Cities Index.
Agenda packet

Rancho Mirage City Council
April 18, 2024

Document
Agenda packet
Meeting
April 18, 2024
Body
Rancho Mirage City Council
Pages
64
Original file
2.7 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on portal.laserfiche.com. That file is the official record.

7.1-44
7-719
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 4: Rattler Rd. & School Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 24 123 34 175 229 20
Future Volume (vph) 24 123 34 175 229 20
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 40
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 445 524 1443
Travel Time (s) 12.1 14.3 39.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.1-45
7-720
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour
4: Rattler Rd. & School Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 24 123 34 175 229 20
Future Vol, veh/h 24 123 34 175 229 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 50 50 50 50 50 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 48 246 68 350 458 40

Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 964 478 498 0 - 0
Stage 1 478 -----
Stage 2 486 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 283 587 1066 - - -
Stage 1 624 -----
Stage 2 618 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 265 587 1066 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 395 -----
Stage 1 584 -----
Stage 2 618 -----

Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 19.1 1.4 0

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1066 - 544 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.064 - 0.54 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 - 19.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 3.2 - -

7.1-46
7-721
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 63 1506 1532 146 173 179
Future Volume (vph) 63 1506 1532 146 173 179
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 300 205 200 200
Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 110 60
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 40
Link Distance (ft) 647 2660 288
Travel Time (s) 8.0 33.0 4.9
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Shared Lane Traffic (%) 38%
Turn Type Prot NA NA pm+ov Prot Perm
Protected Phases 52644
Permitted Phases 6 4
Detector Phase 526444
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 9.5 37.5 28.0 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (%) 15.8% 62.5% 46.7% 37.5% 37.5% 37.5%
Maximum Green (s) 5.0 33.0 23.5 18.0 18.0 18.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 55555
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.

7.1-47
7-722
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 63 1506 1532 146 173 179
Future Volume (veh/h) 63 1506 1532 146 173 179
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 63 1506 1532 146 231 117
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 187 2808 2149 1143 1069 476
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.55 0.14 0.14 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5274 5274 1585 3563 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 63 1506 1532 146 231 117
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1702 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 11.3 17.2 2.4 2.9 3.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 11.3 17.2 2.4 2.9 3.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 187 2808 2149 1143 1069 476
V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.54 0.71 0.13 0.22 0.25
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 288 2808 2149 1143 1069 476
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.79 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.3 8.6 22.4 4.0 15.7 15.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.7 1.6 0.2 0.5 1.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 2.7 7.7 1.5 1.1 3.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.4 9.4 24.0 4.1 16.2 17.1
LnGrp LOS C A C A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1569 1678 348
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.1 22.3 16.5
Approach LOS B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.5 22.5 7.8 29.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.0 18.0 5.0 23.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.3 5.3 3.1 19.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.6 0.9 0.0 3.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

7.1-48
7-723
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 6: Los Alamos Rd. & Ramon Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 1556 94 58 1597 95 115
Future Volume (vph) 1 1556 94 58 1597 95 115
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 200 200 255 125 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50
Link Distance (ft) 2660 3172 1424
Travel Time (s) 33.0 39.3 19.4
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8
Permitted Phases 2 8
Detector Phase 5221688
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 9.5 28.0 28.0 9.5 28.0 22.5 22.5
Total Split (%) 15.8% 46.7% 46.7% 15.8% 46.7% 37.5% 37.5% Maximum Green (s) 5.0 23.5 23.5 5.0 23.5 18.0 18.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max Max Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 6: Los Alamos Rd. & Ramon Rd.

7.1-49
7-724
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 6: Los Alamos Rd. & Ramon Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 1556 94 58 1597 95 115
Future Volume (veh/h) 1 1556 94 58 1597 95 115
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1556 94 58 1597 95 115
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 2162 671 92 2808 1037 476
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.55 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 3456 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1556 94 58 1597 95 115
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 1585 1781 1702 1728 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 17.5 3.1 1.9 12.3 1.2 3.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.5 3.1 1.9 12.3 1.2 3.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2162 671 92 2808 1037 476
V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.14 0.63 0.57 0.09 0.24
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2162 671 148 2808 1037 476
HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.86 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.4 16.2 27.9 8.8 15.1 15.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 0.4 6.9 0.8 0.2 1.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.9 0.9 0.9 2.9 0.4 1.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.2 16.6 34.8 9.7 15.3 17.1
LnGrp LOS C B C A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1650 1655 210
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.8 10.6 16.3
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 29.9 37.5 22.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 23.5 23.5 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 19.5 14.3 5.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.0 6.1 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

7.1-50
7-725
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 7: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 NB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 1036 1 190 1016 451 0 0 456 430 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 1036 1 190 1016 451 0 0 456 430 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 430 210 0 0 205
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 581 1228 688 840
Travel Time (s) 11.3 23.9 10.4 12.7
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 50%
Turn Type Split NA Free Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 8 5 2 6
Permitted Phases Free 6
Detector Phase 8 8 5 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 48.0 48.0 45.0 72.0 27.0 27.0
Total Split (%) 40.0% 40.0% 37.5% 60.0% 22.5% 22.5%
Maximum Green (s) 43.5 43.5 40.5 67.5 22.5 22.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 55
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 7: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 NB Ramps

7.1-51
7-726
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 7: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 NB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 1036 1 190 1016 451 0 0 456 430 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 1036 1 190 1016 451 0 0 456 430 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1037 0 0 1016 451 0 0 456 430
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222220022
Cap, veh/h 1138 0 1075 2152 0 0 1313 408
Arrive On Green 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.52 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1585 3456 3647 0 0 5274 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1037 0 0 1016 451 0 0 456 430
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1728 1777 0 0 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 33.5 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 30.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 33.5 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 30.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1138 0 1075 2152 0 0 1313 408
V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.00 0.95 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.35 1.06
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1291 0 1166 2152 0 0 1313 408
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.66 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.2 0.0 0.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.4 44.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.1 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 59.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 15.8 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 18.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.3 0.0 0.0 38.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 37.1 104.4 LnGrp LOS D A D A A A D F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1037 1467 886
Approach Delay, s/veh 48.3 26.7 69.8
Approach LOS D C E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 77.2 41.8 35.4 42.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 67.5 40.5 22.5 43.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 35.3 32.9 35.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.0 2.0 0.0 2.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.6
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

7.1-52
7-727
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 8: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 SB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 260 2 938 0000 1207 119 240 1252 0 Future Volume (vph) 260 2 938 0000 1207 119 240 1252 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 490 135 0 0 0 195 225 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 200 90 90 110
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1337 718 776 688
Travel Time (s) 26.0 14.0 11.8 10.4
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 10% 49% 10%
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2
Detector Phase 4 4 4 2216
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 10.0 35.0
Total Split (%) 41.7% 41.7% 41.7% 41.7% 41.7% 16.7% 58.3% Maximum Green (s) 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 5.5 30.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 8: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 SB Ramps

7.1-53
7-728
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 8: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 SB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 260 2 938 0000 1207 119 240 1252 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 260 2 938 0000 1207 119 240 1252 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 174 0 1031 0 1207 119 240 1252 0
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 022220
Cap, veh/h 609 0 1083 0 1917 542 317 1806 0
Arrive On Green 0.34 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.12 0.68 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 3170 0 5611 1585 3456 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 174 0 1031 0 1207 119 240 1252 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 0 1870 1585 1728 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.3 0.0 19.0 0.0 10.8 3.2 4.0 12.9 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.3 0.0 19.0 0.0 10.8 3.2 4.0 12.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 609 0 1083 0 1917 542 317 1806 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.29 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.63 0.22 0.76 0.69 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 609 0 1083 0 1917 542 317 1806 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.69 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.4 0.0 19.3 0.0 16.6 14.1 25.7 6.9 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 17.0 0.0 1.6 0.9 7.1 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.0 8.6 0.0 4.1 1.1 1.8 2.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.7 0.0 36.3 0.0 18.1 15.0 32.8 8.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A D A B B C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1205 1326 1492
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.2 17.9 12.3
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 25.0 25.0 35.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.5 20.5 20.5 30.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 12.8 21.0 14.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.6 0.0 7.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

7.1-54
7-729
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 9: Bob Hope Dr. & Ramon Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 178 950 496 120 630 75 521 1073 490 135 1535 520 Future Volume (vph) 178 950 496 120 630 75 521 1073 490 135 1535 520 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 280 470 240 180 205 280 215 225
Storage Lanes 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 120 120 120
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 676 1191 1119 476
Travel Time (s) 8.4 14.8 17.0 7.2
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 523167
Permitted Phases Free 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 388523167
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 Total Split (s) 19.2 38.0 12.4 31.2 31.2 24.0 55.7 12.4 13.9 45.6 19.2 Total Split (%) 16.0% 31.7% 10.3% 26.0% 26.0% 20.0% 46.4% 10.3% 11.6% 38.0% 16.0% Maximum Green (s) 14.7 33.5 7.9 26.7 26.7 19.5 51.2 7.9 9.4 41.1 14.7 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None None C-Max None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 40.1 (33%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 9: Bob Hope Dr. & Ramon Rd.

7.1-55
7-730
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 9: Bob Hope Dr. & Ramon Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 178 950 496 120 630 75 521 1073 490 135 1535 520 Future Volume (veh/h) 178 950 496 120 630 75 521 1073 490 135 1535 520 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 178 950 0 120 630 75 521 1073 490 135 1535 520 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 239 992 174 925 412 562 2376 817 191 1828 677 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.28 0.00 0.05 0.26 0.26 0.16 0.47 0.47 0.06 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 178 950 0 120 630 75 521 1073 490 135 1535 520 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.1 31.6 0.0 4.1 19.1 4.4 17.8 17.1 26.0 4.6 33.1 33.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 31.6 0.0 4.1 19.1 4.4 17.8 17.1 26.0 4.6 33.1 33.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 239 992 174 925 412 562 2376 817 191 1828 677 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.96 0.69 0.68 0.18 0.93 0.45 0.60 0.71 0.84 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 423 992 228 925 412 562 2376 817 271 1828 677 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.8 42.6 0.0 56.1 39.9 34.5 49.6 21.7 20.4 55.7 35.4 29.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.5 19.1 0.0 5.7 2.1 0.2 21.8 0.6 3.2 4.8 4.8 8.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 15.6 0.0 1.9 8.2 1.6 9.2 6.6 9.3 2.1 13.9 13.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 59.3 61.7 0.0 61.8 42.0 34.7 71.4 22.3 23.6 60.5 40.2 37.4 LnGrp LOS E E E D C E C C E D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1128 825 2084 2190
Approach Delay, s/veh 61.3 44.2 34.9 40.8
Approach LOS E D C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.1 60.3 10.5 38.0 24.0 47.5 12.8 35.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.4 51.2 7.9 33.5 19.5 41.1 14.7 26.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.6 28.0 6.1 33.6 19.8 35.6 8.1 21.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.3 1.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 43.0
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

7.1-56
7-731
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 14: Rattler Rd. & School Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 48 34 0 199 215 0
Future Volume (vph) 48 34 0 199 215 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 354 1443 236
Travel Time (s) 9.7 39.4 6.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.1-57
7-732
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour
14: Rattler Rd. & School Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 48 34 0 199 215 0
Future Vol, veh/h 48 34 0 199 215 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 51 51 51 51 51 51
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 94 67 0 390 422 0

Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 812 422 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 422 -----
Stage 2 390 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 ----
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 ----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 348 632 0 - - 0
Stage 1 662 - 0 - - 0
Stage 2 684 - 0 - - 0
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 348 632 ----
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 466 -----
Stage 1 662 -----
Stage 2 684 -----

Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.3 0 0

HCM LOS B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - 466 632 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.202 0.105 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - 14.7 11.4 -
HCM Lane LOS - B B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.7 0.4 -

7.1-58
7-733
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour 15: Rattler Rd. & School Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 34 40 68 179 175 50
Future Volume (vph) 34 40 68 179 175 50
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 334 236 360
Travel Time (s) 9.1 6.4 9.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.1-59
7-734
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 Without Project PM Peak Hour
15: Rattler Rd. & School Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 34 40 68 179 175 50
Future Vol, veh/h 34 40 68 179 175 50
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 50 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 50 50 50 50 50 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 68 80 136 358 350 100

Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1030 400 450 0 - 0
Stage 1 400 -----
Stage 2 630 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 259 650 1110 - - -
Stage 1 677 -----
Stage 2 531 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 227 650 1110 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 227 -----
Stage 1 594 -----
Stage 2 531 -----

Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 22.6 2.4 0

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1110 - 350 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.123 - 0.423 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 - 22.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - 2 - -

7.1-60
7-735
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
APPENDIX 7.2: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT

INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS AND

QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

7-736
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

7-737
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 839 133 311 1022 225 Future Volume (vph) 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 839 133 311 1022 225 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 345 0 225 0 215 85 180 120
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1038 5274 701 1076
Travel Time (s) 14.2 71.9 10.6 16.3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 84
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 388744
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 19.0 32.0 23.0 36.0 15.8 36.0 36.0 29.0 49.2 49.2 Total Split (%) 15.8% 26.7% 19.2% 30.0% 13.2% 30.0% 30.0% 24.2% 41.0% 41.0% Maximum Green (s) 14.5 27.5 18.5 31.5 11.3 31.5 31.5 24.5 44.7 44.7 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 57 (48%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd.

7.2-1
7-738
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 839 133 311 1022 225 Future Volume (veh/h) 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 839 133 311 1022 225 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 839 133 311 1022 225 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 197 1124 162 254 1272 179 295 953 423 338 1324 588 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.19 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4503 650 1781 4518 637 3456 3554 1576 1781 3554 1579 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 170 623 323 227 663 344 239 839 133 311 1022 225 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1749 1781 1702 1752 1728 1777 1576 1781 1777 1579 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.3 20.2 20.4 15.0 20.9 21.0 8.2 27.1 8.1 20.6 30.4 12.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.3 20.2 20.4 15.0 20.9 21.0 8.2 27.1 8.1 20.6 30.4 12.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 197 849 436 254 959 493 295 953 423 338 1324 588 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.73 0.74 0.89 0.69 0.70 0.81 0.88 0.31 0.92 0.77 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 215 849 436 275 959 493 325 953 423 364 1324 588 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.71 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.5 41.4 41.4 50.6 38.5 38.5 53.9 42.1 35.1 47.7 33.2 27.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 26.9 5.6 10.7 21.3 2.9 5.7 13.2 11.5 1.9 27.1 4.4 1.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.3 8.8 9.7 8.0 8.7 9.4 4.0 13.0 3.3 11.4 13.3 4.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 79.4 46.9 52.2 71.9 41.4 44.2 67.1 53.5 37.0 74.9 37.6 29.4 LnGrp LOS E D D E D D E D D E D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1116 1234 1211 1558
Approach Delay, s/veh 53.4 47.8 54.4 43.8
Approach LOS DDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.6 34.4 14.7 49.2 17.8 38.3 27.3 36.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 27.5 11.3 44.7 14.5 31.5 24.5 31.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.0 22.4 10.2 32.4 13.3 23.0 22.6 29.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.4 0.1 5.8 0.1 3.7 0.2 1.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.4
HCM 6th LOS D

7.2-2
7-739
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd. WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 839 133 311 1022 225 Future Volume (vph) 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 839 133 311 1022 225 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 345 150 225 150 215 85 180 120
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1038 5274 701 1076
Travel Time (s) 14.2 71.9 10.6 16.3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 4
Detector Phase 52216638 744
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 19.0 32.0 32.0 23.0 36.0 36.0 15.8 36.0 29.0 49.2 49.2 Total Split (%) 15.8% 26.7% 26.7% 19.2% 30.0% 30.0% 13.2% 30.0% 24.2% 41.0% 41.0% Maximum Green (s) 14.5 27.5 27.5 18.5 31.5 31.5 11.3 31.5 24.5 44.7 44.7 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max None Max None Max Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 57 (48%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd.

7.2-3
7-740
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd. WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 839 133 311 1022 225 Future Volume (veh/h) 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 839 133 311 1022 225 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 839 133 311 1022 225 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 197 1274 393 254 1438 444 295 1192 188 338 1324 588 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.19 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1576 1781 5106 1577 3456 4444 700 1781 3554 1579 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 170 826 120 227 882 125 239 642 330 311 1022 225 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1576 1781 1702 1577 1728 1702 1740 1781 1777 1579 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.3 17.4 7.4 15.0 18.0 7.4 8.2 20.4 20.6 20.6 30.4 12.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.3 17.4 7.4 15.0 18.0 7.4 8.2 20.4 20.6 20.6 30.4 12.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 197 1274 393 254 1438 444 295 913 467 338 1324 588 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.65 0.31 0.89 0.61 0.28 0.81 0.70 0.71 0.92 0.77 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 215 1274 393 275 1438 444 325 913 467 364 1324 588 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.5 40.3 36.6 50.6 37.4 33.6 53.9 39.6 39.7 47.7 33.2 27.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 26.9 2.6 2.0 23.5 1.6 1.3 13.2 4.5 8.8 27.1 4.4 1.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.3 7.3 3.0 8.1 7.4 2.9 4.0 8.8 9.6 11.4 13.3 4.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 79.4 42.9 38.6 74.1 39.0 34.9 67.1 44.1 48.4 74.9 37.6 29.4 LnGrp LOS E D D E D C E D D E D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1116 1234 1211 1558
Approach Delay, s/veh 48.0 45.1 49.8 43.8
Approach LOS DDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.6 34.4 14.7 49.2 17.8 38.3 27.3 36.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 27.5 11.3 44.7 14.5 31.5 24.5 31.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.0 19.4 10.2 32.4 13.3 20.0 22.6 22.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.4 0.1 5.8 0.1 4.5 0.2 3.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 46.5
HCM 6th LOS D

7.2-4
7-741
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 49 1186 224 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 395 62 Future Volume (vph) 49 1186 224 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 395 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 180 215 120 215 200 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 105 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 55 50 45
Link Distance (ft) 5274 1330 1673 1048
Travel Time (s) 71.9 16.5 22.8 15.9
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 8
Detector Phase 5 2 16638874
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 13.2 36.5 25.0 48.3 48.3 14.6 22.5 22.5 36.0 43.9 Total Split (%) 11.0% 30.4% 20.8% 40.3% 40.3% 12.2% 18.8% 18.8% 30.0% 36.6% Maximum Green (s) 8.7 32.0 20.5 43.8 43.8 10.1 18.0 18.0 31.5 39.4 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max None Max Max None Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 120
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd.

7.2-5
7-742
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 49 1186 224 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 395 62 Future Volume (veh/h) 49 1186 224 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 395 62 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 49 1186 224 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 395 62 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 63 1150 217 304 2053 637 124 533 238 468 541 85 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.15 0.15 0.26 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4313 815 1781 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 1578 248 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 936 474 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 0 457 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1724 1781 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 0 1826 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 32.0 32.0 20.5 26.6 13.5 6.6 4.6 16.3 31.5 0.0 26.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 32.0 32.0 20.5 26.6 13.5 6.6 4.6 16.3 31.5 0.0 26.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.47 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 63 908 460 304 2053 637 124 533 238 468 0 626 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 1.03 1.03 1.07 0.63 0.35 0.81 0.29 0.92 1.10 0.00 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 129 908 460 304 2053 637 150 533 238 468 0 626 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.4 44.0 44.0 53.1 35.9 31.1 55.0 45.3 50.3 44.3 0.0 34.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.6 30.6 39.4 71.8 1.5 1.5 22.8 1.4 40.2 72.1 0.0 7.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 16.6 18.0 15.3 11.5 5.5 3.7 2.1 8.9 22.7 0.0 12.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.0 74.6 83.4 124.9 37.4 32.6 77.9 46.7 90.5 116.3 0.0 41.9 LnGrp LOS E F F F D C E D F F A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1459 1835 472 972
Approach Delay, s/veh 77.2 52.4 73.5 81.3
Approach LOS E D E F
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.0 36.5 12.9 45.6 8.8 52.7 36.0 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.5 32.0 10.1 39.4 8.7 43.8 31.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.5 34.0 8.6 28.3 5.3 28.6 33.5 18.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 68.1
HCM 6th LOS E

7.2-6
7-743
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd. WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 49 1186 224 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 395 62 Future Volume (vph) 49 1186 224 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 395 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 180 215 120 215 200 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 105 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 55 50 45
Link Distance (ft) 5274 1330 1673 1048
Travel Time (s) 71.9 16.5 22.8 15.9
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 16738 74
Permitted Phases 6 8
Detector Phase 5 2 16738874
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 13.4 42.0 29.0 57.6 26.4 13.0 22.6 22.6 26.4 36.0 Total Split (%) 11.2% 35.0% 24.2% 48.0% 22.0% 10.8% 18.8% 18.8% 22.0% 30.0% Maximum Green (s) 8.9 37.5 24.5 53.1 21.9 8.5 18.1 18.1 21.9 31.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max None None Max Max None Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd.

7.2-7
7-744
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd. WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 49 1186 224 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 395 62 Future Volume (veh/h) 49 1186 224 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 395 62 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 49 1186 224 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 395 62 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 63 1396 264 346 2464 1029 124 587 262 576 414 65 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.39 0.97 0.97 0.07 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4313 815 1781 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 1578 248 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 936 474 326 1288 221 100 154 218 515 0 457 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1724 1781 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 0 1826 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 30.8 30.8 21.2 2.1 0.5 6.6 4.5 16.0 17.5 0.0 29.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 30.8 30.8 21.2 2.1 0.5 6.6 4.5 16.0 17.5 0.0 29.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.47 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 63 1102 558 346 2464 1029 124 587 262 576 0 479 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.52 0.21 0.81 0.26 0.83 0.89 0.00 0.95 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 132 1102 558 364 2464 1029 126 587 262 631 0 479 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.58 0.58 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.4 37.8 37.8 36.0 1.1 0.5 55.0 43.7 48.5 49.0 0.0 43.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.1 5.0 9.3 31.8 0.8 0.5 30.6 1.1 25.5 14.4 0.0 31.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 12.9 13.7 9.6 0.6 0.3 3.9 2.0 7.9 8.5 0.0 16.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.5 42.8 47.1 67.8 1.9 1.0 85.6 44.8 74.0 63.3 0.0 74.6 LnGrp LOS E D D E A A F D EEAE
Approach Vol, veh/h 1459 1835 472 972
Approach Delay, s/veh 45.1 13.5 66.9 68.6
Approach LOS D B E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.8 43.3 12.8 36.0 8.8 62.4 24.5 24.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.5 37.5 8.5 31.5 8.9 53.1 21.9 18.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 23.2 32.8 8.6 31.5 5.3 4.1 19.5 18.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.5 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.9
HCM 6th LOS D

7.2-8
7-745
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
3: Da Vall Dr. & Dinah Shore Dr.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 198 803 315 73 609 44 144 224 119 109 521 290 Future Volume (vph) 198 803 315 73 609 44 144 224 119 109 521 290 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 175 215 185 0 125 125 135 135
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 918 366 1131 331
Travel Time (s) 20.9 8.3 15.4 4.5
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Detector Phase 52216 38874
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 25.0 46.9 46.9 15.1 37.0 20.0 38.4 38.4 19.6 38.0 Total Split (%) 20.8% 39.1% 39.1% 12.6% 30.8% 16.7% 32.0% 32.0% 16.3% 31.7% Maximum Green (s) 20.5 42.4 42.4 10.6 32.5 15.5 33.9 33.9 15.1 33.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max None Max Max None Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 117 (98%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 75
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 3: Da Vall Dr. & Dinah Shore Dr.

7.2-9
7-746
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 3: Da Vall Dr. & Dinah Shore Dr.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 198 803 315 73 609 44 144 224 119 109 521 290 Future Volume (veh/h) 198 803 315 73 609 44 144 224 119 109 521 290 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 198 803 315 73 609 44 144 224 119 109 521 290 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 227 1500 669 93 1166 84 172 1065 475 135 615 342 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.42 0.42 0.05 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3361 243 1781 3554 1585 1781 2204 1223 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 198 803 315 73 322 331 144 224 119 109 420 391 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1827 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1650 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.1 20.2 17.2 4.9 17.3 17.4 9.5 5.7 6.8 7.2 26.8 26.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.1 20.2 17.2 4.9 17.3 17.4 9.5 5.7 6.8 7.2 26.8 26.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 227 1500 669 93 616 634 172 1065 475 135 496 461 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.54 0.47 0.78 0.52 0.52 0.84 0.21 0.25 0.81 0.85 0.85 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 304 1500 669 157 616 634 230 1065 475 224 496 461 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.4 25.9 25.0 56.2 31.2 31.3 53.3 31.4 31.8 54.6 40.8 40.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.3 1.4 2.4 13.1 3.1 3.1 18.1 0.4 1.3 10.8 16.2 17.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.0 8.8 6.5 2.5 8.0 8.2 5.0 2.4 2.7 3.5 13.3 12.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 69.7 27.3 27.4 69.3 34.4 34.3 71.5 31.9 33.1 65.4 57.0 58.4 LnGrp LOS E C C E C C E C C E E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1316 726 487 920
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.7 37.9 43.9 58.6
Approach LOS C D D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.8 55.2 16.1 38.0 19.8 46.1 13.6 40.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.6 42.4 15.5 33.5 20.5 32.5 15.1 33.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.9 22.2 11.5 28.9 15.1 19.4 9.2 8.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.9 0.1 1.9 0.2 3.3 0.1 1.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.6
HCM 6th LOS D

7.2-10
7-747
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
4: Rattler Rd. & School Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 18 297 336 262 302 55
Future Volume (vph) 18 297 336 262 302 55
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 40
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 445 524 1443
Travel Time (s) 12.1 14.3 39.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.2-11
7-748
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
4: Rattler Rd. & School Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 30.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 297 336 262 302 55
Future Vol, veh/h 18 297 336 262 302 55
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 62 62 62 62 62 62
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 29 479 542 423 487 89

Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 2039 532 576 0 - 0
Stage 1 532 -----
Stage 2 1507 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 62 547 997 - - -
Stage 1 589 -----
Stage 2 202 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 28 547 997 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 118 -----
Stage 1 269 -----
Stage 2 202 -----

Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 109.3 7.2 0

HCM LOS F

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 997 - 453 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.544 - 1.122 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 12.8 - 109.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - F - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 3.4 - 17.7 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon

7.2-12
7-749
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 298 1711 1215 331 292 380
Future Volume (vph) 298 1711 1215 331 292 380
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 300 205 200 200
Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 110 60
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 40
Link Distance (ft) 647 2660 288
Travel Time (s) 8.0 33.0 4.9
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Shared Lane Traffic (%) 44%
Turn Type Prot NA NA pm+ov Prot Perm
Protected Phases 52644
Permitted Phases 6 4
Detector Phase 526444
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 13.0 37.5 24.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (%) 21.7% 62.5% 40.8% 37.5% 37.5% 37.5%
Maximum Green (s) 8.5 33.0 20.0 18.0 18.0 18.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 55555
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.

7.2-13
7-750
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 298 1711 1215 331 292 380
Future Volume (veh/h) 298 1711 1215 331 292 380
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 298 1711 1215 331 224 453
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 409 2808 1821 1041 534 951
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.55 0.12 0.12 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5274 5274 1585 1781 3170
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 298 1711 1215 331 224 453
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1702 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.0 13.6 13.7 6.3 6.0 7.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.0 13.6 13.7 6.3 6.0 7.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 409 2808 1821 1041 534 951
V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.61 0.67 0.32 0.42 0.48
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 490 2808 1821 1041 534 951
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.5 9.1 23.1 6.3 16.8 17.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.4 1.0 1.6 0.7 2.4 1.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 3.2 5.8 4.5 2.5 6.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.9 10.1 24.7 7.0 19.2 18.9
LnGrp LOS C B C A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 2009 1546 677
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.1 20.9 19.0
Approach LOS B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.5 22.5 11.6 25.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.0 18.0 8.5 20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.6 9.0 7.0 15.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 10.3 1.8 0.2 3.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

7.2-14
7-751
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
6: Los Alamos Rd. & Ramon Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 1885 107 114 1465 89 115
Future Volume (vph) 1 1885 107 114 1465 89 115
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 200 200 255 125 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50
Link Distance (ft) 2660 3172 1424
Travel Time (s) 33.0 39.3 19.4
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8
Permitted Phases 2 8
Detector Phase 5221688
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 9.5 28.0 28.0 9.5 28.0 22.5 22.5
Total Split (%) 15.8% 46.7% 46.7% 15.8% 46.7% 37.5% 37.5% Maximum Green (s) 5.0 23.5 23.5 5.0 23.5 18.0 18.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max Max Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 6: Los Alamos Rd. & Ramon Rd.

