11-acre public facility. The mixed-use development would include a town center, community retail shops and boutiques, high-end thematic restaurants, medium-density and high-density residential neighborhoods, resort and business hotels, retail space for the sale of furniture and furnishings, designer outlets, and resort recreational uses. To date, no construction activity has been initiated on this development.

3.3 Site Accessibility
Based upon its proximity to the newly constructed Interstate 10 interchange at Bob Hope Drive, the project site benefits from a high level of regional accessibility. With Ramon Road, Bob Hope Drive, Dinah Shore Drive, and Los Alamos Road forming the site boundaries, a high level of access is also afforded by the surrounding street system.

3.4 Existing Transportation System
Airport Facilities
Palm Springs International Airport is the largest of the three airports serving the Coachella Valley. This airport is located approximately 3.6 miles west of the project site, within the City of Palm Springs. This commercial airport is located north of Ramon Road and south of Vista Chino, between Gene Autry Trail and Farrell Drive. With connections throughout California and the continental United States, Palm Springs International Airport is the major facility for regional air passenger transportation in the Coachella Valley. It also handles air freight. Heliport access is limited to medical evacuation flights between the Desert Regional Medical Center heliport and the Palm Springs International Airport.

Railroad Facilities
The Union Pacific Railroad line traverses the area south of Interstate 10 and north of the project site. A grade separated railroad crossing exists where Bob Hope Drive crosses over the railroad line, north of the project site. The recently completed I-10 interchange project at Bob Hope Drive included the construction of a new six-lane bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad.

Within Riverside County, freight rail is an important backbone of the goods movement industry. The Union Pacific Railroad provides freight rail service to Riverside County, with up to fifty freight trains per day passing through the area to/from major cities throughout the continental United States.

AMTRAK operates 15 long distance trains on a national network of routes that range in length from 764 to 2,438 miles.

Amtrak operates 70 intercity trains and 100 commuter trains per day in California. AMTRAK provides regional passenger rail and bus service in the Coachella Valley. The only AMTRAK station in Riverside County is located within the City of Palm Springs. AMTRAK provides bus connections on a daily basis to and from the San Bernardino AMTRAK station for other Riverside County areas.

The North Palm Springs Amtrak train station is a stop three times per week on AMTRAK’s Sunset Limited passenger service between Los Angeles and New Orleans. Connecting service to Chicago is available from a stop in San Antonio, Texas. The North Palm Springs train station is located 0.6 miles south of Interstate 10, at the intersection of North Indian Canyon Drive and Palm Springs Station Road. AMTRAK does not currently provide commuter rail services.

Existing Roadway and Highway Facilities
The existing transportation system in the study area is shown in Figure 3-2. The traffic control at intersections and the number of mid-block through lanes are shown as well as whether each roadway is divided or undivided. Divided facilities typically include a median, which separates traffic lanes in opposite directions and provides space for left-turn bays at intersections. Undivided facilities typically require motorists making left turns to queue in a through lane, thereby reducing the capacity of the roadway. By prohibiting on-street parking, some undivided roadways can be flared to provide left-turn lanes at intersections. Figure 6-1 shows the existing intersection approach lanes and traffic control type at the key intersections.

Regional travel tends to occur along the major axis of the Coachella Valley. Interstate 10 (I-10) facilitates the movement of vehicles in the Coachella Valley between the northwest and the southeast. I-10 extends from Pacific Coast Highway, in western Los Angeles County, through San Bernardino County and Riverside County. After passing through Blythe, I-10 12-1980

Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
.

Va
r
n
e
r

R
o
a
d
Int
e
r
s
t
a
t
e

1 0
Uni
o
n

P
a
c
i
f
i
c

R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
30th Ave.

V
a
l
l

D
r
.

Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
.

Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d
Project
Site
Casino
We
s
t
i
n
Re
s
o
r
t

V
i
l
l
a
s
We
s
t
i
n
Mi
s
s
i
o
n

H
i
l
l
s
Via
Bella
Ra
t
t
l
e
r

R
o
a
d
Ke
y
La
r
g
o

A
v
e
.

Rio Del Sol
Figure 3-2
Surrounding Street System
2D
4D
2U
Legend
Number of Through Lanes
D = Divided U = Undivided
Stop Sign
All Way Stop Control
Signalized Intersection
2U
2U
2U
2U
3U
4U 2D
6D 6D 6D
4D
4D 4D 4D
4D
4D 6D 6D
6D
4D
4D
4D 3U5D6D
6D
5D
6D
5D
6D
5D
6D
3D
5D
4D
4D
2U 4D
2U8D
8D
6D4D
6D
5D
6D
6D
4D
4D
4D
4D 4D4D4D
4D
5D
4D
2U
4D
4D 6D
5D
2U
12-1981

3-6
extends to the east across Arizona and the transcontinental United States. The posted speed limit on Interstate 10 in the project vicinity is 70 miles per hour.

Regional access for the project site is currently available from Interstate 10, via the recently completed interchange at Bob Hope Drive. Motorists can access I-10 in both directions via the Bob Hope Drive interchange, which includes a new eight- lane overcrossing at I-10 and new ramps configured as a spread diamond interchange. Motorists from Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, and Thousand Palms who are destined to the east via Interstate 10 can also access the freeway from Ramon Road via the eastbound on-ramp located east of Bob Hope Drive and the Union Pacific Railroad corridor. Ramon Road crosses over I-10 on a two-lane bridge structure and was recently signalized at the intersection of the I-10 eastbound on-ramp.

Interstate 10 (I-10) is located one-quarter mile north of the project site and provides regional access. I-10 is a freeway under the jurisdiction of Caltrans with a 70 mph posted speed limit that facilitates the movement of vehicles in the Coachella Valley between the northwest and the southeast. Interstate 10 is currently an eight-lane freeway west of and a six-lane freeway east of the Monterey Avenue interchange. Interstate 10 is accessed from Ramon Road via an eastbound on-ramp [intersection 7]. Diamond interchanges are located at Monterey Avenue, Bob Hope Drive, and Date Palm Drive. The Date Palm Drive interchange is located 3.5 miles northwest of the Bob Hope Drive interchange. The Monterey Avenue interchange is approximately 1.5 miles east of the Bob Hope Drive interchange. The signalized intersections of Bob Hope Drive with the Interstate 10 eastbound and westbound ramps were evaluated as key intersections 1 and 2.

Bob Hope Drive is classified as a six-lane divided Urban Arterial Highway in the County of Riverside General Plan and a six- lane divided Major Arterial in the Rancho Mirage General Plan. Bob Hope Drive is a designated truck route and scenic corridor. This roadway was recently improved in conjunction with the interchange improvements at Interstate 10. Where Bob Hope Drive abuts the project site, it currently provides three northbound through lanes and two southbound through lanes and has a posted speed limit of 55 mph. The posted speed limit is 50 mph south of Dinah Shore Drive.

The Bob Hope Drive overpass at Interstate 10 provides three northbound and three southbound through lanes. At the ramp terminals, the roadbed provides dual left-turn lanes and two through lanes in one direction with three through lanes in the opposite direction. Bob Hope Drive is a six-lane divided arterial south of Interstate 10. The roadbed flares at Ramon Road to provide an exclusive southbound right-turn lane, dual southbound left-turn lanes and three through lanes.

Ramon Road is a four-lane divided arterial immediately east of Bob Hope Drive. West of Bob Hope Drive, Ramon Road is a five-lane divided arterial for approximately 950 feet, with two westbound and three eastbound through lanes. West of the five-lane section, Ramon Road provides three through lanes in each direction with a raised center median divider. Ramon Road is classified as a Major Arterial in the Rancho Mirage General Plan with a 120-foot right-of-way. The posted speed limit on Ramon Road within the City of Rancho Mirage is 55 miles per hour.

Dinah Shore Drive is a four-lane divided Minor Arterial with an existing 110-foot right-of-way. It has a 16-foot wide raised landscape median and provides two travel lanes in each direction. The posted speed limit on Dinah Shore Drive is 45 MPH, west of Da Vall Drive, and 50 MPH between Da Vall Drive and Monterey Avenue. Dinah Shore Drive is fully improved adjacent to the Mission Hills Golf Resort and provides a 17-foot wide landscaped parkway with a meandering 12-foot multi- use trail.

Los Alamos Road is currently a two-lane undivided roadway between Ramon Road and Dinah Shore Drive. It is fully improved on the west side. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. A meandering 12-foot wide multi-use trail exists on the west side of Los Alamos Road, which accommodates golf carts, pedestrians, and cyclists. Both the City and County circulation plans classify Los Alamos Road as a future four-lane divided roadway. However, the right-of-way required by the City classification would be 110 feet, whereas the County would require a 118-foot right-of-way.

Da Vall Drive, north of Ramon Road, is a four-lane undivided roadway that narrows to a two-lane undivided roadway before terminating south of the Union Pacific Railroad and Interstate 10. Da Vall Drive may ultimately provide access for site traffic to a future interchange at Interstate 10. The posted speed limit on Da Vall Drive is 45 miles per hour. Da Vall Drive is s hown with a four-lane divided cross-section in the Circulation Elements of both of the adjacent cities of Rancho Mirage and Cathedral City. Da Vall Drive, south of Dinah Shore Drive, is improved as a four-lane divided roadway with a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour. North of Dinah Shore Drive, the right-of-way and improvements along Da Vall Drive are inconsistent. Where the land along the west side of Da Vall Drive is undeveloped and within the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, the ultimate right-of-way has not been dedicated and General Plan roadway improvements have not been made. The east side of Da Vall Drive was fully improved in conjunction with the development of the adjacent Mission Hills 12-1982

3-7
community. The west side of the roadway is fully improved for approximately one-quarter mile south of Ramon Road, adjacent to the Desert Shadows RV Resort and Forest Lawn Memorial Park and Mortuary. However, for approximately 3,500 feet south of Sunshine Way, Da Vall Drive is currently a two-lane undivided roadway except where the pavement width flares to 38 feet to accommodate a southbound left-turn bay for access to the Mission Hills community. The west side of Da Vall is fully improved for 130 feet immediately north of Dinah Shore Drive.

Rattler Road was recently constructed between 30th Avenue and Ramon Road to provide access to the Rancho Mirage High School. The posted speed limit on Rattler Road is 40 mph unless children are present, when it is 25 mph. Rattler Road is a two-lane divided roadway adjacent to the school, and a two-lane undivided roadway north of the school. Rattler Road is flared north of Ramon Road to provide three southbound lanes and two northbound lanes.

Gerald Ford Drive is a four-lane divided Minor Arterial with a 110-foot right-of-way. Within the study area the posted speed limit is 50 MPH. No trucks are allowed to use Gerald Ford Drive.

Existing Traffic Volumes
Seasonal fluctuations in traffic demand reflect trip purposes and the activity in the area served by the roadways. The Coachella Valley is relatively isolated from neighboring urbanized regions and is home to hundreds of resort facilities and retirement communities. In the Coachella Valley, a large tourist and retired population, supported by large service sector employment, generates travel patterns that are, in many ways, atypical of Southern California.

Approximately 3.5 million people visit the Coachella Valley each year. The tourist season extends from October to May, with the increase in the tourist population beginning to peak in January and decreasing substantially after April. Traffic volumes throughout the Coachella Valley are subject to significant seasonal fluctuations, as the population swells in the winter and spring with tourists and “snow birds,” then decreases as they leave to avoid the hot summer months.

Caltrans Traffic Count Data
The most recent Caltrans daily traffic count data for Interstate 10 reflects peak month volumes in the year 2012.1 Caltrans data indicates that the annual average daily traffic (AADT) volume on I-10 is 91,000 vehicles per day (between Bob Hope Drive and Date Palm Drive) and 93,000 vehicles per day (between Bob Hope Drive and Monterey Avenue). East of Monterey Avenue the AADT is 94,000 vehicles per day.

During the peak month, the average daily traffic (ADT) volume on Interstate 10 is 9.9 percent higher than the AADT between Bob Hope Drive and Date Palm Drive. The volume during the peak month is 9.7 percent higher than the AADT on Interstate 10 between Bob Hope Drive and Monterey Avenue. East of the Monterey Avenue interchange, the ADT on Interstate 10 during the peak month is 11.8 percent higher than the AADT.

The peak hour traffic volume on Interstate 10 of 8,100 vehicles per hour is 8.9 percent of the AADT between Bob Hope Drive and Date Palm Drive. The peak hour volume of 8,300 vehicles per hour on I-10, east of the Bob Hope Drive interchange, also represents 8.9 percent of the AADT. East of the Monterey Avenue interchange, the peak hour volume is 8,500 vehicles per hour (9 percent of the AADT).

Approximately 14,590 vehicles per day (VPD) are currently using I-10 for travel to and from the west and 17,610 VPD are currently using I-10 for travel to and from the east via the new I-10 interchange at Bob Hope Drive and the eastbound I-10 on-ramp from Ramon Road. This indicates that origins and destinations located along I-10 west of the study area account for approximately 45 percent of the 32,200 vehicles per day entering and exiting I-10 in the vicinity of the project site.

Origins and destinations along I-10 located east of the study area account for 55 percent of the trips accessing I-10 at Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road.

Approximately 80 percent of the traffic destined to the east on Interstate 10 from the study area uses the on-ramp on Ramon Road, rather than the on-ramp at the Bob Hope Drive interchange to enter the freeway. The eastbound I-10 on-ramp on Ramon Road improves traffic operations at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road by allowing a combined total of more than one thousand vehicles during the morning and evening peak commuter travel hours to pass through the intersection in the eastbound through lanes and the dedicated northbound right-turn lane, resulting in less delay than using the Bob Hope eastbound I-10 on-ramp.

1 State of California Department of Transportation. 2012 Traffic Volumes on the California State Highway System; Sacramento, California. 12-1983

3-8
Interstate 10 serves a substantial volume of heavy trucks transporting freight. The heavy vehicles using Interstate 10 currently comprise approximately 23.6 percent of the daily traffic volume, east of Indian Canyon Drive.2 The Riverside County Department of Public Health specifies a truck mix of 8 percent for Major Highways and Arterial Highways for modeling noise impacts. An 8 percent truck mix was assumed for the peak hour operational analysis of intersections in the study area with every development scenario except those in the horizon year 2035, for which a 5 percent truck mix was assumed.

New Traffic Count Data
Manual intersection turning movement counts were made by Counts Unlimited, Inc. at seventeen existing key intersections to document the existing travel patterns within the study area. The intersection counts were collected continuously for two hours in the morning (from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and for two hours in the evening (from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) on Wednesday, November 6, 2013. This data was needed to evaluate the existing traffic operations during the peak travel hours on the adjacent streets. The intersection count data, prior to being increased to reflect peak season conditions, is provided in Appendix 1.

While the traffic counts were being made at the key intersections, 24-hour directional traffic counts were collected at five locations including: Bob Hope Drive (north and south of Ramon Road); Ramon Road (west of Bob Hope Drive and west of the I-10 eastbound on-ramp); and Dinah Shore Drive (west of Bob Hope Drive). The 24-hour machine traffic count locations and data are provided in Appendix 1. The 24-hour traffic counts were used to identify the relationship between the daily two-way traffic volumes on area roadways and the peak hour traffic volumes on those roadways. The 24-hour traffic count data was also used to identify an appropriate seasonal adjustment factor for use in expanding the peak hour count data to reflect peak season conditions in the study area.