7.2-15
7-752
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 6: Los Alamos Rd. & Ramon Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 1885 107 114 1465 89 115
Future Volume (veh/h) 1 1885 107 114 1465 89 115
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1885 107 114 1465 89 115
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 2008 623 146 2808 1037 476
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.55 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 3456 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1885 107 114 1465 89 115
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 1585 1781 1702 1728 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 21.9 3.6 3.8 10.9 1.1 3.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 21.9 3.6 3.8 10.9 1.1 3.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2008 623 146 2808 1037 476
V/C Ratio(X) 0.94 0.17 0.78 0.52 0.09 0.24
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2008 623 148 2808 1037 476
HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.80 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.4 17.4 27.0 8.5 15.1 15.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.4 0.5 23.0 0.7 0.2 1.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.0 1.1 2.3 2.6 0.4 1.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.8 17.9 50.0 9.2 15.3 17.1
LnGrp LOS C B D A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1992 1579 204
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.0 12.2 16.3
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.4 28.1 37.5 22.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 23.5 23.5 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.8 23.9 12.9 5.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

7.2-16
7-753
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
7: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 NB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 910 1 380 718 560 0 0 320 270 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 910 1 380 718 560 0 0 320 270 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 430 210 0 0 205
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 581 1228 688 840
Travel Time (s) 11.3 23.9 10.4 12.7
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 50%
Turn Type Split NA Free Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 8 5 2 6
Permitted Phases Free 6
Detector Phase 8 8 5 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 22.5 22.5 15.0 37.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (%) 37.5% 37.5% 25.0% 62.5% 37.5% 37.5%
Maximum Green (s) 18.0 18.0 10.5 33.0 18.0 18.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 55
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 75
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 7: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 NB Ramps

7.2-17
7-754
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 7: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 NB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 910 1 380 718 560 0 0 320 270 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 910 1 380 718 560 0 0 320 270 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 911 0 0 718 560 0 0 320 270
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222220022
Cap, veh/h 1025 0 605 1998 0 0 1595 495
Arrive On Green 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1585 3456 3647 0 0 5274 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 911 0 0 718 560 0 0 320 270
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1728 1777 0 0 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.7 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.8 8.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.7 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.8 8.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1025 0 605 1998 0 0 1595 495
V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.00 1.19 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.55
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1069 0 605 1998 0 0 1595 495
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.5 0.0 0.0 21.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 15.1 17.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.1 0.0 0.0 97.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 4.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.7 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 3.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.6 0.0 0.0 118.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 15.4 21.4 LnGrp LOS C A F AAABC
Approach Vol, veh/h 911 1278 590
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.6 67.3 18.1
Approach LOS C E B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 38.2 15.0 23.2 21.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.0 10.5 18.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.8 12.5 10.5 16.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.6 0.0 1.7 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

7.2-18
7-755
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
8: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 SB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 415 1 1278 0000 8 6 3 1 0 0 1 3 0 1100 0 Future Volume (vph) 415 1 1278 0000 8 6 3 1 0 0 1 3 0 1100 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 490 135 0 0 0 195 225 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 200 90 90 110
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1337 718 776 688
Travel Time (s) 26.0 14.0 11.8 10.4
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 10% 49% 10%
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2
Detector Phase 4 4 4 2216
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 27.0 27.0 27.0 23.5 23.5 9.5 33.0
Total Split (%) 45.0% 45.0% 45.0% 39.2% 39.2% 15.8% 55.0% Maximum Green (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 19.0 19.0 5.0 28.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 75
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 8: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 SB Ramps

7.2-19
7-756
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 8: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 SB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 415 1 1278 0000 8 6 3 1 0 0 1 3 0 1100 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 415 1 1278 0000 8 6 3 1 0 0 1 3 0 1100 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 277 0 1427 0 863 100 130 1100 0
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 022220
Cap, veh/h 668 0 1189 0 1830 517 255 1688 0
Arrive On Green 0.38 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.15 0.95 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 3170 0 5611 1585 3456 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 277 0 1427 0 863 100 130 1100 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 0 1870 1585 1728 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.9 0.0 22.5 0.0 7.3 2.7 2.1 2.4 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.9 0.0 22.5 0.0 7.3 2.7 2.1 2.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 668 0 1189 0 1830 517 255 1688 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.47 0.19 0.51 0.65 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 668 0 1189 0 1830 517 288 1688 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.9 0.0 18.8 0.0 16.1 14.5 24.6 0.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 98.5 0.0 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 0.0 23.2 0.0 2.8 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.3 0.0 117.2 0.0 17.0 15.4 25.7 2.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A F A B B C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1704 963 1230
Approach Delay, s/veh 100.5 16.8 4.8
Approach LOS F B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 24.1 27.0 33.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 19.0 22.5 28.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 9.3 24.5 4.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.0 0.0 7.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.6
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

7.2-20
7-757
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
9: Bob Hope Dr. & Ramon Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 360 1040 438 150 515 40 252 563 250 210 1375 793 Future Volume (vph) 360 1040 438 150 515 40 252 563 250 210 1375 793 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 280 470 240 180 205 280 215 225
Storage Lanes 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 120 120 120
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 676 1191 1119 476
Travel Time (s) 8.4 14.8 17.0 7.2
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 523167
Permitted Phases Free 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 388523167
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 Total Split (s) 36.0 49.0 12.4 25.4 25.4 16.0 41.4 12.4 17.2 42.6 36.0 Total Split (%) 30.0% 40.8% 10.3% 21.2% 21.2% 13.3% 34.5% 10.3% 14.3% 35.5% 30.0% Maximum Green (s) 31.5 44.5 7.9 20.9 20.9 11.5 36.9 7.9 12.7 38.1 31.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None None C-Max None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 40.1 (33%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 9: Bob Hope Dr. & Ramon Rd.

7.2-21
7-758
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 9: Bob Hope Dr. & Ramon Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 360 1040 438 150 515 40 252 563 250 210 1375 793 Future Volume (veh/h) 360 1040 438 150 515 40 252 563 250 210 1375 793 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 360 1040 0 150 515 40 252 563 250 210 1375 793 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 439 1170 205 929 414 307 1958 702 270 1902 792 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.33 0.00 0.06 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.38 0.38 0.08 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 360 1040 0 150 515 40 252 563 250 210 1375 793 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.2 33.3 0.0 5.1 15.0 2.3 8.6 9.2 12.5 7.2 27.7 44.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.2 33.3 0.0 5.1 15.0 2.3 8.6 9.2 12.5 7.2 27.7 44.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 439 1170 205 929 414 307 1958 702 270 1902 792 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.89 0.73 0.55 0.10 0.82 0.29 0.36 0.78 0.72 1.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 907 1318 228 929 414 331 1958 702 366 1902 792 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.0 38.2 0.0 55.5 38.3 33.6 53.7 25.6 22.1 54.3 32.3 30.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.8 7.2 0.0 10.4 0.7 0.1 14.2 0.4 1.4 7.3 2.4 32.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.3 14.6 0.0 2.4 6.3 0.9 4.2 3.6 4.6 3.3 11.3 27.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.9 45.3 0.0 65.9 39.0 33.7 67.9 26.0 23.5 61.6 34.8 62.3 LnGrp LOS D D E D C E C C E C F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1400 705 1065 2378
Approach Delay, s/veh 47.8 44.4 35.3 46.3
Approach LOS DDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.9 50.5 11.6 44.0 15.2 49.2 19.8 35.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.7 36.9 7.9 44.5 11.5 38.1 31.5 20.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.2 14.5 7.1 35.3 10.6 46.7 14.2 17.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 4.4 0.0 4.2 0.1 0.0 1.1 1.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

7.2-22
7-759
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
10: Rattler Rd. & Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 2 34 21 596 597 2
Future Volume (vph) 2 34 21 596 597 2
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 40
Link Speed (mph) 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 281 470 524
Travel Time (s) 6.4 8.0 8.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.2-23
7-760
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
10: Rattler Rd. & Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 34 21 596 597 2
Future Vol, veh/h 2 34 21 596 597 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 2 37 23 648 649 2

Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1344 650 651 0 - 0
Stage 1 650 -----
Stage 2 694 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 167 469 935 - - -
Stage 1 520 -----
Stage 2 496 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 163 469 935 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 303 -----
Stage 1 507 -----
Stage 2 496 -----

Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.7 0.3 0

HCM LOS B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 935 - 455 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 - 0.086 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - 13.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.3 - -

7.2-24
7-761
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
11: Rattler Rd. & Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 4 44 16 613 628 3
Future Volume (vph) 4 44 16 613 628 3
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 25 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 10
Link Speed (mph) 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 281 82 470
Travel Time (s) 6.4 1.4 8.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.2-25
7-762
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
11: Rattler Rd. & Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 44 16 613 628 3
Future Vol, veh/h 4 44 16 613 628 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 25 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 4 48 17 666 683 3

Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1385 685 686 0 - 0
Stage 1 685 -----
Stage 2 700 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 158 448 908 - - -
Stage 1 500 -----
Stage 2 493 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 155 448 908 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 295 -----
Stage 1 491 -----
Stage 2 493 -----

Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14.6 0.2 0

HCM LOS B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 908 - 429 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 - 0.122 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9 - 14.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.4 - -

7.2-26
7-763
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
12: Ramon Rd. & Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 2009 1562 33 0 29
Future Volume (vph) 0 2009 1562 33 0 29
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 30
Link Distance (ft) 650 647 292
Travel Time (s) 8.1 8.0 6.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.2-27
7-764
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
12: Ramon Rd. & Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 2009 1562 33 0 29
Future Vol, veh/h 0 2009 1562 33 0 29
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - ---- 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 2184 1698 36 0 32

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 - 0 - 867
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Critical Hdwy - ---- 7.14
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -----
Follow-up Hdwy - ---- 3.92
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - - 0 254
Stage 1 0 - - - 0 -
Stage 2 0 - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - ---- 2 5 4
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -----
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----

Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 21.2

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 254
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.124
HCM Control Delay (s) - - - 21.2
HCM Lane LOS - - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0.4

7.2-28
7-765
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
13: Ramon Rd. & Access 4
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 26 2009 1588 3 0 18
Future Volume (vph) 26 2009 1588 3 0 18
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 150 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 60 90
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 30
Link Distance (ft) 1330 650 268
Travel Time (s) 16.5 8.1 6.1
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.2-29
7-766
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
13: Ramon Rd. & Access 4
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 26 2009 1588 3 0 18
Future Vol, veh/h 26 2009 1588 3 0 18
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 150 ---- 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 28 2184 1726 3 0 20

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1729 0 - 0 - 865
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Critical Hdwy 5.34 ---- 7.14
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 ---- 3.92
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 171 - - - 0 255
Stage 1 - - - - 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 171 ---- 2 5 5
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -----
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----

Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0 20.3

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 171 - - - 255
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.165 - - - 0.077
HCM Control Delay (s) 30.2 - - - 20.3
HCM Lane LOS D - - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - - - 0.2

7.2-30
7-767
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
14: Rattler Rd. & School Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 109 149 0 280 208 0
Future Volume (vph) 109 149 0 280 208 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 354 1443 236
Travel Time (s) 9.7 39.4 6.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.2-31
7-768
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
14: Rattler Rd. & School Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 109 149 0 280 208 0
Future Vol, veh/h 109 149 0 280 208 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 60 60 60 60 60 60
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 182 248 0 467 347 0

Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 814 347 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 347 -----
Stage 2 467 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 ----
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 ----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 347 696 0 - - 0
Stage 1 716 - 0 - - 0
Stage 2 631 - 0 - - 0
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 347 696 ----
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 463 -----
Stage 1 716 -----
Stage 2 631 -----

Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 15 0 0

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - 463 696 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.392 0.357 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - 17.7 13 -
HCM Lane LOS - C B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 1.8 1.6 -

7.2-32
7-769
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
15: Rattler Rd. & School Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 33 70 176 213 138 351
Future Volume (vph) 33 70 176 213 138 351
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 334 236 360
Travel Time (s) 9.1 6.4 9.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.2-33
7-770
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour
15: Rattler Rd. & School Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 19.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 33 70 176 213 138 351
Future Vol, veh/h 33 70 176 213 138 351
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 50 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 55 55 55 55 55 55
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 60 127 320 387 251 638

Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1597 570 889 0 - 0
Stage 1 570 -----
Stage 2 1027 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 117 521 762 - - -
Stage 1 566 -----
Stage 2 345 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 68 521 762 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 68 -----
Stage 1 328 -----
Stage 2 345 -----

Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 164.3 5.9 0

HCM LOS F

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 762 - 166 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.42 - 1.128 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 13.1 - 164.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - F - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.1 - 9.8 - -

7.2-34
7-771
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
4: Rattler Rd. & School Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 133 95 310 387 20
Future Volume (vph) 10 133 95 310 387 20
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 40
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 445 524 1443
Travel Time (s) 12.1 14.3 39.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.2-35
7-772
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
4: Rattler Rd. & School Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 133 95 310 387 20
Future Vol, veh/h 10 133 95 310 387 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 50 50 50 50 50 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 20 266 190 620 774 40

Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1794 794 814 0 - 0
Stage 1 794 -----
Stage 2 1000 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 89 388 813 - - -
Stage 1 445 -----
Stage 2 356 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 68 388 813 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 190 -----
Stage 1 341 -----
Stage 2 356 -----

Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 43.6 2.5 0

HCM LOS E

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 813 - 362 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.234 - 0.79 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.8 - 43.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - E - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 - 6.6 - -

7.2-36
7-773
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 246 1590 1840 243 338 311
Future Volume (vph) 246 1590 1840 243 338 311
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 300 205 200 200
Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 110 60
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 40
Link Distance (ft) 647 2660 288
Travel Time (s) 8.0 33.0 4.9
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Shared Lane Traffic (%) 34%
Turn Type Prot NA NA pm+ov Prot Perm
Protected Phases 52644
Permitted Phases 6 4
Detector Phase 526444
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 9.8 37.5 27.7 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (%) 16.3% 62.5% 46.2% 37.5% 37.5% 37.5%
Maximum Green (s) 5.3 33.0 23.2 18.0 18.0 18.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 55555
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.

7.2-37
7-774
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 246 1590 1840 243 338 311
Future Volume (veh/h) 246 1590 1840 243 338 311
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 246 1590 1840 243 426 216
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 305 2808 1974 1088 1069 476
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.73 0.13 0.13 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5274 5274 1585 3563 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 246 1590 1840 243 426 216
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1702 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.2 8.6 21.4 4.3 5.7 6.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.2 8.6 21.4 4.3 5.7 6.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 305 2808 1974 1088 1069 476
V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.57 0.93 0.22 0.40 0.45
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 305 2808 1974 1088 1069 476
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.33 1.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.0 4.8 25.4 5.2 16.7 17.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.6 0.8 9.5 0.5 1.1 3.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 1.6 10.9 2.9 2.2 6.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.6 5.6 34.9 5.6 17.8 20.1
LnGrp LOS D A C A B C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1836 2083 642
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.3 31.5 18.6
Approach LOS B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.5 22.5 9.8 27.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.0 18.0 5.3 23.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.6 8.6 6.2 23.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 11.0 1.7 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

7.2-38
7-775
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
10: Rattler Rd. & Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 4 58 54 401 517 4
Future Volume (vph) 4 58 54 401 517 4
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 40
Link Speed (mph) 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 281 470 524
Travel Time (s) 6.4 8.0 8.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.2-39
7-776
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
10: Rattler Rd. & Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 58 54 401 517 4
Future Vol, veh/h 4 58 54 401 517 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 4 63 59 436 562 4

Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1118 564 566 0 - 0
Stage 1 564 -----
Stage 2 554 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 229 525 1006 - - -
Stage 1 569 -----
Stage 2 575 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 215 525 1006 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 351 -----
Stage 1 535 -----
Stage 2 575 -----

Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.1 1 0

HCM LOS B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1006 - 509 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.058 - 0.132 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.8 - 13.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.5 - -

7.2-40
7-777
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
11: Rattler Rd. & Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 6 82 40 449 567 7
Future Volume (vph) 6 82 40 449 567 7
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 25 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 10
Link Speed (mph) 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 281 82 470
Travel Time (s) 6.4 1.4 8.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.2-41
7-778
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
11: Rattler Rd. & Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 82 40 449 567 7
Future Vol, veh/h 6 82 40 449 567 7
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 25 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 7 89 43 488 616 8

Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1194 620 624 0 - 0
Stage 1 620 -----
Stage 2 574 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 206 488 957 - - -
Stage 1 536 -----
Stage 2 563 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 197 488 957 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 334 -----
Stage 1 512 -----
Stage 2 563 -----

Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14.5 0.7 0

HCM LOS B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 957 - 473 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.045 - 0.202 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - 14.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.7 - -

7.2-42
7-779
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
14: Rattler Rd. & School Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 94 113 0 321 294 0
Future Volume (vph) 94 113 0 321 294 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 354 1443 236
Travel Time (s) 9.7 39.4 6.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.2-43
7-780
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
14: Rattler Rd. & School Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 94 113 0 321 294 0
Future Vol, veh/h 94 113 0 321 294 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 50 50 50 50 50 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 188 226 0 642 588 0

Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1230 588 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 588 -----
Stage 2 642 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 ----
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 ----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 196 509 0 - - 0
Stage 1 555 - 0 - - 0
Stage 2 524 - 0 - - 0
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 196 509 ----
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 335 -----
Stage 1 555 -----
Stage 2 524 -----

Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 22.6 0 0

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - 335 509 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.561 0.444 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - 28.6 17.6 -
HCM Lane LOS - D C -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 3.3 2.3 -

7.2-44
7-781
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
15: Rattler Rd. & School Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 63 56 129 285 238 145
Future Volume (vph) 63 56 129 285 238 145
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 334 236 360
Travel Time (s) 9.1 6.4 9.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.2-45
7-782
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project MD Peak Hour
15: Rattler Rd. & School Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 73.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 63 56 129 285 238 145
Future Vol, veh/h 63 56 129 285 238 145
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 50 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 50 50 50 50 50 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 126 112 258 570 476 290

Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1707 621 766 0 - 0
Stage 1 621 -----
Stage 2 1086 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 100 487 847 - - -
Stage 1 536 -----
Stage 2 324 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 70 487 847 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 70 -----
Stage 1 373 -----
Stage 2 324 -----

Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s$ 555.4 3.5 0

HCM LOS F

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 847 - 117 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.305 - 2.034 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.1 -$ 555.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - F - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.3 - 19.7 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon

7.2-46
7-783
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 942 153 294 761 196 Future Volume (vph) 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 942 153 294 761 196 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 345 0 225 0 215 85 180 120
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1038 5274 701 1076
Travel Time (s) 14.2 71.9 10.6 16.3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 84
Detector Phase 5 2 1 6 388744
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 20.8 35.9 23.4 38.5 18.8 36.0 36.0 24.7 41.9 41.9 Total Split (%) 17.3% 29.9% 19.5% 32.1% 15.7% 30.0% 30.0% 20.6% 34.9% 34.9% Maximum Green (s) 16.3 31.4 18.9 34.0 14.3 31.5 31.5 20.2 37.4 37.4 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max None Max Max None Max Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 57 (48%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 110
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd.

7.2-47
7-784
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 942 153 294 761 196 Future Volume (veh/h) 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 942 153 294 761 196 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 942 153 294 761 196 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 242 1065 266 281 1251 205 371 933 414 300 1149 510 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.26 0.26 0.16 0.28 0.28 0.11 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4069 1016 1781 4414 725 3456 3554 1576 1781 3554 1578 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 233 822 407 262 981 500 314 942 153 294 761 196 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1681 1781 1702 1735 1728 1777 1576 1781 1777 1578 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.6 28.2 28.3 17.4 34.0 34.0 10.7 31.5 9.5 19.7 22.1 11.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.6 28.2 28.3 17.4 34.0 34.0 10.7 31.5 9.5 19.7 22.1 11.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.60 1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 242 891 440 281 964 492 371 933 414 300 1149 510 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.92 0.93 0.93 1.02 1.02 0.85 1.01 0.37 0.98 0.66 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 242 891 440 281 964 492 412 933 414 300 1149 510 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.69 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.5 43.1 43.2 49.9 43.0 43.0 52.6 44.3 36.1 49.7 34.9 31.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 47.4 16.4 27.8 28.6 28.4 38.1 13.9 31.9 2.5 46.5 3.0 2.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.9 13.3 14.6 9.7 17.3 19.0 5.2 17.4 3.9 12.4 9.7 4.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 98.9 59.5 70.9 78.5 71.4 81.1 66.5 76.2 38.7 96.2 38.0 33.5 LnGrp LOS F E E E F F E F D F D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1462 1743 1409 1251
Approach Delay, s/veh 69.0 75.3 69.9 50.9
Approach LOS E E E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.4 35.9 17.4 43.3 20.8 38.5 24.7 36.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.9 31.4 14.3 37.4 16.3 34.0 20.2 31.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.4 30.3 12.7 24.1 17.6 36.0 21.7 33.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.2 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 67.2
HCM 6th LOS E

7.2-48
7-785
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd. WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 942 153 294 761 196 Future Volume (vph) 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 942 153 294 761 196 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 345 150 225 150 215 85 180 120
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 50 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1038 5274 701 1076
Travel Time (s) 14.2 71.9 10.6 16.3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 6 4
Detector Phase 52216638 744
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 20.8 35.9 35.9 23.4 38.5 38.5 18.8 36.0 24.7 41.9 41.9 Total Split (%) 17.3% 29.9% 29.9% 19.5% 32.1% 32.1% 15.7% 30.0% 20.6% 34.9% 34.9% Maximum Green (s) 16.3 31.4 31.4 18.9 34.0 34.0 14.3 31.5 20.2 37.4 37.4 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max None Max None Max Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 57 (48%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd.

7.2-49
7-786
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 1: Date Palm Dr. & Ramon Rd. WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 942 153 294 761 196 Future Volume (veh/h) 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 942 153 294 761 196 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 942 153 294 761 196 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 242 1336 412 281 1447 447 371 1161 188 300 1149 510 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.26 0.26 0.16 0.28 0.28 0.11 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1576 1781 5106 1577 3456 4424 716 1781 3554 1578 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 233 983 246 262 1272 209 314 724 371 294 761 196 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1576 1781 1702 1577 1728 1702 1737 1781 1777 1578 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.6 21.1 16.4 17.4 28.5 13.1 10.7 23.9 24.0 19.7 22.1 11.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.6 21.1 16.4 17.4 28.5 13.1 10.7 23.9 24.0 19.7 22.1 11.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.41 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 242 1336 412 281 1447 447 371 894 456 300 1149 510 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.74 0.60 0.93 0.88 0.47 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.98 0.66 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 242 1336 412 281 1447 447 412 894 456 300 1149 510 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 0.63 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.5 40.5 38.8 49.9 41.0 35.5 52.6 41.5 41.5 49.7 34.9 31.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 47.4 3.6 6.2 26.9 5.2 2.2 13.9 7.9 14.7 46.5 3.0 2.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.9 8.9 6.9 9.6 12.1 5.2 5.2 10.6 11.8 12.4 9.7 4.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 98.9 44.1 45.0 76.8 46.2 37.7 66.5 49.3 56.2 96.2 38.0 33.5 LnGrp LOS F D D E D D E D E F D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1462 1743 1409 1251
Approach Delay, s/veh 53.0 49.8 55.0 50.9
Approach LOS DDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.4 35.9 17.4 43.3 20.8 38.5 24.7 36.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.9 31.4 14.3 37.4 16.3 34.0 20.2 31.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.4 23.1 12.7 24.1 17.6 30.5 21.7 26.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.3 0.2 4.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 3.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.1
HCM 6th LOS D

7.2-50
7-787
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 124 1073 165 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 281 44 Future Volume (vph) 124 1073 165 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 281 44 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 180 215 120 215 200 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 105 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 55 50 45
Link Distance (ft) 5274 1330 1673 1048
Travel Time (s) 71.9 16.5 22.8 15.9
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 8
Detector Phase 5 2 16638874
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 15.0 42.6 21.4 49.0 49.0 25.0 27.0 27.0 29.0 31.0 Total Split (%) 12.5% 35.5% 17.8% 40.8% 40.8% 20.8% 22.5% 22.5% 24.2% 25.8% Maximum Green (s) 10.5 38.1 16.9 44.5 44.5 20.5 22.5 22.5 24.5 26.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max None Max Max None Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd.

7.2-51
7-788
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 124 1073 165 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 281 44 Future Volume (veh/h) 124 1073 165 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 281 44 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 124 1073 165 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 281 44 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 149 1517 233 224 1947 604 289 666 297 352 351 55 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.34 0.34 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4465 686 1781 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 1579 247 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 124 818 420 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 0 325 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1747 1781 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 0 1826 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.2 25.1 25.1 13.0 25.8 45.8 17.4 19.9 10.9 21.6 0.0 20.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.2 25.1 25.1 13.0 25.8 45.8 17.4 19.9 10.9 21.6 0.0 20.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 149 1156 593 224 1947 604 289 666 297 352 0 406 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.71 0.71 0.87 0.60 1.30 0.91 0.90 0.54 0.93 0.00 0.80 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 156 1156 593 251 1947 604 304 666 297 364 0 406 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.35 0.35 0.35 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.1 34.4 34.5 56.5 43.7 52.5 49.4 47.7 44.1 47.3 0.0 44.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.1 1.3 2.5 24.2 1.4 147.1 28.7 18.1 6.8 29.0 0.0 15.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 10.0 10.5 7.6 11.9 44.0 9.8 10.1 4.7 12.1 0.0 10.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.2 35.7 37.0 80.7 45.1 199.6 78.1 65.8 50.9 76.3 0.0 59.3 LnGrp LOS E D D F D F E E D E A E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1362 2142 1026 651
Approach Delay, s/veh 38.9 105.0 66.6 67.9
Approach LOS D F E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.6 45.3 24.0 31.2 14.6 50.3 28.2 27.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.9 38.1 20.5 26.5 10.5 44.5 24.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.0 27.1 19.4 22.2 10.2 47.8 23.6 21.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.4 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 75.4
HCM 6th LOS E

7.2-52
7-789
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd. WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 124 1073 165 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 281 44 Future Volume (vph) 124 1073 165 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 281 44 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 180 215 120 215 200 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 105 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 50 55 50 45
Link Distance (ft) 5274 1330 1673 1048
Travel Time (s) 71.9 16.5 22.8 15.9
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 16738 74
Permitted Phases 6 8
Detector Phase 5 2 16738874
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 16.2 40.0 20.0 43.8 33.0 27.4 27.0 27.0 33.0 32.6 Total Split (%) 13.5% 33.3% 16.7% 36.5% 27.5% 22.8% 22.5% 22.5% 27.5% 27.2% Maximum Green (s) 11.7 35.5 15.5 39.3 28.5 22.9 22.5 22.5 28.5 28.1 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max None None Max Max None Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd.

7.2-53
7-790
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 2: Da Vall Dr. & Ramon Rd. WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 124 1073 165 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 281 44 Future Volume (veh/h) 124 1073 165 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 281 44 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 124 1073 165 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 281 44 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 150 1461 224 223 1880 768 291 999 446 403 370 58 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.28 0.28 0.12 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4465 686 1781 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 1579 247 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 124 818 420 194 1162 786 263 603 160 326 0 325 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1747 1781 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 0 1826 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.2 25.5 25.6 13.0 25.9 44.2 17.4 17.6 9.7 11.0 0.0 19.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.2 25.5 25.6 13.0 25.9 44.2 17.4 17.6 9.7 11.0 0.0 19.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 150 1114 572 223 1880 768 291 999 446 403 0 428 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.73 0.74 0.87 0.62 1.02 0.90 0.60 0.36 0.81 0.00 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 174 1114 572 230 1880 768 340 999 446 821 0 428 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.1 35.7 35.8 56.6 44.7 40.3 49.2 37.3 34.5 51.7 0.0 42.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.5 2.2 4.2 27.9 1.5 38.4 23.9 2.7 2.2 3.9 0.0 12.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 10.4 11.0 7.8 12.0 28.9 9.4 7.7 3.9 4.9 0.0 10.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.6 37.9 40.0 84.4 46.2 78.7 73.1 40.0 36.7 55.6 0.0 54.8 LnGrp LOS E D D F D F E D D E A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1362 2142 1026 651
Approach Delay, s/veh 41.3 61.6 48.0 55.2
Approach LOS D E D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.5 43.8 24.1 32.6 14.6 48.7 18.5 38.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.5 35.5 22.9 28.1 11.7 39.3 28.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.0 27.6 19.4 21.9 10.2 46.2 13.0 19.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.3 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.8
HCM 6th LOS D

7.2-54
7-791
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
3: Da Vall Dr. & Dinah Shore Dr.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 119 904 166 84 1203 185 289 576 74 93 345 184 Future Volume (vph) 119 904 166 84 1203 185 289 576 74 93 345 184 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 175 215 185 0 125 125 135 135
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 50 50
Link Distance (ft) 918 366 1131 331
Travel Time (s) 20.9 8.3 15.4 4.5
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Detector Phase 52216 38874
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 14.0 54.2 54.2 16.8 57.0 26.0 34.6 34.6 14.4 23.0 Total Split (%) 11.7% 45.2% 45.2% 14.0% 47.5% 21.7% 28.8% 28.8% 12.0% 19.2% Maximum Green (s) 9.5 49.7 49.7 12.3 52.5 21.5 30.1 30.1 9.9 18.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max None Max Max None Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 117 (98%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 3: Da Vall Dr. & Dinah Shore Dr.

7.2-55
7-792
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 3: Da Vall Dr. & Dinah Shore Dr.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 119 904 166 84 1203 185 289 576 74 93 345 184 Future Volume (veh/h) 119 904 166 84 1203 185 289 576 74 93 345 184 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 119 904 166 84 1203 185 289 576 74 93 345 184 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 141 1633 728 107 1360 208 314 943 421 116 348 182 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.46 0.46 0.06 0.44 0.44 0.18 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3089 473 1781 3554 1585 1781 2255 1180 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 119 904 166 84 689 699 289 576 74 93 270 259 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1785 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1658 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.9 22.1 7.6 5.6 42.6 43.2 19.1 17.1 4.3 6.2 18.2 18.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.9 22.1 7.6 5.6 42.6 43.2 19.1 17.1 4.3 6.2 18.2 18.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 141 1633 728 107 782 786 314 943 421 116 274 256 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.55 0.23 0.79 0.88 0.89 0.92 0.61 0.18 0.80 0.99 1.01 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 141 1633 728 183 782 786 319 943 421 147 274 256 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.5 23.5 19.6 55.7 30.7 30.9 48.6 38.7 34.0 55.3 50.6 50.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 34.8 1.4 0.7 12.1 13.6 14.2 30.3 2.9 0.9 21.2 51.3 59.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.9 9.5 2.8 2.9 20.7 21.2 10.8 7.5 1.7 3.4 11.7 11.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 89.3 24.9 20.3 67.7 44.3 45.1 78.9 41.6 34.9 76.5 101.9 110.0 LnGrp LOS F C C E D D E D C E F F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1189 1472 939 622
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.7 46.1 52.6 101.5
Approach LOS C D D F
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.7 59.6 25.7 23.0 14.0 57.3 12.3 36.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.3 49.7 21.5 18.5 9.5 52.5 9.9 30.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 24.1 21.1 20.5 9.9 45.2 8.2 19.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 2.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 51.3
HCM 6th LOS D

7.2-56
7-793
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
4: Rattler Rd. & School Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 24 123 34 185 240 20
Future Volume (vph) 24 123 34 185 240 20
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 40
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 445 524 1443
Travel Time (s) 12.1 14.3 39.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.2-57
7-794
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
4: Rattler Rd. & School Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 24 123 34 185 240 20
Future Vol, veh/h 24 123 34 185 240 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 50 50 50 50 50 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 48 246 68 370 480 40

Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1006 500 520 0 - 0
Stage 1 500 -----
Stage 2 506 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 267 571 1046 - - -
Stage 1 609 -----
Stage 2 606 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 250 571 1046 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 382 -----
Stage 1 569 -----
Stage 2 606 -----

Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 20 1.3 0

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1046 - 528 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.065 - 0.557 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 - 20 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 3.4 - -

7.2-58
7-795
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 117 1497 1610 186 286 206
Future Volume (vph) 117 1497 1610 186 286 206
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 300 205 200 200
Storage Lanes 2 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 110 60
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 40
Link Distance (ft) 647 2660 288
Travel Time (s) 8.0 33.0 4.9
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Shared Lane Traffic (%) 25%
Turn Type Prot NA NA pm+ov Prot Perm
Protected Phases 52644
Permitted Phases 6 4
Detector Phase 526444
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 9.5 37.5 28.0 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (%) 15.8% 62.5% 46.7% 37.5% 37.5% 37.5%
Maximum Green (s) 5.0 33.0 23.5 18.0 18.0 18.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max Max Max Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 55555
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.

7.2-59
7-796
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 117 1497 1610 186 286 206
Future Volume (veh/h) 117 1497 1610 186 286 206
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 117 1497 1610 186 325 164
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 247 2808 2060 1115 1069 476
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.55 0.13 0.13 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5274 5274 1585 3563 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 117 1497 1610 186 325 164
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1702 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 11.2 18.3 3.2 4.2 4.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 11.2 18.3 3.2 4.2 4.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 247 2808 2060 1115 1069 476
V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.53 0.78 0.17 0.30 0.34
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 288 2808 2060 1115 1069 476
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.76 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.8 8.6 23.4 4.5 16.2 16.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.7 2.3 0.2 0.7 2.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 2.7 8.3 2.0 1.6 4.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.2 9.3 25.8 4.8 16.9 18.4
LnGrp LOS C A C A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1614 1796 489
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.7 23.6 17.4
Approach LOS B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.5 22.5 8.8 28.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 33.0 18.0 5.0 23.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.2 6.8 4.0 20.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.6 1.3 0.0 2.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.5
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

7.2-60
7-797
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
6: Los Alamos Rd. & Ramon Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 1639 115 58 1691 119 115
Future Volume (vph) 1 1639 115 58 1691 119 115
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 200 200 255 125 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 50
Link Distance (ft) 2660 3172 1424
Travel Time (s) 33.0 39.3 19.4
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8
Permitted Phases 2 8
Detector Phase 5221688
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 9.5 28.0 28.0 9.5 28.0 22.5 22.5
Total Split (%) 15.8% 46.7% 46.7% 15.8% 46.7% 37.5% 37.5% Maximum Green (s) 5.0 23.5 23.5 5.0 23.5 18.0 18.0
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None C-Max C-Max None C-Max Max Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:EBT and 6:WBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 6: Los Alamos Rd. & Ramon Rd.

7.2-61
7-798
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 6: Los Alamos Rd. & Ramon Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBU EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 1639 115 58 1691 119 115
Future Volume (veh/h) 1 1639 115 58 1691 119 115
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1639 115 58 1691 119 115
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 2162 671 92 2808 1037 476
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.55 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 5274 1585 1781 5274 3456 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1639 115 58 1691 119 115
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 1585 1781 1702 1728 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 18.5 3.8 1.9 13.4 1.5 3.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.5 3.8 1.9 13.4 1.5 3.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2162 671 92 2808 1037 476
V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.17 0.63 0.60 0.11 0.24
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2162 671 148 2808 1037 476
HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.86 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.9 16.5 27.9 9.1 15.2 15.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.5 6.9 1.0 0.2 1.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.4 1.2 0.9 3.2 0.5 1.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.1 17.0 34.8 10.0 15.4 17.1
LnGrp LOS C B C B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1754 1749 234
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.5 10.9 16.2
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 29.9 37.5 22.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 23.5 23.5 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 20.5 15.4 5.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.4 5.8 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.6
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

7.2-62
7-799
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
7: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 NB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 1060 1 190 1058 450 0 0 455 430 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 1060 1 190 1058 450 0 0 455 430 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 430 210 0 0 205
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2
Taper Length (ft) 90 90 90 90
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 581 1228 688 840
Travel Time (s) 11.3 23.9 10.4 12.7
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 50%
Turn Type Split NA Free Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 8 8 5 2 6
Permitted Phases Free 6
Detector Phase 8 8 5 2 6 6
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 49.0 49.0 46.2 71.0 24.8 24.8
Total Split (%) 40.8% 40.8% 38.5% 59.2% 20.7% 20.7%
Maximum Green (s) 44.5 44.5 41.7 66.5 20.3 20.3
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max C-Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 55
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 7: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 NB Ramps

7.2-63
7-800
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 7: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 NB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 1060 1 190 1058 450 0 0 455 430 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 1060 1 190 1058 450 0 0 455 430 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1061 0 0 1058 450 0 0 455 430
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222220022
Cap, veh/h 1164 0 1115 2126 0 0 1217 378
Arrive On Green 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.54 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1585 3456 3647 0 0 5274 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1061 0 0 1058 450 0 0 455 430
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1728 1777 0 0 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 34.3 0.0 0.0 34.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 28.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 34.3 0.0 0.0 34.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 28.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1164 0 1115 2126 0 0 1217 378
V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.00 0.95 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.37 1.14
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1321 0 1201 2126 0 0 1217 378
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.7 0.0 0.0 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.2 45.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 89.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 16.1 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 20.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.8 0.0 0.0 36.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 39.1 135.3 LnGrp LOS D A D A A A D F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1061 1508 885
Approach Delay, s/veh 47.8 25.8 85.9
Approach LOS D C F
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 76.3 43.2 33.1 43.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 66.5 41.7 20.3 44.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 36.7 30.6 36.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.0 2.0 0.0 2.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.0
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

7.2-64
7-801
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
8: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 SB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 260 2 985 0000 1248 140 240 1275 0 Future Volume (vph) 260 2 985 0000 1248 140 240 1275 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 490 135 0 0 0 195 225 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 200 90 90 110
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 1337 718 776 688
Travel Time (s) 26.0 14.0 11.8 10.4
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared Lane Traffic (%) 10% 49% 10%
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 4 4 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4 2
Detector Phase 4 4 4 2216
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5
Total Split (s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 24.0 24.0 10.0 34.0
Total Split (%) 43.3% 43.3% 43.3% 40.0% 40.0% 16.7% 56.7% Maximum Green (s) 21.5 21.5 21.5 19.5 19.5 5.5 29.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max
Walk Time (s) 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 60
Actuated Cycle Length: 60
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 8: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 SB Ramps

7.2-65
7-802
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 8: Bob Hope Dr. & I-10 SB Ramps
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 260 2 985 0000 1248 140 240 1275 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 260 2 985 0000 1248 140 240 1275 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 174 0 1078 0 1248 140 240 1275 0
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 022220
Cap, veh/h 638 0 1136 0 1824 515 317 1747 0
Arrive On Green 0.36 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.12 0.65 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 3170 0 5611 1585 3456 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 174 0 1078 0 1248 140 240 1275 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 0 1870 1585 1728 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.2 0.0 19.8 0.0 11.6 3.9 4.0 14.2 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.2 0.0 19.8 0.0 11.6 3.9 4.0 14.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 638 0 1136 0 1824 515 317 1747 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.68 0.27 0.76 0.73 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 638 0 1136 0 1824 515 317 1747 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.66 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.7 0.0 18.7 0.0 17.6 15.0 25.7 7.7 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 16.0 0.0 2.1 1.3 6.8 1.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 0.0 8.7 0.0 4.5 1.4 1.7 3.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.9 0.0 34.7 0.0 19.7 16.3 32.5 9.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A C A B B C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1252 1388 1515
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.8 19.3 13.2
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 24.0 26.0 34.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.5 19.5 21.5 29.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 13.6 21.8 16.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.8 0.0 6.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.9
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

7.2-66
7-803
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
9: Bob Hope Dr. & Ramon Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 240 950 517 120 630 75 545 1073 490 135 1535 590 Future Volume (vph) 240 950 517 120 630 75 545 1073 490 135 1535 590 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 280 470 240 180 205 280 215 225
Storage Lanes 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 1
Taper Length (ft) 90 120 120 120
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 45 45
Link Distance (ft) 676 1191 1119 476
Travel Time (s) 8.4 14.8 17.0 7.2
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Turn Type Prot NA Free Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 523167
Permitted Phases Free 8 2 6
Detector Phase 7 4 388523167
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 22.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 9.5 22.5 9.5 Total Split (s) 20.0 38.0 12.4 30.4 30.4 25.0 55.7 12.4 13.9 44.6 20.0 Total Split (%) 16.7% 31.7% 10.3% 25.3% 25.3% 20.8% 46.4% 10.3% 11.6% 37.2% 16.7% Maximum Green (s) 15.5 33.5 7.9 25.9 25.9 20.5 51.2 7.9 9.4 40.1 15.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None None C-Max None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 40.1 (33%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Splits and Phases: 9: Bob Hope Dr. & Ramon Rd.

7.2-67
7-804
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 9: Bob Hope Dr. & Ramon Rd.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 240 950 517 120 630 75 545 1073 490 135 1535 590 Future Volume (veh/h) 240 950 517 120 630 75 545 1073 490 135 1535 590 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 240 950 0 120 630 75 545 1073 490 135 1535 590 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 303 992 174 860 383 590 2376 817 191 1786 693 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.28 0.00 0.05 0.24 0.24 0.17 0.47 0.47 0.06 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 240 950 0 120 630 75 545 1073 490 135 1535 590 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.2 31.6 0.0 4.1 19.6 4.5 18.6 17.1 26.0 4.6 33.5 40.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.2 31.6 0.0 4.1 19.6 4.5 18.6 17.1 26.0 4.6 33.5 40.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 303 992 174 860 383 590 2376 817 191 1786 693 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.96 0.69 0.73 0.20 0.92 0.45 0.60 0.71 0.86 0.85 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 446 992 228 860 383 590 2376 817 271 1786 693 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.7 42.6 0.0 56.1 41.9 36.2 49.0 21.7 20.4 55.7 36.3 30.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.9 19.1 0.0 5.7 3.3 0.2 20.3 0.6 3.2 4.8 5.7 12.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.6 15.6 0.0 1.9 8.5 1.7 9.4 6.6 9.3 2.1 14.2 16.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 59.6 61.7 0.0 61.8 45.2 36.4 69.3 22.3 23.6 60.5 41.9 42.8 LnGrp LOS E E E D D E C C E D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1190 825 2108 2260
Approach Delay, s/veh 61.2 46.8 34.8 43.3
Approach LOS E D C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.1 60.3 10.5 38.0 25.0 46.5 15.0 33.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.4 51.2 7.9 33.5 20.5 40.1 15.5 25.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.6 28.0 6.1 33.6 20.6 42.0 10.2 21.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

7.2-68
7-805
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
10: Rattler Rd. & Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 4 58 54 215 359 4
Future Volume (vph) 4 58 54 215 359 4
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 100 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 40
Link Speed (mph) 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 281 470 524
Travel Time (s) 6.4 8.0 8.9
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.2-69
7-806
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
10: Rattler Rd. & Access 1
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 58 54 215 359 4
Future Vol, veh/h 4 58 54 215 359 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 4 63 59 234 390 4

Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 744 392 394 0 - 0
Stage 1 392 -----
Stage 2 352 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 382 657 1165 - - -
Stage 1 683 -----
Stage 2 712 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 363 657 1165 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 475 -----
Stage 1 648 -----
Stage 2 712 -----

Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 11.3 1.7 0

HCM LOS B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1165 - 641 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.05 - 0.105 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 - 11.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.4 - -

7.2-70
7-807
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
11: Rattler Rd. & Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 6 82 40 263 410 7
Future Volume (vph) 6 82 40 263 410 7
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 25 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 10
Link Speed (mph) 30 40 40
Link Distance (ft) 281 82 470
Travel Time (s) 6.4 1.4 8.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.2-71
7-808
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
11: Rattler Rd. & Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 82 40 263 410 7
Future Vol, veh/h 6 82 40 263 410 7
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 25 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 7 89 43 286 446 8

Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 822 450 454 0 - 0
Stage 1 450 -----
Stage 2 372 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 344 609 1107 - - -
Stage 1 642 -----
Stage 2 697 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 331 609 1107 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 449 -----
Stage 1 617 -----
Stage 2 697 -----

Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.2 1.1 0

HCM LOS B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1107 - 595 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.039 - 0.161 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 - 12.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.6 - -

7.2-72
7-809
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
12: Ramon Rd. & Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1614 1730 86 0 57
Future Volume (vph) 0 1614 1730 86 0 57
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 30
Link Distance (ft) 650 647 292
Travel Time (s) 8.1 8.0 6.6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.2-73
7-810
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
12: Ramon Rd. & Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1614 1730 86 0 57
Future Vol, veh/h 0 1614 1730 86 0 57
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - ---- 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 1754 1880 93 0 62

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 - 0 - 987
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Critical Hdwy - ---- 7.14
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -----
Follow-up Hdwy - ---- 3.92
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - - 0 212
Stage 1 0 - - - 0 -
Stage 2 0 - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - ---- 2 1 2
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -----
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----

Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 28.8

HCM LOS D

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 212
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.292
HCM Control Delay (s) - - - 28.8
HCM Lane LOS - - - D
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 1.2

7.2-74
7-811
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
13: Ramon Rd. & Access 4
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 67 1614 1780 7 0 31
Future Volume (vph) 67 1614 1780 7 0 31
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 150 0 0 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 60 90
Link Speed (mph) 55 55 30
Link Distance (ft) 1330 650 268
Travel Time (s) 16.5 8.1 6.1
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.2-75
7-812
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
13: Ramon Rd. & Access 4
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 67 1614 1780 7 0 31
Future Vol, veh/h 67 1614 1780 7 0 31
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 150 ---- 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 73 1754 1935 8 0 34

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1943 0 - 0 - 972
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Critical Hdwy 4.7 ---- 7.14
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3 ---- 3.92
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 192 - - - 0 217
Stage 1 - - - - 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 192 ---- 2 1 7
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -----
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----

Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.4 0 24.6

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 192 - - - 217
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.379 - - - 0.155
HCM Control Delay (s) 34.8 - - - 24.6
HCM Lane LOS D - - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.6 - - - 0.5

7.2-76
7-813
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
14: Rattler Rd. & School Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 48 34 0 209 226 0
Future Volume (vph) 48 34 0 209 226 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 354 1443 236
Travel Time (s) 9.7 39.4 6.4
Peak Hour Factor 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.2-77
7-814
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
14: Rattler Rd. & School Access 2
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 48 34 0 209 226 0
Future Vol, veh/h 48 34 0 209 226 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 51 51 51 51 51 51
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 94 67 0 410 443 0

Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 853 443 - 0 - 0
Stage 1 443 -----
Stage 2 410 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 ----
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 ----
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 330 615 0 - - 0
Stage 1 647 - 0 - - 0
Stage 2 670 - 0 - - 0
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 330 615 ----
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 451 -----
Stage 1 647 -----
Stage 2 670 -----

Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.6 0 0

HCM LOS B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - 451 615 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.209 0.108 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - 15.1 11.6 -
HCM Lane LOS - C B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.8 0.4 -

7.2-78
7-815
Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
15: Rattler Rd. & School Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Lane Group EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 34 40 68 189 186 50
Future Volume (vph) 34 40 68 189 186 50
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 0 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 90 60
Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25
Link Distance (ft) 334 236 360
Travel Time (s) 9.1 6.4 9.8
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Control Type: Unsignalized

7.2-79
7-816
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour
15: Rattler Rd. & School Access 3
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Synchro 11 Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\02 - 2040_Existing Lanes.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 34 40 68 189 186 50
Future Vol, veh/h 34 40 68 189 186 50
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 50 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 50 50 50 50 50 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 68 80 136 378 372 100

Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1072 422 472 0 - 0
Stage 1 422 -----
Stage 2 650 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 244 632 1090 - - -
Stage 1 662 -----
Stage 2 520 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 214 632 1090 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 214 -----
Stage 1 579 -----
Stage 2 520 -----

Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 24.2 2.3 0

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1090 - 333 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.125 - 0.444 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.8 - 24.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - 2.2 - -

7.2-80
7-817
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection: 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.

Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB
Directions Served L L TTTTTTRL L RR
Maximum Queue (ft) 198 91 111 123 151 197 216 215 76 74 100 65 Average Queue (ft) 146 29 80 97 117 165 168 179 50 54 78 40 95th Queue (ft) 226 102 120 140 162 214 228 234 80 87 117 70 Link Distance (ft) 578 578 578 2555 2555 2555 200
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 205 200 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5
Intersection: 10: Rattler Rd. & Access 1
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 46 24
Average Queue (ft) 27 8
95th Queue (ft) 57 30
Link Distance (ft) 247
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: Rattler Rd. & Access 2
Movement EB NB NB
Directions Served LR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 48 12 10
Average Queue (ft) 29 2 2
95th Queue (ft) 59 16 13
Link Distance (ft) 246 48
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 25
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0

7.2-81
7-818
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour 2040 With Project AM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection: 12: Ramon Rd. & Access 3
Movement SB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 23
95th Queue (ft) 44
Link Distance (ft) 228
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 13: Ramon Rd. & Access 4
Movement EB SB
Directions Served L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 28
Average Queue (ft) 12 16
95th Queue (ft) 37 39
Link Distance (ft) 204
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 8

7.2-82
7-819
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection: 5: Ramon Rd. & Rattler Rd.

Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB SB SB SB
Directions Served L L TTTTTTRL L RR
Maximum Queue (ft) 95 29 121 138 136 184 224 270 35 90 111 64 Average Queue (ft) 60 8 80 90 105 136 161 212 18 55 86 40 95th Queue (ft) 107 37 135 152 148 200 240 297 44 102 118 78 Link Distance (ft) 578 578 578 2555 2555 2555 200
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 205 200 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 9
Queuing Penalty (veh) 16
Intersection: 10: Rattler Rd. & Access 1
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 36 33
Average Queue (ft) 26 10
95th Queue (ft) 47 36
Link Distance (ft) 247
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: Rattler Rd. & Access 2
Movement EB NB NB SB
Directions Served LR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 69 25 5 4
Average Queue (ft) 44 14 1 1
95th Queue (ft) 76 39 8 8
Link Distance (ft) 246 48 414
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 25
Storage Blk Time (%) 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 8

7.2-83
7-820
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour 2040 With Project PM Peak Hour WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis SimTraffic Report F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Synchro\102 - 2040_Improvements.syn Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Intersection: 12: Ramon Rd. & Access 3
Movement WB SB
Directions Served TR R
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 40
Average Queue (ft) 6 28
95th Queue (ft) 34 56
Link Distance (ft) 578 228
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 13: Ramon Rd. & Access 4
Movement EB SB
Directions Served L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 69 41
Average Queue (ft) 41 27
95th Queue (ft) 70 57
Link Distance (ft) 204
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 24

7.2-84
7-821

City of Rancho Mirage 102
Appendix E
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis
7-822

DATE: June 30, 2023
TO: Nicole Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.

FROM: John Kain and Marlie Whiteman, Urban Crossroads, Inc.

JOB NO: 15284-03 VMT Screening.docx

CATANA SPECIFIC PLAN VEHI CLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)

SCREENING ANALYSIS
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis for the Catana Specific Plan ( Project), which is at the northwest corner of E. Ramon Avenue and Rattler Road in Rancho Mirage.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed Project includes the developm ent of consists of 215 single family rental homes, 90 affordable apartment dwelling units and 75,000 square feet of commercial land use. The preliminary Project site plan is shown on Exhibit A.

BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires all lead agencies to adopt VMT as the measure for identifying transp ortation impacts for land use projects.

City of Rancho Mirage Resolution 2021-06 ( City Guidelines) aligns the City’s VMT analysis policy with SB 743 and the City’s goals as set forth in the General Plan Update (2017). The purpose of the policy is to comply with State laws while maintaining the resort residential character of the community.

The City’s VMT policy establishes VMT as the metric to measure transportation impacts in conformance with CEQA.

VMT SCREENING
Exhibit A of Resolution 2021-06 sets forth screening criteria under which Projects are not required to submit detailed VMT analysis. This guidance for determination of non-significant VMT impact is primarily intended to avoid unnecessary analysis and findings that would be inconsistent with the intent of SB 743. VMT screening criteria for development projects include the following:

7-823
Nicole Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.

June 30, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

15284-03 VMT Screening.docx
EXHIBIT A: PRELIMNARY PROJECT SITE PLAN

7-824
Nicole Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.

June 30, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

15284-03 VMT Screening.docx
TABLE 1: SCREENING FOR LAND USE PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM VMT ANALYSIS Screening Steps Description Result

1. Small Projects
Screening
Projects with low trip generation based on the County Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Tables resulting in a 3,000 metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent per year screening level threshold. Specific examples include single family housing projects less than or equal to 110 dwelling units, multi-family housing projects less than or equal to 147 dwelling units, and retail buildings with area less than or equal to 60,000 sf.

Does not meet.

2. Projects Near High
Quality Transit
Projects within a half mile of an existing major transit stop which maintains a service interval frequency of 15 minutes or less during peak commute periods.

Does not meet.

3. Local Serving Retail Projects with no single store on-site exceeding 50,000 sf and determined to be local-serving by the Engineering Department.

Meets for retail
component.

4. Affordable Housing Projects with a high percentage of affordable units as determined by the Planning and Engineering departments.

Meets for
residential
component.

5. Local Essential
Service
Projects such as day care, police or fire facility, medical/dental office building less than 50,000 sf, government offices, or other uses deemed essential by the Engineering Department.

Does not meet.

6. Map Based
Screening
Projects within an area of development under threshold as shown on screening map allowed by the Engineering Department. Does not meet.

7. Redevelopment
Projects
Projects which replace an existing VMT-generating land use and do not result in a net overall increase in VMT. Does not meet.

PROJECT LOCAL SERVING RETAIL
As noted above, City of Rancho Mirage in Resolution 2021-06 includes Local Serving Retail in the list of project types which can be presumed to have non-significant VMT impacts. In effect, the introduction of new Local-serving retail has been determined to reduce VMT by shortening trips that will occur. This determination can be made for retail buildings which do not exceed 50,000 square feet.

The OPR SB 743 Technical Advisory further addresses local retail uses, as follows:
“By adding retail opportunities into the ur ban fabric and thereby improving retail destination proximity, local-serving retail development tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT. Thus, lead agencies generally may presume such development creates a less-than- significant transportation impact.”
The proposed Catana Specific Plan Project includes six buildings that have a combined square footage of 75,000 square feet, each of which is anticipated to be less than 25,000 square feet.

The addition of these retail shops at this location, with building sizes well under 50 ,000 sf, will allow residents to interact with local businesses rather than traveling farther to serve their retail needs.
7-825
Nicole Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.

June 30, 2023

Page 4 of 4 ends

15284-03 VMT Screening.docx

PROJECT HIGH PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Resolution 2021-06 indicates that projects in which “a high percentage of affordable housing is provided as determined by the Planning and Engineering Departments” can be presumed to have non-significant VMT impacts.

The Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transporta tion Impacts in CEQA (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, December 2018) states that affordable housing generally improves jobs-housing match, sh ortens commutes and reduces VMT. This technical advisory concludes that low income housing generates less VMT than market-rate housing.

Of the 305 Project residential uni ts, 90 dwelling units are affordab le housing. This equates to

29.5% of the dwelling units. In comparison, recent residential projects in Rancho Mirage have not included an affordable housing component.

The Residential component of the Project is imme diately adjacent to the planned on-site retail parcel. Sidewalks connect the affordable housing and single-family rental housing units to the retail site. The Project is also located adjacent to the Rancho Mirage High School. The existing sidewalk along the west side of Rattler Road connects the site to the existing high school.

Off-site elementary and middle schools are located near to the site. The Sunny Sands Elementary School is approximately 2 miles away, and the Nellie N Coffman Middle School is approximately

2.5 miles away.

Adding affordable housing to this location, with existing off- site retail/service jobs located at Cathedral Village Shopping Center and Agua Caliente Resort Casino Spa provides housing opportunities for current employees in the area. Low-wage workers in particular would be more likely to choose a residential location close to their workplace, if one is available.

CONCLUSION
The Project was evaluated against screening criteria as outlined in the City Guidelines. Based on the results of this screening analysis the following findings are made:
 The Project’s retail component meets the Project Type Screening criteria for Local Serving Retail.
 The Project’s residential component meets the Project Type Screening criteria for Affordable Housing by having 29.5% affordable housing.
 The screening of this Project as Local-Se rving Retail and With High Percentage of Affordable Housing is appropriate. The mix of affordable housing, single-family rental housing, and retail will allow on-site interaction between residents, retail jobs, and retail services which will reduce auto VMT by encouraging pedestrian and bicycle activity. This determination of non-significant VMT impact is consistent with the intent of SB-743.

If you have any questions, please contact us directly at [email protected] for John or [email protected] for Marlie.
7-826
Catana Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments

Page 1 of 15 ends

Catana Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments

The City received one comment letter to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Project. The following provides individual comments and responses. The complete comments are attached to this response in Appendix A.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Letter dated January 19, 2024

Comment 1:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) from the City of Rancho Mirage (City) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA guidelines.1

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

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

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

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

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY

Proponent: McKellar McGowan Holdings, LLC.

7-827
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments

Page 2 of 15 ends

Objective: The Project proposes a mixed-use neighborhood of 210 one- to two -story single family homes, 95 apartments, and 75,000 sq. ft. of retail and office uses on approximately 36 acres. The Project proposed residential building heights up to 37 feet tall and commercial/retail building heights up to 28 feet tall. The Project proposes to generate increased levels of light and glare from interior and exterior building lighting, safety and security lighting, and landscape lighting, and does not propose the use of high intensity outdoor lighting. The Project proposes the use of drought-tolerant landscape materials.

Location: The proposed Project is located in the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road, Rancho Mirage, CA, 92270. Assessor’s Parcel Number 670- 230-021. The Project is located within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Area outside of a Conservation Area.

Timeframe: The MND does not indicate a timeline for Project construction.

Response 1:

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

Comment 2:

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

CDFW’s comments and recommendations on the MND are explained in greater detail below and summarized here. CDFW is concerned that the MND does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, impacts to biological resources. CDFW also concludes that the MND lacks sufficient information to facilitate a meaningful review by CDFW, including a complete and accurate assessment of biological resources on the Project site and an incomplete Project description. CDFW requests that additional information and analyses be added to a revised MND, along with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant.

Response 2:

The comment is noted. Individual responses to the issues summarized by the commenter are provided below.

7-828
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments

Page 3 of 15 ends

Comment 3:

Project Description

Compliance with CEQA is predicated on a complete and accurate description of the proposed Project. Without a complete and accurate Project description, the MND likely provides an incomplete assessment of Project-related impacts to biological resources. CDFW has identified gaps in information related to the Project description.

The MND lacks an adequate discussion of plans for artificial nighttime lighting. CDFW requests that the MND is revised to include design plans for artificial nighttime lighting and lighting specifications. Artificial nighttime lighting can negatively impact biological resources in a variety of ways as discussed in the Artificial Nighttime Lighting section below. To conduct a meaningful review and provide biological expertise on how to protect biological resources, CDFW requires a complete and accurate Project description.

Response 3:

The description of lighting, including the types of lighting expected on the Project site, and City lighting standards is provided on page 20 of the Initial Study. As stated on that page, the City requires photometric plans, which have been included in the plan sets on file at the City, which demonstrate that there will be no light spill-over from the Project site to adjacent properties.