Relationship Between Daily and Peak Hour Volumes
The highest hourly two-way volumes at the five 24-hour count locations that occurred between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM (6,227 vehicles per hour) and between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM (7,100 vehicles per hour) were added together and then divided by the sum of the 24-hour volumes (89,596 vehicles per day) to identify the percentage of the daily volume than was present during the morning and evening peak hours on the streets in the study area. The morning and evening peak hour traffic volume on all of the roadway segments, combined, represented approximately 15 percent of the daily volume on the roadways. This relationship was used to estimate the peak season daily traffic volumes within the study area for each roadway segment adjacent to the key intersections from the peak hour traffic volumes, after they were expanded to reflect peak season conditions.

Peak Season Traffic Expansion Factor
Since traffic volumes in the study area peak in the winter, traffic count data collected in November must be increased to reflect peak season conditions in the winter months. The twenty-four hour weekday traffic count data collected on November 6, 2013 was compared to peak season traffic count data for the same roadways published by CVAG in the 2013 Traffic Census Report to identify an appropriate seasonal adjustment factor for use in expanding the new traffic count data collected at the key intersections to reflect peak season traffic volumes within the study area. A five percent seasonal expansion factor was identified and applied to the peak hour traffic count data to reflect the existing turning movement volumes at the key intersections during the peak season.

Peak season traffic count data available from the City of Rancho Mirage are shown in Table 3-1. A comparison of the count data collected in March of 2013 to the new 24-hour traffic counts collected in November 2013 validated the five percent seasonal expansion factor. Available 24-hour traffic count data collected for roadways within the northern portion of the study area during September of 2012 were also provided in Table 3-1. These traffic counts from September 2012 occurred shortly after the Bob Hope Drive I-10 interchange was completed, when the dynamic redistribution of traffic associated with the opening of the new interchange may or may not have completely stabilized .

2 State of California Department of Transportation. 2012 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System. 12-1984

3-9
Table 3-1
Recent Weekday Traffic Counts
Roadway Segment Traffic Counta Direction/24-Hour Direction/24-Hour Weekdayb Date One-Way Volume One-Way Volume Two-Way Volume

DA VALL DRIVE
- North of Ramon Road 03/19/13 NB 4,563 SB 4,092 8,655
- South of Ramon Road 03/19/13 NB 4,477 SB 6,294 10,771 - North of Dinah Shore Drive 03/19/13 NB 4,494 SB 4,515 9,009 - North of Gerald Ford Drive 03/19/13 NB 5,082 SB 5,626 10,708

BOB HOPE DRIVE
- South of Varner Road 09/05/12 NB 6,066 SB 5,736 11,802 - North of Ramon Road 11/06/13 NB 5,506 SB 11,529 17,035 - North of Ramon Road 09/05/12 NB 4,129 SB 9,265 13,394 - South of Ramon Road 11/07/13 NB 9,342 SB 8,901 18,243 - South of Ramon Road 03/11/13 NB 9,210 SB 9,744 18,954 - South of Ramon Road 09/15/12 NB 7,405 SB 7,206 14,611 - North of Dinah Shore Drive Winter 2013 Not Available Not Available [17,559] - North of Gerald Ford Drive 03/11/13 NB 9,960 SB 9,963 19,923 - North of Frank Sinatra 03/12/13 NB 9752 SB 8960 18,712

RIO DEL SOL ROAD
- North of Varner Road 09/05/12 NB 2,752 SB 2,736 5,488

MONTEREY AVENUE
- North of Dinah Shore Drive Winter 2013 Not Available Not Available [44,125] - South of Dinah Shore Drive Winter 2013 Not Available Not Available [31,702]

DINAH SHORE DRIVE
- West of Da Vall Drive 03/19/13 EB 9,372 WB 9,568 18,940 - West of Bob Hope Drive 11/06/13 EB 8,418 WB 9,063 17,481 - West of Bob Hope Drive 03/11/13 EB 7,931 WB 8,484 16,415 - West of Monterey Avenue 03/05/13 EB 13,577 WB 11,050 24,627 - East of Monterey Avenue Winter 2013 Not Available Not Available [9,575]

GERALD FORD DRIVE
- West of Bob Hope Drive 03/11/13 EB 7,497 WB 6,799 14,296 - East of Bob Hope Drive 03/11/13 EB 5,969 WB 6,501 12,470

RAMON ROAD
- West of Da Vall Drive Winter 2013 Not Available Not Available [22,682] - East of Da Vall Drive 03/19/13 EB 12,038 WB 12,217 24,255 - West of Bob Hope Drive 11/06/13 EB 11,278 WB 9,279 20,557 - West of Bob Hope Drive Winter 2013 Not Available Not Available [23,736] - West of Bob Hope Drive 09/05/12 EB 8,719 WB 8,976 17,695 - East of Bob Hope Drive 11/06/13 EB 11,134 WB 5,146 16,280 - East of Bob Hope Drive Winter 2013 Not Available Not Available [26,402] - East of Bob Hope Drive 09/05/12 EB 9,149 WB 4,440 13,589 - West of Varner Road Winter 2013 Not Available Not Available [11,693] - West of Varner Road 09/05/12 EB 3,993 WB 5,665 9,658
- East of Varner Road 09/05/12 EB 4,742 WB 5,764 10,506

VARNER ROAD
- West of Bob Hope Drive 09/05/12 NB 2,223 SB 1,930 4,153 - East of Bob Hope Drive 09/05/12 NB 5,628 SB 6,163 11,791 a.Traffic count data shown for September, 2012 and November, 2013 was collected by Counts Unlimited, Inc. and was not expanded to reflect peak season conditions. The 24-hour directional traffic count data shown for March, 2013 was collected by Newport Traffic Studies and reflects peak season conditions. This data was available on the City of Rancho Mirage website. NB=Northbound. SB=Southbound. EB=Eastbound. WB= Westbound. b.The winter 2013 24-hour two-way traffic count data shown in brackets was taken from the CVAG 2013 Traffic Census Report. 12-1985

3-10
Peak Season Traffic Volumes
Figure 3-3 shows the current peak season daily traffic volumes on the roadway links adjacent to the key intersections.

These daily traffic volumes were determined from the peak hour traffic counts made at the key intersections, after they were expanded to reflect peak season conditions. Figure 3-4 shows the current peak season turning movement volumes during the morning and evening peak hours at the key intersections. These volumes represent the new tuning movement counts, expanded by five percent.

Peak Hour Factor
Traffic flow rates can vary substantially over the course of an hour, particularly in the vicinity of schools, where the traffic volumes within the fifteen minutes immediately before and after the school day may exceed the capacity of a roadway even though the hourly volumes would be less than the capacity. For this reason, HCM analyses typically evaluate the peak fifteen -minute traffic flow rate during the peak hour.

Using the peak 15-minute flow rate produces a more conservative analysis that accommodates nearly all of the variations in flow that occur during the peak hour. Since the inputs to the HCM procedures are typically expressed in terms of hourly traffic volumes, a peak hour factor (PHF) is used to increase the traffic volume during the peak hour to reflect the peak 15- minute flow rate. The peak hour factor is the ratio of the total hourly volume to four times the peak 15-minute volume within that hour. Values for PHFs are determined from the peak hour traffic counts made at each key intersection based on the traffic volumes during each 15-minute interval.

A very low PHF (0.25) indicates that all peak hour vehicles arrive in the peak fifteen minutes. A PHF of 1.0 indicates that vehicles are evenly distributed over the peak hour. Site-specific morning and evening PHFs were determined from the observed 15-minute counts at each key intersection during the peak hours. These PHFs are provided in the intersection count data in Appendix 1 and documented for each operational analysis of the key intersections in Section 5. The 2008 Riverside County Transportation Department Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide recommends that that actual peak hour factors be determined from traffic counts at the intersections being evaluated and utilized in the existing and near-term operational analyses and PHF of 1.0 be applied to buildout traffic conditions. The future horizon year 2035 conditions with and without site traffic were evaluated using a PHF of 1.0.

Existing Pedestrian Volumes Crossing Ramon Road at Rattler Road The intersection of Rattler Road and Ramon Road is signalized and provides a crosswalk on the west leg of Ramon Road for students walking to and from the Rancho Mirage High School. Based on the November 6, 2013 traffic count data, the morning peak hour occurs at this intersection between 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM. During that hour, a total of 598 vehicles were counted on Rattler Road, north of Ramon Road (263 northbound and 335 southbound). The afternoon peak hour occurred at this intersection between 2:45 PM and 3:45 PM. During that hour a total of 475 vehicles were counted on Rattler Road, north of Ramon Road (225 northbound and 250 southbound).

Pedestrian counts were made at this intersection from 7:00 AM through 9:00 AM and from 2:00 PM through 4:00 PM on November 6, 2013. Crosswalks at this intersection for students of the Rancho Mirage High School are located on the west leg of Ramon Road and on Rattler Road. The pedestrian counts for the crosswalk on Ramon Road included: three pedestrians crossing between 7:15 and 7:30 AM, nine pedestrians crossing between 8:00 and 8:15 AM, and one pedestrian crossing between 8:45 AM and 9:00 AM. No pedestrians were observed between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM crossing Rattler Road at this intersection. The afternoon count for the Rattler Road crosswalk included one pedestrian crossing between 3:00 PM and 3:15 PM and another crossing between 3:15 PM and 3:30 PM. Sixteen pedestrians crossed Ramon Road at the crosswalk during the afternoon count period. All sixteen crossings occurred between 3:00 PM and 3:15 PM.

Truck Access and Goods Movement
Throughout California, approximately 76 percent of all inbound and outbound freight is shipped by truck. The agricultural and industrial sectors of Riverside County’s economy generate a significant amount of truck traffic and depend upon the safe and efficient movement of goods. The primary means of transporting goods and consumer products in Riverside County is large trucks. Truck volumes in the region are projected to increase by forty percent between the year 2003 and the year 2020. Goods movement in the study area is expected to grow rapidly in response to the projected growth in population as well as international trade. Caltrans data for the year 2012 indicates that trucks currently represent 23.6 percent of the traffic volume on Interstate 10 within the study area. 12-1986

Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
Figure 3-3
Existing Weekday Traffic Volumes
(Year 2013 Peak Season)
Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
Legend
2-Way Daily Volume in Thousands15.7

20.3 23.8 24.0 24.7

22.4 18.0

18.1 18.7 18.6

12. 5

6.0 8
.
6 18
.
8 2.1

2.1 7
.
6 17.2 11.2 Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
.

Va
r
n
e
r

R
o
a
d
Int
e
r
s
t
a
t
e

1 0
Uni
o
n

P
a
c
i
f
i
c

R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
30th Ave.

V
a
l
l

D
r
.

Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
.

Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d
Project
Site
Casino
We
s
t
i
n
Re
s
o
r
t

V
i
l
l
a
s
We
s
t
i
n
Mi
s
s
i
o
n

H
i
l
l
s
Via
Bella
Ra
t
t
l
e
r

R
o
a
d
Ke
y
La
r
g
o

A
v
e
.

Rio Del Sol

8.0 18.8 19.2
46 .
3 31
.
6 16.5

16.8 14.9
17 .
9 19
.
1 20
.
3 20
.
1 11
.
8 11
.
6 10
.
4 2.
7 1.
8 2.
0 10
0 .
0 1
0 2
.
0 18.4
19 .
1 0.
8 1.
6 1.
3 26.6
10 .
9 12-1987

En
d
o

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
.

Ge
r
a
l
d

F
o
r
d

D
r
.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varn
e
r

R
o
a
d
Int
e
r
s
t
a
t
e

1 0
Uni
o
n

P
a
c
i
f
i
c

R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
30 t
h

A
v
e
.

Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e
Mi
s
s
i
o
n

H
i
l
l
s
Co
u
n
t
r
y

C
l
u
b
Ca
s
i
n
o
The Westin
Resort & Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
Vi
a
Be
l
l
a
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Ri
o

D
e
l

S
o
l
Mi
s
s
i
o
n

H
i
l
l
s
Co
u
n
t
r
y

C
l
u
b
No
r
t
h
Le
g
e
n
d
Mo
r
n
i
n
g
/
E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k
Ho
u
r

T
u
r
n
i
n
g

V
o
l
u
m
e
5/
8 1
5 2
4 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 3
We
s
t
i
n

R
e
s
o
r
t

V
i
l
l
a
s

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Ke
y

L
a
r
g
o

A
v
e
n
u
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ge
r
a
l
d

F
o
r
d

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
I-
1 0

W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p
s
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
I-
1 0

E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p
s
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Ra
t
t
l
e
r

R
o
a
d

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
i
v
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ca
s
i
n
o
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Vi
a

B
e
l
l
a
We
s
t
i
n

M
i
s
s
i
o
n

H
i
l
l
s

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
I-
1 0

E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Fi
g
u
r
e

3 -
4 Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

P
e
a
k

H
o
u
r

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

V
o
l
u
m
e
s
(P
e
a
k

S
e
a
s
o
n

W
e
e
k
d
a
y
)
45 0
/
3 7
4 66
/
1 0
4 27
1 /
4 1
9 51
1 /
5 1
5 48
7 /
8 7
3 36
/
3 0
U-
T
u
r
n
s

2 /
1 6
59 3
/
7 0
5 28
/
1 5
7/43
22/56
72/27
12/11
11 /
1 2
15 /
1 6
59/47
11/24
15 /
2 7
7/
3 5
72/111
930/469
6/34
309/936
29 /
1 0
9 41
4 /
6 9
7 64
/
4 7
59/48
314/193
232/113
10 5
/
7 9
52 2
/
5 9
6 17
2 /
1 3
9 63/43
146/305
107/180
13 /
5 3
48 1
/
8 7
9 40/24
64/25
48 /
3 3
56 6
/
6 5
6 52
7 /
8 8
7 16
/
3 6
0/
0 60
3 /
7 6
0 7/
4 18/27
3/8
51 /
1 8
0 38
5 /
6 0
6 10
0 /
1 1
0 103/91
785/384
47/66
65 /
7 1
39 9
/
5 5
2 14
3 /
1 2
3 61/182
200/635
105/223
49 5
/
8 9
7 57
/
2 7
U-
T
u
r
n
s

0 /
4 51
9 /
8 0
0 20
/
1 1
32/46
7/1
25 9
/
4 6
6 15
2 /
3 3
5 38
/
3 5
369/260
1299/773
446/516 29
7 /
7 1
6 23
2 /
2 8
4 13
2 /
3 7
1 17/24
434/1116
118/387
51 /
5 6
39 1
/
4 0
2 17
1 /
8 8
63/58
757/491
83/77
11 3
/
1 6
3 39
3 /
4 5
9 13
3 /
9 7
24/80
245/712
62/153
18 9
/
1 4
0 9/
4 47
1 /
4 7
6 224/298
156/250
360/263
105/373
12 /
2 0
33 7
/
3 1
5 10
2 /
5 8
34/62
679/348
386/422
75 /
9 3
67 0
/
6 9
7 20
5 /
1 6
9 77/194
149/470
82/247
91/138
612/679 25
5 /
1 2
4 6/
5 49
9 /
2 4
6 25/45
206/500
96 /
2 3
0 49
0 /
7 1
6 16
7 /
9 9
218/106
281/118
47/23
24 /
3 7
60 8
/
6 7
5 13
2 /
7 5
88/70
116/269
76/147
11 3
/
9 8
63 2
/
8 6
6 142/101
210/162 16
3 /
1 3
9 75
6 /
8 2
2 78
3 /
9 9
8 66
/
2 8
88 9
/
8 4
6 30
/
1 2
55/36
11/36
13 14
15 16
17 71
2 3
4 5
6 8
9 10
11 12
12-1988

3-11

3.5 Relevant Circulation Plans
The site has frontage on four existing Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan roadways: Ramon Road, Bob Hope Drive, Dinah Shore Drive, and Los Alamos Road. No other Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan roadways are located within or adjacent to the project site.

Riverside County General Plan
The Circulation Element of the County of Riverside General Plan identifies the need to shape future growth patterns by moving away from random growth toward concentrated growth and increased job creation. This will require a regional and local linkage system between communities to encourage increased ridership of public transit systems and the increased use of alternative modes of transportation including bicycles and walking.

Riverside County collaborates with cities to implement and integrate right-of-way requirements and improvement standards for General Plan roadways that cross jurisdictional boundaries. For development within the Sphere of Influence of an incorporated jurisdiction, city standards should generally apply where annexation to the City will logically occur in the short to intermediate range future. Where roadways designed to differing city and County standards meet, the transitional areas should be designed on an individual basis to facilitate satisfactory operational and safety performance.

The Circulation Element of the Riverside County General Plan (Revised October 7, 2003) classifies the roadways in the study area as Urban Arterial, Arterial Highway, Major Highway, Secondary Highway or Collector Street, as shown in Figure 3-5. Figure 3-6 illustrates the typical Riverside County street cross-sections by roadway classification. Table 3-2 summarizes the Riverside County intersection spacing standards by roadway classification.

Table 3-2
Riverside County Access Standards by Corridor Classificationa Street Classification Minimum Right-of-Way Number of Lanes Intersection Spacing Width Requiredb Requiredc Standards

Urban Arterial 152 Feet 6 or 8 Lanes 1/4 Mile Intersection Spacing

Arterial Highway 128 Feet 4 or 6 Lanes 1/4 Mile Intersection Spacing Minimal Driveway Access

Major Highway 118 Feet 4 Lanes 660-Foot Intervals

Secondary Highway 100 Feet 4 Lanes 330-Foot Intervals

Collector Street 74 Feet 2 Lanes Parcel Access Discouragedd a.Source: “County of Riverside General Plan”; Table C-1. b.Additional right-of-way may be required at intersections. c.Arterial highways and urban arterial highways typically have raised medians that allow dual left-turn bays and exclusive right-turn lanes at intersections with secondary or higher classification highways. Major highways typically have painted medians that allow dual left-turn bays and exclusive right-turn lanes at intersections with secondary or higher classification highways. Although no median or turn lanes are typically required on secondary highways, a single left-turn bay and exclusive right-turn lane can be accommodated at intersections with secondary or higher classification highways. d.Parcel access may be permitted only if no local streets are present.

Urban arterials typically provide six or eight through lanes. They may provide dual left-turn lanes and a dedicated right-turn lane at intersections with secondary and higher classification roadways. A roadway with an Urban Arterial classification typically requires a 152-foot right-of-way. Riverside County has designated four Urban Arterials within the study area. They include: (1) Bob Hope Drive, between Varner Road and Dinah Shore Drive, (2) Ramon Road, west of Interstate 10 to Da Vall Drive, (3)Dinah Shore Drive, between Los Alamos Road and Monterey Avenue, and (4) Monterey Avenue, between Varner Road and Gerald Ford Drive.
12-1989

Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
Legend
Urban Arterial Highway (152’ ROW/6-D)
Arterial Highway (128’ ROW/4-D)
Major Highway (118’ ROW/4-D)
Secondary HIghway (100’ ROW/4-U)
Figure 3-5
Riverside County Circulation Plan
Source: County of Riverside General Plan (Revised March 2001) Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
.

Va
r
n
e
r

R
o
a
d
Int
e
r
s
t
a
t
e

1 0
Uni
o
n

P
a
c
i
f
i
c

R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
30th Ave.

V
a
l
l

D
r
.

Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
.

Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d
Project
Site
Casino
We
s
t
i
n
Re
s
o
r
t

V
i
l
l
a
s
We
s
t
i
n
Mi
s
s
i
o
n

H
i
l
l
s
Via
Bella
Ra
t
t
l
e
r

R
o
a
d
Ke
y
La
r
g
o

A
v
e
.

Rio Del Sol
12-1990

En
d
o

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Fi
g
u
r
e

3 -
6 Ri
v
e
r
s
i
d
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

S
t
r
e
e
t

S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
So
u
r
c
e
:

Ri
v
e
r
s
i
d
e

C
o
u
n
t
y

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

P
l
a
n
;
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2 0
0 8
.

Me
d
i
a
n
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
St
r
i
p
Tr
a
v
e
l
e
d

W
a
y
Ri
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
W
a
y
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Li
n
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Li
n
e
Tr
a
v
e
l
e
d

W
a
y
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
St
r
i
p
Ce
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
Ro
a
d
b
e
d
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

M
e
d
i
a
n

R
o
a
d
b
e
d

R
/
W
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y

1 4
’

6 0
’

8 2
5 ’

1 3
4 ’

1 8
4 ’
Ur
b
a
n

A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l

H
i
g
h
w
a
y

1 4
’

4 8
’

6 -
8 2
1 ’

1 1
0 ’

1 5
2 ’
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l

H
i
g
h
w
a
y

1 8
’

3 4
’

4 -
6 2
1 ’

8 6
’

1 2
8 ’
Ma
j
o
r

H
i
g
h
w
a
y

1 2
’

3 2
’

4 2
1 ’

7 6
’

1 1
8 ’
Mo
u
n
t
a
i
n

A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l

N
A

3 2
’

2 -
4 2
3 ’

6 4
’

1 1
0 ’
Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

H
i
g
h
w
a
y

N
A

3 2
’

4 1
8 ’

6 4
’

1 0
0 ’
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r

1 2
’

2 2
’

2 1
1 ’

5 6
’

7 8
’
Co
l
l
e
c
t
o
r

N
A

2 0
’

2 1
7 ’

4 0
’

7 4
’
Tr
a
v
e
l
e
d

T
r
a
v
e
l

P
a
r
k
w
a
y
Wa
y

L
a
n
e
s

S
t
r
i
p
No
t
e
s
:

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

m
a
y

b
e

r
e
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
e
d

t
o

a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e

e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e

t
r
a
n
s
i
t

l
a
n
e
s

o
r

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

l
a
n
e

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.

A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

r
i
g
ht
-
o
f
-
w
a
y

m
a
y

b
e

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

a
t

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.

E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
s
,

u
r
b
a
n

a
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

a
n
d

a
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

h
a
v
e

r
a
i
s
e
d

m
e
d
i
a
n
s
.

M
a
j
o
r
s

a
n
d

i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
s

h
a
v
e

p
a
i
n
t
e
d

m
e
d
i
a
n
s
.
12-1991

3-12
Arterial Highways typically provide four or six through lanes and have a raised median. They may provide dual left-turn lanes and a dedicated right-turn lane at intersections with secondary and higher classification roadways. Arterial Highways typically require a 128-foot right-of-way. Six roadways in the study area are designated Arterial Highway in the Riverside County Circulation Element. They include: (1) Varner Road, northwest of Ramon Road, (2) Ramon Road, east of Varner Road, (3) Dinah Shore Drive, between Plumley Road and Los Alamos Road, (4) Gerald Ford Drive, (5) Bob Hope Drive, south of Dinah Shore Drive, and (6) Monterey Avenue, south of Gerald Ford Drive.

Major Highways require a 118-foot right-of-way and provide four through lanes with a painted median. They may provide dual left-turn lanes and a dedicated right-turn lane at intersections with secondary and higher classification roadways.

Riverside County has designated three Major Highways in the study area including: (1) Da Vall Drive, south of Interstate 10, (2) Los Alamos Road, between Ramon Road and Gerald Ford Drive, and (3)Monterey Avenue, between Ramon Road and Varner Road.

Secondary Highways require a 100-foot right-of-way and provide four through lanes with no median. Two of the roadways within the study area are classified as Secondary Highways by the County of Riverside. They include: Rio Del Sol Road, north of Varner Road, and Varner Road, southeast of Ramon Road.

Riverside County has classified Rio del Sol Road, north of Vista Chino, as a Collector Street. Collector Streets provide one travel lane in each direction within a 40-foot roadbed and require a 74-foot right-of-way. Collector Streets generally are not required to provide exclusive turn lanes at intersections.

Designated Truck Routes
Interstate 10 is a primary corridor for the movement of goods within and through the Coachella Valley and the San Gorgonio Pass. I-10 and Highway 111 are part of the state highway truck route system. Both of these facilities are in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) Network, which allows larger trucks with no maximum overall length.

Designated Scenic Corridors
Many corridors in the Coachella Valley traverse scenic resources and encourage the growth of tourism. To enhance the aesthetic experiences of residents and visitors as well as protect and maintain the unique visual features along highways located within these corridors, various scenic roadways have been officially recognized and designated. The Western Coachella Valley Area Plan (October 2003) identifies Bob Hope Drive, between Interstate 10 and Gerald Ford Drive, as a County Eligible Scenic Highway. Policies therein seek to protect and maintain resources in corridors along scenic highways by imposing conditions on developments within scenic highway corridors requiring the dedication of scenic easements consistent with the Scenic Highways Plan when necessary to preserve unique or special visual features. The Riverside County General Plan also requires trail alignments that either provide access to or link scenic corridors, schools, parks, and other natural areas.

Interstate 10 is an Eligible County Scenic Highway between State Route 62 (west of the study area) and the Colorado River.

To preserve the visual resources of the I-10 scenic corridor, the State Scenic Highways Land Use Standards should be applied to all projects within the I-10 scenic highway corridor. These standards include a 50-foot setback from the edge of the right-of-way for all new development where feasible. Interstate 10 is an important visual corridor that should receive special landscape treatments because so many motorists and tourists form their image of the adjacent cities from their travels along I-10. Two types of high-speed corridor treatments are possible along this route: (1) buffered edges to screen unsightly views from the freeway, and (2) landscaped edges designed to promote select views into the adjacent cities.

City of Rancho Mirage General Plan
The project site is located within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Rancho Mirage. The City of Rancho Mirage has adopted LOS D as the maximum acceptable service level for peak operating periods in the Circulation Element of the City of Rancho Mirage 2005 General Plan. Figure 3-7 shows the roadway classifications in the Circulation Plan and Figure 3-8 shows the typical street sections associated with each roadway classification in the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan.

Bob Hope Drive is classified as a Major Arterial (six-lane divided) in the City of Rancho Mirage 2005 General Plan to accommodate future traffic projections and be consistent with the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) network designations. Bob Hope Drive was extended north of Ramon Road to Varner Road in conjunction with the recent construction of a new spread diamond Interstate 10 interchange. This new interchange replaced three of the four ramps 12-1992

Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
Legend
Major Arterial (120’ ROW/6-D)
Minor Arterial (110’ ROW/4-D)
Major Collector (100’ ROW/4-D)
Critical Intersection
Figure 3-7
City of Rancho Mirage Circulation Plan
Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan (Revised November 2005) Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
.

Va
r
n
e
r

R
o
a
d
Int
e
r
s
t
a
t
e

1 0
Uni
o
n

P
a
c
i
f
i
c

R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
30th Ave.

V
a
l
l

D
r
.

Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
.

Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d
Project
Site
Casino
We
s
t
i
n
Re
s
o
r
t

V
i
l
l
a
s
We
s
t
i
n
Mi
s
s
i
o
n

H
i
l
l
s
Via
Bella
Ra
t
t
l
e
r

R
o
a
d
Ke
y
La
r
g
o

A
v
e
.

Rio Del Sol
Conceptual
Alignment
12-1993

En
d
o

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Fi
g
u
r
e

3 -
8 Ra
n
c
h
o

M
i
r
a
g
e

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

S
t
r
e
e
t

S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
So
u
r
c
e
:

Ra
n
c
h
o

M
i
r
a
g
e

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

P
l
a
n
;
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r

2 0
0 5
.

Me
d
i
a
n
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
St
r
i
p
Tr
a
v
e
l
e
d

W
a
y
Ri
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
W
a
y
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Li
n
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Li
n
e
Tr
a
v
e
l
e
d

W
a
y
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
St
r
i
p
Ce
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
Ro
a
d
b
e
d
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

M
e
d
i
a
n

R
o
a
d
b
e
d

R
/
W
Pr
i
m
a
r
y

A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l

1 8
’

4 5
’

6 D

1 3
’

1 0
8 ’

1 3
4 ’
Ma
j
o
r

A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l

1 6
’

4 5
’

6 D

7 ’

1 0
6 ’

1 2
0 ’
Mi
n
o
r

A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l

1 6
’

3 5
’

4 D

1 2
’

8 6
’

1 1
0 ’
Ma
j
o
r

C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r

1 6
’

3 0
’

4 D

1 2
’

7 6
’

1 0
0 ’
Mi
n
o
r

C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r

N
A

3 2
’

4 U

1 2
’

6 4
’

8 8
’
Lo
c
a
l

N
A

2 0
’

2 U

1 0
’

4 0
’

6 0
’
Tr
a
v
e
l
e
d

T
r
a
v
e
l

P
a
r
k
w
a
y
Wa
y

L
a
n
e
s

S
t
r
i
p
12-1994

3-13
previously located at the Ramon Road diamond interchange. Only the eastbound I-10 on-ramp from Ramon Road was retained. Five critical intersections are identified along Bob Hope Drive at the intersections of the following roadways: the Westbound I-10 Ramps, the Eastbound I-10 Ramps, Ramon Road, Dinah Shore Drive, and Gerald Ford Drive.

Ramon Road is classified as a 6-lane divided Major Arterial between Da Vall Drive and the I-10 overcrossing. A 120-foot right-of-way is typically required of facilities with a Major Arterial designation. Three critical intersections are identified along Ramon Road at the intersections of Da Vall Drive, Los Alamos Road, and Bob Hope Drive.

Dinah Shore Drive is classified as a 6-lane divided Major Arterial, between Los Alamos Road and Monterey Avenue. A 120- foot right-of-way is typically required of roadways with a Major Arterial designation. Between Plumley Road and Los Alamos Road, Dinah Shore Drive is classified as a 4-lane divided Minor Arterial, which typically requires a 110-foot right-of-way.

Prior to the 2005 update of the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, Dinah Shore Drive, between Los Alamos Road and Bob Hope Drive, was designated and constructed as a 4-lane divided Minor Arterial with a 110-foot right-of-way. Four critical intersections are identified along Dinah Shore Drive at the intersections of Da Vall Drive, Los Alamos Road, Bob Hope Drive, and Monterey Avenue.

Los Alamos Road is classified as a 4-lane divided Minor Arterial, which typically requires a 110-foot right-of-way. Critical intersections are identified on Los Alamos Road at Ramon Road and at Dinah Shore Drive.

Da Vall Drive, south of Interstate 10, is designated as a 4-lane divided Minor Arterial, which typically requires a 110-foot right-of-way. Critical intersections along Da Vall Drive are designated within the study area at Ramon Road and Dinah Shore Drive.

Monterey Avenue is a six-lane divided roadway, north of Dinah Shore Drive, that provides north-south access between Interstate 10 and Highway 111. It is designated as a 6-lane divided Major Arterial within the study area in the Rancho Mirage General Plan.

Rattler Road is designated as a four-lane divided Major Collector between Ramon Road and 30th Street. Major Collectors typically require a 100-foot right-of-way.

North of Ramon Road, a future four-lane divided Minor Arterial is shown in the Circulation Element extending across Section 13 to the Union Pacific Railroad corridor where it turns northwest and continues to Da Vall Drive. This future Minor Arterial is shown intersecting Ramon Road opposite Street “C”, the future full-turn Section 24 access connection proposed between Planning Areas 1 and 2 (Intersection 18 in Figure 2-3).