Comment 4:

Existing Environmental Setting

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

The MND lacks a complete assessment of biological resources within the Project site and surrounding area. A complete and accurate assessment of the environmental setting and Project-related impacts to biological resources is needed to both identify appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and demonstrate that these measures reduce Project impacts to less than significant.

Response 4:

The comment is noted. However, the Initial Study, and the appended Biological Resources Report which was provided to the commenter, describe comprehensively the environmental setting, including a complete list of the species with potential to occur on- site, those identified during the field survey, and those with no potential to occur. See pages 31 through 33 of the Initial Study, and pages 5 through 23 of the Biological Resources Report. 7-829
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments

Page 4 of 15 ends

Comment 5:

Mitigation Measures

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

CDFW is concerned that the mitigation measures proposed in the MND are not adequate to avoid or reduce impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance. To support the City in ensuring that Project impacts to biological resources are reduced to less than significant, CDFW recommends adding mitigation measures for assessment of biological resources, artificial nighttime lighting, CVMSHCP co mpliance, and salvage of sand- dependent Covered Species, as well as revising the mitigation measures for nesting birds and burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia).

Assessment of Biological Resources

Page 5 ends

Habitat Conservation Plan and Compliance Report (Biological Assessment) indicates that a field assessment was conducted on January 24, 2023, and that the “entire si te and adjacent properties (where accessible) were assessed on foot to record pertinent field data and current site conditions.” The Biological Assessment lacks additional details on what survey methods were used, if any species-specific focused surveys were conducted, and if any focused surveys were conducted independently from other survey activities. These among other details on the assessment of biological resources are important to include in a MND and supporting documentation to allow CDFW and (sic) to conduct a meaningful review and provide biological expertise. Details on survey methods also help support any findings from the assessment of biological resources and the appropriateness of any identified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. CDFW recommends that the MND and its supporting documents are revised to include additional details on survey methods.

Table 1 of the MND indicates that “[f]ive plant species have a low probability of growing on the site, including Chaparral sand- verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita; California Rare Plan Rank (CRPR) 1B.1), Abram’s spurge ( Euphorbia abramsiana ; CRPR 2B.2), Arizona spurge (Euphorbia arizonica; CRPR 2B.3), flat -seeded spurge ( Euphorbia platysperma, CRPR 1B.2), and slender cottonheads (Nemacaulis denudata var. gracilis; CRPR 2B.2). None of these plant species are listed as threatened or endangered and are generally not expected to occur on the site considering the past history of disturbance on this parcel, including grubbing and use of soil binders.” CDFW notes that the single field assessment, conducted by one individual over the 36-acre site, was conducted in January, outside of the bloom period of several of these special- status species, including Abram’s spurge, Arizona spurge, flat -seeded spurge, and slender cottonheads. Based on review of recent aerial imagery using Google Earth Pro, vegetation on the Project site is re -establishing following the grading activities and application of soil binders conducted in 2018. CDFW notes it is unlikely that grading activities and the application of soil binders would eliminate the seedbank within the Project site, including the seedbank of any rare plant species that may exist. Section 15125(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that knowledge of the regional setting of a project is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts, that special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to the 7-830
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments

Page 5 of 15 ends

region, and that significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project are adequately investigated and discussed. The Project’s potential impacts on plants that meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered, per Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines, must be analyzed in the MND.

CDFW recommends that the MND is revised to include the findings of a thorough, recent, floristic-based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, conducted at the appropriate time of year when the rare plant species, identified as having suitable or potentially suitable habitat within the Project site, are identifiable. Based on findings from a recent floristic- based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, CDFW recommends that the MND is revised to include an analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to biological resources and identification of appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures.

Recent and complete information on biological resources; analysis of a Project’s direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts; and appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures support the City in demonstrating that Project impacts to biological resources are less than significant.

CDFW recommends that the City include in a revised MND the following mitigation measure:

Mitigation Measure BIO-[A]
Prior to Project construction activities, a thorough, recent, floristic-based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, following CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (see https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants ) shall be performed by a qualified biologist. Should any state -listed plant species be present in the Project area, the Project proponent shall obtain appropriate CESA authorization for those species prior to the start of Project activities. Should other special -status plants or natural communities be present in the Project area, on -site or off -site habitat restor ation (whichever is applicable) and/or enhancement and preservation should be evaluated and discussed in detail. Where habitat preservation is not available on - site, off- site land acquisition, management, and preservation should be evaluated.

P
ursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, section 15097(f), CDFW has prepared a draft mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for revised MM BIO -1, and MM BIO -2, as well as CDFW-recommended MM BIO-[A], MM BIO-[B], MM BIO-[C], and MM BIO-[D].

7-831
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments

Page 6 of 15 ends

Response 5:

As the commenter is aware, there is no protection in law for species other than those that are listed as endangered by either the State or federal government. Furthermore, the biological resource study correctly determined that Abram’s spurge, Arizona spurge, flat -seeded spurge, and slender cottonheads are absent due to site disturbance and marginal habitat . The commenter provides no substantial evidence other than opinion that there is any potential that the seed bank for any endangered species could have survived previous grading. The previous site disturbance and isolation of the site by development to the north, south and east, and fencing and development to the west, eliminates the potential for any significant population of plants to be self-sustaining on the site. Finally, the project will be required to pay CVMSHCP fees, which are expressly designed to mitigate for the presence of covered species. The Initial Study correctly analyzed the impacts to plants, and no additional mitigation measures are required.

Comment 6:

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

Page 33 ends

have the potential to provide nesting opportunities for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).” The Project site contains suitable habitat for nesting birds. The MND includes Mitigation Measures BIO-2 for nesting birds, which indicates that “[t]o avoid impacting nesting birds, either avoidance of project -related disturbance during the nesting season (1 February through 31 August) or nesting bird surveys conducted by a qualified ornithologist or biologist immediately prior to on-site disturbance during the nesting season shall be required.” Conducting work outside the peak breeding season is an important avoidance and minimization measure. CDFW also recommends the completion of pre- construction nesting bird surveys regardless of the time of year. The timing of the nesting season varies greatly depending on several factors, such as bird species, weather conditions in any given year, and long- term climate changes (e.g., drought, warming, etc.). In response to warming, birds have been reported to breed earlier, thereby reducing temperatures that nests are exposed to during breeding and tracking shifts in availability of resources (Socolar et al., 2017 2).

CDFW staff have observed that climate change conditions may result in the nesting bird season occurring earlier and later in the year than historical nesting season dates. 7-832
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments

Page 7 of 15 ends

CDFW recommends that disturbance of occupied nests of migratory birds and raptors within the Project site and surrounding area be avoided any time birds are nesting on- site. CDFW considers the Mitigation Measure BIO-2 to be insufficient in scope and timing to reduce impacts to nesting birds to less than significant. CDFW recommends the City revise Mitigation Measure BIO-2 with the following additions in bold and removals in strikethrough:

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Nesting Birds
Regardless of the time of year, nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified avian biologist no more than 3 days prior to vegetation removal or ground- disturbing activities. Pre-construction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior.

The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a r
esult of survey and monitoring efforts. If active nests are found during the pre - construction nesting bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground. Nest buffers are species specific and shall be at least 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors. A smaller or larger buffer may be determined by the qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species and based on nest and buffer monitoring results. Construction activities may not occur inside the established buffers, which shall remain on site until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the Project has been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance. To avoid impacting nesting birds, either avoidance of project -related disturbance during the nesting season (1 February through 31 August) or nesting bird surveys conducted by a qualified ornithologist or biologist immediately prior to on- site disturbance during the nesting season shall be required. If nesting birds are found, no work would be permitted near the nest until young have fledged. There is no established protocol for nest avoidance, however, when consulted the CDFW generally recommends avoidance buffers of about 500 feet for birds -of-prey and species listed as threatened or endangered, and 100 – 300 feet for unlisted songbirds.

Response 6:

The comment is noted. However, the commenter appears to imply that birds may nest on the site outside of the established nesting period, without providing substantial evidence. The City’s responsibility is to assure that nesting birds. It is important to note that MBTA covered species include almost all bird species that could nest on the site, and that since a pre- construction survey will be required, all birds nesting on the site will be identified, regardless of MBTA status.

The Initial Study mitigates impacts to nesting bird species to less than significant levels as written. The mitigation measure and the Initial Study correctly protect nesting birds, and do not require amendment.

7-833
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments

Page 8 of 15 ends

Comment 7:

Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern. Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests is defined by Fish and Game Code section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.). Take is defined in Fish and Game Code section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.”

Page 32 ends

vegetation, there is a very low potential for burrowing owl to occur onsite. None were identified during the site survey, nor were their sign or suitable burrows sighted.” CDFW is concerned about the accuracy of the conclusion that burrowing owl have a very low potential to occur onsite.

CDFW notes that in California, preferred habitat for burrowing owl is generally typified by short, sparse vegetation with few shrubs, and that burrowing owls may occur in ruderal grassy fields, vacant lots, and pastures if the vegetation structure is suitable and there are useable burrows and foraging habitat proximity. In addition, burrowing owls frequently move into disturbed areas prior to and during construction activities since they are adapted to highly modified habitats The Project site contains suitable habitat for burrowing owl, and burrowing owl have the potential to move onto the Project site before the start of Project construction. CDFW requests this information on the suitability of burrowing owl habitat on the Project site is updated in a revised MND. CDFW is also concerned about the limited information provided in the MND and its supporting documents regarding surveys for burrowing owl.

The Project’s Biol ogical Resources Assessment (Biological Assessment) dated January 24, 2023, does not indicate the methods used to conduct surveys for burrowing owl and if a complete burrowing owl habitat assessment or focused surveys for burrowing owl were conducted following guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012). Given the MND’s lack of discussion on survey methods and lack of findings from a recent habitat assessment for burrowing owls following the guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, it is uncertain if suitable burrows or burrow surrogates exist within the Project area or surrounding areas. CDFW recommends the MND is revised to include the findings of focused surveys following guidelines outlined in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Focused surveys for burrowing owl provide information needed to determine the potential effects of proposed projects and activities on burrowing owls, and to avoid take in accordance with Fish and Game Code sections 86, 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. If focused surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat in or adjacent to the Project area, CDFW recommends that the MND is revised to include an impact assessment per guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Impact assessments evaluate the extent to which burrowing owls and their habitat may be impacted, directly or indirectly, on and within a reasonable distance of the proposed Project. Focused surveys and an impact assessment will also inform appropriate avoid ance, minimization, and mitigation measures for the Project and help demonstrate that impacts to burrowing owls are less than significant.

7-834
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments

Page 9 of 15 ends

Although the MND includes Mitigation Measure BIO-1, CDFW considers the measure insufficient in scope and timing to reduce impacts to burrowing owl to less than significant. CDFW recommends that the City revise Mitigation Measure BIO -1 with the following additions in bold and removals in strikethrough:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Burrowing Owl Surveys
Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist according to the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prior to vegetation removal or ground- disturbing activities. If burrow ing owls are detected during the focused surveys, the qualified biologist and Project proponent shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and monitoring actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measures if avoidance is proposed. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat or burrow cannot be avoided, the Burrowing Owl Plan shall also describe minimization and relocation actions that will be implemented . Proposed implementation of burrow exclusion and closure should only be considered as a last resort, after all other options have been evaluated as exclusion is not in itself an avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and has the possibility to resu lt in take. If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be provided regarding adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls along with proposed relocation actions. The Project proponent shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.

Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of Project-related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Rep ort on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist following the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities.

To avoid impacting nesting birds, either avoidance of project -r elated disturbance during the
nesting season (1 February through 31 August) or nesting bird surveys conducted by a qualified ornithologist or biologist immediately prior to on-site disturbance during the nesting season shall be required. If nesting birds are found, no work would be permitted near the nest until young have fledged. There is no established protocol for nest avoidance, however, when consulted the CDFW generally recommends avoidance buffers of about 500 feet for birds-of-prey and species listed as threatened or endangered, and 100–300 feet for unlisted songbirds.

Response 7:

The comment is noted. However, the commenter provides no evidence to contradict the professional biologist’s statement that no owl, sign or appropriate burrows are located on the 7-835
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments

Page 10 of 15 ends

site. As stated in both the Initial Study and the Biological Resources Study, the site is heavily disturbed and has sparse vegetation. As a result, the biologist had good visibility of site conditions, and would have seen owl, sign or burrows if they occurred. Furthermore, the Initial Study requires, in Mitigation Measure BIO-1, “A preconstruction survey following CDFG’s Staff Report for Burrowing Owl (2012) must be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to initiating construction…” (emphasis added). The Initial Study therefore fully acknowledges the Department’s requirements. It further requires that they be implemented prior to initiation of construction, which is the appropriate protocol for sites where no individuals, sign or burrows have previously been identified. The City is aware that the species could move onto the site prior to construction, and has provided the appropriate mitigation to protect the species from take.

The mitigation measure is appropriate and complete, lists performance standards should the species be identified, and no further amendment is required.

Comment 8:

Artificial Nighttime Lighting

The Proposed project will result in new sources of artificial nighttime lighting. Page 20 of the MND indicates that the “ultimate development of the Project site can be expected to generate increased levels of light and glare from interior and exterior building lighting, safety and security lighting, landscape lighting, and vehicles accessing the site during the day and nighttime; however, the SP [Specific Plan] does not propose the use of high intensity outdoor lighting.”

Page 64 ends

high quality, attractive, and informative. The standards require lighting to be shielded and directed downward in order to reduce glare, preserve dark night skies, while still providing directional, safety, and informational functions.” No additional details are provided on lighting design plans or specifications or additional avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures associated with artificial nighttime lighting.

The Project is located adjacent to open- space areas to the west and east —areas that provide suitable nesting, roosting, foraging, and refugia habitat for birds, migratory birds that fly at night, bats, other nocturnal and crepuscular wildlife, and Covered Species under the CVMSHCP. The open-space area to the e ast contains modeled habitat for CVMSHCP Covered Species including, but not limited to, flat -tailed horned lizard ( Phrynosoma mcallii ), Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard ( Uma inornata), Palm Springs pocket mouse ( Perognathus longimembris bangsi), and Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus).

The Project’s proposed artificial nighttime lighting has the potential to significantly and adversely affect fish and wildlife in the open-space areas adjacent to the Project site. Artificial lighting alters ecological processes including, but not limited to, the temporal niches of species; the repair and recovery of physiological function; the measurement of time through interference with the detection of circadian and lunar and seasonal cycles; the detection of resources and natural enemies; and navigation8. Many species use photoperiod cues for communication (e.g., bird song9), determining when to begin foraging10, behavioral thermoregulation11, and migration12.

Phototaxis, a phenomenon that results in attraction and movement towards light, can disorient, entrap, and temporarily blind wildlife species that experience it8.

7-836
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments

Page 11 of 15 ends

CDFW recommends the MND is revised to include an analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of artificial nighttime lighting expected to adversely affect biological resources within open- space areas adjacent to the Project site. CDFW also recommends the MND is revised to include lightning design plans and lighting specifications to allow CDFW to conduct a meaningful review and provide appropriate biological expertise. Also, the MND lacks a mitigation measure for artificial nighttime lighting. To support the City in avoiding or reducing impacts of artificial nighttime lighting on biological resources to less than significant, CDFW recommends that the City add the following mitigation measure to a revised MND:

Mitigation Measure BIO-[B]: Artificial Nighttime Lighting Throughout construction and the lifetime operations of the Project, the City of Rancho Mirage and Project proponent shall eliminate all nonessential lighting throughout the Project area and avoid or limit the use of artificial light at night during the hours of dawn and dusk when many wildlife species are most active. The City of Rancho Mirage and Project proponent shall ensure that all lighting for the Project is fully shielded, cast downward, reduced in intensity to the greatest extent possible, and does not result in lighting trespass including glare into surrounding areas or upward into the night sky (see the International Dark -Sky Association standards at http://darksky.org/). The City of Rancho Mirage and Project proponent shall ensure use of LED lighting with a correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvins or less, proper disposal of hazardous waste, and recycling of lighting that contains toxic compounds with a qualified recycler.

Response 8:

The commenter is incorrect. The site is not located adjacent to open space. The site is located adjacent to vacant lands which will be developed in the future, consistent with the zoning designations assigned. The site is bordered by roadways on its east and south boundaries, and by the fully developed Rancho Mirage High School on its north. Furthermore, and as stated in the Initial Study, the Project is required to comply with City lighting standards, which prohibit spill-over of light to adjacent properties. The Project has submitted a photometric analysis which demonstrates such compliance. The Project is located in an urban area, and is not adjacent or in the vicinity of any Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Conservation Area. The Project’s impacts associated with lighting have been correctly analyzed, and no change to the Initial Study is required. Also see further discussion below regarding the Plan.

Comment 9:

Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan

Local Development Mitigation Fee

Page 33 ends

CVMSHCP, and is therefore subject to payment of the Development Mitigation Fee, which will mitigate potential impacts to covered species as a standard requirement imposed by the City.” To document the City’s obligation as a Local Permittee under the CVMSHCP to impose a local development mitigation fee for this Project, CDFW recommends the City add the following mitigation measure to a revised MND:
7-837
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments

Page 12 of 15 ends

Mitigation Measure BIO-[C]: CVMSHCP Compliance
Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the City of Rancho Mirage shall ensure compliance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) and its associated Implementing Agreement and shall ensure the collection of payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee and transfer of revenues to the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission.

Response 9:

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

Comment 10:

Salvage of Sand-D
ependent Covered Species
Further, Section 6.6.1 of the CVMSHCP (Obligations of Local Permittees) states that within and outside Conservation Areas “on parcels approved for Development, the Permittees shall encourage the opportunity to salvage Covered sand-dependent species in accordance with the Implementation Manual.” The Project site contains modeled habitat for CVMSHCP Covered Species including, but not limited to, flat-tailed horned lizard, Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, Palm Springs pocket mouse, and Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrel. To be consistent with the CVMSHCP, CDFW recommends that the City of Rancho Mirage include in a revised MND the following mitigation measure:

Mitigation Measure BIO-[D]: Salvage of Sand-Dependent Covered Species Prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, the City of Rancho Mirage will collaborate with the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission to plan and implement a salvage of Covered sand-dependent species within the Project site.

Response 10:

The comment is noted. However, as stated by the commenter, the City’s responsibility is to “encourage” the collection of sand-dependent species. There is no requirement that it do so, nor is mitigation required, since the impacts associated with sand- dependent species are fully covered by the CVMSHCP, and the project will be required to pay the mitigation fee.

Comment 11:

Landscaping

Page 56 ends

use of water -efficient fixtures and drought -tolerant landscape materials”. No other details are provided in the MND on the Project’s proposed landscaping plans. CDFW recommends incorporation of water-wise concepts in any Project landscape design plans. In particular, CDFW 7-838
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments

Page 13 of 15 ends

recommends xeriscaping with locally native California species and installing water-efficient and targeted irrigation systems (such as drip irrigation). Native plants support butterflies, birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, bees, and other pollinators that evolved with those plants.

More information on native plants suitable for the Project location and nearby nurseries is available at Calscape: https://calscape.org/. Local water agencies/cities and resource conservation cities in your area may be able to provide information on plant nurseries that carry locally native species, and some facilities display drought -tolerant locally native species demonstration gardens. Information on drought -tolerant landscaping and water -efficient irrigation systems is available on California’s Save our Water website:
https://saveourwater.com/. CDFW also recommends that the MND include recommendations regarding landscaping from Section 4.0 of the CVMSHCP “Table 4- 112: Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping” (pp. 4- 180 to 4 - 182; https://cvmshcp.org/plan- documents/).

Response 11:

The comment is noted. However, as stated on page 61 of the Initial Study, the Project is required to comply with both the City’s water efficient landscaping standards and CVWD’s water conservation requirements in landscaping, which includes water budgeting for landscaped areas. The Project will therefore be regulated to assure low water use in landscaping, as clearly stated in the Initial Study.

Comment 12:

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA

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

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES

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

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

7-839
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments

Page 14 of 15 ends

CONCLUSION

CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts to biological resources. CDFW concludes that the MND does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, impacts to biological resources. CDFW also concludes that the MND lacks sufficient information for a meaningful review of impacts to biological resources,

Response 12:

The City thanks the Department for its comments and will continue to assure that it and its applicants comply with Department requirements and State law.

7-840
Calhoun Specific Plan Project
Response to Comments

Page 15 of 15 ends

APPEND
IX A
COM

MENT LETTERS
7-841
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220
Ontario, CA 91764
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870

January 19, 2024
Sent via email

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270

Catana Specific Plan (PROJECT)
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
SCH# 2023120616

Dear Pilar Lopez:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) from the City of Rancho Mirage (City) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA guidelines.1

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

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

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

1CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000. 7-842

Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024

Page 2 ends

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

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

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: McKellar McGowan Holdings, LLC.

Objective: The Project proposes a mixed-use neighborhood of 210 one- to two-story single family homes, 95 apartments, and 75,000 sq. ft. of retail and office uses on approximately 36 acres. The Project proposed residential building heights up to 37 feet tall and commercial/retail building heights up to 28 feet tall. The Project proposes to generate increased levels of light and glare from interior and exterior building lighting, safety and security lighting, and landscape lighting, and does not propose the use of high intensity outdoor lighting. The Project proposes the use of drought-tolerant landscape materials.

Location: The proposed Project is located in the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road, Rancho Mirage, CA, 92270. Assessor’s Parcel Number 670-230-021. The Project is located within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Area outside of a Conservation Area.

Timeframe: The MND does not indicate a timeline for Project construction.

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

CDFW’s comments and recommendations on the MND are explained in greater detail below and summarized here. CDFW is concerned that the MND does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, impacts to 7-843

Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024

Page 3 ends

biological resources. CDFW also concludes that the MND lacks sufficient information to facilitate a meaningful review by CDFW, including a complete and accurate assessment of biological resources on the Project site and an incomplete Project description. CDFW requests that additional information and analyses be added to a revised MND, along with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant.

Project Description

Compliance with CEQA is predicated on a complete and accurate description of the proposed Project. Without a complete and accurate Project description, the MND likely provides an incomplete assessment of Project-related impacts to biological resources.

CDFW has identified gaps in information related to the Project description.

The MND lacks an adequate discussion of plans for artificial nighttime lighting. CDFW requests that the MND is revised to include design plans for artificial nighttime lighting and lighting specifications. Artificial nighttime lighting can negatively impact biological resources in a variety of ways as discussed in the Artificial Nighttime Lighting section below. To conduct a meaningful review and provide biological expertise on how to protect biological resources, CDFW requires a complete and accurate Project description.

Existing Environmental Setting

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

The MND lacks a complete assessment of biological resources within the Project site and surrounding area. A complete and accurate assessment of the environmental setting and Project-related impacts to biological resources is needed to both identify appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and demonstrate that these measures reduce Project impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

CEQA requires that an MND include mitigation measures to avoid or reduce significant impacts. CDFW is concerned that the mitigation measures proposed in the MND are not adequate to avoid or reduce impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance. To support the City in ensuring that Project impacts to biological resources are reduced to less than significant, CDFW recommends adding mitigation measures 7-844

Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024

Page 4 ends

for assessment of biological resources, artificial nighttime lighting, CVMSHCP compliance, and salvage of sand-dependent Covered Species, as well as revising the mitigation measures for nesting birds and burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia). 1) Assessment of Biological Resources

Page 5 ends

Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Compliance Report (Biological Assessment) indicates that a field assessment was conducted on January 24, 2023, and that the “entire site and adjacent properties (where accessible) were assessed on foot to record pertinent field data and current site conditions.” The Biological Assessment lacks additional details on what survey methods were used, if any species-specific focused surveys were conducted, and if any focused surveys were conducted independently from other survey activities. These among other details on the assessment of biological resources are important to include in a MND and supporting documentation to allow CDFW and to conduct a meaningful review and provide biological expertise. Details on survey methods also help support any findings from the assessment of biological resources and the appropriateness of any identified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. CDFW recommends that the MND and its supporting documents are revised to include additional details on survey methods.

Table 1 of the MND indicates that “[f]ive plant species have a low probability of growing on the site, including Chaparral sand-verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita; California Rare Plan Rank (CRPR) 1B.1), Abram’s spurge (Euphorbia abramsiana; CRPR 2B.2), Arizona spurge (Euphorbia arizonica; CRPR 2B.3), flat-seeded spurge (Euphorbia platysperma, CRPR 1B.2), and slender cottonheads (Nemacaulis denudata var. gracilis; CRPR 2B.2). None of these plant species are listed as threatened or endangered and are generally not expected to occur on the site considering the past history of disturbance on this parcel, including grubbing and use of soil binders.” CDFW notes that the single field assessment, conducted by one individual over the 36-acre site, was conducted in January, outside of the bloom period of several of these special-status species, including Abram’s spurge, Arizona spurge, flat-seeded spurge, and slender cottonheads. Based on review of recent aerial imagery using Google Earth Pro, vegetation on the Project site is re-establishing following the grading activities and application of soil binders conducted in 2018. CDFW notes it is unlikely that grading activities and the application of soil binders would eliminate the seedbank within the Project site, including the seedbank of any rare plant species that may exist. Section 15125(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that knowledge of the regional setting of a project is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts, that special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to the region, and that significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project are adequately investigated and discussed. The Project’s potential impacts on plants that meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered, per Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines, must be analyzed in the MND.
7-845

Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024

Page 5 ends

CDFW recommends that the MND is revised to include the findings of a thorough, recent, floristic-based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, conducted at the appropriate time of year when the rare plant species, identified as having suitable or potentially suitable habitat within the Project site, are identifiable.

Based on findings from a recent floristic-based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, CDFW recommends that the MND is revised to include an analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to biological resources and identification of appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. Recent and complete information on biological resources; analysis of a Project’s direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts; and appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures support the City in demonstrating that Project impacts to biological resources are less than significant.

CDFW recommends that the City include in a revised MND the following mitigation measure:

Mitigation Measure BIO-[A]
Prior to Project construction activities, a thorough, recent, floristic-based assessment of special status plants and natural communities, following CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (see
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants) shall be performed by a qualified biologist. Should any state-listed plant species be present in the Project area, the Project proponent shall obtain appropriate CESA authorization for those species prior to the start of Project activities. Should other special-status plants or natural communities be present in the Project area, on-site or off-site habitat restoration (whichever is applicable) and/or enhancement and preservation should be evaluated and discussed in detail. Where habitat preservation is not available on- site, off-site land acquisition, management, and preservation should be evaluated.

Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, section 15097(f), CDFW has prepared a draft mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for revised MM BIO-1, and MM BIO-2, as well as CDFW-recommended MM BIO-[A], MM BIO-[B], MM BIO-[C], and MM BIO-[D].
2) Nesting Birds
It is the Project proponent’s responsibility to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 afford protective measures as follows: section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and 7-846

Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024

Page 6 ends

Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.).

Page 33 ends

would have the potential to provide nesting opportunities for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).” The Project site contains suitable habitat for nesting birds. The MND includes Mitigation Measures BIO-2 for nesting birds, which indicates that “[t]o avoid impacting nesting birds, either avoidance of project-related disturbance during the nesting season (1 February through 31 August) or nesting bird surveys conducted by a qualified ornithologist or biologist immediately prior to on-site disturbance during the nesting season shall be required.” Conducting work outside the peak breeding season is an important avoidance and minimization measure. CDFW also recommends the completion of pre-construction nesting bird surveys regardless of the time of year. The timing of the nesting season varies greatly depending on several factors, such as bird species, weather conditions in any given year, and long-term climate changes (e.g., drought, warming, etc.). In response to warming, birds have been reported to breed earlier, thereby reducing temperatures that nests are exposed to during breeding and tracking shifts in availability of resources (Socolar et al., 20172).

CDFW staff have observed that climate change conditions may result in the nesting bird season occurring earlier and later in the year than historical nesting season dates.

CDFW recommends that disturbance of occupied nests of migratory birds and raptors within the Project site and surrounding area be avoided any time birds are nesting on- site. CDFW considers the Mitigation Measure BIO-2 to be insufficient in scope and timing to reduce impacts to nesting birds to less than significant. CDFW recommends the City revise Mitigation Measure BIO-2 with the following additions in bold and removals in strikethrough:

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Nesting Birds
Regardless of the time of year, nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified avian biologist no more than 3 days prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. Pre-construction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior.

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

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(49): 12976-12981. 7-847

Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024

Page 7 ends

The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey and monitoring efforts. If active nests are found during the pre-construction nesting bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground. Nest buffers are species specific and shall be at least 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors. A smaller or larger buffer may be determined by the qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species and based on nest and buffer monitoring results. Construction activities may not occur inside the established buffers, which shall remain on site until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the Project has been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance. To avoid impacting nesting birds, either avoidance of project-related disturbance during the nesting season (1 February through 31 August) or nesting bird surveys conducted by a qualified ornithologist or biologist immediately prior to on-site disturbance during the nesting season shall be required. If nesting birds are found, no work would be permitted near the nest until young have fledged. There is no established protocol for nest avoidance, however, when consulted the CDFW generally recommends avoidance buffers of about 500 feet for birds-of-prey and species listed as threatened or endangered, and 100–300 feet for unlisted songbirds.
3) Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern. Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests is defined by Fish and Game Code section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.). Take is defined in Fish and Game Code section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.”

Page 32 ends

sparsely with vegetation, there is a very low potential for burrowing owl to occur onsite.

None were identified during the site survey, nor were their sign or suitable burrows sighted.” CDFW is concerned about the accuracy of the conclusion that burrowing owl have a very low potential to occur onsite. CDFW notes that in California, preferred habitat for burrowing owl is generally typified by short, sparse vegetation with few 7-848

Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024

Page 8 ends

shrubs,3 and that burrowing owls may occur in ruderal grassy fields, vacant lots, and pastures if the vegetation structure is suitable and there are useable burrows and foraging habitat proximity.4 In addition, burrowing owls frequently move into disturbed areas prior to and during construction activities since they are adapted to highly modified habitats5,6 The Project site contains suitable habitat for burrowing owl, and burrowing owl have the potential to move onto the Project site before the start of Project construction. CDFW requests this information on the suitability of burrowing owl habitat on the Project site is updated in a revised MND. CDFW is also concerned about the limited information provided in the MND and its supporting documents regarding surveys for burrowing owl.

The Project’s Biological Resources Assessment (Biological Assessment) dated January 24, 2023, does not indicate the methods used to conduct surveys for burrowing owl and if a complete burrowing owl habitat assessment or focused surveys for burrowing owl were conducted following guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 20127). Given the MND’s lack of discussion on survey methods and lack of findings from a recent habitat assessment for burrowing owls following the guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, it is uncertain if suitable burrows or burrow surrogates exist within the Project area or surrounding areas. CDFW recommends the MND is revised to include the findings of focused surveys following guidelines outlined in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation7. Focused surveys for burrowing owl provide information needed to determine the potential effects of proposed projects and activities on burrowing owls, and to avoid take in accordance with Fish and Game Code sections 86, 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. If focused surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat in or adjacent to the Project area, CDFW recommends that the MND is revised to include an impact assessment per guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Impact assessments evaluate the extent

3 Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia), in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C., USA.
4 Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, R. G. Anthony. 2003. Space use and pesticide exposure risk of male burrowing owls in an agricultural landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 155-164. 5 Chipman, E. D., N. E. McIntyre, R. E. Strauss, M. C. Wallace, J. D. Ray, and C. W. Boal. 2008. Effects of human land use on western burrowing owl foraging and activity budgets. Journal of Raptor Research 42(2): 87-98. 6 Coulombe, H. N. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the Burrowing Owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. Condor 73:162–176.
7 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. State of California, Natural Resources Agency.
7-849

Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024

Page 9 ends

to which burrowing owls and their habitat may be impacted, directly or indirectly, on and within a reasonable distance of the proposed Project. Focused surveys and an impact assessment will also inform appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for the Project and help demonstrate that impacts to burrowing owls are less than significant.

Although the MND includes Mitigation Measure BIO-1, CDFW considers the measure insufficient in scope and timing to reduce impacts to burrowing owl to less than significant. CDFW recommends that the City revise Mitigation Measure BIO-1 with the following additions in bold and removals in strikethrough:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Burrowing Owl Surveys

Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist according to the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are detected during the focused surveys, the qualified biologist and Project proponent shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and monitoring actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measures if avoidance is proposed. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat or burrow cannot be avoided, the Burrowing Owl Plan shall also describe minimization and relocation actions that will be implemented. Proposed implementation of burrow exclusion and closure should only be considered as a last resort, after all other options have been evaluated as exclusion is not in itself an avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and has the possibility to result in take. If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be provided regarding adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls along with proposed relocation actions. The Project proponent shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.

Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of Project-related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist following the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and 7-850

Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024

Page 10 ends

prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities.

To avoid impacting nesting birds, either avoidance of project-related disturbance during the nesting season (1 February through 31 August) or nesting bird surveys conducted by a qualified ornithologist or biologist immediately prior to on-site disturbance during the nesting season shall be required. If nesting birds are found, no work would be permitted near the nest until young have fledged. There is no established protocol for nest avoidance, however, when consulted the CDFW generally recommends avoidance buffers of about 500 feet for birds-of-prey and species listed as threatened or endangered, and 100–300 feet for unlisted songbirds.

4) Artificial Nighttime Lighting
The Proposed project will result in new sources of artificial nighttime lighting. Page 20 of the MND indicates that the “ultimate development of the Project site can be expected to generate increased levels of light and glare from interior and exterior building lighting, safety and security lighting, landscape lighting, and vehicles accessing the site during the day and nighttime; however, the SP [Specific Plan] does not propose the use of high intensity outdoor lighting.” Page 64 of the MND indicates that the “Specific Plan provides standards requiring signage to be high quality, attractive, and informative. The standards require lighting to be shielded and directed downward in order to reduce glare, preserve dark night skies, while still providing directional, safety, and informational functions.” No additional details are provided on lighting design plans or specifications or additional avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures associated with artificial nighttime lighting.

The Project is located adjacent to open-space areas to the west and east—areas that provide suitable nesting, roosting, foraging, and refugia habitat for birds, migratory birds that fly at night, bats, other nocturnal and crepuscular wildlife, and Covered Species under the CVMSHCP. The open-space area to the east contains modeled habitat for CVMSHCP Covered Species including, but not limited to, flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii), Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata), Palm Springs pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris bangsi), and Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus). The Project’s proposed artificial nighttime lighting has the potential to significantly and adversely affect fish and wildlife in the open-space areas adjacent to the Project site. Artificial lighting alters ecological processes including, but not limited to, the temporal niches of species; the repair and recovery of physiological function; the measurement of time through interference with the detection of circadian and lunar and seasonal cycles; the detection of resources and 7-851

Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024

Page 11 ends

natural enemies; and navigation8. Many species use photoperiod cues for communication (e.g., bird song9), determining when to begin foraging10, behavioral thermoregulation11, and migration12. Phototaxis, a phenomenon that results in attraction and movement towards light, can disorient, entrap, and temporarily blind wildlife species that experience it8.

CDFW recommends the MND is revised to include an analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of artificial nighttime lighting expected to adversely affect biological resources within open-space areas adjacent to the Project site. CDFW also recommends the MND is revised to include lightning design plans and lighting specifications to allow CDFW to conduct a meaningful review and provide appropriate biological expertise. Also, the MND lacks a mitigation measure for artificial nighttime lighting. To support the City in avoiding or reducing impacts of artificial nighttime lighting on biological resources to less than significant, CDFW recommends that the City add the following mitigation measure to a revised MND:

Mitigation Measure BIO-[B]: Artificial Nighttime Lighting

Throughout construction and the lifetime operations of the Project, the City of Rancho Mirage and Project proponent shall eliminate all nonessential lighting throughout the Project area and avoid or limit the use of artificial light at night during the hours of dawn and dusk when many wildlife species are most active.

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

8 Gatson, K. J., Bennie, J., Davies, T., Hopkins, J. 2013. The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biological Reviews, 88.4: 912-927. 9 Miller, M. W. 2006. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American robins. The Condor 108:130– 139.
10 Stone, E. L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2009. Street lighting disturbs commuting bats. Current Biology 19:1123– 1127.
11 Beiswenger, R. E. 1977. Diet patterns of aggregative behavior in tadpoles of Bufo americanus, in relation to light and temperature. Ecology 58:98–108.
12 Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution - Review. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:191–198.

7-852

Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024

Page 12 ends

5) Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Local Development Mitigation Fee

Page 33 ends

the CVMSHCP, and is therefore subject to payment of the Development Mitigation Fee, which will mitigate potential impacts to covered species as a standard requirement imposed by the City.” To document the City’s obligation as a Local Permittee under the CVMSHCP to impose a local development mitigation fee for this Project, CDFW recommends the City add the following mitigation measure to a revised MND:

Mitigation Measure BIO-[C]: CVMSHCP Compliance
Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the City of Rancho Mirage shall ensure compliance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) and its associated Implementing Agreement and shall ensure the collection of payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee and transfer of revenues to the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission.

Salvage of Sand-Dependent Covered Species
Further, Section 6.6.1 of the CVMSHCP (Obligations of Local Permittees) states that within and outside Conservation Areas “on parcels approved for Development, the Permittees shall encourage the opportunity to salvage Covered sand-dependent species in accordance with the Implementation Manual.” The Project site contains modeled habitat for CVMSHCP Covered Species including, but not limited to, flat-tailed horned lizard, Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, Palm Springs pocket mouse, and Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrel. To be consistent with the CVMSHCP, CDFW recommends that the City of Rancho Mirage include in a revised MND the following mitigation measure:

Mitigation Measure BIO-[D]: Salvage of Sand-Dependent Covered Species Prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, the City of Rancho Mirage will collaborate with the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission to plan and implement a salvage of Covered sand-dependent species within the Project site.
6) Landscaping

Page 56 ends

including the use of water-efficient fixtures and drought-tolerant landscape materials”.

No other details are provided in the MND on the Project’s proposed landscaping plans.

CDFW recommends incorporation of water-wise concepts in any Project landscape 7-853

Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024

Page 13 ends

design plans. In particular, CDFW recommends xeriscaping with locally native California species and installing water-efficient and targeted irrigation systems (such as drip irrigation). Native plants support butterflies, birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, bees, and other pollinators that evolved with those plants. More information on native plants suitable for the Project location and nearby nurseries is available at Calscape:
https://calscape.org/. Local water agencies/cities and resource conservation cities in your area may be able to provide information on plant nurseries that carry locally native species, and some facilities display drought-tolerant locally native species demonstration gardens. Information on drought-tolerant landscaping and water-efficient irrigation systems is available on California’s Save our Water website:
https://saveourwater.com/. CDFW also recommends that the MND include recommendations regarding landscaping from Section 4.0 of the CVMSHCP “Table 4- 112: Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping” (pp. 4-180 to 4- 182; https://cvmshcp.org/plan-documents/).

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

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

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts to biological resources. CDFW concludes that the MND does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, impacts to biological resources. CDFW also concludes that the MND lacks sufficient information for a meaningful review of impacts to biological resources, 7-854

Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024

Page 14 ends

including a complete assessment of biological resources and Project description. The CEQA Guidelines indicate that recirculation is required when insufficient information in the MND precludes a meaningful review (§ 15088.5) or when a new significant effect is identified and additional mitigation measures are necessary (§ 15073.5). CDFW recommends that a revised MND, including a complete assessment of biological resources and Project description, be recirculated for public comment. CDFW also recommends that revised and additional mitigation measures and analysis as described in this letter be added to a revised MND.

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

Sincerely,

Kim Freeburn
Environmental Program Manager

Attachment 1: MMRP for CDFW-Proposed Mitigation Measures

ec:

Heather Brashear, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisor), CDFW [email protected]

Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento [email protected]

Peter Satin, Coachella Valley Conservation Commission
[email protected]

7-855

Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024

Page 15 ends

ATTACHMENT 1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) Mitigation Measures Timing and
Methods
Responsible
Parties

Mitigation Measure BIO-[A]
Prior to Project construction activities, a thorough,
recent, floristic-based assessment of special status
plants and natural communities, following CDFW’s
Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to
Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural
Communities (see
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants)
shall be performed by a qualified biologist. Should
any state-listed plant species be present in the
Project area, the Project proponent shall obtain
appropriate CESA authorization for those species
prior to the start of Project activities. Should other
special-status plants or natural communities be
present in the Project area, on-site or off-site habitat restoration (whichever is applicable) and/or
enhancement and preservation should be evaluated
and discussed in detail. Where habitat preservation is
not available on-site, off-site land acquisition,
management, and preservation should be evaluated.

Timing: Prior to
Project
construction
activities.

Methods: See
Mitigation
Measure

Implementation:

City of Rancho
Mirage and Project
proponent

Monitoring and
Reporting: City of
Rancho Mirage
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Nesting Birds
Regardless of the time of year, nesting bird surveys
shall be performed by a qualified avian biologist no
more than 3 days prior to vegetation removal or
ground-disturbing activities. Pre-construction
surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect
evidence of nesting, including nest locations and
nesting behavior. The qualified avian biologist will
make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as
a result of survey and monitoring efforts. If active
nests are found during the pre-construction nesting
bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish an
appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground.

Nest buffers are species specific and shall be at least 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors. A
smaller or larger buffer may be determined by the
qualified biologist familiar with the nesting
phenology of the nesting species and based on nest
and buffer monitoring results. Construction activities
may not occur inside the established buffers, which
Timing: No more
than 3 days prior
to vegetation
removal or
ground-disturbing
activities.

Methods: See
Mitigation
Measure

Implementation:

City of Rancho
Mirage and Project
proponent

Monitoring and
Reporting: City of
Rancho Mirage
7-856

Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024

Page 16 ends

shall remain on site until a qualified biologist
determines the young have fledged or the nest is no
longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the
established buffer distance shall be monitored daily
by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the Project
has been completed. The qualified biologist has the
authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Burrowing Owl Surveys

Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed
on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist according
to the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prior
to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities.

If burrowing owls are detected during the focused
surveys, the qualified biologist and Project
proponent shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that
shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval
prior to commencing Project activities. The
Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed
avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and monitoring
actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the
number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres
of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers
and other avoidance measures if avoidance is
proposed. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl
habitat or burrow cannot be avoided, the Burrowing
Owl Plan shall also describe minimization and
relocation actions that will be implemented.

Proposed implementation of burrow exclusion and
closure should only be considered as a last resort,
after all other options have been evaluated as
exclusion is not in itself an avoidance, minimization,
or mitigation method and has the possibility to result
in take. If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be
avoided, information shall be provided regarding
adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls
along with proposed relocation actions. The Project
proponent shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan
following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.

Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be
conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of
Project-related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most
recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be
Timing: Focused
surveys: Prior to
vegetation
removal or
ground-disturbing
activities. Pre-
construction
surveys: No less
than 14 days prior
to start of Project-
related activities
and within 24
hours prior to
ground
disturbance.

Methods: See
Mitigation
Measure

Implementation:

City of Rancho
Mirage and Project
proponent

Monitoring and
Reporting: City of
Rancho Mirage
7-857

Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024

Page 17 ends

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

Mitigation Measure BIO-[B]: Artificial Nighttime
Lighting

Throughout construction and the lifetime operations
of the Project, the City of Rancho Mirage and Project
proponent shall eliminate all nonessential lighting
throughout the Project area and avoid or limit the use
of artificial light at night during the hours of dawn
and dusk when many wildlife species are most active.

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

Timing:

Throughout
construction and
the lifetime
operations of the
Project.

Methods: See
Mitigation
Measure

Implementation:

City of Rancho
Mirage and Project
proponent

Monitoring and
Reporting: City of
Rancho Mirage

Mitigation Measure BIO-[C]: CVMSHCP Compliance
Prior to construction and issuance of any grading
permit, the City of Rancho Mirage shall ensure
compliance with the Coachella Valley Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) and
its associated Implementing Agreement and shall
ensure the collection of payment of the CVMSHCP
Local Development Mitigation Fee and transfer of
revenues to the Coachella Valley Conservation
Commission.

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

Methods: See
Mitigation
Measure

Implementation:

City of Rancho
Mirage

Monitoring and
Reporting: City of
Rancho Mirage
Mitigation Measure BIO-[D]: Salvage of Sand-
Dependent Covered Species
Prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing
activities, the City of Rancho Mirage will collaborate
Timing: Prior to
vegetation
removal or

Implementation:

City of Rancho
Mirage

7-858

Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Mirage
January 19, 2024

Page 18 ends

with the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission
to plan and implement a salvage of Covered sand-
dependent species within the Project site.

ground-disturbing
activities
Methods: See
Mitigation
Measure
Monitoring and
Reporting: City of
Rancho Mirage

7-859
Environmental Assessment Case No. EA23-0006; General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23-0002; Specific Plan Case No. SP23-0002; and Development Agreement Case No. DA23-0002
Prepared for
City of Rancho Mirage
Development Services Department
69825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Prepared by
Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.®
42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101
Palm Desert, CA 92211
March 2024
ATTACHMENT 4
7-860

i

Table of Contents

Page

1. Introduction 1-1

1.1 Plan Context 1-2

1.2 Plan Structure 1-3

1.3 Authority + Scope 1-3

1.3.1 Enabling Legislation 1-4

1.4 Relationship to Other Plans 1-4

1.5 CEQA Compliance 1-5

2. The Project 2-1

2.1 Existing Conditions 2-1

2.2 The Vision for Catana 2-2

2.3 Specific Plan Planning Areas 2-3

3. Development Standards 3-1

3.1 Development Standards by Planning Area 3-2

3.1.1 Allowable Uses 3-2

3.1.2 Development Standards 3-4

3.1.2A Residential Standards 3-4

3.1.2B Commercial Development Standards 3-6

3.1.2C Planning Area 3 Parking Requirements 3-7

3.2 General Standards for All Planning Areas 3-10

3.2.1 Perimeter Setbacks and Treatments 3-10

3.2.2 Walls and Fences 3-12

3.2.3 Screening and Buffering 3-13

3.2.4 Landscaping 3-13

3.2.5 Project Entries and Hardscapes 3-18

3.2.6 Lighting 3-18

3.2.7 Signage 3-19

4. Design Guidelines 4-1

4.1 Architectural Design Guidelines 4-2

4.1.1 Architectural Theme 4-2

4.1.2 Articulation and Massing 4-3

4.1.3 Building Materials 4-4

4.1.4 Walls and Fences 4-6

4.1.5 Mechanical Equipment, Screening, and Utilities 4-7

4.2 Landscape Design Guidelines 4-7

4.3 Site Design Guidelines 4-10

4.3.1 Streetscapes and Pedestrian Paseos 4-11

4.3.2 Common Areas 4-12

4.3.3 Signage 4-13

4.3.4 On-Site Lighting 4-14
7-861

ii

5. Infrastructure 5-1

5.1 Circulation 5-1

5.1.1 External Roads 5-3

5.1.2 Internal Roads 5-4

5.1.3 Paseos and Sidewalks 5-9

5.2 Water 5-11

5.3 Sanitary Sewer 5-11

5.4 Drainage 5-11

5.5 Utilities, Energy and Sustainability 5-11

6. Administration 6-1

6.1 Application Review 6-1

6.2 Specific Plan Amendments 6-2

6.3 Financing and Phasing 6-2

APPENDIX A: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ............................................ A-1

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 5-1 Catana Specific Plan Street Sections ............................................. 5-8 Exhibit 5-2 Catana Specific Plan Water & Sewer ........................................... 5-13

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1 Residential Land Uses – Planning Area 1 & 2 ................................. 3-2 Table 3-2 Commercial Land Uses – Planning Area 3 ...................................... 3-3 Table 3-3 Residential Development Standards ............................................. 3-5 Table 3-4 PA 3 Commercial Development Standards ..................................... 3-7 Table 3-5 Planning Area 3 Parking Requirements by Land Use ........................ 3-7 Table 3-6 Minimum Size and Mix of Landscaping ........................................ 3-14 Table 3-7 Specific Plan Landscape Palette ................................................. 3-15

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Planning Areas .......................................................................... 1-2 Figure 2-1 Location Map ............................................................................ 2-1 Figure 2-2 Land Use Map ........................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-3 PA 1 Site Plan ........................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-4 Single Story Setback .................................................................. 2-4 Figure 2-5 PA 2 Site Plan ........................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-6 PA 3 Site Plan Concept ............................................................... 2-6 Figure 3-1 Typical Tree Distribution, PA1 .................................................... 3-14 Figure 3-2 Representative Plants ............................................................... 3- 17 Figure 5-1 Planning Area Access Points ........................................................ 5-2 Figure 5-2 Rattler Road Landscaped Parkway ................................................ 5-3 7-862

iii
Figure 5-3 West Access .............................................................................. 5-4 Figure 5-4 PA 1 Driveway, Parking on 2 Sides ............................................... 5-5 Figure 5-5 PA 1 Driveway Plan View ............................................................ 5-5 Figure 5-6 PA 1 Driveway, Parking on 1 Side ................................................ 5-6 Figure 5-7 PA 1 Driveway Plan View (1 side parking) ..................................... 5-6 Figure 5-8 PA 1 Lanes ............................................................................... 5-7 Figure 5-9 PA 1 Lane Plan View ................................................................... 5-7 Figure 5-10 Pedestrian Pathways ................................................................ 5-10 7-863

1-1

1. INTRODUCTION

The Catana Specific Plan has been prepared to guide the development of a mixed- use community in the City of Rancho Mirage. The Project will provide housing and commercial services to the north end of the City and surrounding communities.

Catana is envisioned to be internally connected to provide residents with opportunities to move through the community without their cars, and to provide access to shopping, jobs, and school on foot, by bicycle or golf cart.

The Specific Plan establishes Project -specific standards and guidelines that provide flexibility for development of three distinct product types: single family homes, apartments and general commercial uses. The 36-acre site will be developed in phases, to allow for market conditions and the changing retail environment.

There are three Planning Areas within the Specific Plan:

Planning Area 1 provides for up to 210 single family homes with a central clubhouse, pool, gym and interconnected paseos that bring internal connectivity to the residents and provides their homes a garden setting. This planning area is being developed consistent with the currently allowed density of 9 units per acre allowed under the High Density Residential designation.

Planning Area 2 allows up to 95 apartments affordable to lower income households, and includes a central recreation area. This Planning Area will apply an Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre.

Chapter 1
7-864

1-2
Planning Area 3 is proposed to include up to 75,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices. This Planning Area will be developed using the General Commercial land use designation.

1.1 Plan Context

Catana is located in the northern part of the City, north of Ramon Road and south of Rancho Mirage High School. Its location on Ramon Road provides regional access to Cathedral City and Palm Springs to the west, Interstate 10 (I -10) to the east, and the core of Rancho Mirage to the south. Ramon Road will be the primary access for the retail commercial and apartment community, while Rattler Road, on its east boundary, provides access to both the single family rental homes and the retail commercial within the Specific Plan area.

7-865

1-3
The Catana community will provide unique opportunities in Rancho Mirage for long term rentals of both single family homes and affordable apartments – housing that is needed and currently unavailable to Rancho Mirage residents.

1.2 Plan Structure

The Specific Plan is organized into six chapters:

Chapter 1, Introduction & Setting provides an overview of the document, the project setting and legislative authority for the Specific Plan, entitlement process and other general information.

Chapter 2, The Specific Plan Area establishes the vision for the Project and describes its Planning Areas and land use plan.

Chapter 3, Development Standards provides development standards applicable to each Planning Area, and includes standards that will apply community-wide.

Chapter 4, Design Guidelines establishes the design guidelines applicable to each Planning Area, setting the theme and assuring high quality development throughout the community.

Chapter 5, Infrastructure provides for roadway and driveway standards within and bounding the community, as well as water, sanitary sewer and drainage plans for the Specific Plan area.

Chapter 6, Administration and Implementation describes the processes and procedures used to administer and implement the Specific Plan.

1.3 Authority + Scope

A Specific Plan is a document allowed under California law which provides local jurisdictions with a planning tool for master planning a particular site or project area.

A Specific Plan, when approved, becomes the zoning ordinance for the project area it covers. The Specific Plan is intended to ensure quality development consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Rancho Mirage General Plan.

The Specific Plan guides the standard of development for the plan area and is structured to provide a degree of flexibility for future land developers to address market driven changes if necessary. The Catana Specific Plan establishes and updates the design and development zoning policies applicable to development within the Planning Area described herein. This Specific Plan also establishes the regulations and standards which serve as the ordinance and development regulation for the Planning Area going forward.

7-866

1-4

1.3.1 Enabling Legislation

The authority to adopt and implement the Catana Specific Plan is granted to the City of Rancho Mirage by the provisions of California Government Code Section 65450 through 65457. The following are the minimum requirements for the contents of a Specific Plan, as set forth in Government Code:

¨ Text and diagrams that provide the distribution, location and extent of land uses; the distribution, location and extent of transportation, water, sewer, drainage and other utilities; and the standards and criteria by which these improvements will proceed;

¨ Implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects and financing measures required to implement the Plan;

¨ Consistency analysis to assure that the Specific Plan is compatible with the General Plan.

As with General Plans and Zoning Ordinances, the Planning Commission must hold a public hearing before it can recommend to City Council the adoption of a Specific Plan or an amendment thereto. The City may adopt a Specific Plan by either ordinance or resolution.

1.4 Relationship to Other Plans

The Specific Plan must be consistent with the City’s General Plan. It also establishes the Zoning for the Specific Plan area.

The Specific Plan area is currently designated High Density Residential ( 5 to 9 units per acre) on the General Plan/Zoning Map Amendment Map. As such, General Plan/Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23 -0002 (GPZMA23-0002) was included with the Specific Plan when submitted. GP ZMA23-0002 provides for three land uses within the Specific Plan area: 8.3 acres of General Commercial along the southern boundary (Planning Area 3) along Ramon Road; 3. 2 acres of High Density Residential/Affordable Housing Overlay along the western boundary in the center of the property; and 24.5 acres of High Density Residential land for the balance of the site.

The General Plan describes the High Density Residential designation as:

“This designation allows for smaller, single-family attached products and multi- family dwellings. It is most suitable for planned communities and affordable and senior housing where smaller units and higher densities may be appropriate. Duplex and multi -plex development is the most common and provides for PRDs of varying types, including apartments.”

7-867

1-5
Planning Area 1 is being developed with this vision in mind, and will include single family homes with private front patios and rear yards, centered on garden paseos that lead to the central recreation space.

The General Plan’s Housing Element allocates 400 units to the Specific Plan area, more than the 305 included in this Specific Plan. However, in order to assure that Catana provides high quality design and a safe and pleasant neighborhood for its residents, the Specific Plan reduces the ultimate density of the Project.

The Housing Element also describes the Affordable Housing Overlay, originally developed for the Highway 111 Specific Plan, as allowing densities of 16 to 28 units per acre, and conditionally allowing up to 34 units per acre for affordable housing projects. The Overlay was adopted by the City Council on July 20, 2023 , and its concepts have been used in the development standards provided in Chapter 3.

A complete analysis of General Plan consistency is provided in Appendix A.

The City uses a single map for both General Plan and Zoning designations. Therefore, the current High Density Residential zoning district is being amended concurrently and will match the General Plan designations.

1.5 CEQA Compliance

The Specific Plan and accompanying applications are “Projects” under the California Environmental Quality Acre (CEQA). As a result, the City prepared an Initial Study, which led to a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study found that the Specific Plan had a potential to significantly impact the environment, but that these impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of mitigation measures. The City Council approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to adopting this Specific Plan.

7-868

2-1

2. THE PROJECT

The Catana community is planned as a mixed-use neighborhood on 36± acres located at the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. This Specific Plan has been prepared to provide for the development standards and guidelines that will govern the development of the site, and the three Planning Areas within it.

This Chapter describes the Project site, the vision
and goals for the community, and each of the
Planning Areas. Chapter 3 provides development
standards, and Chapter 4 includes guidelines for
architectural style and details, landscape design
and concepts, and similar guidance to assure a
high quality neighborhood for Rancho Mirage
residents.

2.1 Existing Conditions

The Specific Plan area consists of 36± acres of
vacant land at the north end of the City (excluding
the 4 acres previously dedicated to the City for
Ramon and Rattler Roads). The land is bordered
by a vacant parcel of similar size to the west, Rancho Mirage High School to the north, Rattler Road and vacant land in unincorporated Riverside County to the east, and Ramon Road and Mission Hills North Country Club to the south.

Chapter 2
7-869

2-2
The residential community of Tuscany is northwest of Catana, and the La Sierra University and Eisenhower Health’s Vibra Rehabilitation Hospital are to the southwest at Da Vall Drive and Ramon Road.

Catana’s location on Ramon Road provides easy access to Interstate 10 to the east, at the Bob Hope Drive interchange, and to Cathedral City to the west.

Land Use Designation
Catana has for many years been
designated for High Density
Residential development in the
City’s General Plan. This
designation allows 5 to 9 dwelling
units per acre. In conjunction with
this Specific Plan, a General
Plan/Zoning Map Amendment was
processed to modify the
designation of a portion of the
property to include 8 .3± acres of
General Commercial along Ramon
Road, and the addition of an
Affordable Housing Overlay to

3.3± acres along the west
property line, in the center of the
site, as shown in Figure 2-1. The
balance of the site, or about 24.5
acres, will remain High Density
Residential.

Surrounding Land Use
Designations
Land to the west is designated
Mixed Use, which allows commercial, office , and high density residential projects.

Land to the north is designated Public/School, for the High School property. To the east, the City has identified Medium Density Residential for lands that are currently in the City’s Sphere of Influence, allowing up to 4 dwelling units per acre. Land to the south is designated Private Open Space and Medium Density Residential further south for the homes located on the Mission Hills North golf course.

2.2 The Vision for Catana

Catana will be a new neighborhood for Rancho Mirage. It provides much -needed housing for the City’s residents and expands the City’s commercial base. The residences at Catana will all be leased units catering to families and seniors who Figure 2-2
Land Use Map
7-870

2-3
prefer to rent or are currently not able to purchase
a home. Of the 305 potential units, up to 210 will
be single family homes with front patios and
private rear yards available at market rates, and
up to 95 will be apartments in multiple buildings
affordable to lower income households.