A Future Minor Arterial with a four-lane divided cross-section is shown in the Circulation Element extending east of Bob Hope Drive across the Section 19 Specific Plan area to Key Largo Avenue. This Minor Arterial intersects Bob Hope Drive north of the point where the alignment of Bob Hope Drive turns west of the eastern boundary of Section 24. This location appears to be opposite the Section 24 Specific Plan future full-turn site access proposed on Bob Hope Drive at Street “D” [Intersection 20].

Truck Routes
The City of Rancho Mirage has designated the following truck routes within the study area: Ramon Road (between Da Vall Drive and the Union Pacific Railroad corridor); Dinah Shore Drive (between Plumley Road and Monterey Avenue); Bob Hope Drive (between Varner Road and Gerald Ford Drive); and Monterey Avenue (south of Dinah Shore Drive). In addition, two roadways are time-restricted truck routes where truck travel is prohibited between the hours of 9:00 PM and 6:00 AM.

These roadways include: Gerald Ford Drive (between Plumley Road and Bob Hope Drive) and Bob Hope Drive (south of Gerald Ford Drive).

Scenic Routes
The Community Design Element of the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan identifies several policies to strengthen the image of Rancho Mirage by beautifying its arterial streets. From design guidance for entry monuments to the identification of specific landscape themes, these policies encourage quality retail development, recommend enhanced intersection treatments, provide visually distinct gateway landscaping along designated entries to the City, and preserve special view corridors. The major focus of these arterial beautification strategies will be along Bob Hope Drive, between Ramon Road and Dinah Shore Drive.
12-1995

3-14
The Community Design Element of the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan identifies special scenic view corridors that must be preserved and enhanced. Along Ramon Road, the viewsheds to both the east and west have been identified for preservation and enhancement. Along Dinah Shore Drive, the viewshed to the west has been identified for preservation and enhancement. Unique views of mountains and other natural open spaces along these corridors would be preserved through compliance with building height restrictions, the use of low-profile median landscaping, and the provision of wide landscaped parkways.

Streetscape Plans for Scenic Roadways
Streetscape improvement plans that reflect the policies and programs identified in the Community Design Element of the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan would be required for all major arterials abutting the project site, prior to the initiation of future landscape or roadway improvements. Design plans exist for the City’s Major Arterials at three distinct levels designated: boulevard, gateway, and special arterial streetscape plans. The implementation of these streetscape improvements is both a public and private responsibility.

As the City’s primary entry, Bob Hope Drive would require a formal landscape plan incorporating community-wide design themes. The intersection of Bob Hope Drive with Ramon Road is designated as a “Primary Gateway”. Given this designation, the design of this intersection should incorporate monument signage and include special paving, widened setbacks, and coordinated accent landscaped treatment at all four corners. A “Gateway Landscaping” designation applies to both sides of Bob Hope Drive, between Ramon Road and Dinah Shore Drive. The gateway landscape plan envisions a formal skyway design with decorative palms interspersed with smaller specimens to create a dynamic entry into the City.

The Community Design Map in the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan includes a “Special Arterial Landscaping” designation for both Ramon Road and Dinah Shore Drive within the city limits. This designation allows more design flexibility in that each roadway would take on a unique landscape theme reflecting the design character of the adjacent uses. Both formal and informal landscape treatments may be featured, depending on the character of the adjacent development. However, a more coordinated landscape treatment of these arterials and the intensification of planting at major intersections to create an “oasis” effect would be required as well as the preservation of view corridors through streetscape improvements and specialized design standards such as widened parkways and enhanced landscaping to reduce visual impacts.

Two intersections adjacent to the project site are designated as “Enhanced Intersections” in the Community Design Element of the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan: (1) Los Alamos Road at Ramon Road, and (2) Bob Hope Drive at Dinah Shore Drive. Enhanced intersections include coordinated planning for all four corners through widened setbacks, special crosswalk paving, accent lighting, trees, and other landscaping. Program 3C in the Community Design Element includes undergrounding utilities whenever possible and adopting lighting standards that create the minimum visual impact without compromising safety.

Goals, Policies and Programs
The City’s street system shall be designed and constructed to maximize mobility, minimize congestion, and assure that all intersections and street segments shall operate at LOS “D” or better during the peak hours of traffic, as generated by buildout of the Land Use Plan. The number of access points and intersections along arterials shall be limited in order to preserve mid-block and intersection capacities and to maintain public safety. City Program 4.B facilitates the consolidation of access driveways along all arterials in a manner that minimizes conflicting turning movements and maximizes the use of existing and planned signalized intersections. City Policy 9 states that circulation and access for undeveloped parcels shall be coordinated with surrounding properties.

Per City Policy 10, streets within private planned residential areas shall be installed and maintained as private streets, and shall be developed in accordance with development standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable standards and guidelines. Emergency police, fire and paramedic vehicle access shall be provided with all new development to the satisfaction of the City. The City shall preserve and protect existing and future school sites, to the greatest extent practical, from excessive noise and traffic conditions and ensure compatible surrounding land uses. 12-1996

3-15
Critical Intersections
At the discretion of the City Engineer, the City of Rancho Mirage shall require improvements at “critical intersections” beyond those necessary to meet the adopted level of service performance standard. The “critical intersections” identified within the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan represent locations where ideal roadway configurations would provide three through lanes, dual left-turn lanes, and a single dedicated right-turn lane on each approach. As a result, these intersections are expected to require additional right-of-way to accommodate full-width roadway improvements. Those “critical intersections” involving major arterials designated as scenic corridors in the Rancho Mirage General Plan may be required to dedicate right-of-way beyond that associated with the typical cross-section associated with the facility classification and prepare streetscape plans incorporating landscaping consistent with the standards in the Community Design Element of the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan.

Congestion Management Program (CMP)
The Congestion Management Program (CMP) is intended to link land use, transportation, and air quality with reasonable growth management methods, strategies and programs that effectively utilize new transportation funds to alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) that prepares the Riverside County Congestion Management Program updates in consultation with local agencies, the County of Riverside, transit agencies and sub-regional agencies like the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG).

The CMA provides a uniform database of traffic impacts for use in countywide transportation computer models. To analyze traffic impacts associated with development proposals or land use plans, the RCTC has recognized use of the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM) and other models. The methodology for measuring levels of service (LOS) must be that contained in the Highway Capacity Manual. Traffic standards must be set no lower than LOS E for any segment or intersection on the CMP system unless the current LOS is lower (i.e., LOS F).

The RCTC has designated a system of highways and roadways to include (at a minimum) all State Highway facilities within Riverside County and a system of principal arterials as the Congestion Management System (CMS). All State Highways within Riverside County have been designated as part of the CMP System of Highways and Roadways. The following facilities are designated as part of the Riverside CMP System of Highways and Roadways in the Coachella Valley:
•Interstate 10 (San Bernardino County line to State line); • State Route 111 (Interstate 10 to Imperial County line); •Ramon Road (Interstate 10 to State Route 111); and
• Monterey Avenue (Interstate 10 to State Route 111).

The 2011 level of service screening analysis in the CMP found that Interstate 10 is operating at LOS C with a peak hour traffic volume (in both directions) of 7,521 vehicles per hour at Date Palm Drive and 8,758 vehicles per hour between Ramon Road and Monterey Avenue. Ramon Road, west of Bob Hope Drive, was evaluated and determined to be operating at LOS C with 2,435 vehicles in the peak hour (both directions). Ramon Road, east of Bob Hope Drive, was identified as operating at LOS F with a peak hour two-way volume of 2,781 vehicles per hour. This unacceptable level of service was attributed to the construction activities associated with the Interstate 10 interchange at Bob Hope Drive.3 Per the adopted Level of Service standard of "E", when a Congestion Management System (CMS) segment falls to LOS F, a deficiency plan must be prepared by the local agency where the deficiency is located, following coordination with other agencies identified as contributors to the deficiency. The deficiency plan must contain mitigation measures (including TDM strategies and transit alternatives) and a schedule for mitigating the deficiency. RCTC will prepare deficiency plans when deficiencies are identified by local jurisdictions on the State Highway System.

When the I-10 interchange construction at Bob Hope Drive was completed and travel patterns returned to normal in 2012, the traffic volume on Ramon Road, east of Bob Hope Drive, decreased by 56 percent to 1,218 vehicles per hour and the peak hour LOS improved to acceptable levels. Consequently, a deficiency plan will not be required for Ramon Road, west of Bob Hope Drive.

3 VRPA Technologies, Inc.. 2011 Riverside County Congestion Management Program; December 14, 2012. 12-1997

3-16
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program
The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) has developed a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program that compliments the objectives of the Congestion Management Program (CMP). The member agencies of CVAG collect a uniform development impact fee to help fund construction of the regional system of roads, streets, and highways (excluding state or federal highways) needed to accommodate growth in the region.

The TUMF program is a component of the Measure “A” sales tax approved by Riverside County voters in 1988 and effective through the year 2039. Measure A and the TUMF program help fund the construction of the regional system of roads, streets, and highways to accommodate growth in the region. Transportation-related improvement projects partially funded by the TUMF program include: arterial street construction, street widening, intersection enhancements, and freeway interchange improvements. Regional transportation funds are meant to supplement, not replace local revenues and/or developer contributions required for approved regional road construction projects. CVAG members that participate in the TUMF and the Multiple Species program pay 25 percent of the cost of eligible regional transportation projects while CVAG pays 75 percent.

CVAG follows the protocol outlined in the Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Program Policy and Procedures Manual (Updated January 27, 2014), which details the process to be followed by Lead Agencies seeking Measure “A” and TUMF revenues for eligible transportation-related improvement projects. The revenues distributed by CVAG include the Measure “A” sales tax, TUMF collected by CVAG member agencies, and state and federal funding. Lead agencies submitting projects for review and funding through the CVAG Regional Arterial Program must document the project limits, the need for the improvement, and the cost of project design and construction (including right-of-way acquisition, preliminary engineering, alignment and traffic studies, administration, and project management). The CVAG Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) is updated periodically for use in estimating improvement costs.

CVAG uses the ranking identified in the latest version of the Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) to allocate the available funding to eligible projects within the Coachella Valley that would meet demonstrated transportation needs. The four primary criteria applied to determine funding priorities include: surface road conditions, system continuity considerations, the level of service, and the accident rate. Additional criteria that may increase the priority of an improvement project include: (1) an improvement cost of less than $1 million; (2) an improvement involving a roadway segment crossing the Whitewater River or a major tributary; (3) project readiness (i.e., right-of-way available, environmental document approved, agency funds reserved, plans and specifications complete); and (4) an improvement that represents a backbone level project (i.e., it is integral to the continued and future development of an area). A lower ranked project in the TPPS receiving “outside funds” may be moved up the priority list, provided it would be of sufficient benefit to the region.

Regional Transportation Improvement Plans
SCAG is responsible for preparing the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan to address requirements set forth in SB 375. The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a multi-modal long-range planning document prepared by SCAG. It involves coordination with federal, state and other regional, sub-regional, and local agencies in southern California. The RTP is prepared every three years and reflects the current future horizon based on a 20-year projection of future needs. It includes programs and policies for congestion management, transit, bicycles, pedestrians, roadways, freight, and finances. It is used as a long-range plan for federally funded transportation projects.

The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a 7-year program including all regional and local capital improvement projects that maintain or improve the LOS for traffic and transit and conform to transportation-related emission air quality mitigation measures. Currently, regional projects are programmed in the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), while locally funded projects (off the State Highway System) are identified in local agency CIPs. To comply with CMP Statutes, CIP requirements shall be the same as and accomplished through the RCTC TIP development process. Projects in the CIP may be incorporated into the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) for the programming of Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR) and Urban and Commuter Rail funds.

The 2010 Update CVAG Transportation Project Prioritization Study4 includes the Da Vall Drive interchange at I-10 as a buildable project with relatively low priority (ranked 79th). It would require roadway improvements between Vista Chino and Varner Road, including a bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad and a bridge at the Long Canyon Channel, in addition to the interchange improvements. These improvements would exceed $91,000,000 and not be initiated until 1.5 billion dollars

4 KOA Corporation. 2010 Update CVAG Transportation Project Prioritization Study; November 2010. 12-1998

3-17
in other roadway improvements were completed by CVAG. The widening of Da Vall Drive, north of Ramon Road, to its ultimate cross-section is also a buildable project (designated B-419) in the 2010 TPPS. It is ranked 88th of 247 buildable projects and has a score of 9.3 points. The cost associated with the widening of Da Vall Drive, between Ramon Road and Vista Chino, was estimated to be $24,025,032 in the 2010 TPPS.

Existing TSM Programs
There are no Transportation System Management plans in effect in the study area at present. No transit stations or park- and-ride facilities currently exist in the vicinity.

3.6 Alternative Transportation Modes
Public Transportation
The Sunline Transit Agency provides fixed-schedule bus service (SunBus) between local communities and on-demand transportation (SunDial) for individuals with disabilities. The SunLine Transit Agency provides public transportation for 3.5 million passengers annually. A fleet of low-emission buses operate on seven days per week (excluding Thanksgiving and Christmas) along the fourteen fixed-schedule SunBus transit routes to provide public transportation service to nine cities and five communities within the Coachella Valley.

SunBus Line 32 provides service between the Palm Springs Air Museum (on Gene Autry Trail) and the Palm Desert Civic Center. Popular destinations served by Line 32 include: the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa, the College of the Desert, the Eisenhower Medical Center and the Westfield Palm Desert shopping center. Line 32 is located on Ramon Road, between Date Palm Drive and Monterey Avenue. This portion of SunBus Line 32 is adjacent to the northern site boundary.

Buses on Line 32 operate between 5:02 AM and 10:46 PM on weekdays with 50-minute headways. On Saturdays and Sundays, the buses on Line 32 operate between 6:54 AM and 10:48 PM with one-hour headways.

Transit stops for westbound buses are currently located along the north side of Ramon Road: (1) west of Rattler Road, near Rancho Mirage High School, and (2) approximately 180 feet west of Bob Hope Drive, near the northeast corner of the project site. Transit stops for eastbound buses are also located along the south side of Ramon Road: (1) approximately 880 feet east of Da Vall Drive, at the Braille Institute, and (2) approximately 160 feet east of Bob Hope Drive, at the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa.

Line 32 operates along Monterey Avenue (between Ramon Road and Dinah Shore Drive), along Dinah Shore Drive (between Monterey Avenue and Bob Hope Drive), and along Bob Hope Drive (south of Dinah Shore Drive). At the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive, SunBus Line 32 is located closest to the southeast corner of the project site. Two existing transit stops for Line 32 are located near this intersection. For eastbound buses (i.e., those traveling from Palm Springs to the City of Palm Desert) a transit stop is located on the west side of Bob Hope Drive, approximately 120 feet south of Dinah Shore Drive. For westbound buses (i.e., those destined for the City of Palm Springs from the City of Palm Desert) a transit stop is located on the south side of Dinah Shore Drive, approximately 300 feet east of Bob Hope Drive.

SunLine Transit Agency buses are wheelchair accessible and have bicycle racks that can accommodate either two or three bicycles and are convenient for cyclists to use. Bike racks are proposed by SunLine Transit at select bus stop locations within the City of Rancho Mirage. One of these locations is within the study area, just west of the intersection of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive (at Stop #939). Buses traveling from Palm Springs and Palm Desert on Line 32 would stop near these bicycle racks, which would be located on the far side of the intersection of Shoppers Lane and Dinah Shore Drive. No bicycle commuter showers or clothing lockers are currently located within the City of Rancho Mirage. The City currently has no requirements for bicycle amenities.5
No transit stations or park-and-ride facilities currently exist in the City of Rancho Mirage. The Section 19 Specific Plan included a potential site adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad corridor for the future development of a multi-modal transit center. The future plans for the Section 13 Specific Plan area also included a possible site for a future multi-modal transit center adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad corridor.