For example, the Catana resident could be a
retired couple “downsizing” and not wanting the
responsibility for yard and pool maintenance; a
young working couple just starting out and
working at the High School or the shops in nearby
Cathedral City; or a manager or nurse at Eisenhower Health who is in Rancho Mirage on a year-long contract and not sure if they will be buying a house.

The shops at Catana will provide restaurants, offices and retail opportunities that can be used by both the neighborhood’s residents, the existing neighborhoods to the northwest and the passing traveler on Ramon Road. The commercial center will have a presence on the street, and buffer the homes to the north from Ramon Road.

The goals for Catana include:

¨ Establish a high quality mixed use neighborhood that allows people to live, work, shop and go to school without having to take their car.

¨ Maintain the City’s design standards while providing residential units new to Rancho Mirage.

¨ Complement the existing development along Ramon Road and support existing residents and Rancho Mirage High School.

¨ Provide local businesses with a central and high traffic environment.

¨ Provide first-class rental housing for those not wanting to buy a home.

¨ Broaden the City’s housing stock with professionally managed, leased single- and multi-family units that create a sense of neighborhood and belonging.

¨ Help the City meet its Housing Element housing needs for market and affordable housing.

2.3 Specific Plan Planning Areas

Catana consists of three Planning Areas, each providing a unique and distinct product type. Each Planning Area is expected to develop independently, with the single family rental homes coming first, followed by the apartments, and then the commercial development. This phasing is projected for several reasons: market forces are 7-871

2-4
currently showing a very high demand for leased housing; the long lead time required to finance affordable housing projects through the State and private lending institutions; and the current uncertainty associated with the retail market. As described in Chapters 3 and 4, development standards and guidelines have been developed for each Planning Area, and also for the Specific Plan as a whole, to assure that all three Planning Area are complementary and consistent in design and implementation. As shown in Figure 2-3, each Planning Area covers a distinct sub - area of the neighborhood. The site plan layout for each Planning Area will be developed through Planned Development Permits following approval of the Specific Plan, and may vary from those shown below. The overall allowed density or square footage, however, is limited by this Specific Plan.

Planning Area 1 (PA 1) is the
largest land area in the Plan
at 24.5 acres. It is designed
to accommodate up to 2 10
attached and detached single
family homes available for
lease, at a density of 8.7
units per acre, consistent
with the High Density
Residential designation that
currently occurs on the
property. Each home will
have a private 2-car garage
and back yard, as well as
access to the community’s
central Clubhouse/recreation
facilities.

Homes are proposed to be up
to 24 feet in height. The
homes will be either single
story, or have a partial, or
“pop up” second story that
occupies only a portion of the
first floor footprint (shown in
light tan on Figure 2 -3). In
order to minimize the impact
on the high school and the
Tuscany neighborhood, a
single-story limitation will be
included along the northern
boundary of PA 1. It requires
that building heights be
limited to 15 feet within 45
feet of the northern property
Figure 2-3
PA 1 Site Plan
Figure 2-4
Single Story Setback
7-872

2-5
line (please see Chapter 3, Table 3 -3). A single-story limitation is also placed on homes along the eastern property line, which restricts the homes to 15 feet within 55 feet of the project’s boundary on Rattler Road.

The Clubhouse will include a pool and spa with lounge chairs and cabanas, a gym and central leasing office. Residents can make their way to the Clubhouse through a system of landscaped paseos/sidewalks that bring internal connectivity to the residents and provides their homes a garden setting.

PA 1 takes access from Rattler Road, with a main gated entry at the center of the site, and a residents’ gate on the north end. Emergency access will also be provided at the south end of PA 1 on Rattler Road. On the south boundary of PA 1, pedestrian gates will connect to Planning Area 3, to allow residents easy access to the commercial businesses without need for a car.

Planning Area 2 is centered in the Specific Plan area,
and will provide up to 95 apartments affordable to
lower income households. Apartments will be walk-up
flats in multiple three -story buildings at a density of 28 units per acre. Parking will be provided under
carports, with parking areas adjacent to each building
in a looped configuration. The carports will also
provide a platform for solar panels.

This Planning Area also includes a central recreation
area. The recreation area will include a playground,
community room, and leasing office. This Planning
Area is assigned an Affordable Housing Overlay to
allow for increased density and building height.

Access to PA 2 will be from the south on Ramon Road,
via a 36-foot driveway that will be shared with
Planning Areas 1 and 3.

Planning Area 3 covers the entire Ramon Road
frontage, and will include up to 75,000 square feet of
retail and office uses consistent with those allowed in the General Commercial (C-G) Zoning District. PA 3 will consist of multiple buildings with a presence on the street, to create a sense of place. The configuration may vary, and provide a mix of retail and office buildings, depending on the market.

Figure 2-5
PA 2 Site Plan
7-873

2-6
Courtyards and seating areas will connect the buildings and provide an opportunity for restaurant terraces, public seating areas, and safe pedestrian ways throughout.

A meandering landscape and sidewalks will lead visitors from Ramon Road into the project, to promote pedestrian access.

PA 3 will include a single primary
access at the center of the site,
directly onto Ramon Road.

Secondary access points are
proposed at the northeast
boundary to Rattler Road, and
on the west via the shared
driveway to PA 2.

Figure 2-6
PA 3 Site Plan Concept
7-874

3-1

3. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

This Chapter serves as the Specific Plan area’s Zoning Ordinance, setting the overall regulatory framework for the Specific Plan. It includes the types of land uses allowed in each Planning Area, as well as the setbacks, building heights, and parking requirements. The purpose of development standards is to provide quantifiable requirements for each Planning Area, as well as for the community as a whole . The overall intent of these standards is to ensure that each individual development project contributes to meeting the vision for the neighborhood.

Specifically, the development standards are intended to:

¨ Establish uses and site development standards which contribute to a unified design and development pattern.

¨ Provide for the nature and scale of uses which can make the most efficient use of available land.

¨ Contribute to the improvements of both visual and functional attributes of the community.

¨ Establish and enhance placemaking, as well as continuity and consistency of development through appropriate standards, within each Planning Area.

The requirements of this Chapter supersede the requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise specified in this Chapter . If there is a conflict between the regulations provided in the Zoning Ordinance and this Specific Plan, the regulations provided in the Specific Plan shall prevail. Where direction is not provided in this Specific Plan, the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance shall prevail.

Chapter 3
7-875

3-2

3.1. Development Standards by Planning Area

The following land uses and development standards are presented by Planning Area, to focus on the varying land uses proposed and provide appropriate standards .

Section 3. 2 provides development standards for the Specific Plan as a whole, regardless of the Planning Area.

Terms used in this Chapter are consistent with the Definitions provided in Municipal Code Section 17.90.

3.1.1. Allowable Uses

Specifically permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited land uses are listed in Table 3-1 for Planning Areas 1 and 2, and in Table 3-2 for Planning Area 3. The list of uses is intended to be complete enough to adequately describe the permitted uses that are compatible with the land use objectives for each Planning Area. If a proposed land use is not listed, the Director of Development Services or their designee, upon written request, will review the proposed unlisted use and determine whether it is Permitted, requires a Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, or is prohibited.

It shall be at the discretion of the Director of Development Services or their designee to determine if the use is consistent with the objectives of the Specific Plan as a whole, and is compatible with other listed permitted or conditionally permitted uses.

Where a use is governed by Zoning Ordinance standards, the applicable section is cited in the notes.

Table 3-1
Residential Land Uses – Planning Area 1 & 2
Use PA 1 PA 2 Notes
Accessory Dwelling Units per State law* P P Per 17.30.200 Child Day Care— Up to 7 P P
Child Day Care— Over 7 C C
Community Apartments and
Condominiums - P
Home Occupations P P Per 17.44.060
Multifamily Housing - P
Open Space and Recreation
Residential Recreational Facilities, Private P P
Swimming Pool P P
P=Permitted Use; C=Conditional use— Conditional Use Permit required; D=Development Plan Permit required
*Only State-regulated ADUs are permitted. Casitas are not permitted.

7-876

3-3
Table 3-2
Commercial Land Uses – Planning Area 3
Use PA 3 Notes
Assembly Uses
Churches/Places of Worship C
Community/Cultural Centers C
Health/Fitness Centers D
Indoor Amusement/Entertainment Centers C
Libraries and Museums D
Membership Organization Facilities C
Outdoor Recreation, Commercial C
Child Care Centers 8 or more Children C Per 17.30.060
Schools, Private C
Schools, Specialized Education and Training D
Studios— Art, Dance, Music, Photography, etc. D
Theaters, Auditoriums, and Meeting Halls D
Printing and Publishing D
Recycling Facilities— Small Collection Facility D Per 17.30.180 Recycling Facilities— Reverse Vending Machines D Per 17.30.180 Retail Trade
Accessory Retail Uses P
Art, Antiques, Collectibles, and Gifts D
Auto (motor vehicle) Parts and Supplies C
Building Material Stores C
Consignment Stores C
Drug Stores, no Drive-Through D
Drug Stores with Drive-Through C
Furniture, Furnishings and Equipment Stores D
Grocery Stores D
Pet Stores D
Plant Nurseries D
Restaurants, Sit Down D
Restaurants, Specialty D
Retail Stores, General Merchandise D
Shopping Centers D
Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) P
Banks and Financial Services D
Business Support Services D
Car (Motor Vehicle) Wash C
7-877

3-4
Table 3-2
Commercial Land Uses – Planning Area 3
Use PA 3 Notes
Hotels D
Laundromats, Self-Service and Dry Cleaning, Drop-
off only D
Medical Services, Clinics, and Laboratories D
Offices, Professional D
Personal Services D
Repair and Maintenance, Consumer Products D
Veterinarian Clinics and Animal Hospitals C
Transportation and Communication Facilities
Alternative Fuels and Recharging Facilities D
Broadcast and Recording Studios D
Public Utility Facilities C
Satellite Antenna C
Temporary Parking Lots (in compliance with city
improvement standards) C
Wireless Facilities C Per 17.32.050
P=Permitted Use; C=Conditional use— Conditional Use Permit required; D=Development Plan Permit required

3.1.2. Development Standards

Current zoning for the site limits the Project from achieving the Specific Plan’s desired goals. Therefore, proposed development standards were derived from assessing a combination of the zoning code and site plan elements in an effort to create a streamlined entitlement process for future development within Catana that is compatible with its surroundings and provides for the needs of future residents. Table 3-3 provides the standards for the residential Planning Areas 1 and 2, and Table 3-4 addresses Planning Area 3 standards.

3.1.2.A Residential Standards
Development standards for PA 1 and PA 2 have been developed separately to assure that the needs of each area is addressed. For PA 1, standards reflect the single family attached and detached product proposed. In order to achieve the pedestrian -scale, interconnected neighborhood that is sought for PA 1, front yard setbacks have been reduced to bring homes closer to the public realm, rather than setting them far back.

Since front yards will occur both on streets and on paseos, the traditional “front yard” setback is not appropriate. Because PA 1 will not be subdivided into individual lots, the traditional front, side and rear setbacks will not apply. Instead, distances have been calculated based on Project features, such as driveways, lanes and buildings.

7-878

3-5
In PA 2, in order to assure the feasibility of the affordable housing product, building heights allow three story structures, and parking requirements are reduced. These reductions are generally consistent with the framework established in the City’s Housing Element for the Affordable Housing Overlay, and the higher densities applied elsewhere in the City, including in the Section 19 Specific Plan.

Table 3-3
Residential Development Standards
PA 1 PA 2
Minimum Parcel Size 25 ac. 3 ac.

Minimum Parcel Dimensions
East-west
North-south

980 feet
450 feet

270 feet
400 feet

Density 5-9/acre 28/acre
Units (max.) 210 95

Private Outdoor Living Space
(min.)
325 SF 60 SF
Common Open Space (min.) 20% 5,000 SF

Setbacks
Building to internal driveway 8 10
Building to parking lane 2 10
Distance between buildings (min.
feet):

Detached units
Attached units
Between apartment buildings

15 N/A

N/A
10 Buildings in PA 2 (min. feet)
To PA 1 and PA 3
To west boundary

N/A
N/A

10 20
Carports to property line N/A 5
PA 1 single story limitation (15
foot height limit)
From north property line
From east property line

45 feet
55 feet

N/A
N/A

Other Standards
Maximum Building Coverage 35% 35%

Maximum Building Height 25 feet 37 feet1
Carports N/A 15 feet
Unit Size (min.) 1,200 SF 600 SF
7-879

3-6
Table 3-3
Residential Development Standards
PA 1 PA 2

Fences/Walls (max.) 6 ft.2 6 ft.

Parking
2 spaces in
garage3 + 0.5
guest4

1.25 spaces/unit,
min. 50%
carports
1In PA 2, an additional setback of 2 feet for every foot of building height is required from the west property line, consistent with Section 17.20.100 of the Municipal Code. No additional setbacks are required for the north, east and south property lines.
2 At the entry of Planning Area 1, monumentation in the form of wall extensions can extend above 6 feet and up to 14 feet, as long as the area above 6 feet is less than 500 square feet in total. See Section 3.2.2 below. 3Minimum garage size 400 SF.
4 Parallel parking spaces shall be minimum 24 feet and up to 26 feet in length, 9 feet in width, consistent with other City Specific Plans.

Where PA 1 and PA 2 abut the perimeter of the Specific Plan Area, the standards provided in Section 3.2 will also apply.

Permitted Projections in Setbacks
Projections including, but not limited to eaves, awnings, reveals, cornices, closets and storage spaces, flues and fireplaces, air conditioning units and pool equipment may encroach into side and rear setbacks by no more than 3 feet, if approved by the Fire Marshall. Carports must be set back 5 feet from a property line in PA 2.

3.1.2.B Commercial Development Standards
Planning Area 3 represents the public face of the Project and has the greatest potential to attract pass-by customers from Ramon Road. The development standards are tailored to allow both retail and office development, with buildings oriented to the street, to avoid large fields of parking visible from Ramon Road.

7-880

3-7
Table 3-4
PA 3 Commercial Development Standards
Gross Lot Area 8 acres1
Lot Coverage (max) 35%

Building Setbacks
Ramon Road 25
Side (each) 20
Street Side (Rattler Road) 25
Rear 25
Distance between structures (min.) 20

Other Standards
Max. Height (feet) 282
Stories
Retail
Office

1 2
1 Total site area. Internal subdivision allowed, with cross-easements for access and parking.
2 50% limitation on mass at 28 feet. 24 feet average project-wide.

3.1.2.C Planning Area 3 Parking Requirements
Parking requirements in PA 3 are to be consistent with the requirements of Section

17.26, and will be determined based on proposed uses. Uses listed below are consistent with the uses permitted in Table 3-2. Should other uses be proposed and permitted in PA 3, the parking standards for that use shall be consistent with section

17.26, Table 3-6 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Table 3-5
Planning Area 3 Parking Requirements by Land Use
Land Use Type Vehicle Spaces Required
Assembly and Recreation
Child Care Centers (8 or more) 1 space for each 10 children, plus a permanent drop-off area as approved by the director.

Churches/Places of Worship
1 space for each 4 seats or 1 space for every 30
sq. ft. of gross assembly area, and may be
required for classrooms and meeting areas.
7-881

3-8
Table 3-5
Planning Area 3 Parking Requirements by Land Use
Land Use Type Vehicle Spaces Required
Indoor amusement/entertainment centers
Arcades

Bowling alleys
1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area.
4 spaces for each lane, plus required spaces for
ancillary uses.

Health/fitness clubs 1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Libraries, museums, art
galleries
1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area,
plus 1 space for each official vehicle.

Membership organization
facilities, meeting halls,
performance theaters,
including auditoriums
1 space for each 3 seats, or 1 space for every 50
sq. ft. of gross assembly or viewing area, plus
ancillary uses (e.g., bar restaurant).

Outdoor commercial
recreation Determined by discretionary permit or approval.

Schools (public and private)
Elementary/Junior High

High School

Specialized Education and
Training
1 space for each classroom, plus 1 space for every
5 fixed seats or 35 sq. ft. of assembly area in an
auditorium.
5 spaces for each classroom, plus 1 space for
every 5 fixed seats or 35 sq. ft. of assembly area
in an auditorium.
1 space for every 50 sq. ft. of gross classroom floor
area.

Studios for art, dance, music,
photography, etc. 1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Retail Uses
Building materials, hardware
stores, and plant nurseries
1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus
1 space for each 1,000 sq. ft. of outdoor display
area.

Convenience stores 1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Restaurants, cafés, cafeterias,
nightclubs, bars, taverns,
lounges, or similar
establishments for the
consumption of food and
beverages on the premises
1 space for each 80 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Retail stores
General merchandise

Appliance, furniture, and
bulk goods stores
1 space for each 250 sq. ft, of gross floor area.
1 space for each 500 sq. ft. of gross floor area.
7-882

3-9
Table 3-5
Planning Area 3 Parking Requirements by Land Use
Land Use Type Vehicle Spaces Required
All other retail uses not listed
in table 1 for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Service Uses
Banks and financial services 1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Business support 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Equipment rental 1 space for each 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus 1 space for each 1,000 sq. ft. of outdoor use area.

Hotels and motels 1.1 spaces for each guest room, plus required spaces for ancillary uses.

Medical services
Clinics, medical/dental
offices

Medical/dental labs
1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area.
1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Offices, administrative,
corporate
1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area for
the first 5,000 sq. ft. and 1 space for each 400 sq
ft. thereafter.

Pet grooming 1 space for each 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Personal services
Barber/beauty shops (and
other personal services)

Dry cleaning

Laundromats, self-service
1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

1 space for each 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area.
1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Repair and maintenance -
consumer products 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area.

Service stations 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area; plus 1 space for each pump island.

Self-service vehicle washing 3 spaces for each washing stall.

Full-service vehicle washing 10 spaces, plus 10 spaces for each wash lane, plus queuing area for 5 vehicles ahead of each lane.

Veterinarian clinics and animal
hospitals
1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus
1 space for each 800 sq. ft. of boarding area.

The parking standards also take into consideration the mixed -use nature of the Project by allowing for shared parking calculations. The City’s Zoning Ordinance allows shared parking based on methodology for calculating the peak demand over time for parking in a development of mixed uses using the same parking facilities in Section 17.26.050 . As buildings or groups of buildings are proposed within the 7-883

3-10
Planning Area 3 parking will be calculated to reflect the uses proposed. If, for example, several retail shops, offices and a sit -down restaurant are proposed, that mix of uses may be able to share parking spaces, since retail or office space will be open during the day, and the restaurant will be busiest during the evening. Each development application will have the ability, using the City’s standards, to tailor its parking to best fit the use.

Loading spaces, parking space dimensions, drive aisle standards and other design requirements shall be implemented consistent with Section 17.26.070 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Electric vehicle charging stations shall be provided in each Planning Area per the requirement of State and local regulations.

Planning Area 3 shall incorporate bicycle racks in conformance with Section

17.26.100 of the City’s Municipal Code.

3.2. General Standards for All Planning Areas

3.2.1. Perimeter Setbacks and Treatments

Catana is bordered by streets on its east and south side, and by existing or future development on its north and west sides. Details of the dimensions and standards for perimeter streets and interior driveways and lanes are provided in Chapter 5. In order to provide sufficient buffering between the Specific Plan area and adjacent lands, the following perimeter standards shall apply:

¨ Ramon Road: Ramon Road is designated a Major Arterial by the City. A parkway of 32 feet from back -of-curb shall be provided along the Ramon Road frontage , which will include a meandering sidewalk which provides pedestrian access into Planning Area 3 at a minimum of 3 locations. The parkway shall be landscaped consistent with the requirements of Section 3.2.4. below. No wall shall be required if buildings form the outer limit of the parkway, or if a public plaza, patio or pedestrian access area occurs at the inner edge of the parkway. Decorative walls, no more than 36 inches in height, may be integrated into parkway landscaping to support berms or mounding, or to provide visual interest and monument signage.

¨ Rattler Road: Rattler Road is designated a Minor Collector by the City.

¨ The parkway along the east edge of Planning Area 3 shall be a minimum of 22 feet from back- of-curb, and will incorporate the existing sidewalk into its design. A wall, no more than 36 inches in height, may be provided along the inner edge of the parkway, but is not required if berming or hedges are integrated into the landscape plan for the parkway.
¨ The parkway along Planning Area 1 is allowed to vary from 22 to 25 feet from back-of-curb, and will incorporate the existing sidewalk. The parkway shall be landscaped consistent with the requirements of Section 3.2.4. below. Where wall location transitions from 22 to 25 feet at right angles, pilasters or other 7-884

3-11
features shall be incorporated into the wall design. If undulation is provided for the wall, no pilasters are required. The perimeter wall will be integrated into the entry locations for Planning Area 1.

¨ West Boundary: The property on the west side of Catana is currently vacant, and is designated for Mixed Use development. The type of development that could occur there is unknown, but Catana has been designed to provide buffers to this property.

¨ Planning Area 1 : Where Planning Area 1 abuts the west boundary of the Specific Plan area, a minimum setback of 15 feet between the Catana property line and residential units will be provided . The setback must be landscaped, and can provide walkways to adjacent homes. A 6-foot high wall shall be provided on the property line.

¨ Planning Area 2 : Where Planning Area 2 abuts the west boundary of the Specific Plan area, the lesser of these two options shall apply:

¨ a minimum of 50 feet shall separate the apartment buildings from the western boundary line, or
¨ a distance equal to 20 feet plus 2 feet of setback for every foot of building over 20 feet in height, consistent with Section 17.20.100.

A 6-foot high wall shall be provided on the property line. A minimum of 10 feet of landscaping shall be provided along the western property line, within this setback area. Covered carports are excluded from the setback requirement, but cannot exceed 15 feet in height, not including the solar panels. 7-885

3-12

¨ Planning Area 3 : Where Planning Area 3 abuts the west boundary of the Specific Plan area, a minimum of 40 feet shall separate the commercial buildings from the western boundary line. A 6-foot high wall shall be provided on the property line. A minimum of 10 feet of landscaping shall be provided inside and adjacent to the western property wall, within this setback area.

¨ North Boundary: Planning Area 1 borders the site on its northern boundary. In this area, a minimum setback of 15 feet between the Catana property line and residential units will be provided. The setback must be landscaped, and can provide walkways to adjacent homes. A 6 foot wall shall be provided on the property line. Homes located along the north property line will be limited to one story and 17 feet in height if located adjacent to the northern property line. Given the grade differential between the high school property and Catana, all measurements of height will be from Catana’s finished grade.

3.2.2. Walls and Fences

¨ Unless required for a specific screening or security purpose, walls should not be used within Planning Area 3 . Walls shall be kept as low as possible while still performing their screening or security function . The maximum permitted wall height is 6 feet.

¨ In Planning Area 1, walls above 6 feet are allowed at the entry gate as architectural monumentation, up to a height of 14 feet, as long as the total area above 6 feet does not exceed 500 square feet. This exception is only allowed at the primary entry drive on Rattler Road, and is illustrated below.

¨ Chain link fencing is prohibited, except during construction of any Planning Area or portion of a Planning Area.

¨ Perimeter walls may be constructed of wrought iron or tubular steel, decorative concrete block, split-face block or stucco. Wood fences are not permitted on the perimeter of any Planning Area.
7-886

3-13

¨ Interior walls and fences can be constructed of decorative or painted concrete block, split-faced block, composite, wood or vinyl fencing, as long as they are not visible from a public street.

¨ The design and architecture of all walls, retaining walls, and fences shall reinforce the City’s desert character by the use of natural looking materials which can be expected to withstand the extremes of the desert climate.

¨ Walls design shall be compatible with the architectural character of the primary structures and the surrounding area. Building colors shall harmonize with surface materials, and shall implement and complement the project or development overall design program.

¨ Long expanses of wall surface shall be offset and architecturally designed to avoid monotony. Pilasters shall be provided at regular intervals consistent with the length and scale of the wall but at a minimum of every fifty (50) feet.

¨ Retaining walls of more than 120 square feet shall be constructed of finished decorative material which is compatible with the project architecture.

3.2.3. Screening and Buffering

Screening is a technique used to protect and separate uses and site functions from one another for the purpose of decreasing adverse visual impacts and to provide privacy. The following standards shall apply to screening and buffering:

¨ Where screening is required, a combination of elements should be considered; including, solid masonry walls, berms, and landscaping.

¨ Ancillary structures and service areas such as trash enclosures (PA 2 and 3) or loading areas (PA 3) shall be screened from public streets and adjacent properties through a combination of trash enclosures and landscaping.

¨ Electrical meters and transformers, telephone junction boxes, traffic control panels, and other above ground utility equipment should be screened from public view. Newly installed utility lines are required to be placed underground.

3.2.4. Landscaping

Landscape plans will be designed to be consistent with the water conservation in the Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) and executive order B-2915 as adopted by the Coachella Valley Water District.

Landscaping design plans shall be in harmony with the surrounding desert environment and emphasize the use of drought tolerant plant materials, including desert plants, and feature varying textures of inorganic groundcover. 7-887

3-14

Landscape plans will generally conform to the City’s development standards contained in Section 17.24.040 of the Municipal Code. However, because of the unique product type proposed in both PA 1 and PA 2, the standards for single family lots will not apply . Instead, the sizes of the plant materials in PA 1 and PA 2 shall conform to the following minimum mix:

Table 3-6
Minimum Size and Mix of Landscaping
PA 1 PA 2 and PA 3
Trees
30% 36-inch box and
50% 24-inch box and
20% 15-gallon
Shrubs 60% 5-gallon and 40% 1-gallon
Groundcover 10% coverage within 1 year

Trees in 36-inch boxes or larger shall be provided in sufficient quantity, subject to the approval of the Director of Development Services , to provide variety and emphasis at entrances and focal areas
within the project.

In PA 1, landscaping will be distributed
throughout the community rather than
on individual lots, as would be typical in
a traditional single family home
neighborhood, as shown in Figure 3 -1,
focusing landscaping to assure a lush and
shaded environment, and community
cohesion.

All landscaping areas shall be watered by
a City- approved automatic irrigation
systems. Only efficient, water conserving
state of the art irrigation systems shall be
used, in compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance.

The landscaping plant palette for Catana
has been developed specifically for the
Specific Plan, in order to assure that the
entire site presents a unified and
cohesive appearance, whether on Ramon
Road, Rattler Road or within each
Planning Area.

Figure 3-1
Typical Tree Distribution, PA 1
7-888

3-15
Table 3-7
Specific Plan Landscape Palette
Botanical Name Common Name
Palms
Chamerops Humilis Mediterranean Fan Palm
Phoenix Dactylifera Date Palm
Washingtonia Filifera California Fan Palm
Trachycarpus Fortunei Windmill Palm
Dracaena Draco Dragon Tree
Trees
Acacia Smallii Sweet Acacia
Acacia Stenophylla Shoestring Acacia
Brachyciton Populneus Bottle Tree
Callistemon Viminalis Weeping Bottlebrush
Cercidium "Desert Museum" Palo Verde
Chilopsis Linearis Desert Willow
Chorisia Speciosa Silk Floss Tree
Geijera Parviflora Australian Willow
Olea Europaea Olive
Olneya Tesota Desert Ironwood
Lagerstroemia Indica Crape Myrtle
Melaleuca Quinquenervia Cajeput Tree
Pinus Eldarica Mondell Pine
Prosopis Chilensis Thornless Mesquite
Prunus Cerasifera “Krauter Vesuvius” Purple-Leaf Plum
Quercus Virginiana “Heritage” Southern Live Oak
Rhus Lancea African Sumac
Ulmus Parvifolia “Drake” Evergreen Elm
Columnar Trees
Cupressus Sempervirens Italian Cypress
Juniperus Scopulorum Rocky Mountain Juniper
Laurus Nobilis Bay Laurel
Podocarpus Macrophyllus Yew Pine
Shrubs / Succulents Perennials
Agave Americana Century Plant
Agave Bracteosa Spider Agave
Agave Vilmoriniana Octopus Agave
Aloe “Blue Elf” Blue Elf Aloe
Bougainvillea Species Bougainvillea
Calliandra Californica Baja Fairy Duster
Caesalpinia Pulcherrima Red Bird Of Paradise
Callistemon 'Little John' Dwarf Bottlebrush
Dasylirion Wheeleri Desert Spoon
Echinocactus Grusonii Golden Barrel
7-889

3-16
Table 3-7
Specific Plan Landscape Palette
Botanical Name Common Name
Fouquieria Splendens Ocotillo
Hemerocallis Hybrids Daylily
Hesperaloe Parviflora Red Yucca
Ilex Vomoitoria “Stokes Dwarf” Dwarf Yaupon
Justicia Californica Chuparosa
Lantana Species Lantana
Leucophyllum Frutescens Texas Ranger
Leucophyllum Laevigatum Chihuahuan Sage
Myrtus Communis True Myrtle
Nandina Domestica Heavenly Bamboo
Olea "Little Ollie" Dwarf Olive
Penstemon Eatonii Firecracker Penstemon
Photinia X Fraseri Photinia
Rhaphiolepis Indica India Hawthorn
Rosmarinus Officinalis Rosemary
Ruellia Peninsularis Desert Ruellia
Tecoma Stans Yellow Trumpet Flower
Yucca Filamentosa 'Golden Sword' Adam's Needle
Yucca Species Yucca Yucca
Grasses
Calamagrostis 'Karl Foerster' Feather Reed Grass
Muhlenbergia C. "Regal Mist" Pink Muhly
Muhlenbergia Rigens Deer Grass
Pennisetum Setaceum 'Rubrum' Red Fountain Grass
Groundcovers
Acacia R. "Desert Carpet" Trailing Acacia
Convolvulus Mauritanicus Ground Morning Glory
Dalea Capitata Sierra Gold Dalea
Lantana Montevidensis Trailing Lantana
Myoporum Parvifolium Prostrate Myoporum
Oenothera Berlandieri Mexican Evening Primrose
Rosmarinus O. “Prostratus” Prostrate Rosemary
Teucrium Chamaedrys 'Prostratum' Creeping Germander
Vines
Bougainvillea Species Bougainvillea
Clytostoma Callistegioides Violet Trumpet Vine
Lonicera Japonica 'Halliana' Hall's Honeysuckle
Macfadyena Unguis-Cati Cat's Claw
Parthenocissus Tricuspidata Boston Ivy
Rosa Banksiae Lady Banks' Rose
Wisteria Floribunda Japanese Wisteria

7-890

3-17

Figure 3-2
Representative Plants
7-891

3-18

3.2.5. Project Entries and Hardscapes

¨ Entries shall reinforce the design layout of adjoining development by feature paving materials, accent trees and shrubs.