5 Ryan Snyder Associates, LLC and Urban Crossroads. Final CVAG Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Update; September, 2010. 12-1999

3-18
The SunLine Transit Agency contracts with a private provider for SunDial, a door-to-door dial-a-ride service. SunDial is a demand response service designed to serve seniors and those with disabilities on an appointment basis between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekends. In addition to SunDial, a subscription- based transit service is available through agencies serving people with disabilities who need regular repetitive trips.

Golf Carts and NEVs
Residents of Rancho Mirage use golf carts for more than transportation on individual golf courses. Golf carts are used for access between residences and the golf courses in adjacent neighborhoods. They are also used for local trips made between residences and commercial and medical facilities, the City Hall, and golf cart paths in adjoining cities. Golf carts are legally restricted to designated pathways and roadways within Rancho Mirage with speed limits that do not exceed 35 mph and can be operated at no more than 20 mph. Figure 3-9 shows the existing and future City of Rancho Mirage golf cart circulation system.

The California Vehicle Code (CVC) defines golf carts as vehicles designed to operate at a maximum speed of 15 mph and states that golf carts can be driven only on roadways with posted speed limits of up to 25 mph except in cases where travel on roadways with higher speed limits is permitted by ordinance or resolution of a local authority. The CVC defines Neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) as vehicles that can reach speeds of 20 to 25 mph within one mile. NEVs may be operated on any roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 mph or less and may cross at intersections that have a higher speed limit than 35 mph.

Like bikeways, golf cart paths have three classifications (Class I, Class II, and Class III). Class I paths are completely separated from the roadway used by motor vehicles. Class I facilities are for shared one-way or two-way use by golf carts, bicyclists, and pedestrians and are incorporated in Class I bikeways. Class II golf cart facilities provide a striped lane on a street or highway for one-way golf cart and bicycle travel. Class III facilities are established by placing “Golf Cart Route” signs along roadways with speed limits of 25 mph or less to provide linkages to Class I or Class II facilities.

Non-Motorized Transportation
Bicycling, walking and equestrian transportation modes represent non-motorized alternatives to the automobile. Bikeways and pathways are used by a wide variety of people including children on their way to and from school, commuters riding to and from work, and people exercising, racing or touring. While recreational riders seek routes leading to parks, through areas of interest, or racing circuits, commuters want the shortest, fastest, and safest route between two points.

Bikeways
Caltrans standards are used to design bikeways by most jurisdictions throughout California. The City of Rancho Mirage adheres to Caltrans bikeway standards. Bike lanes on existing roadways should conform to Caltrans standards or be upgraded to meet Caltrans standards. These standards apply to three different classifications of bicycle facilities: Class I, Class II, and Class III bikeways.

A Class I Bikeway is a bike path that provides for bicycle travel on a right-of-way completely separated from any street or highway. The paths may be located along alignments parallel to streets or unrelated alignments as long as there is no encroachment from motor vehicle or pedestrian traffic except at grade intersections. A Class II Bikeway is a bike lane that provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel within the paved area of a street or highway. These bike lanes are within an exclusive right-of-way designated for use by bicyclists. However, cross traffic is permitted for driveway access. A Class III Bikeway is a bike route in which both bicycle and motor vehicle traffic share the same roadway surface area. The route is marked with signs or stenciled lettering on the pavement identifying the roadway as part of a bikeway system.

Existing Bikeways
Within the City of Rancho Mirage, Class I bikeways are typically a combined meandering sidewalk and bike path within the landscaped parkway along arterial streets. Most of the arterial streets within the City have a roadbed of sufficient width to allow for a four-foot wide Class II bike lane along the curb. The Conservation and Open Space Element states that Class III bike routes are not recommended for Rancho Mirage except: (1) where Class I and II facilities are not feasible and an essential regional bike route connection is desired, or (2) where Class I and Class II facilities are not warranted due to lesser roadway classifications.
12-2000

Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
Legend
Existing Path
Future Path
Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
.

Va
r
n
e
r

R
o
a
d
Int
e
r
s
t
a
t
e

1 0
Uni
o
n

P
a
c
i
f
i
c

R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
30th Ave.

V
a
l
l

D
r
.

Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
.

Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d
Project
Site
Casino
We
s
t
i
n
Re
s
o
r
t

V
i
l
l
a
s
We
s
t
i
n
Mi
s
s
i
o
n

H
i
l
l
s
Via
Bella
Ra
t
t
l
e
r

R
o
a
d
Ke
y
La
r
g
o

A
v
e
.

Rio Del Sol
Figure 3-9
City of Rancho Mirage
Bicycle/Golf Cart/Pedestrian Paths
Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan (Revised November 2005)12-2001

3-19
The combined length of the existing bikeways within the City of Rancho Mirage totals approximately 16.6 miles. The existing bikeways have been funded by the City with General Funds or Development Impact Fees (DIF). The following Class II bikeways exist within the study area.
•A Class II bikeway extends 4.7 miles along the east side of Bob Hope Drive, from Ramon Road south to Sunrise Drive. •A Class II bikeway extends 2.0 miles along Gerald Ford Drive from Los Alamos Road to Monterey Avenue. •A Class II bikeway extends 1.7 miles along Ramon Road from the western city limit to Bob Hope Drive. •A Class II bikeway extends 0.4 miles along Los Alamos Road, south of Gerald Ford Drive to Sunny Lane. •A Class II bikeway is located on the west side of Bob Hope Drive, south of Cherry Hills Drive to Sunrise Drive. •A Class II bikeway is located on Monterey Avenue, between Dinah Shore Drive and Gerald Ford Drive.

The City of Rancho Mirage has bicycle parking at the following locations: the Monterey MarketPlace, the southwest corner of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive, the City Hall, The River Shopping Center, the Library, the Eisenhower Medical Center, the Pavilions Shopping Center (southwest corner of the Bob Hope Drive/Gerald Ford Drive intersection), the southwest corner of the Monterey Avenue intersection with Country Club Drive, Whitewater Park.

A sidewalk/golf cart/bicycle path exists on Da Vall Drive, from Dinah Shore Drive north beyond Ramon Road. It terminates south of 30th Avenue. A sidewalk/golf cart/bicycle path also exists on Ramon Road, between Da Vall Drive and Los Alamos Road. A sidewalk/golf cart/bicycle path exists on the south side of Dinah Shore Drive from Plumley Road to Bob Hope Drive.

Future Bikeways
The City of Rancho Mirage has proposed ten bikeway projects for inclusion in the CVAG Non-Motorized Transportation Plan that would supplement the existing bikeways by a total of 11.3 new miles of bikeways. The following bikeway projects are proposed within the study area.
•A Class I bikeway project 0.7 miles in length is proposed along the Union Pacific Railroad corridor from the northern city limit to the eastern city limit. This facility is estimated to cost $700,000. •A future one-mile long Class II bikeway project is proposed along Da Vall Drive, from Ramon Road to Dinah Shore Drive, with an estimated cost of $50,000.
•A future 3.1-mile long Class II bikeway project is proposed along Dinah Shore Drive, from Da Vall Drive to Monterey Avenue, with an estimated cost of $155,000.
•A future 1.5-mile long Class II bikeway project is proposed along Gerald Ford Drive, from Plumley Road to Los Alamos Road, with an estimated cost of $75,000.

A bicycle parking program project is proposed with an estimated cost of $25,000. New bicycle parking will be added by the property owners at the intersection of Dinah Shore Drive and Bob Hope Drive and at the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa (on the southeast corner of the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road). The Section 24 Specific Plan will be developed on the opposite side of the street from these bicycle parking areas. Bikeways proposed in conjunction with Section 24 Specific Plan (along Ramon Road, Bob Hope Drive, and Dinah Shore Drive) will make these bicycle parking areas accessible to future residents of Section 24.

The bikeway and trail system identified in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan (October 2003) includes future Class I bike paths at three locations within the study area. These locations include: the north side of Interstate 10, along Ramon Road, and along Bob Hope Drive. A Class I bikeway is a bike path that provides for bicycle travel on a right-of-way completely separated from any street or highway. The paths may be located along alignments parallel to streets or unrelated alignments, as long as there is no encroachment from motor vehicle or pedestrian traffic, except at grade intersections.
12-2002

3-20
Multi-Purpose Trails
The County of Riverside has pedestrian and multi-purpose trails that accommodate hikers and others as an integral part of the circulation system. These trails connect communities and activity centers and also provide recreational and leisure opportunities.

The City of Rancho Mirage encourages pedestrian and non-motorized transportation by making provisions for sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use trails within roadway designs and rights-of-way. Alternative transportation corridors enhance and provide a range of mobility options for residents and visitors. The City encourages developments to consider pedestrian safety and accommodate safe routes which are clearly marked and striped. They should be designed as one-way routes to flow in the same direction as the adjacent automobile traffic. Combination sidewalk/bikeway/golf cart paths require a minimum eight-foot width. Figure 3-9 shows the existing and future pedestrian path circulation system. As shown therein, future sidewalk/bikeway/golf cart paths are planned on the perimeter of the project site (along Ramon Road, Bob Hope Drive, and Los Alamos Road) in the Rancho Mirage General Plan that would link with the integrated system being developed throughout the study area.

The Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines require that when new pedestrian facilities are planned in the United States, they must be accessible and usable by persons with disabilities (including physical, visual, hearing or cognitive impairments).6 This includes provisions for curb ramps and sidewalks where appropriate. These guidelines consider pedestrian facilities to include: sidewalks, shared-use paths, shared streets, and off-road paths.

In accommodating pedestrians with disabilities, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic information may be required to aid pedestrian movements at intersections and mid-block crossing locations. Treatments may include accessible pedestrian signals, audible signals, and other wayfinding cues. Ramps rather than stairs, curbs, or raised channelizing islands can enhance the mobility of people with disabilities including pedestrians with visual impairments.

3.7 Mobility for Persons With Special Needs
Older drivers may have age-related diminished capabilities with the potential to impact the safety and efficiency of the street system. To better meet the needs and capabilities of older street users, their special needs should be considered in street design, traffic control, and lighting design. Appropriate enhancements and design measures can improve their performance.

Pedestrians include a person walking, a person in a wheelchair, on skates, or on a skateboard. Long crossing distances and high vehicle speeds generally discourage pedestrians. A mix of land uses and pedestrian-scale lighting provide a sense of comfort. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks and curb cuts; crosswalks; traffic control features (pedestrian signals); and ramps for older walkers, bicycles, and persons with mobility impairments. They may also include bus stops; passenger loading areas; amenities (benches and shelters); and stairs, escalators or elevators linked to these facilities.

Audible pedestrian signals and tactile ramp and crosswalk materials to aid the visually impaired may be required for persons with disabilities.

Pedestrians tend to walk in a path that has the shortest distance between two points. They resist changes in grade or elevation when crossing roadways and tend to avoid using special underpass or overpass facilities. Pedestrians will typically not walk more than one mile to work or walk more than 0.5 mile to catch a bus. Pedestrian volumes peak at noon, rather than at the morning and evening peak commuter times. Older pedestrians may be affected by limitations in sensory, perceptual, cognitive, or motor skills. In areas where there are many older people, an average walking speed of 2.8 feet per second should be considered for use in design.

6 Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (draft). Washington, DC: U.S. Access Board, 2005. Accessible via www.access-board.gov/prowac/draft.htm . 12-2003

4-1

4.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC
A period of 20 years is widely used as a basis for design. Estimating traffic beyond this period is usually not justified because of probable changes in the regional economy, population, and land development along the roadways, which cannot be predicted with any degree of assurance.1 Although no time frame has been established for development within the Section 24 Specific Plan area after the initial phase, project completion was assumed for the purposes of this analysis to occur in the horizon year 2035, the future year for which travel demand within the study area can be projected by the approved regional traffic model (RIVTAM).

4.1 Analysis Periods and Horizon Years Evaluated
To identify the potentially significant traffic impacts of a project and the corresponding design and mitigation requirements, the trip-generation rates for different days and time periods must be examined to determine when the trip generation associated with the development will peak. The peaking characteristics of the adjacent street system must also be examined to correctly identify and select the appropriate time period for analysis. The time period that should be analyzed is that in which the combination of site traffic and adjacent street traffic is at its maximum.

In most cases, the trip generation rates reflecting the morning and evening peak hours of the adjacent street system are used for the impact evaluation. These rates reflect the highest volume hour between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. and between 4:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. However, some land uses generate trips that peak at different times than the adjacent streets.

Examples include theaters, churches, schools, and industrial uses with shifts that end at 3:00 P.M. Hotels, construction sites, and golf course maintenance facilities often have shifts that end at 3:00 PM.

Several schools are located within the study area including two high schools. School traffic tends to exhibit a relatively sharp peak over the twenty-minute period immediately before classes begin for the day and after the school day ends. The school day begins at 8:00 A.M. on 136 days per year at the Rancho Mirage High School. On 37 Wednesdays per year, collaboration time begins at 7:45 A.M. and Period 1 begins at 9:05 A.M. These start times result in school traffic peaking during the same hours that commuter travel peaks (i.e., between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. on weekdays). The school day ends at 2:55 P.M., before the evening commuter traffic flows on Ramon Road reach their peak.

Time Period Selected For Analysis
Site traffic volumes vary with the type and intensity of the proposed development. For example, office uses generate relatively little weekend traffic but high entering volumes in the morning and high exiting volumes during the afternoon or evening on weekdays. Residential land uses generate trips with little day-to-day variation but the opposite directional distribution, with high outbound traffic volumes during the morning and high inbound traffic volumes during the evening on weekdays. Traffic peaks occur at large regional shopping centers during the evening on weekdays but during the midday on weekends.

The development proposed would include up to 2,406 residential dwelling units and 3,138,600 feet of non-residential development. The exact scale, size, and composition of the tourist-oriented commercial, local-serving retail, office, entertainment, and hotel uses within the mixed-use non-residential areas of the Section 24 Specific Plan have not been determined but will be developed in a manner designed to promote complementary and synergistic relationships between the various uses. Each of the proposed land use types will generate trips with a unique profile that peak at slightly different times of the day, on different days of the week, and with different percentages of inbound versus outbound trips during the peak hours. Each trip involves a vehicle movement in one direction, either entering or leaving an individual land use, that must be accommodated by the surrounding street system as well as the access intersections and the internal streets.

The number of trips generated by the proposed residential and non-residential uses will vary by season and peak during the winter months, when tourists and visitors are attracted to the area by its mild climate, natural beauty, and numerous recreational opportunities. The tourist season in the Coachella Valley extends from October through May, with the peak occurring in January. The seasonal influx of part-year residents (“snow birds” from Canada and areas within the northern United States with cold climates) that begins in October reverses by April. Both the tourist population and the number of part- year seasonal residents decrease substantially after April.

1 AASHTO. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 1994. pp 61. 12-2004

4-2
When all of the trips generated by the various proposed land uses are combined, the composite trip-making pattern is expected to exhibit characteristics similar to the background traffic in the study area in terms of its seasonal, daily, peak hour, and directional distribution. Therefore, the conditions selected for analysis included the peak morning and evening commuter travel hours on the adjacent streets on typical weekdays during the peak season. Although commercial and residential development will also generate traffic peaks during the midday on weekends, the absence of commuter traffic on the adjacent streets at that time makes it less critical from a traffic impact perspective.

When combined, the traffic generators proposed within the Section 24 Specific Plan area are expected to generate the highest volume of traffic on the roadways abutting the site on weekday mornings (between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M.) and evenings (between 4:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M.). Since many retail land uses are not open for business in the morning between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M., the traffic volumes generated by the site on weekdays are expected to be higher during the evening peak hour than the morning peak hour. The residential land uses for senior adults in the initial phase would generate fewer trips during the morning peak hour than conventional single-family detached residential uses for larger families, which generate more trips to school and work on weekday mornings.

Horizon Years and Development Scenarios Evaluated
The initial phase of the proposed project would include the construction of up to 1,200 single-family residential dwelling units within a gated community for active adults aged 55 and above. This phase of the development would occur over a period of six to eight years and be completed in the year 2022. Although a timeframe has not been established for implementation of the development proposed within Planning Areas 1 through 7, buildout of the entire project was assumed to occur by the horizon year 2035. Consequently, the key intersections were evaluated with and without the proposed project at three different points in time. These include: (1) the existing year 2013, (2) the near-term year 2022, when the initial phase is completed, and (3) the long-term horizon year 2035, when the site development is completed.

The peak season during the year 2013 was evaluated as the existing baseline condition, based on new traffic counts made at each of the key intersections on November 6, 2013 that were expanded by five percent to reflect peak season conditions.

The near-term future year 2022 conditions were evaluated to identify potential impacts and mitigation when the initial phase of development is completed. The long-term future horizon year 2035 conditions were evaluated based on future travel demand forecasts produced by the regional transportation model developed for Riverside County in association with SCAG to determine if the future circulation system planned for the study area can accommodate site traffic as well as the cumulative travel demands generated by all future development anticipated by city and county general plans and the SCAG regional growth forecasts.

For each development scenario, peak season morning and evening peak hour conditions were evaluated to establish whether or not mitigation would be required to achieve the applicable intersection performance standards. The development scenarios assessed included the following:
• Existing Conditions;
• Existing Plus Initial Phase Conditions;
• Existing Plus Project Buildout Conditions;
• Future Year 2022 Through Traffic Conditions;
• Future Year 2022 Plus Initial Phase;
• Horizon Year 2035 Through Traffic Conditions; and
• Horizon Year 2035 Plus Project Buildout Conditions.

Existing conditions with and without site traffic volumes generated by the initial phase were evaluated to assess conditions prior to the addition of traffic generated by cumulative developments. The existing+project buildout scenario assumed no traffic growth other than the site traffic volumes. All of the future scenarios evaluated included growth in background traffic projected by RIVTAM. The near-term year 2022 scenarios also included cumulative traffic generated by two projects within the study area.

Future year 2022 (near-term) traffic conditions at the key intersections were evaluated with and without the site traffic associated with the initial phase of the proposed project. The intermediate year 2022 “through” traffic volumes were developed from the existing and horizon year 2035 “through” traffic projections by interpolation, assuming a geometric growth rate. Cumulative traffic generated by two cumulative projects within the study area identified by the City of Rancho Mirage was also added to the near-term through traffic projections. 12-2005

4-3
Future horizon year 2035 traffic conditions were evaluated with and without the site traffic associated with buildout of the proposed project. RIVTAM traffic projections reflecting buildout of the proposed project were needed to determine whether the regional roadway network shown in the Circulation Plan of the Riverside County General Plan and the Rancho Mirage 2005 General Plan would provide acceptable levels of service with project buildout traffic volumes in the horizon year 2035.

4.2 Site Traffic Projections
Riverside County General Plan Trips
The Land Use Element of the Riverside County General Plan designations for the 577 gross acres within the project site are shown in Table 2-1. A total of 240 gross acres within the project site are designated Medium Density Residential (which allows 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre) in the Land Use Element of the Riverside County General Plan. Up to 1,200 single- family detached dwelling units would be allowed by this designation. Based upon the ITE Trip Generation rates for conventional single-family detached housing (Land Use Code 210) these 1,200 dwellings have the potential to generate approximately 10,230 weekday trips.

The Riverside County General Plan also designates 120 acres of the site as Commercial Retail (CR) and 257 gross acres as Commercial Tourist (CT). RIVTAM reduces the gross acreage by 25 percent to estimate the net acreage. With 252.75 net acres and a maximum FAR of 0.35, the maximum gross floor area (GFA) allowed for commercial land uses would be 3,853,427 square feet. RIVTAM uses the project-related population, number of households, and employment (jobs) as factors in estimating the project-related weekday trip generation. Assuming an employment density of 500 square feet per employee, the number of jobs associated with the maximum allowed non-residential development per the Riverside County General Plan designations would be 7,707 jobs.

The maximum proposed non-residential building floor area would be 18.6 percent less than the maximum allowed by the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan. Since the number of trips generated would be a function of the total size of the non- residential building floor space developed, the proposed project would be expected to generate approximately 18.6 percent fewer non-residential weekday trips than the maximum allowed by the Riverside County General Plan. Assuming the weekday trip-generation rate for shopping centers from the regression equation in Trip Generation (ITE, 2008), the commercial uses allowed within the site by the Riverside County General Plan could generate up to 78,330 weekday trips.

The combined residential and commercial trip generation would total 88,560 weekday trips (prior to internal trip capture and pass-by trip reductions).

City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Trips
Assuming the Rancho Mirage General Plan average household size of 2.97 for R-M and 1.95 for R-H, the 2,007 dwelling units permitted by the 414 net acres designated R-M and the 39 acres designated R-H within the project site could add up to 5,603 new residents to the City of Rancho Mirage. Based on the trip-generation rates in ITE Trip Generation, 2007 dwelling units would have the potential to generate approximately 15,680 weekday trips.

The 75 net acres designated C-C would permit up to 1,143,450 square feet of GFA, assuming the maximum FAR of 0.35.

With an employment density of 500 square feet per employee, a total employment of 2,287 would result from the development of the site. Based on the trip-generation rates in ITE Trip Generation, a community commercial shopping center with 1,143.45 TSF would have the potential to generate approximately 33,100 weekday trips.

The weekday trip generation associated with the maximum permitted residential density and the non-residential community commercial portion of the site would be 48,780 weekday trips. This total represents “unadjusted” trips, prior to reductions for internal trip making between the residential and commercial components and without pass-by trip reductions.

Site-Generated Trips With Proposed Project
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation (8th Edition; December 2008) is the principal source of trip-generation rates for site traffic analysis. The procedures and guiding principles outlined in Trip Generation Handbook - An ITE Recommended Practice (March, 2001) were employed to identify appropriate trip-generation rates, based upon the weighted averages and, where appropriate, the regression equations developed by the ITE. 12-2006

4-4
While site-specific conditions like the availability of transit and walk-in traffic can result in different vehicular trip-generation rates, the practice of making adjustments to the rates for small differences in auto occupancy or transit usage is questionable, given the precision of the measurement of the ITE trip-generation rates and their day-to-day variation.

Therefore, no transit usage or auto occupancy adjustments were made to the ITE trip-generation rates.

While this results in a “worst case” analysis, as required by CEQA, it is not meant to imply that alternative modes of transportation would not play an important role in future trip-making within the project site. The 2004 CVAG Origin Destination Survey found that less than one percent of the trips in the region were completed using public transportation but residents in multi-family housing were twice as likely to use public transportation than residents of single-family housing.

Approximately 4 percent of all trips made by the households surveyed were made by walking and one percent were made by bicycle. Residents of non-retired households were four times more likely to walk to their destination than residents of retired households.

Unadjusted Trip Generation
The trip-generation forecast shown in Table 4-1 was developed with the trip-generation rates developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) from data collected at isolated single-use stand-alone developments in suburban settings with little or no transit service and free parking. The ITE considers shopping centers a single land use, even though they may include banks, restaurants, office buildings, health clubs, movie theaters and other recreational facilities. The trip- generation data gathered at the driveways of shopping centers only includes external trips (i.e., those trips with either an origin or a destination located outside of the shopping center). Since the ITE data for shopping centers does not include any internal trips, the trip-generation forecast for a shopping center should not be “adjusted” (i.e., reduced) to reflect trip interactions between the various uses within the shopping center that do not require travel on external streets.

Table 4-1
Unadjusted Weekday Site Trip-Generation Forecasta
(Section 24 Specific Plan)
Land Use Category Land Use Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Daily Quantityb In Out Total In Out Total 2-Way

INITIAL PHASE
Residential (Adult Single-Family)1,200 DU 82 152 234 176 113 289 4,480

ALL SUBSEQUENT PHASES
Non-Residential (Retail/Mixed Use Core)c 3,139 TSF 718 459 1,177 3,137 3,266 6,403 63,800 Residential (Multi-Family Attached) 1,206 DU 64 314 378 310 153 463 5,610 SPECIFIC PLAN BUILDOUT 864 925 1,789 3,623 3,532 7,155 73,890 a.Based upon trip-generation data published by the ITE in Trip Generation (8th Edition, December, 2008). The ITE Land Use Codes (LUC) assumed include: LUC 251 for Senior Adult Housing-Detached Residential Dwellings (age 55+); LUC 820 for commercial center uses; and LUC 230 for Multiple- Family Attached Residential uses. ITE trip-generation rates reflect neighborhood commercial centers, community commercial centers, regional and super regional centers with up to 2.3 million square feet of gross leasable area (GLA) in suburban areas within the United States. Some contained non- merchandising facilities such as: office buildings, movie theaters, restaurants, post offices, banks, health clubs, and recreational facilities (e.g., ice skating rinks or indoor miniature golf courses). A shopping center’s composition is related to its market area in terms of size, location, and types of stores. b.DU=Dwelling Units. TSF=Thousand Square Feet of Building Floor Area. c.The 3,138,600 square feet of non-residential development would include a complementary mix of land uses which could include: retail commercial, entertainment, office, hotel uses within the Planning Areas designated Resort Flex, Mixed Use Core and Retail shown in Figure 2-3.

The morning peak hour trip-generation estimate was based on the rates identified for the highest volume hour between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. The evening peak hour forecast was based upon the rates identified for the highest volume hour between 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. These rates reflect the peak hours of the adjacent street traffic within the study area. 12-2007

4-5
As shown in Table 4-1, the initial phase of development would generate approximately 4,480 weekday trips when completed. Of that total, 234 trips (82 inbound and 152 outbound) are expected to occur during the morning peak hour and 289 trips (176 inbound and 113 outbound) are expected to occur during the evening peak hour. The number of unadjusted trips shown for subsequent phases and project buildout in Table 4-1 must be adjusted (reduced) to reflect trips made on-site, between the residential land uses and the non-residential land uses, that will be “captured” internally and not made on external streets. A reduction in the non-residential trip generation forecast would also be appropriate to account for pass-by trips.

Adjusted Trip Generation
The development of mixed-use projects reduces the trip generation associated with the development below that which is projected directly from the ITE trip-generation rates. When several different land use types are included in a single mixed- use development, the traffic added to the adjacent streets may be less than the sum of the individual trip generation associated with each individual land use code. The reduction is attributable to trips being made by vehicles on internal roadways that remain internal to the proposed development (e.g., between the residential and retail or entertainment uses).

The internal trip interactions that occur without using streets external to the project site are counted twice when the trip generation of the individual uses is summed to establish the “unadjusted” trip generation.

Since the precise mix and size of the various non-residential land uses within the project have not been established, the trip generation was estimated by using the ITE trip-generation rates developed from data collected at more than 300 shopping centers ranging in size from neighborhood and community commercial centers to regional and super regional centers.

These rates reflect data collected at commercial developments that include a range of non-merchandising facilities. The land uses in shopping centers include banks, small offices, restaurants, and retail stores. The shopping center data was deemed appropriate because it inherently eliminates internal trips made between various uses within the non-residential portion of the Specific Plan. However, adjustments to address the internal trip interactions between the non-residential component of the Specific Plan and the residential component are appropriate and can be made even though the shopping center trip-generation rates were used to develop Table 4-1.

The number of internal trips between the residential land uses and the non-residential within the multi-use site is a function of both the size of the receiving land use (the number of trips attracted to the non-residential development proposed) and the size of the originating land use (the number of trips produced and sent by the proposed residential land uses). The number of internal trips that will be captured within the site will be constrained by the smaller of these two values. An iterative balancing procedure must be utilized to constrain internal trip making estimates to realistic values, based upon the size (scale) and mix (diversity) of the various land uses within the site as well as their proximity, ease of access, and the availability of competing land uses in the surrounding area.

The internal capture rate between the proposed residential and non-residential uses on-site would be limited by the total number of residential trips. Since the residential trips would represent only 13.7 percent of the total site trip generation, a conservative internal capture rate of 15 percent of the residential trips was assumed for this analysis. While the potential exists for the internal capture rate to ultimately be higher than 15 percent, a higher rate could not be justified without more detailed information regarding the size, location, and diversity of the non-residential land uses.

Since the initial phase of development would include only residential development, no internal trip interactions would occur and the trip generation shown in Table 4-1 was assumed for the initial phase of the development. Table 4-2 shows the adjusted trip-generation forecast associated with buildout of the proposed project. The procedure used to remove the internal trips between the residential and non-residential components of the development (trips that that were counted twice in Table 4-1) is summarized in Table 4-2.

The proposed project would generate a combined total of 71,260 adjusted weekday trips (including pass-by trips on abutting roadways). Approximately 2,630 weekday trips are expected to occur between the various land uses proposed within the site using internal pathways. Approximately 68,630 weekday trips are expected to be external trips (i.e., trips with either an origin or a destination that is located off-site) that require travel on roadways that may abut the site but are not located entirely within the proposed development. During the morning peak hour on weekdays, the proposed project would generate a total of 1,677 adjusted trip-ends of which 1,565 would be external trips and 112 would be internal trips. The external trips would include 751 inbound and 812 outbound trips. During the evening peak hour, a total of 6,957 adjusted trip-ends would be generated. Approximately 6,759 would be external trips and the remaining 198 would be internal trips.

The external trips would include 3,524 inbound and 3,433 outbound trips. 12-2008

4-6
Table 4-2
Adjusted Weekday Site Trip-Generation Forecast
(Section 24 Specific Plan)
Internal Trip Interactions Unadjusted Internal External Adjusted (Interval and Direction)Tripsa Tripsb Trips Trips
RESIDENTIAL TRIPS (Single-Family Initial Phase)
- Daily (Two-Way)4,480 1,170 3,310 3,895
- AM Inbound 82 14 68 75
- AM Outbound 152 28 124 138
- PM Inbound 176 46 130 153
- PM Outbound 113 30 83 98

NON-RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE TRIPS
- Daily (Two-Way)63,800 2,630 61,170 62,485
- AM Inbound 718 86 632 675
- AM Outbound 459 26 433 446
- PM Inbound 3,137 70 3,067 3,102
- PM Outbound 3,266 128 3,138 3,202
RESIDENTIAL TRIPS (Multi-Family Attached)
- Daily (Two-Way)5,610 1,460 4,150 4,880
- AM Inbound 64 12 52 58
- AM Outbound 314 58 256 285
- PM Inbound 310 82 228 269
- PM Outbound 153 40 113 133

ALL TRIPS COMBINED
- Daily (Two-Way)73,890 5,260 68,630 71,260
- AM Inbound 864 112 752 808
- AM Outbound 925 112 813 869
- PM Inbound 3,623 198 3,425 3,524
- PM Outbound 3,532 198 3,334 3,433
a.Unadjusted trips per Table 4-1, which have not been adjusted to remove trips captured internally that were counted twice. b.Each value shown was counted twice. Values shown must be reduced by 50 percent, then added to the external trips to identify the adjusted trips with the internal trips included once.