¨ Accent trees and vegetation shall be used as identity plantings at major entries to highlight key features such as entry monument signs or hardscape elements.

¨ Project entry crosswalks shall be highlighted by a band of interlocking pavers a minimum of fifteen (15) feet in width.

¨ Project Entry statements consisting of hardscape elements may include, but shall not be limited to:

¨ Enhanced landscaping treatment
¨ Enhanced monument signage
¨ Boulder groupings
¨ Decorative entryway
¨ Stamped concrete or pavers
¨ Berming/low decorative wall

¨ Commercial buildings in Planning Area 3 shall include a hardscape element which creates a focus for the building and creates a usable public open space amenity such as a plaza, outdoor eating or seating area, courtyard or arbor facility.

¨ Hardscape elements shall be used in coordination with the architecture and landscaping to provide a connection between the street edge and each Planning Area.

¨ Materials used in the construction of common area furniture shall complement architectural materials used on adjacent buildings and shall be of a common design. Trash receptacles and other minor details shall also relate to the architectural style of the buildings. Plastic and materials such as fiberglass are not allowed.

¨ Enhanced landscaping shall be used at plazas and courtyards to create focal points along pedestrian areas and to enhance views from building windows.

3.2.6. Lighting

Lighting is an essential element of all development and will be applied to points of access and parking, landscaping enhancements, walkway and stairway illumination, monuments and signs, and security. All development within Catana is subject to the outdoor lighting requirements and restrictions set forth in Chapter 4 Design Guidelines. Lighting will be subject to performance standards provided in Section

17.18.050 and will adhere to the following principles.
7-892

3-19

¨ Lighting shall not blink, flash, or be of unusually high intensity, frequency or brightness.

¨ Parking lot lighting and/or security lighting, when affixed to individual poles or affixed to any structure on site, shall not exceed a height of eighteen (18) feet above the parking area surface.

¨ Security or accent lighting for single-family residences shall be shielded to project downward or in a manner that the light is directed away from streets and adjoining properties.

¨ Exterior lighting shall be energy-efficient and shielded or recessed so that direct glare and reflections are confined within the boundaries of the Planning Area.

3.2.7. Signage

All signage will be located in a manner that provides optimal efficacy of the overall signage program balancing the need for identification and wayfinding.

Signage will comply with Section 17.28 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the building code in effect at the time that the signage is constructed, except where set forth below. In the event of conflicts between this Specific Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, the Specific Plan shall take precedence.

Each Planning Area shall prepare a sign program for review and approval by the City.

Materials

¨ All signs, except those otherwise permitted as temporary signs shall be permanent in nature and shall reflect the architectural design of structures and natural features of the site with which they are associated by containing unifying features and materials.

¨ Materials shall be selected to contribute to legibility and design integrity.

¨ Monument signs will be designed of the same materials and in the same style as the Planning Area structures in which they occur.

¨ Monument signs must be placed in landscaped areas that complement the monument.

¨ Individual channel letters, including reverse channel letters and raised letters within cabinet signs are permitted in Planning Area 3.
7-893

4-1

4. DESIGN GUIDELINES

This section provides the overarching design guidelines and principles of the Catana Specific Plan to ensure the development of a high-quality, well-designed residential and commercial project while allowing for variation and flexibility. The development standards in Chapter 3 Development Standards are considered prescriptive and quantitative, while the design guidelines in this Chapter are more discretionary and qualitative. The intent of these design guidelines is to assist developers and designers in understanding the Specific Plan's goals and objectives for quality development.

Specifically, the design guidelines and principles are crafted to:

¨ Express and describe the desired community character called for in the Specific Plan design guidelines.

¨ Provide design criteria and standards for developers, engineers, architects, landscape architects and other professionals in preparing development and construction plans, and;

¨ Lend guidance to City staff, the Planning Commission , and City Council in reviewing and evaluating future development projects within the Specific Plan area.

If the design guidelines in this document do not directly address a specific condition, City staff and the relevant commissions and boards will use these principles to determine the appropriateness of proposed plans and architectural designs.

The following design guidelines provide general design criteria and guidance with the goal of promoting visual compatibility while allowing for individuality and architectural diversity.

Chapter 4
7-894

4-2

4.1. Architectural Design Guidelines

Quality building design is determined by a wide range of considerations, including function and safety, sustainability, context sensitive design , diversity in facade and roof design, and a variety of surface texture and color.

4.1.1. Architectural Theme

A key feature of the Specific Plan is the creation of a coherent architectural style that reflects a Desert Modern theme, which blends contemporary and Mid-Century styles.

Buildings must have clean lines, play off horizontal and vertical planes, and incorporate natural materials. Buildings will incorporate innovative and creative designs such as asymmetric facades and a mix of materials including stucco, stone, masonry, or wood paneling as determined through separate Design Review applications.

7-895

4-3

Sustainability and energy efficiency are common themes throughout the Coachella Valley and encouraged throughout the Catana Specific Plan . Green building techniques shall be used for the construction and operation of all buildings and uses within the Specific Plan. Passive solar design such as the use of shade structures , building orientation, r oof overhangs, supplemental shading, and strategic glazing ratios shall be utilized for all buildings and/or planned outdoor spaces in the Specific Plan. Materials shall be chosen for resiliency as much as for aesthetics. As technology continues to expand and improve, solar energy can be harnessed to lower the energy demand of the Project. Active solar panel design will also be required in compliance with California Title 24 Building Code.

4.1.2. Articulation and Massing

The Specific Plan allows for residential and commercial development where careful attention to appropriate building height, scale, massing, and articulation will be essential to creating space and promoting a walkable mixed-use neighborhood.

The Specific Plan area enjoys views of the surrounding San Bernardino, San Jacinto and San Jacinto Mountain ranges, thus a sensitivity to existing neighbors and structural design is required . As building heights within the Specific Plan generally exceed those allowed in the surrounding area (see Chapter 3 Development Standards), it is essential that architectural elements and building components be varied to reduce the overall perception of mass, resulting in graduated frontages that allow generous view corridors. Visual simulations or sightline studies will be provided with the submittal of Development Permits for each Planning Area.

Planning Areas 1 and 3 allow up to two -story structures and Planning Area 2 allows up to three-stories. To reduce the visual impact of two-story structures, architects may consider a partial second-story design, for instance, a pop up. A pop up will not introduce significant volume or bulk, thereby avoiding potential impact to sunlight the streetscape, and mountain viewsheds.

7-896

4-4

All development within the Specific Plan area shall use the following guidance related to articulation and massing to create visual interest and maintain an engaging pedestrian environment:

¨ Varied and articulated wall facades, variations in height and rooflines, and architectural detailing consistent with the architectural style are required. Walls should have breaks, recesses, and offsets, especially at entries and important intersections.

¨ A variety of building heights and rooflines is encouraged to create visual interest.

¨ Buildings should be divided into distinct massing elements. Building massing includes wall plan location, wall heights, and roof levels. Garages should be designed as an integral part of the architecture of the development, and should use the same materials, colors and details found on the principal buildings of the development.

¨ Architecture should be sensitive to visual impacts of building mass and consider partial second-story designs, such as pop ups.

¨ All exterior wall elevations that are visible to the public have architectural treatments to alleviate flat, void surfaces in combination with pronounced faceting techniques. Buildings setbacks shall also be varied, where appropriate, and the use of pop -out and recessed features should be used to avoid square, flat silhouettes. This is highly recommended for potential apartment buildings.

¨ Buildings greater than 25 feet in height shall provide variation with elements such as awnings, fenestration, balconies, roof overhangs, or trellises to create interesting patterns and provide additional shade.

¨ Long horizontal rooflines on buildings with flat or low -pitched roofs should be articulated at least every 50 feet along the street frontage, particularly along Ramon Road.

4.1.3. Building Materials

Attention to appropriate building materials and textures combined with the architectural theme is one of the most important contributors to defining the character of a building or area. Materials should be of high quality and detail to provide visual interest and should suggest durability and permanence to last into the future.

7-897

4-5

Elements of mid-century modern design include clean lines, a combination of natural and manmade materials, graphic shapes, vibrant colors, and integrating indoor and outdoor motifs. Building materials will incorporate both color and texture. If the building’s exterior design is highly articulated, the wall texture should be simple and subdued. However, if the building design is simple, a finely textured material should be used to enrich the building’s overall character. All materials shall be coated or treated accordingly to withstand the hot, dry desert climate.

General guidelines for building and design materials are as follows:

¨ Durable, high quality exterior building materials that give a feeling of permanence and quality are strongly encouraged.

¨ Colors, textures, and materials should be appropriate for the desert environment.

Natural, rugged materials that complement the surrounding natural environment and can withstand the harsh desert climate should be used.

¨ Colors should include a base color and accent colors. Generally, a minimum of three colors should be used for each building. Color schemes should be selected with a harmonious range of accent materials and roof profile colors.

¨ Designers shall carefully consider the effects and maintenance challenges associated with texture to assure that it complements the overall design while being compatible with other building materials and not requiring undue maintenance.

¨ Non-glazed building surfaces and finishes may produce reflection and glare if shiny or highly reflective materials are used. Building surfaces should be a matte finish and must complement or integrate well with the surrounding viewshed.

¨ Use of exposed wood should be kept to a minimum and if used should be properly finished and stained rather than painted to assure maximum life of the coating in the desert environment.

7-898

4-6

Building materials that are encouraged
on facades as primary materials
include:

¨ stucco or plaster
¨ cultured stone
¨ tile
¨ fiber cement
¨ steel sheets or corrugated
steel
¨ painted or stained wood
siding or trim
¨ wood, metal, fiberglass and
glass doors
¨ Wood, metal or vinyl frames
for windows and doors.

Building materials that are prohibited on
facades include:

¨ plywood
¨ unfinished lumber
¨ vinyl or aluminum siding
¨ aluminum
¨ reflective materials
¨ chain link fencing

4.1.4. Walls and Fences

The Specific Plan envisions two complementary residential neighborhoods with perimeters consisting of fencing or walls on a minimum of three sides . Gated communities are encouraged, but not required.

¨ To fit in the architectural style and theme of the neighborhood, walls shall be constructed of grey, beige or white block (e.g. split faced block or precision block).

Fences may be constructed of wrought iron or tubular steel. Composite or vinyl fencing is only allowed for interior walls which are not visible from a public street.

Glass fencing is permitted in pool areas. Chain link fencing is prohibited.

¨ Walls and fences shall not be allowed to exceed 6 feet in height, as measured from finished grade.

7-899

4-7
¨ Community fences (which are
partially solid and see -through
material such as wrought
iron/tubular steel) provide a visually
attractive alternative to solid walls
and fences. They allow for safety and
privacy while preserving views and
creating a more visua lly appealing
neighborhood.

¨ Long, monotonous walls are to be
avoided. Walls shall have breaks,
recesses, and offsets, especially at
entries and project edges.

Landscaping shall be used to soften the visual appearance of walls and fences.

¨ Fences may be allowed for certain public open spaces as needed, such as dog parks and other recreational spaces. Other public open spaces are encouraged to maintain an open and welcoming setting.

4.1.5. Mechanical Equipment, Screening, and Utilities

¨ Any outdoor equipment, whether on a roof, side of a structure, or on the ground, should be appropriately screened from view. The method of screening should be architecturally integrated with the adjacent structure in terms of materials, color, shape, and size.

¨ Utility service areas, such as electrical panels, should be placed within enclosures that are architecturally integrated into the building design.

¨ A combination of elements may be used for screening, including walls complementary to the project’s architectural style, berms, and landscaping as deemed acceptable by the Planning Division.

4.2. Landscape Design Guidelines

Landscape guidelines establish integrated and cohesive landscape design tools and guidelines responsive to the urban context and environmental conditions of the Project area. Landscaping plans will be subject to the City Zoning Code, Chapter

17.24 “Landscaping Standards.” As previously discussed under Chapter 3 Development Standards, all setbacks must be landscaped.

7-900

4-8

Development within the Specific Plan shall use the following guidance related to landscaping:

¨ Landscaping should be used to help define outdoor spaces, soften a structures appearance, and to screen parking, loading, storage, and equipment areas.

¨ All landscaping shall utilize xeriscape practices in recognition of the desert climate.

Live turf shall be limited to 10% of each planning area. Artificial turf is permitted within the project; however, it is not permitted in Planning Area 3.

¨ Establish or enhance visual order of streetscapes, building perimeter landscaping and common open space areas.

¨ Avoid over- spray from automatic irrigation systems. Automatic drip irrigation systems shall not produce over-spray on surfaces outside the planting area.

¨ All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and attractive state and shall be watered, weeded, generally maintained, and replaced (if necessary) by the property manager.

¨ Enhanced paving treatments shall be used for major entries into the site and intersections to highlight key areas of the streetscape. Such treatments shall be located at building entryways, open space areas and courtyards, pedestrian approaches to buildings, on-site crosswalks and driveways.

¨ Materials used in the construction of street furniture shall complement architectural materials used on adjacent buildings. Plastic and materials such as fiberglass are not allowed.

The plant palette will feature a variety of trees, palms, shrubs, groundcovers and vines featuring desert compatible species. Inert materials and decorative pavers will also be used to compliment natural vegetation. Please see Table 3-5 Specific Plan Landscape Palette and Figure 3 -2 Representative Plants of this Specific Plan for details.
7-901

4-9

The irrigation system will be computer controlled and extremely water efficient. All shrub beds will be irrigated by drip irrigation emitters and trees will be irrigated on zones separate from the shrubs. The water use calculations for this system will be prepared and submitted per Coachella Valley Water District’s irrigation design requirements. Water efficient landscaping and water efficient automatic irrigation systems shall be provided for each Planning Area. The landscaping and irrigation plans and sy stem shall comply with all City ordinances relating to water efficiency and shall be an automatic system with an irrigation timer and two drip or bubbler heads per tree to produce deep root irrigation.

Landscape lighting will include tree and shrub up lights, path lights, and step lights.

All lighting will be low voltage and have low maintenance LED fixtures. The selective use of uplights will limit their numbers to only high-profile specimen tree and shrubs.

The lights will be angled to reduce glare and hot spots. The goal is to showcase the lighted element and not the light source.

7-902

4-10

4.3. Site Design Guidelines

Each Planning Area shall be designed to provide convenient, non -motorized circulation throughout the site to connect residences to community open space and facilities. Pedestrian access may include a network of sidewalks and paths adjacent or within proximity to residential units and open areas. General guidelines for site design are as follows:

¨ Buildings should emphasize pedestrian access and connections to sidewalks and other pedestrian spaces.

¨ Pedestrian access from public sidewalks to the on -site pedestrian circulation system should be easily identifiable.

¨ Buildings should be configured and oriented to create small - to medium-scale open spaces, including shaded gathering spaces.

7-903

4-11

4.3.1. Streetscapes and Pedestrian Paseos

The streetscapes and paseos withing Planning Areas 1 and 2 are intended to provide convenient circulation around the neighborhood, support non-motorized access, and connect residences to community open space and facilities. Plan -wide pedestrian access is realized through a network of sidewalks and paseos adjacent or within close proximity to homes and common areas. Development of Planning Area 3 should be uniform with respect to building frontage and consider vehicular access, parking, loading zones, utilities, screening, lighting, and provide convenient pedestrian access from Ramon Road, and Planning Areas 1 and 2.

The following characteristics and design features should be incorporated into the future design and configuration of streetscapes and paseos:

¨ Promoting walkability by providing pedestrian linkages between common spaces, parking areas, and adjacent planning areas.

¨ Pedestrian-oriented providing physical separation from streets and drive aisles using bike lanes and landscaping.

¨ Utilize structures and trees to provide shade for pedestrians, soften and frame the streets and paseos, and define the public space.

¨ Pedestrian amenities such as appropriate wayfinding signage, street furniture, landscaping and pedestrian-scale lighting.

7-904

4-12

4.3.2. Common Areas

The open space and recreational amenities for the
residential communities may include pool/spas,
parks, dog parks, playgrounds, picnic areas,
paseos and open retention areas , designed to
accommodate various needs and activity levels
through their easy access, convenient connection
to homes, and thoughtful designs. The open
areas are designed with an intricate arrangement
of functional and ornamental elements: plants
and structures for shade and decoration; lawns,
paths, and seating areas.

The use of on -site pedestrian amenities, such as seating areas, firepits, pool area furniture, lighting, and trash receptacles, is encouraged. The elements should be provided in conjunction with on-site open spaces and be integrated into the site plan as primary features. Outdoor open spaces shall be designed to enhance the site and/or building as a place for pedestrians.

Planning Area 3 will emphasize the use of public gatherings spaces such as plazas, patios, and shaded seating areas . Walkways to public gathering spaces connecting pedestrians along Ramon Road and to/from Planning Areas 1 and 2 will be provided that are separated from vehicular movement and clearly marked for pedestrian safety. Interesting and interactive plaza art is also encouraged, such as water fountains (consistent with the City’s water conservation standards) or sculptures with bench seating.

7-905

4-13

Planning Area 1

Amenities may include:

¨ Community pools and
spas
¨ Tot lots, playgrounds
¨ Clubhouse
¨ Gym
¨ BBQ areas
¨ Picnic areas
¨ Passive open space
¨ Parks & dog parks

Planning Area 2

Amenities may include:

¨ Splash pads
¨ Tot lots,
playgrounds
¨ BBQ areas
¨ Picnic areas
¨ Parks
¨ Passive open space

Planning Area 3

Amenities may include:

¨ Shaded gathering
areas
¨ Outdoor dining
¨ Public space
furniture
¨ Pedestrian and
bicycle access

4.3.3. Signage

To ensure a cohesive design, each Planning Area will have a cohesive signage program using materials consistent with the overall Project material palette and in keeping with the modern theme established in this Specific Plan (see section 3.2.7 Signage).

All signage will be located in a manner that provides optimal efficacy of the overall signage program balancing the need for identification and wayfinding. Care shall be exercised to minimize the overuse of signage and thus reduce visual clutter around each Planning Area.

Entryway signage shall provide a combination of the following accent features shall be incorporated into a project entry drive:

¨ Ornamental landscaping
¨ Architectural monuments
¨ Decorative walls

7-906

4-14

For signage lighting, cast surfaces or additive content shall be face illuminated from concealed sources. Laser or otherwise cut narrative content shall be illuminated from behind the material from which the content was subtracted.

4.3.4. On-Site Lighting

Lighting is used to both enhance security and to highlight architectural or landscape details and features such as entries, signs, canopies, and landscaping. Community standard lighting fixtures will be low voltage and low maintenance LED fixtures designed to human scale.

Entryways, mailboxes areas, shade structures, pedestrian pathways, and parks will be equipped with lighting fixtures. All development within the Specific Plan area shall consider the following guidance related to building lighting:

¨ Lighting is integral to building design and should be efficient, attractive, and durable.

¨ Provide site lighting that is functional; fixtures shall shine the least obtrusive amount of light but be bright enough for people to perform activities and to illuminate building address numbers.

¨ Exterior lighting should be designed as a part of the architectural and landscape concepts of the project.

¨ Provide well-designed, energy efficient, architectural and landscape lighting that contributes to a safe and inviting atmosphere without casting light into the night sky, adjacent properties, or sensitive habitat areas.

¨ Lighting shall be used only for the functional requirements of safety, security, and identification.

¨ Unnecessary lighting is prohibited in the interest of energy. 7-907

4-15

¨ All glare shall be directed onto the site and away from adjacent properties.

¨ Flashing lights are prohibited.

¨ The neighborhood entry and mailbox areas, shade structures and parks will be equipped with lighting fixtures.

¨ Selective use of up lights may be applied only on high -profile accent tree and shrubs.

¨ Architectural lighting shall not be visually apparent during the daytime.

7-908

5-1

5. INFRASTRUCTURE

The Catana Specific Plan occurs in the northern portion of Rancho Mirage, with areas to the south and west being predominantly developed, and undeveloped lands occurring to the east. The Specific Plan area is bound by Ramon Road, a major arterial road, to the south, and Ratter Road to the east. The subject site is immediately south of Rancho Mirage High School, which is also accessed via Rattler Road. Given these surrounding facilities, most infrastructure, including water, sewer, and utilities, are in plac e in the area. Likewise, the Ramon Road and Rattler Road rights-of-way (ROWs) are already established. With implementation of the Specific Plan, improvements to the existing streets will be provided, as well as on -site utility extensions to service the development. The following section provides a detailed description of all existing and proposed infrastructure for the Project.

5.1. Circulation

The Specific Plan area is located on the northwestern corner of the intersection of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. Planning Area 1 will have one full access driveway along Rattler Road and resident-only access at the northeast and southwest corners of the PA. There are two emergency access points in PA 1: at the northeast and southeast corners of the site. Planning Area 3 will have one full access driveway along Rattler Road, and two access points along Ramon Road: one right-in-right-out main entry, and one shared right -in-right-out-left-in at the western driveway . Planning Area 2 will be accessed from Ramon Road, via the western driveway that will also connect to the other two planning areas. None of the proposed Project entry/exits will be signalized. Access points are shown in Figure 5-1. Street sections for Specific Plan boundary roads and internal driveways are provided in Exhibit 5.

Chapter 5
7-909

5-2

Figure 5-1
Planning Area Access Points
7-910

5-3

5.1.1 External Roads

The right-of-way for Ramon Road and Rattler Road is already established. The existing conditions and proposed improvements for the two roadways are as follows:

¨ Ramon Road: Ramon Road is designated by the City as a Major Arterial. It already occurs at the full buildout width with a 120-foot right of way, including a six-lane divided roadway and bicycle lane s on each side. A meandering sidewalk also occurs on both sides of Ramon Road.

• The Specific Plan proposes the addition of landscaping along the existing sidewalk, providing a parkway of 32 feet from back- of-curb.

Improvements are also proposed to provide turn lanes into the Project access points.

¨ Rattler Road: Rattler Road is designated as a Major Collector by the City. Per the designation, the ROW is 100-feet wide, with two lanes divided by a striped median. A meandering sidewalk also exists on the Project side of Rattler Road.

The Specific Plan proposes landscaping and a staggered perimeter wall along the Rattler Road frontage. As stated in Section 3.2.1 of this document, the perimeter will result in the parkway varying in width from 10 to 13 feet from back-of curb. The parkway will incorporate the existing sidewalk.

Figure 5-2
Rattler Road Landscaped Parkway
7-911

5-4

5.1.2 Internal Roads

Internal circulation will be provided by a network of private roads connecting to the five Project access points. These internal drives will also serve as emergency access routes within the Project. Four classes of internal drives are described below (see also Exhibit 5.1.1):

West access: The west access driveway, which extends from Ramon Road to Planning Area 2 and Planning Area 1, will be a 46-foot ROW, comprised of a 36-foot roadway and 5-feet of landscaped parkway on each side.

Figure 5-3
West Access
7-912

5-5
PA 1 driveway with parking on both sides: Where parking occurs on both sides of the drive in Planning Area 1, the ROW will be 46 -feet. It will include a 28 -foot roadway and 9-foot parking lane on each side. Parallel parking stalls will be a minimum of 24 feet long.

Parking bump -outs will provide space for landscaping while serving a speed moderating purpose. The speed limit on internal drives is 25 miles per hour.

Figure 5-4
PA 1 Driveway, Parking on 2 Sides
Figure 5-5
PA 1 Driveway Plan View
7-913

5-6

PA 1 driveway with parking on one side: The ROW will total 37-feet in Planning Area 1 where parking is provided on only one side of the drive. This includes a 28- foot roadway and 9-foot-wide parking lane.

As described above, parking bump -outs will be provided on one side, to define the parallel parking areas.

Figure 5-6
PA 1 Driveway, Parking on 1 Side
Figure 5-7
PA 1 Driveway Plan View (1 side parking)
7-914

5-7

PA 1 lanes: All houses in Planning Area 1 will be rear- or side-loaded Parking will be provided via garages located at the back of each unit and accessed via lanes.

Lanes will include a 30 -feet ROW, with 24- feet of roadway and 3 feet for garage access on each side. No parking will be allowed on these lanes.

Figure 5-8
PA 1 Lanes
Figure 5-9
PA 1 Lane Plan View
7-915
7-916

5-9

5.1.3 Paseos and Sidewalks

Catana is designed to allow internal and external pedestrian, bike and golf cart travel both within and between Planning Areas and surrounding uses, as shown in Figure 5-

3. Within each planning area, paseos and sidewalks are included to allow residents to walk or bike safely, and to access common area recreation.

In Planning Area 1, interior paseos have been integrated into the site planning, by orienting some of the central units onto the paseos, rather than onto a driveway.

There are two east -west paseos that provide a community -wide amenity, while orienting homes’ front patios onto a heavily landscaped walkway with seating areas and connections to the clubhouse and pool. The paseos will increase the sense of community for residents, and enhance the living environment by providing views onto a landscaped park-like environment.

Alternative transportation is also provided to the public realm from Catana. The project is adjacent to Rancho Mirage High School, and students, teachers and staff are likely to reside at Catana. By providing interior and exterior pathways, they can walk or bike to school, or even use a golf cart or NEV.

In addition, Sunline Transit provides service on Ramon Road, adjacent to Catana. It is important that Catana’s residents safely travel through and out of the project, whether walking or biking

7-917

5-10

Figure 5-10
Pedestrian Pathways
7-918

5-11

5.2. Water

Potable water for domestic and other uses is provided within the Specific Plan area by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The proposed Project will connect to the existing 18-inch water lines located in the Ramon Road and Rattler Road right of ways.

Drip irrigation will be provided to the Project and will connect to the proposed on-site water line extension.

5.3. Sanitary Sewer

Sanitary sewer facilities are provided to the Specific Plan area by CVWD. The Project will connect to the existing sewer lines located in the Ramon Road and Rattler Road right of ways.

CVWD also provides wastewater treatment services to the Specific Plan area.

Wastewater from the subject site will be conveyed to Wastewater Reclamation Plan No.10 (WRP-10), the regional wastewater treatment facility serving Rancho Mirage and neighboring cities.

5.4. Drainage

Pursuant to Policy 2.7 of the General Plan Safety Element, the proposed development’s on-site stormwater retention facilities must have adequate capacity to retain flows from the 100 -year, 24-hour storm. In Planning Area 1, s tormwater will be retained on site in the two retention ponds provided in the northeastern and northwestern corners of Planning Area 1. Additional underground storage may be provided on-site if required. PA 2 and 3 will also develop on -site drainage facilities, likely consisting of a co mbination of above -ground retention, and underground detention facilities. A Hydrology Report and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be prepared for each Planning Area as it develops within the Catana Specific Plan.

5.5. Utilities, Energy and Sustainability

The Specific Plan is served by Southern California Edison (SCE) for electricity and by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) for natural gas. Solid wa ste and recycling services will be provided by Burrtec Waste and Recycling.

The Rancho Mirage Energy Authority (RMEA) is a locally run, not -for-profit power program created by the City of Rancho Mirage. RMEA purchases power directly from power providers, pays consultants for compliance functions, and sets electricity rates based on its costs. Each SCE customer that resides within the City of Rancho Mirage is automatically enrolled in the Base Choice program which allows 31.7% of each customer’s energy to be provided by renewable energy sources. Customers also have 7-919

5-12
an option to enroll in RMEA’s Premium Renewable Choice program which allows 100% of each customers energy to be provided by renewable energy sources. These options will allow Catana residents to choose to lower their carbon footprint and reduce the use of GHG-producing fossil fuels for the production of electricity, consistent with the City’s Sustainability Plan.

All uses in Catana will be constructed to the standards and requirements of the Building Code in effect at the time that building permits are issued. Development of Planning Areas 1 and 2 will include the installation of solar panels, consistent with the requirements of the California Building Code for residential units. This standard will assure that energy demand within Catana will be substantially less than traditional residential projects in the City.