Pass-By Trip Adjustment
Pass-by trips will be attracted from the traffic passing the site on adjacent streets that provide direct access to the proposed non-residential development. Although the intercepted pass-by trips would be turning in and out of the site access points, they would not be new trips on the roadway network. Consequently, they were deducted from the background traffic when the site traffic was assigned to the adjacent roadways. The pass-by trips were included in the traffic volumes entering and exiting the development at the site access points. Pass-by trips must be included in the projected traffic volumes at the site access points to ensure that the design of the access points can accommodate the total number of vehicles expected to enter and exit the site during the peak hours.

The proportion of pass-by trips has been found to decrease with the size of the shopping center. While very large shopping centers (those with more than a million square feet of GLA) have been found to attract as little as 19 percent of their trips from passing traffic, small shopping centers (those with less than 100 T.S.F.) have been found to attract between 51 and 72 percent of their trips from traffic passing on the adjacent roadways.2 The average pass-by rate for shopping centers is 34 percent.3

2 Stover, Vergil G., Frank J. Koepke. Transportation and Land Development (Second Edition), ITE, 2002. 3 Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Handbook - An ITE Recommended Practice; March 2001. [pp 48-57]. 12-2009

4-7
If the non-residential uses proposed are designed to support the surrounding community, approximately 25 percent of the commercial trips could come from pass-by traffic on the adjacent roadways with site access connections. Since the commercial uses anticipated on-site have not been established, a conservative pass-by rate of 15 percent was assumed.

The 68,630 external weekday trip generation shown in Table 4-2 includes an estimated 9,180 daily pass-by trips that would be using the adjacent roadways with or without development within Section 24. Therefore, upon project buildout, the site development would add 59,450 new primary external weekday trips to the through traffic volumes on the surrounding street system. During the morning peak hour on weekdays, the 120 pass-by trips on the adjacent streets, would reduce the number of new primary external trips added to the through traffic volumes on the surrounding street system by the proposed project to 688 inbound and 749 outbound trips. The 920 pass-by trips attracted to the site from the traffic during the evening peak hour on the adjacent streets would reduce the number of new primary external trips added to the surrounding street system by the project to 2,965 inbound and 2,874 outbound trips.

Modal Split
In all neighborhoods some trips are made without using motor vehicles. School-aged children may walk to school or walk to the home of a friend in the neighborhood. Some people walk their dogs while others walk for the health benefits or just to get outside and stretch their legs. Residents may ride bicycles for recreation or to get to and from school or work.

In dense residential neighborhoods and mixed-use commercial neighborhoods, a significant number of trips are made by pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists who combine stops for several purposes into a single trip. Consequently, mixed-use developments can reduce the number of vehicle trips made external to as well as internal to the neighborhood.

Optimizing land use and transportation planning requires development plans that address the need for homes to be provided in close proximity to schools, retail shops, business centers, and employment opportunities. The provision of complementary land uses within close proximity facilitates the use of travel modes other than private automobiles. People are more likely to walk, cycle, or use public transportation where the available transportation infrastructure makes alternative modes of travel attractive, convenient, and safe. The use of alternative travel modes reduces the demand for roadway capacity.

The trip-generation data published by the ITE is based upon counts of motor vehicle trips associated with single-use developments where virtually all access is by private automobile and all parking is accommodated within the site. The growth of transit services in suburban areas, rising energy costs, and heightened public awareness of climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may affect future trip-generation rates. At the present time, adjustments for modal split are required only when a traffic study is being performed for developments in urban areas like Central Business Districts, where the use of non-automobile modes is significant.

The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) 2004 Origin Destination Survey found that 92 percent of all trips by Coachella Valley residents were made in private passenger cars (automobiles, sport utility vehicles, and pick-up trucks).

Less than one percent of the trips in the region were completed using public transportation. Four percent of the trips in the region were completed by walking. One percent of the trips were completed by riding a bicycle. The remaining trips were completed by school buses and other modes. The majority of casino visitors and shopping area visitors travel to the region by car. More than fifty percent of all trips completed by residents of the Coachella Valley region had a vehicle occupancy of one person.

Alternative transportation modes account for less than five percent of all trips generated in the vicinity of the project, and the variations from day-to-day in the future site traffic volumes would exceed five percent. Therefore, a modal split adjustment to reduce the site-generated traffic volumes was not included to ensure that the project-related impacts are not understated.

Site Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment
The trips generated by the proposed land development are distributed to geographic origins and destinations and then assigned to specific segments of the transportation network. The directional orientation of site traffic is determined by the geographical location of the site and the land uses that will serve as trip origins and destinations. The origin of trips inbound to the site can be affected by the size and type of development attracting the trip, the existing land uses in the surrounding area, the locations of competing developments, and the surrounding population, employment, and roadway conditions. 12-2010

4-8
The CVAG 2004 Origin Destination Survey identified the following top destinations for Coachella Valley residents:
•La Quinta Wal-Mart / Lowe’s / La Quinta High School (42,200 Daily Trips) • Town Center Mall / Palm Desert College of the Desert (36,600 Daily Trips) •Palm Desert Costco / Home Depot (19,200 Daily Trips)
•Eisenhower Medical Center (14,100 Daily Trips)
•Palm Springs International Airport (11,900 Daily Trips) The City of Rancho Mirage attracts 46,600 weekday trips or 6.1 percent of the weekday trips generated by households located throughout the Coachella Valley region. That represents 6.1 percent of all trips generated by the households located within the Coachella Valley. The CVAG 2004 Origin Destination Survey found that on a typical weekday, the origins of those household trips destined for Rancho Mirage included the following:
•Palm Desert (35%)•Indian Wells (3.2%)
•Rancho Mirage (33.7%)•La Quinta (2.4%)
•Palm Springs (10.5%)•Desert Hot Springs (2.3%)
• Cathedral City (8.9%)• Coachella (0.7%)
•Indio(4.3%)
The City of Rancho Mirage attracts 7.7 percent of the home-based work trips generated by households in the Coachella Valley. The City of Rancho Mirage attracts 31 percent more home-based work commute trips than the households within Rancho Mirage generate.

Households in the City of Rancho Mirage generate 5.8 percent of the shopping trips in the Coachella Valley region. The City of Rancho Mirage attracts six percent of the household shopping trips generated within the Coachella Valley. The City of Palm Desert attracts 35.4 percent of the household shopping trips. La Quinta and Cathedral City attract 12.3 percent and

12.8 percent, respectively, of the shopping trips made by households within the Coachella Valley.

The City of Rancho Mirage attracts more than twice as many recreational trips than its households generate. Indian Wells attracts 2.5 times the number of recreational trips generated by its households. Approximately 12.2 percent of all of the Coachella Valley household recreational trips are made to destinations within the City of Rancho Mirage.

The City of Rancho Mirage attracts 5.5 times the number of medical trips generated by its households. Rancho Mirage is the top medical destination in the Coachella Valley, capturing 31.9 percent of the home-based medical trips generated within the Coachella Valley.

Site Traffic Assignment
Site traffic was assigned to the surrounding street system based upon the location of the existing and future land uses that would attract site traffic and generate trips destined to the site. The proposed site access locations, any anticipated left-turn restrictions at the proposed site driveways and access to regional transportation facilities were also considered in the site traffic assignment.

The proposed initial phase of development would occur within Planning Area 8 and generate approximately 4,480 weekday trips. Planning Area 8 would be developed as a gated community with two access connections to the surrounding roadways located opposite existing intersections. The distribution of the site-generated traffic associated with the initial phase of development is shown in Figure 4-1.

The primary access for the initial phase is proposed to Dinah Shore Drive, opposite the existing signalized access to the Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort [Intersection 12]. This site access is projected to serve approximately 57 percent of the traffic generated by the initial phase (2,550 ADT). Access to Los Alamos Road would be opposite the existing unsignalized intersection at Via Bella [Intersection 8]. Approximately 43 percent of the traffic generated by the initial phase (1,930 ADT) would enter and leave Planning Area 8 via this access connection. This intersection would remain unsignalized upon completion of the initial phase of development.

The active adult community proposed in Planning Area 8 will ultimately have access to Bob Hope Drive via the westerly extension of Casino Road between Planning Areas 2 and 3 (to the north) and Planning Areas 4 and 5 (to the south). This 12-2011

Figure 4-1
Site Traffic Distribution
(Initial Phase)
Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
Legend
Percent of Primary Project-Related Trips5.7

22.0 23.0 23.0 18.0 18.0

8.0 15.0

13.0 44.0 44.0

1.0 5.0
5 .
0 18
.
0 0.5
6 .
5 8.0 2.0 Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
.

Va
r
n
e
r

R
o
a
d
Int
e
r
s
t
a
t
e

1 0
Uni
o
n

P
a
c
i
f
i
c

R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
30th Ave.

V
a
l
l

D
r
.

Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
.

Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d
Project
Site
Casino
We
s
t
i
n
Re
s
o
r
t

V
i
l
l
a
s
We
s
t
i
n
Mi
s
s
i
o
n

H
i
l
l
s
Via
Bella
Ra
t
t
l
e
r

R
o
a
d
Ke
y
La
r
g
o

A
v
e
.

Rio Del Sol

6.0 20.0 20.0

4. 3
10 .
0 5.7

8. 0

8. 0
16 .
0 5.
0 2.
0 3.
0 41
.
0 8.
0 8
.
0 10
.
0 1
3 .
0 43.0

57.0 0.0
12-2012

4-9
access would ultimately accommodate approximately 35 percent of the traffic generated by the initial phase (1,570 ADT) and provide the most direct connection to Interstate 10 for regional trips.

The composite directional distribution of all project-related or “site” traffic with full development of the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan is shown in Figure 4-2. The percentages shown in Figure 4-2 reflect the combination of all new inbound and outbound external project-related trips to be added to the surrounding street system. The percentages shown were determined from the combined total of 59,450 primary external weekday trips generated by the proposed project.

Figure 4-3 illustrates the distribution of the external site traffic to each of the proposed site access connections proposed along the site boundaries. It can be seen from Figure 4-3 that the land use and internal circulation plan focused the site traffic to the site access connections along Bob Hope Drive (49.1 percent of site traffic) and Ramon Road (32.7 percent of site traffic) by locating the higher intensity land uses along these two abutting arterials. The proposed land use plan and site access plan minimized the amount of site traffic that would use Los Alamos Road (6.5 percent) and Dinah Shore Drive (11.7 percent) by locating the lower intensity uses along these roadways.

Weekday Site Traffic Volumes
Table 4-3 provides the daily site-generated traffic volumes on the roadways adjacent to the key intersections on a typical weekday in the peak season. Existing peak season weekday traffic volumes are also shown in Table 4-3 that represent existing non-site (‘through”) traffic volumes. Site-generated traffic volumes are shown in Table 4-3 for both the initial phase of the proposed development as well as full development.

The site traffic volumes at each of the key intersections projected to occur during the morning and evening peak hours on a typical weekday in the peak season are shown in Figure 4-4. The intersection turning movement volumes shown in Figure 4-4 would be generated by the initial phase of the proposed development. The weekday peak hour turning movement volumes shown in Figure 4-4 were added to the existing non-site traffic volumes and also to the future year 2022 through traffic volumes to evaluate the impact of the initial phase of development on traffic operations at the key intersections.

Figure 4-5 shows the weekday peak hour site traffic volumes at the key intersections and the proposed full-turn site access intersections with full development of the project. These site traffic volumes were added to the existing traffic volumes and also added to the horizon year 2035 through traffic projections to assess the impact of the project on the surrounding street system. Figure 4-6 provides the site traffic volumes with full development of the Section 24 Specific Plan at the right-in/right- out driveways proposed along Ramon Road, Bob Hope Drive, and Dinah Shore Drive.

4.3 Existing Plus Site Traffic Projections
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it could cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio of the streets, or congestion at intersections). With existing traffic volumes and site-generated traffic volumes, the significance of the effect of site traffic on the environment can be assessed. Evaluating the change in traffic operations at the key intersections before and after site- generated traffic is added to the existing baseline traffic can reveal the significance of project-related effects on the environment without introducing uncertainties related to cumulative developments or projected increases in background traffic volumes.

Existing Plus Initial Phase Traffic Projections
Figure 4-7 shows the existing plus initial phase peak hour traffic volumes at the key intersections. These volumes include existing traffic volumes (from Figure 3-4) as well as the site traffic volumes generated by the initial phase of the proposed project (from Figure 4-4). Table 4-3 identifies the existing plus initial phase weekday traffic volumes on area roadways.

Existing Plus Project Buildout Traffic Projections
Figure 4-8 depicts the existing plus site buildout peak hour traffic volumes at the key intersections. These volumes include existing traffic volumes (from Figure 3-4) as well as the site traffic volumes generated by buildout of the proposed project (from Figure 4-5). Table 4-3 provides the existing plus project buildout weekday traffic volumes on area roadways. 12-2013

Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
Figure 4-2
Site Traffic Distribution
(Project Buildout)
Scale: 1” = 3,200’Endo Engineering
Legend
Percent of Primary Daily Trips5.7

14.6 21.9 22.1 20.9 20.2

8.2 10.4

7.3 8.1 6.2

2.0 7.3
7 .
3 26
.
9 1.0

0.9 9
.
3 11.3 3.0 Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.

Gerald Ford Dr.

Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
.

Va
r
n
e
r

R
o
a
d
Int
e
r
s
t
a
t
e

1 0
Uni
o
n

P
a
c
i
f
i
c

R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
30th Ave.

V
a
l
l

D
r
.

Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
.

Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d
Project
Site
Casino
We
s
t
i
n
Re
s
o
r
t

V
i
l
l
a
s
We
s
t
i
n
Mi
s
s
i
o
n

H
i
l
l
s
Via
Bella
Ra
t
t
l
e
r

R
o
a
d
Ke
y
La
r
g
o

A
v
e
.

Rio Del Sol

8.3 14.3 14.3

3. 1

7. 1

4.1 1.8 2.6
24 .
3 27
.
9 14
.
1 9.
7 5.
7 3.
7 3.
8 0.
2 9.
0 5.
3 2
4 .
8 14
.
6 1
8 .
6 12-2014

En
d
o

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
.

Bob Hope Dr.

Los Alamos Road
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e
Ca
s
i
n
o
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
Vi
a
Be
l
l
a
No
r
t
h
Fi
g
u
r
e

4 -
3 Si
t
e

B
u
i
l
d
o
u
t

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
At

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

S
i
t
e

A
c
c
e
s
s

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

A
c
c
e
s
s

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

S
i
t
e

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

(
%
)
8 E
a
s
t

o
f

V
i
a

B
e
l
l
a

1 .
4 9

W
e
s
t

o
f

C
a
s
i
n
o

2 2
.
9 12

N
o
r
t
h

o
f

W
e
s
t
i
n

M
i
s
s
i
o
n

H
i
l
l
s

2 .
2 13

N
o
r
t
h

o
f

W
e
s
t
i
n

R
e
s
o
r
t

V
i
l
l
a
s

6 .
4 18

S
t
r
e
e
t

“
C
”

R
a
m
o
n

R
o
a
d

9 .
9 19

S
t
r
e
e
t

“
D
”

R
a
m
o
n

R
o
a
d

1 4
.
5 20

S
t
r
e
e
t

“
D
”

B
o
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

1 1
.
5 21

S
t
r
e
e
t

“
E
”

B
o
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

6 .
8 22

S
t
r
e
e
t

“
A
”

L
o
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

0 .
7 23

S
t
r
e
e
t

“
B
”

L
o
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

4 .
4 Ac
c
e
s
s

R
a
m
o
n

R
o
a
d

2 .
2 Ac
c
e
s
s

R
a
m
o
n

R
o
a
d

3 .
5 Ac
c
e
s
s

R
a
m
o
n

R
o
a
d

2 .
6 Ac
c
e
s
s

B
o
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

3 .
9 Ac
c
e
s
s

B
o
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

2 .
2 Ac
c
e
s
s

B
o
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

1 .
8 Ac
c
e
s
s

D
i
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e

3 .
1 P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e
Ca
s
i
n
o
St
r
e
e
t

“
E
”
St
r
e
e
t

“
A
”
St
.
“
B
”
Street “C”
Street “D”
Ca
s
i
n
o
St
r
e
e
t

“
D
”
5 6
8 9
11 12
13 14
23 22
18 19
20 21
Access A
Access B
Access C
A
c
c
e
s
s

D
A
c
c
e
s
s

E
Ac
c
e
s
s

F
Ac
c
e
s
s

G
12-2015

En
d
o

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
.

Ge
r
a
l
d

F
o
r
d

D
r
.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varn
e
r

R
o
a
d
Int
e
r
s
t
a
t
e

1 0
Uni
o
n

P
a
c
i
f
i
c

R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
30 t
h

A
v
e
.

Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e
Ca
s
i
n
o
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
Vi
a
Be
l
l
a
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Ri
o

D
e
l

S
o
l
No
r
t
h
Le
g
e
n
d
Mo
r
n
i
n
g
/
E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k
Ho
u
r

T
u
r
n
i
n
g

V
o
l
u
m
e
5/
8 1
5 2
4 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 3
We
s
t
i
n

R
e
s
o
r
t

V
i
l
l
a
s

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Ke
y

L
a
r
g
o

A
v
e
n
u
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ge
r
a
l
d

F
o
r
d

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
I-
1 0

W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p
s
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
I-
1 0

E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p
s
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Ra
t
t
l
e
r

R
o
a
d

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
i
v
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ca
s
i
n
o
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Vi
a

B
e
l
l
a
We
s
t
i
n

M
i
s
s
i
o
n

H
i
l
l
s

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
I-
1 0

E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
13 14
15 16
17 71
2 3
4 5
6 8
9 10
11 12
Fi
g
u
r
e

4 -
4 Si
t
e

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

V
o
l
u
m
e
s
In
i
t
i
a
l

P
h
a
s
e
2/
4 0/
0 3/
2 18
/
1 4
36 /
7 7
0/
0 0/
0 11
/
2 3
0/
0 0/
0 0/0
0/0
0/0
31/67
2/5
0/0
0/
0 0/
0 0/
0 4/9
5/3
0/0
0/
0 0/
0 0/
0 0/0
7/14
0/0
0/0
12/9
0/0
3/
2 12
/
9 8/
6 2/4
0/0
0/0
0/
0 7/
1 4
0/
0 4/9
0/0
0/0
5/
3 15
/
1 1
2/5
8/6
4/
9 8/
1 8
36 /
7 7
0/
0 0/
0 67
/
4 9
0/
0 0/0
0/0
0/
0 16
/
3 5
0/
0 0/0
0/0
7/14
12 /
9 31
/
2 2
24 /
1 8
0/0
0/0
13/28
16 /
3 5
0/
0 30
/
2 3
0/
0 0/0
0/0
0/
0 5/
1 0
0/
0 0/0
0/0
3/8
7/
5 9/
6 15
/
1 1
0/0
0/0
8/18
0/
0 0/
0 0/
0 0/0
24/18
0/0
0/
0 0/
0 0/
0 0/0
13/28
0/0
0/
0 0/
0 11
/
2 3
1/2
0/0
2/1
15/11
0/
0 1/
2 1/
2 0/0
6/12
14/30
12 /
9 15
/
1 1
0/
0 6/4
6/4
0/0
0/0
12/25
0/
0 0/
0 8/
1 8
2/1
17/3
3/
2 32
/
2 4
0/
0 2/4
1/2
0/0
0/
0 18
/
3 7
1/
2 0/0
2/1
2/1
0/
0 35
/
2 6
0/0
0/0
0/
0 19
/
4 0
0/
0 15
/
3 2
0/
0 19
/
4 1
27/20
35/26
57 /
4 3
0/
0 8/
6 67/49
0/0
20/15
0/
0 0/
0 0/
0 12-2016

En
d
o

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
.

Ge
r
a
l
d

F
o
r
d

D
r
.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varn
e
r

R
o
a
d
Int
e
r
s
t
a
t
e

1 0
Uni
o
n

P
a
c
i
f
i
c

R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
30 t
h

A
v
e
.

Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e
Ca
s
i
n
o
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
Vi
a
Be
l
l
a
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Ri
o

D
e
l

S
o
l
No
r
t
h
Le
g
e
n
d
Mo
r
n
i
n
g
/
E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k
Ho
u
r

T
u
r
n
i
n
g

V
o
l
u
m
e
5/
8 1
5 2
4 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 3
23 22
18 19
20 21
We
s
t
i
n

R
e
s
o
r
t

V
i
l
l
a
s

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Ke
y

L
a
r
g
o

A
v
e
n
u
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ge
r
a
l
d

F
o
r
d

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
I-
1 0

W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p
s
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
I-
1 0

E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p
s
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Ra
t
t
l
e
r

R
o
a
d

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
i
v
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ca
s
i
n
o
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Vi
a

B
e
l
l
a
We
s
t
i
n

M
i
s
s
i
o
n

H
i
l
l
s

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
I-
1 0

E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
St
r
e
e
t

“
C
”

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Re
t
a
i
l

A
c
c
e
s
s
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

A
c
c
e
s
s
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
St
r
e
e
t

“
E
”
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
St
r
e
e
t

“
D
”
St
r
e
e
t

“
D
”

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
13 14
15 16
17 18
7 19
20 21
22 23
1 2
3 4
5 6
8 9
10 11
12 Fi
g
u
r
e

4 -
5 Si
t
e

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

V
o
l
u
m
e
s
Up
o
n

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

B
u
i
l
d
o
u
t
20 /
8 8
0/
0 21
/
8 5
11 8
/
4 8
3 18
/
3 5
44 /
1 9
5 0/
0 34/22
0/0
16/11
9/
1 7
43 /
1 9
9 0/
0 0/0
0/0
0/0
25 /
1 7
0/
0 6/
4 14/26
38/146
0/0
0/
0 0/
0 0/
0 3/7
36/148
0/0
0/
0 6/
2 6
0/
0 0/0
109/473
83/355
12 1
/
4 4
2 4/
2 7
82 /
3 2
1 0/0
88/363
84/384
2/
2 65
/
2 3
2 19
/
6 0
1/3
17/108
3/1
1/
2 56
/
2 4
2 0/
0 16/63
23/106
0/0
10 /
3 0
50 /
1 7
6 8/32
36/118
29 /
1 2
4 44
/
1 8
4 11
/
5 8
36 /
1 4
7 0/
0 28/135
0/0
26/83
40 /
1 9
4 37
/
2 8
0/
0 0/0
0/0
0/0
86 /
3 6
0 47
/
2 2
7 10
4 /
4 7
1 25
/
1 2
7 26/120
50/256
72 /
3 2
0 28
/
1 0
3 0/
0 76/312
87/367
8/31
9/
3 0
36 /
9 5
20 /
3 7
0/0
84/375
14/43
0/
0 10
0 /
4 2
3 0/
0 0/0
0/0
0/0
0/
0 11
2 /
4 0
8 0/
0 0/0
0/0
0/0
0/
0 29
/
1 2
1 0/
0 0/0
0/0
21/91
24 /
8 7
32 /
1 1
6 56
/
2 0
4 0/0
0/0
50/211
17 /
7 8
0/
0 0/
0 11/80
89/270
7/54
11 /
5 2
0/
0 0/
0 0/0
69/287
0/0
0/
0 0/
0 12
6 /
5 5
3 13/58
0/0
14/57
103/426
0/
0 7/
3 0
13 /
5 8
0/0
146/627
92/420
37 /
1 9
3 57
/
2 5
2 32
/
1 4
3 82/317
93/346
34/142
0/0
139/611
0/
0 0/
0 99
/
4 3
6 14/57
117/482
22 /
1 1
1 11
9 /
4 1
0 20
/
1 0
9 25/111
1/1
0/0
0/
0 10
2 /
4 2
9 1/
1 24/109
1/1
1/1
8/
3 16
1 /
6 3
1 2/7
0/0
0/
0 15
1 /
6 4
9 11
0 /
5 0
2 26
/
1 1
5 11
2 /
5 0
8 40
/
1 4
8 27/115
59/132
65 /
2 6
2 68
/
3 3
0 83
/
3 9
5 40
/
1 9
9 50/191
69/325
136/561
32/156
55 /
2 5
7 41
/
1 7
6 117/490
48/233
151/626
17/87
35 /
1 6
3 23
/
8 2
131/560
34/165
18 /
8 8/
3 4/16
44/169
2/7
59/158
16 /
1 1
8 6/
3 8
24/115
42/148
8/37
70/129
12-2017

En
d
o

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
.

Bob Hope Dr.

Los Alamos Road
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e
Ca
s
i
n
o
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
Vi
a
Be
l
l
a
No
r
t
h
11 /
8 0
160/659
17/78
7/
5 4
165/723
163/656
11/52
7/
5 4
165/725
17 /
7 8
32 /
9 8
15/107
65 /
1 6
2 13
6 /
6 1
6 10
8 /
4 8
7 23
/
1 0
4 13
3 /
5 9
2 11
6 /
5 0
8 17
/
7 8
11/80
13 3
/
5 8
7 15/107
12 2
/
5 4
5 17
/
7 8
7/54
157/637
34/156
172/747
Le
g
e
n
d
Mo
r
n
i
n
g
/
E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k
Ho
u
r

T
u
r
n
i
n
g

V
o
l
u
m
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d

R
i
g
h
t

T
u
r
n

O
n
l
y
Si
t
e

A
c
c
e
s
s

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
5/
8 Fi
g
u
r
e

4 -
6 Si
t
e

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

V
o
l
u
m
e
s

U
p
o
n

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

B
u
i
l
d
o
u
t
At

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

R
i
g
h
t

T
u
r
n

O
n
l
y

D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
s
5 6
8 9
11 12
13 14
23 22
18 19
20 21
Access A
Access B
Access C
A
c
c
e
s
s

D
A
c
c
e
s
s

E
Ac
c
e
s
s

F
Ac
c
e
s
s

G
Ac
c
e
s
s

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Ac
c
e
s
s

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Ac
c
e
s
s

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Ac
c
e
s
s

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ac
c
e
s
s

F
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ac
c
e
s
s

E
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ac
c
e
s
s

D
12-2018

En
d
o

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
.

Ge
r
a
l
d

F
o
r
d

D
r
.

Bob Hope Dr.

Varn
e
r

R
o
a
d
Int
e
r
s
t
a
t
e

1 0
Uni
o
n

P
a
c
i
f
i
c

R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
30 t
h

A
v
e
.

Da Vall Dr.

Monterey Ave.

Los Alamos Road
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Si
t
e
Ca
s
i
n
o
The Westin
Resort Villas
Westin
Mission Hills
Vi
a
Be
l
l
a
Rattler Road
Key
Largo Ave.

Ri
o

D
e
l

S
o
l
No
r
t
h
Le
g
e
n
d
Mo
r
n
i
n
g
/
E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
e
a
k
Ho
u
r

T
u
r
n
i
n
g

V
o
l
u
m
e
5/
8 1
5 2
4 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 3
We
s
t
i
n

R
e
s
o
r
t

V
i
l
l
a
s

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Ke
y

L
a
r
g
o

A
v
e
n
u
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y

A
v
e
n
u
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ge
r
a
l
d

F
o
r
d

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
I-
1 0

W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p
s
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
I-
1 0

E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p
s
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Ra
t
t
l
e
r

R
o
a
d

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Da

V
a
l
l

D
r
i
v
e

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
Bo
b

H
o
p
e

D
r
i
v
e

@
Ca
s
i
n
o
Lo
s

A
l
a
m
o
s

R
o
a
d

@
Vi
a

B
e
l
l
a
We
s
t
i
n

M
i
s
s
i
o
n

H
i
l
l
s

@
Di
n
a
h

S
h
o
r
e

D
r
i
v
e
I-
1 0

E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

R
a
m
p

@
Ra
m
o
n

R
o
a
d
Fi
g
u
r
e

4 -
7 Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

P
l
u
s

I
n
i
t
i
a
l

P
h
a
s
e
We
e
k
d
a
y

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

V
o
l
u
m
e
s
45 2
/
3 7
8 66
/
1 0
4 27
4 /
4 2
1 52
9 /
5 2
9 36
/
7 7
48 7
/
8 7
3 36
/
3 0
13 /
3 9
59 3
/
7 0
5 28
/
1 5
22/56
0/0
7/43
31/67
74/32
12/11
11 /
1 2
0/
0 15
/
1 6
4/9
64/50
11/24
15 /
2 7
0/
0 7/
3 5
72/111
937/483
0/0
6/34
321/945
0/0
32 /
1 1
1 42
6 /
7 0
6 72
/
5 3
61/52
314/193
232/113
10 5
/
7 9
52 9
/
6 1
0 17
2 /
1 3
9 67/52
146/305
107/180
18 /
5 6
49 6
/
8 9
0 42/29
72/31
52 /
4 2
57 4
/
6 7
4 56
3 /
9 6
4 16
/
3 6
0/
0 67
0 /
8 0
9 7/
4 18/27
3/8
51 /
1 8
0 40
1 /
6 4
1 10
0 /
1 1
0 103/91
785/384
54/80
77 /
8 0
43 0
/
5 7
4 16
7 /
1 4
1 61/182
200/635
118/251
51 1
/
9 3
2 57
/
2 7
U
T
u
r
n
s

0 /
4 54
9 /
8 2
3 20
/
1 1
32/46
7/1
25 9
/
4 6
6 15
7 /
3 4
5 38
/
3 5
369/260
1299/773
449/524 30
4 /
7 2
1 24
1 /
2 9
0 14
7 /
3 8
2 17/24
434/1116
126/405
51 /
5 6
39 1
/
4 0
2 17
1 /
8 8
63/58
781/509
83/77
11 3
/
1 6
3 39
3 /
4 5
9 13
3 /
9 7
24/80
258/740
62/153
18 9
/
1 4
0 9/
4 48
2 /
4 9
9 225/300
156/250
362/264
120/384
12 /
2 0
33 8
/
3 1
7 10
3 /
6 0
34/62
685/360
400/452
87 /
1 0
2 68
5 /
7 0
8 20
5 /
1 6
9 83/198
155/474
82/247
91/138
624/704 25
5 /
1 2
4 6/
5 50
7 /
2 6
4 27/46
223/513
99 /
2 3
2 52
2 /
7 4
0 16
7 /
9 9
220/110
282/120
47/23
24 /
3 7
62 6
/
7 1
2 13
3 /
7 7
88/70
118/270
78/148
11 3
/
9 8
66 7
/
8 9
2 142/101
210/162 16
3 /
1 3
9 77
5 /
8 6
2 78
3 /
9 9
8 81
/
6 0
88 9
/
8 4
6 49
/
5 3
82/56
46/62
57 /
4 3
0/
0 8/
6 67/49
0/0
20/15
0/
0 0/
0 0/
0 13
14 15
16 17
71 2
3 4
5 6
8 9
10 11
12 12-2019

Rancho Mirage City CouncilOctober 19, 2023

Rancho Mirage City Council
October 19, 2023