Catana will be designed to incorporate features that will lower its dependence on fossil fuels and provide residents with a healthier, more sustainable lifestyle, including:

¨ Pedestrian connections throughout the community, and between PA 1 and PA 2 to PA 3 to allow residents to walk or bike to shopping, dining and services. ¨ Shaded walkways and parkways, to lower the heat island effect. ¨ Passive solar design providing deep eaves, recesses and building siting to reduce sun exposure.
¨ Solar panels on all residential units.
¨ EV automobile chargers throughout the community.
¨ Water and energy conserving fixtures and appliances.
¨ Drought-tolerant, climate adapted landscaping.

Catana will provide a comfortable lifestyle in the harsh desert environment, while taking advantage of the new technologies available to reduce residents’ impacts on the planet.

7-920
7-921

6-1

6. ADMINISTRATION

6.1. Application Review

This Specific Plan is designed to provide guidance to the Project developers, City staff, and decision-makers in realizing the objectives of the Catana Project. The Specific Plan acts as the overall concept plan for the Project. Individual buildings and Planning Areas will be developed in phases, based on market conditions.

Projects in Planning Areas 1 and 2 will require Preliminary Development Permit (PDP) application(s). The PDP will be reviewed for consistency with this Specific Plan, and any applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. PDPs will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council.

Development in Planning Area 3 will require PDP and/or Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application(s). As with the residential PD Ps described above, these applications will be reviewed for consistency with this Specific Plan, and will require Planning Commission review and City Council approval.

Consistent with Municipal Code 17.42.080, Final Development Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Development Services to assure substantial conformance with the PDP.

The Specific Plan area will also be subdivided into Planning Areas for financing purposes. A Tentative and Final Tract or Parcel Map would be processed for this purpose.

Chapter 6
7-922

6-2

The Specific Plan, residential PDPs and Tentative Map may be processed concurrently.

6.2. Specific Plan Amendments

Two types of amendments are possible under this Specific Plan:

Minor Amendments are those that clarify text or maps, modify Planning Area boundaries or build out units or square footage by up to 10%, but do not change the intent or vision for the Catana community. Minor Amendments will be reviewed and approved by the Director of Development Services or their designee with a Minor Modification Permit (MOD).

Major Amendments will be processed as Specific Plan Amendments, and include changes in density, changes in square footage or units of more than 10%, changes to Planning Area boundaries of more than 10%, or changes which would substantially change the intent or vision for Catana, including changes in land uses. Major Amendments will require review by the Planning Commission , and approval by the City Council.

6.3. Financing and Phasing

Catana’s Planning Areas 1 and 3 will be financed privately, through traditional real estate financing. Planning Area 2 will likely be financed through several sources, including private equity, Federal and State tax credits and other programs for which affordable housing projects are eligible.

It is expected that Planning Area 1 will develop first, followed by Planning Area 2, which will be subject to State funding schedules. Planning Area 3 should develop last, based on the current status of the retail commercial market in the City and region.

However, the financial markets will control development opportunities and phasing will be based on market forces.

7-923

A-1

General Plan Consistency

California Government Code §65450 -§65453 permits the adoption and administration of Specific Plans as an implementation tool for elements contained within the local General Plan. The City of Rancho Mirage General Plan provides guidance for long-term growth and development in the City through comprehensive plans for future development. Consistency with the General Plan is achieved when the various land uses within the Specific Plan are compatible with the goals, policies, and general pattern of land uses contained in the General Plan. Consistency is defined as: “An action, program, or project is consistent with the General Plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objects and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment.” This statement from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) describes how a Specific Plan should be consistent with the General Plan.

The discussion below relates the Catana Specific Plan’s consistency with the goals and policies that are set forth in the Rancho Mirage General Plan.

LAND USE

GOAL LU 1: A resort residential community of desirable neighborhoods, a variety of community facilities, and high-quality development.

GOAL LU 2: A balanced mix of functionally integrated land uses, meeting the general social and economic needs of the community through simplified, compatible, and consistent land use and zoning designations.

Land Use Policies

Policy LU 2.1: Specific plans shall be required, where appropriate, to ensure new development achieves high -quality building, design, and development standards and provides amenities above those expected in conventional development.

Policy LU 2.2: Specific plans shall be utilized, where appropriate, to assure that phased, logical and cost-effective extension of infrastructure and build-out of new development.

Policy LU 2.3: Specific plans shall be updated periodically to reflect existing land use conditions, to modernize land use trends, to review boundaries, and to ensure that the long-term goals of the General Plan are being met through implementation of said specific plans.

7-924

A-2
Policy LU 2.5: The City shall ensure adequate visibility and accessibility for commercial development while preserving the scenic view sheds from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way.

Policy LU 2.6: The City shall ensure privacy and safety for residential neighborhoods by providing adequate buffering and screening, particularly where neighborhoods adjoin or are integrated with commercial developments.

Policy LU 2.8: The City shall maintain a cooperative planning process with appropriate jurisdictions, including the County of Riverside and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, assuring an effective advisory role regarding any and all development an d land use planning issues proposed in or near Rancho Mirage and the SOI.

Policy LU 2.9: The City shall incorporate land use and transportation concepts described in the SCAG’s RTP/SCS into land use and transportation planning design.

CONSISTENCY:

The proposed Catana Specific Plan provides guidance to ensure the phased, logical, and cost-effective development of the subject site. The standards and guidelines provided in the Specific Plan will ensure that the resulting residential and commercial development is high quality, providing ample shared residential amenities, access to commercial resources, as well as adequate privacy via buffering and screening. The proposed land use will ensure that the commercial development will be highly visible on Ramon Road, the residential development will be screened from the major arterial by the commercial uses, and that the two land uses are functionally integrated. The proposed land use pattern incorporates concepts described in the SCAG’s RTP/SCS, such as facilitating multimodal access to work, educational, and other destinations, as well as prioritizing infill to increase amenities and connectivity with existing neighborhoods. The Project will involve outreach to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians for consultation, as well as consultation with other local Tribes and jurisdictions, as applicable.

GOAL LU 3: The preservation and enhancement of the predominantly low -density, high-quality residential character of Rancho Mirage.

Residential Land Use Policies

Policy LU 3.1: Areas of existing residential development and surrounding vacant lands shall be planned in a manner that preserves neighborhood character and assures a consistent and compatible residential land use patter.

Policy LU 3.3: The City shall consider the issues of slope disturbance, development area and lot coverage, view preservation, revegetation, compatibility, public safety, and access while assessing potential residential developments.
7-925

A-3

Policy LU 3.4: Lower income housing shall be dispersed where feasible, appropriate, and compatible with surrounding land uses.

CONSISTENCY:

The proposed residential development will be consistent with the residential character of the City and of adjacent residential neighborhoods. The proposed site plan and building massing will be designed to complement the character of surrounding neighborhoods, while considering issues such as view preservation, lot coverage, vegetation, safety, and access. The proposed affordable housing component of the SP will be compatible with the surrounding market-rate attached and detached single family homes on-site.

GOAL LU 4: High -quality commercial land uses conveniently and appropriately distributed throughout Rancho Mirage, to meet the community’s current and future needs and to take full advantage of emerging development and economic opportunities.

Commercial Land Use Policies

Policy LU 4.1: The City shall designate sufficient lands to provide revenue to the City and a full range of commercial services to the community and surrounding areas for present and future years.

CONSISTENCY:

The Project proposes commercial development in the southern portion of the site, along the Ramon Road frontage. The proposed high-quality commercial center would be conveniently located for residents of the Project, as well as for residents of existing residential neighborhoods in the area. In addition to providing commercial services to the community, the proposed commercial center would provide revenue to the City.

CIRCULATION

GOAL CIR 1: A safe, efficient, attractive, and economical circulation network meeting current and future demands in a manner consistent with the resort residential character of community.

Circulation Policies

Policy CIR 1.1: Rancho Mirage’s street system shall be designed and constructed to maximize mobility, minimize congestion, and assure that all intersections and street segments operate a LOS “D” or better during the peak hours.

7-926

A-4
Policy CIR 1.2: A detailed traffic analysis shall be required for development proposals or other activities that might potentially require roadway improvements above and beyond those evaluated in the Circulation Element and General Plan EIR and EIR Addendum.

Policy CIR 1.4: 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.

Policy CIR 1.7: The City shall develop a system of continuous and convenient bicycle routes and multi-use trails to places of employment, shopping centers, schools, and other high activity areas.

Policy CIR 1.10: Streets in 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.

Policy CIR 1.3: Public streets shall be designed in accordance with complete streets concepts.

Policy CIR 1.14: Public streets shall be signed and striped consistent with the vehicle code.

CONSISTENCY:

The Project proposes one primary access point for each of the planning areas as well as secondary ingress/egress. The SP will ensure that these access points are designed to minimize potential impacts to traffic flow and public safety. Meandering sidewalks and bicycle lanes are provided on the public streets surrounding the subject site in accordance with complete str eets concepts. A traffic analysis was prepared for the SP that recommended improvements required and to ensure that Ramon Road and Rattler Road continue to operate at a LOS “D” or better during peak hours ; and a VMT letter was prepared to assure consistency with the City’s VMT policy.

Internal streets will also be designed based on complete streets concepts, with sidewalks and landscaped curb bump -outs to ensure that circulation within the site is safely accessible for all modes of transportation. The internal residential streets will be developed in accordance with the standards established in the City’s Zoning Ordinance as well as those set forth in the Specific Plan. All streets will be signed and striped consistent with the vehicle code.

7-927

A-5

HOUSING

GOAL H 1: A variety of housing types that meet the needs of residents in Rancho Mirage.

GOAL H 2: Housing to meet the needs of Rancho Mirage’s lower income households.

Housing Policies

Policy H 1: The General Plan shall provide for a mixture of residential densities dispersed throughout Rancho Mirage.

Policy H 2: The City’s residential development standards shall allow for a diversity of housing types while adhering to the General Plan’s community design policies.

Policy H 3: Affordable housing developments shall be distributed throughout Rancho Mirage rather than concentrated in one area.

CONSISTENCY:

The Specific Plan proposed a combination of market-rate and affordable housing. The site will include both attached and detached single family rental housing, as well as low rise multi-family apartments. The standards and guidelines provided in the SP will ensure that this diversity of housing types will adhere to the General Plan’s community design policies.

CONSERVATION + OPEN SPACE

GOAL COS 3: The protection and preservation of biological resources in Rancho Mirage, especially sensitive and special status wildlife species and their natural habitats.

Biological Resources Policies

Policy COS 3.2: The City shall support and participate in local and regional efforts to evaluate and protect natural habitats, including suitable habitats for rare and endangered species occurring in Rancho Mirage and vicinity.

Policy COS 3.3: The City shall encourage the use of naturally occurring desert plant materials in landscaping for development projects, to the greatest extent possible, and discourage the use of non-native plant materials that are harmful to native plant and animal species.

7-928

A-6
CONSISTENCY:

A biological resources assessment was prepared for the proposed Project in order to evaluate and mitigate any potential impacts to protected species and/or habitat on the subject site, ensuring that the proposed development is consistent with local and regional efforts to protect natural habitats and endangered species. The design guidelines provided in the Specific Plan promote the use of native and drought - resistant plants and landscaping.

GOAL COS 4: The conservation, efficient use, and thoughtful management of energy sources and mineral deposits.

GOAL COS 5: The long-term viability of limited and non-renewable resources.

Energy and Mineral Resources Policies

Policy COS 5.1: The City shall promote energy efficiency and conservation in all areas of community development, including transportation, development planning, and public and private sector construction and operation, as well as in the full range of residential and non-residential projects.

Police COS 5.2: The General Plan and other community plans shall assure an efficient circulation system and land use pattern in Rancho Mirage.

Policy COS 5.3: Major developments that provide significant employment centers shall be required to provide convenient and safe access to the public transit system.

Policy COS 5.5: The City shall support public and private efforts to development and operate alternative systems of solar and electrical production that take advantage of local renewable resources.

CONSISTENCY:

The proposed development will be subject to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires energy efficient building practices and the installation of roof-top solar panels on new residential and commercial development. The Project site has access to public transportation, with SunLine Route 4 operating on Ramon Road, including a bus stop at the Ramon and Rattler Road intersection. This will provide a convenient and safe transit option for residents of the Project as well as employees of the commercial center. The configuration of proposed land uses will support efficient daily circulation, with the proposed commercial center and existing Rancho Mirage High School both in walking distance from the proposed residential development. Overall, the use of energy efficient building practices, inclusion of on- site solar facilities, and the availability of alternative modes of transportation, will ensure that the Project is efficient in its use of energy and therefore mindful of the long-term viability of limited and non-renewable resources.

7-929

A-7
GOAL COS 7: An informed public that respects Rancho Mirage’s finite water resources and maximizes protection and conservation efforts for the benefit of the entire community.

Water Quality and Water Resources Policies

Policy COS 7.1: The City shall encourage the use of drought tolerant landscaping as a means of reducing water demand.

Policy COS 7.2: Evaluate all proposed land use and development plans for their potential to create groundwater contamination hazards from point and non - point sources and confer with other appropriate agencies to assure adequate review.

Policy COS 7.4: Require the use of alternative water supplies, such as recycled or canal water, for urban irrigation, where available.

Policy COS 7.5: Require new developments to establish and confirm the ability to meet current and future water resource demands.

CONSISTENCY:

The Specific Plan promotes the use of water conservation measures where practicable. The design guidelines established in the SP encourage the use of native, drought tolerant plants, consistent with the CVWD Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). A hydrology study and WQMP will be prepared for the proposed development which will be subject to approval by the City, thereby ensuring that the Project will not result in groundwater contamination. A CEQA Initial Study was prepared for the Specific Plan, which will include projections about the Project’s water demand and verification that CVWD has adequate supplies to meet that demand.

GOAL COS 8: The preservation, maintenance, continuity, and enhancement of cultural heritage and resources in Rancho Mirage, including historic and prehistoric sites, objects, landscapes, and structures.

Archaeological and Historic Resources Policies

Policy COS 8.2: Development of land use proposals that have the potential to disturb or destroy sensitive cultural resources shall be evaluated by a qualified professional and appropriate mitigation measures shall be incorporated into project approvals, if necessary.

CONSISTENCY:

An archaeological and historic resources assessment was prepared for the proposed Project which included a survey for cultural resources on the subject site, and recommended measures to minimize potential impacts to such resources.

7-930

A-8

AIR QUALITY

GOAL AQ 1: Preservation and enhancement of regional air quality for the protection of the health and welfare of the community as a whole.

Air Quality Policies

Policy AQ 1.1: The City shall coordinate and cooperate with CVAG and SCAQMD in the ongoing monitoring and management of major pollutants affecting Rancho Mirage and the region, with particular focus on PM

10. Policy AQ 1.2: The City shall promote the development of pedestrian-oriented retail centers, as well as community wide multi use trails and bike paths, dedicated bike lanes, and other desirable alternatives to motor vehicle traffic.

Policy AQ 1.5: The City shall review all development proposals for potential adverse effects on air quality and require mitigation of any significant impacts.

CONSISTENCY:

The Project will be subject to air quality analysis to determine whether the projected pollutant emissions would exceed the daily maximum thresholds established by SCAQMD, and to provide mitigation measures as needed. This air quality analysis will be reviewed by the City.

The proposed development will provide commercial amenities in convenient proximity to the residential portion of the development, and will include internal and external sidewalks in order to provide a safe and comfortable environment for pedestrians.

Bicycle lanes on Ramon Road will also provide access to the site.

NOISE

GOAL N 1: A noise environment providing peace and quiet that complements and is consistent with Rancho Mirage’s resort residential character.

Noise Policies

Policy N 1.1: Land use patterns, associated traffic and its distribution, and individual developments shall be assessed for their potential to generate adverse and incompatible noise impacts. Noise exceeding normally acceptable levels shall be appropriately mitigated.

Policy N 1.2: Noise sensitive land uses, including residences, resorts, community open space, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, and convalescent homes, shall be protected from high noise levels emitted by both existing and future noise sources.

7-931

A-9
Policy N 1.3: Project designs shall be required to include measures that assure that interior noise levels for residential development do not exceed 45 dBA CNEL.

Policy N 1.4: Land uses allowed adjacent to Rancho Mirage’s major arterial roads and highways, or the Southern Pacific Railroad/I -10 corridor, should generally be limited to those that are compatible with higher noise levels to maximize noise-related land use compatibility.

CONSISTENCY:

The proposed development would be configured such that the commercial center would screen the residential developments from traffic noise emanating from Ramon Road, which is designated as a Major Arterial in the General Plan. Noise analysis will be conducted for the proposed Project, at which point design measures can be recommended if necessary to ensure that residential interior noise levels would not exceed 45 dBA.

SAFETY

GOAL SAFE 1: A community that plans for and is protected from the effects of seismic and geological hazards.

Safety Policies

Policy Safe 1.2: The City shall establish ordinance and guidelines to reduce the hazards from wind-blown sand and dust.

Policy Safe 1.7: Developers of projects in area identified as being subject to a rockfall or landslide hazards shall prepare detailed geotechnical analysis, including site response to seismic events, and require mitigation measures that reduce associated hazards to insignificant levels.

Policy Safe 1.8: The City shall encourage the incorporation of wind barriers, architectural design features, and drought resistant ground coverage in new development site designs to mitigate the impacts from erosion and wind-blown sand.

GOAL SAFE 2: Protection of lives, property, and essential facilities from flooding and other hydrologic hazards in Rancho Mirage.

Flooding and Hydrology Hazard Policies

Policy Safe 2.3: The City shall provide direction and guidelines for the development of onsite stormwater retention/detention facilities consistent with local and regional drainage plans for community design standards.

7-932

A-10
CONSISTENCY:

The Specific Plan includes design features, such as a perimeter wall to screen the proposed development from wind and blowing sand , as well as the use of drought - resistant landscaping to reduce erosion . Also, as described in the SP, on -site stormwater retention ponds will be provided on site, consistent with standards provided by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

Geotechnical analysis will be prepared for the proposed Project, including analysis of the site’s risk of erosion, wind-blown sand, as well as potential hazards related to seismic events. If necessary, the geotechnical analysis will provide measures to mitigate identified impacts.

PUBLIC SERVICES + FACILITIES

GOAL PS&F 3: A city-wide sewer system that serves all residences and businesses.

Water, Sewer, and Utilities Policies

Policy PS&F 3.2: All subdivisions shall be connected to sewer lines.

GOAL PS&F 6: A high level of police and fire protection and paramedic service.

Policy PS&F 6.1: Review all new and improved developments for their impact on safety and the provision of police and fire protection services.

Policy PS&F 6.2: Enforce fire standards and regulations in the course of reviewing building plans and conducting building inspections.

Policy PS&F 6.5: Provide emergency police, fire, and paramedic vehicle access with all new development to the satisfaction of the City.

Policy PS&F 6.7: Promote concepts of defensible space for walled and gated communities, recognizing the potential effect those concepts can have on reducing crime in Rancho Mirage.

CONSISTENCY:

The proposed development will be connected to the existing CVWD sewer line in Rattler Road. The Specific Plan provides development standards to ensure that the Project will include adequate fire, police, and paramedic access within the site, as well as des ign guidelines that encourage the integration of defensible space. Final site plans will be reviewed by the City to ensure that adequate police and fire protection services will be available to service the Project.

7-933

A-11

COMMUNITY DESIGN

GOAL CD 1: Preservation and promotion of the special identity of Rancho Mirage as an “Oasis in the Desert,” combing quality development with scenic, natural, and open space amenities.

Community Identity Policies

Policy CD 1.1: Rancho Mirage’s symbolic identity shall be enhanced through distinct signage, gateways, architecture, and resilient landscaping.

Policy CD 1.3: The City shall ensure the development of high-quality, visually distinctive commercial uses.

Policy CD 1.4: The planning and design of residential neighborhoods shall provide distinctive and characteristic design elements along public rights -of- way and in the project, creating a recognizable sense of place.

Policy CD 1.5: Multi -family residential projects shall provide well -design and neighborhood enhanced living space, usable and safe private and common open space areas, adequate parking and appropriate automobile storage, screened trash enclosures, a compre hensive landscape program, and perimeter walls and fencing.

CONSISTENCY:

The development standards and design guidelines provided in the Specific Plan promote a distinct and high-quality residential and commercial development that is compatible with the character of nearby residential developments and of the City as a whole. Shared neighborhood community spaces will be provided on-site, including a club house, pool, and paseo for the single-family rental housing, as well as shared outdoor amenities including pools for the affordable housing. The Specific Plan provides standards to ensure the adequate provision of parking, the screening of trash enclosures and other services areas, a comprehensive landscaping plan that is consistent with the MWELO, and perimeter walls with integrated landscaping to provide screening.

GOAL CD 3: Scenic roadways that impart a sense of place and are attractively landscapes, provide visual continuity along adjacent uses, preserve views, and create focused intersection landscaping.

Scenic Roadway Policies

Policy CD 3.1: The City shall develop and maintain high-quality roadways that frame views, buffer surrounding residential development, and enhance commercial uses.

7-934

A-12
GOAL CD 4.1: A Landscape program that promotes aesthetics, climate change resistance, and place-making.

Landscaping Policies

Policy CD 4.1: Landscape plans submitted to the City shall be consistent with this element.

GOAL CD 5: Walls and fences that act as attractive elements of the streetscape, while providing privacy and views, creative design, and visual continuity.

Perimeter Walls/Fencing Policies

Policy CD 5.1: Wall and fence designs shall be considered important components of the design review process and overall streetscape improvement plans.

CONSISTENCY:

The street landscaping guidelines provided in the Specific Plan include the provision of meandering sidewalks, staggered perimeter walls, and attractive landscaping in order to frame views from public roadways, provide visual continuity, and buffer the residential development. In addition to visually enhancing the proposed development, the SP requires landscaping to use native, drought -resistant plants, consistent with the MWELO.

Goal CD 6: Signage of the highest level of design and construction quality.

Goal CD 7: Protection of the star-studded desert night sky from excessive glare.

Signage and Lighting Policies

Policy CD 6.1: The City shall encourage high -quality, low-scale signage that effectively communicates in an attractive manner.

Policy CD 7.1: Lighting features that preserve the beauty of the desert night while still performing directional, safety, and informational functions shall be designed and incorporated into development projects.

CONSISTENCY:

The Specific Plan provides standards requiring signage to be high quality, attractive, and informative. The standards require lighting to be shielded and directed downward in order to reduce glare, preserve dark night skies, while still providing direction al, safety, and informational functions.

7-935

A-13
GOAL CD 8: Architecture that is sensitive to its context, blending quality materials, distinctive detailing, and a strong sense of living with natural.

Architecture Policies
Policy CD 8.1: The City shall encourage cohesive yet flexible architectural design for all structures in Rancho Mirage.

Policy CD 8.2: The City shall encourage new development to incorporate “green building” practices to maximize resource conservation and be compatible with the surrounding desert environment.

GOAL CD 9: Retail centers in Rancho Mirage that are visually attractive, people - friendly, and economically successful.

Commercial Development Policies

Policy CD 9.1: Projects shall incorporate architectural interest and variety in the context of a unified setting, including commonalities of color, landscaping, signage and lighting. Strong architectural detailing including façade articulation and varied b uilding materials, colors, and massing shall be encouraged.

Policy CD 9.2: Projects shall provide comfortable, attractive, and distinctive pedestrian amenities including sitting areas, shade structures, plazas, and arcades.

Policy CD 9.5: Projects shall design highly visible entrances through accent landscaping, monument signs, back lighting, specialized paving, and other design amenities.

Policy CD 9.6: Projects shall incorporate rich and varied paving materials on entry driveways, pedestrian connections from parking areas, pedestrian paths along storefronts, and in plazas and courtyards.

Policy CD 9.7: Monument, retail, and directional signs shall use access lighting.

Policy CD 9.8: Projects shall incorporate monument signs near corners or entrances to retail centers.

CONSISTENCY:

The Specific Plan provides standards and guidelines to ensure high -quality, context sensitive design, while allowing flexibility for future tenants. The SP will include guidelines to ensure cohesive yet visually-interesting schemes in building materials, color palettes, landscaping, signage, and lighting. Proposed development plans include pedestrian amenities on the Ramon Road and Rattler Road frontages as well as within the property, with internal pedestrian connections and a paseo. Entrances to the devel opment will be distinct and easily indefinable entrances , supported by 7-936

A-14
monument signage, accent landscaping and lighting . Development will be required to comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, ensuring energy- efficient design and the integration of roof-mounted photovoltaic panels.

GOAL CD 10: Distinctly designed parking areas in Rancho Mirage’s commercial centers that incorporate rich paving materials, drought and heat -tolerant landscaping, clear and safe pedestrian and vehicular access, and protection from the desert climate through the use of well-placed trees and/or carports.

GOAL CD 11: Parking areas that area screened from public streets to the greatest extent possible.

Parking Design Policies

Policy CD 10.1: The City shall encourage layered landscaping with overstory canopy trees for shade and understory shrubs and groundcover in parking areas.

Policy CD 10.2: Projects shall configure parking areas to allow for the free flow of vehicular traffic and convenient vehicular access to customers.

Policy CD 10.5: Lighting shall be directed downward to protect nighttime glare and illuminate pedestrian pathways with bollard lighting.

Policy CD 11.1: Parking shall be screened from roadways by encouraging landscaped medians, berms, trellises, grade changes, or placement behind buildings.

CONSISTENCY:

The Specific Plan includes development standards and design guidelines instructing the development of parking, landscaping, and lighting on the subject site. Parking for the commercial center will allow for free flow of vehicle traffic, and will be easily accessible via ingress/egress onto Ramon Road, as well as secondary access points on Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The configuration of the commercial component of the Project places parking to the rear of commercial buildings, thereby screening the parking from view from Ramon Road. On -street parking for the affordable housing component of the Project will be placed in the western portion of the site, shielded from view from Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The landscape guidelines promote the use of greenery at varying scales, including trees, low shrubs, and groundcover.

Lighting will be required to be shielded and directed downwards, in order to minimize glare.

7-937

A-15
GOAL E&F 1: A growing and balanced economic base that serves the needs of Rancho Mirage residents, businesses, and visitors while maintaining the City’s high standards of development and environmental protection.

Economic + Fiscal Policies

Policy E&F 2.1: The City’s land use designations shall provide opportunities for a broad range of residential, commercial , office, institutional, and light industrial development in appropriate locations.

CONSISTENCY:

The proposed Project includes residential and commercial development. The adjacent uses proposed for the site will provide convenience for residents, while situating the commercial center in a highly visible location on a major arterial road. The commercial uses will support the City’s economic base. The development standards and design guidelines will ensure that both the residential and commercial uses will be consistent with the City’s high standard for development and environmental protection.

GOAL A&C 3: Night sky protection.

Arts and Culture Policies

Police 3.1: The City shall review lighting details for development projects to ensure protection of the night sky.

CONSISTENCY:

Design guidelines provided in the Specific Plan require the use of shielded outdoor lighting in order to reduce light pollution and glare, consistent with §17.18.050 of the City’s zoning code.

7-938
1 | Page
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

Ci
ty of Rancho Mirage
WHE
N RECORDED MAIL TO:

Ci
ty of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, California 92270
Attention: City Clerk
APN: 670-230-021
(SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER’S USE)
(Exe
mpt from Recording Fees Pursuant to Government Code Section 27383 - Benefits City) ST

ATUTORY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
AND
McKELLAR McGOWAN HOLDINGS LLC and RAMON & RATTLER PARTNERS LLC
Thi
s Statutory Development Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into this ______ day of ___________, 202__ by and between City OF RANCHO MIRAGE, a municipal corporation located in the County of Rive rside, State of California ("City"), and MCKELLAR MCGOWAN HOLDINGS LLC , a California Limited Liability Company and RAMON & RATTLER PARTNERS LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company (collectively, "Developer"), pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and Chapter 17.56 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code.

R E C I T A L S:

WH
EREAS, City is a charter city and recognized for certain purposes as a political subdivision of the State of California; and
WH
EREAS, Developer has the right to develop approximately 36 acres of undeveloped real property within Section 14, generally located at the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road as more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (“Property” or “Subject Property”); and ATTACHMENT 5
7-939

2 | Page

WHEREAS, the Developer has submitted application for a Development Agreement, Specific Plan, General Plan Zoning Map Amendment, Environmental Assessment, Tentative Parcel Map, and two Preliminary Development Plan s to allow the construction of up to 305 housing units and up to 75,000 square feet of commercial space (collectively, the “Project”), and

WHEREAS, on __________________, a Notice of Intent (“NOI”) regarding the City’s adoption of the MND was filed on the City’s website and The Desert Sun and otherwise provided in accordance with applicable law; and

WHEREAS, no complaints, lawsuits, claims or petitions have been filed against the Cit y challenging the City Council’s adoption of the MND and approval of the Project Entitlements (as defined below); and

WHEREAS, on __________________, at a duly noticed public hearing conducted by the City Council, the City Council approved Resolution No. ____, adopting a mitigated negative declaration (the “MND”), and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (“MMRP”) for the Project, based upon its determination that there is no substantial evidence in the whole record before it that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment, and that has not been mitigated to a level of less than significant, and that the MND reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis of the Project and its potential impacts on the environment consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines; and

WHEREAS, on __________________, a Notice of Determination (“NOD”) regarding the City’s adoption of the MND was filed with the Office of the County Clerk of the County of Riverside and posted for at least 30 days in the Office of the County Clerk and the NOD was filed with the State’s Office of Planning and Research; and

WHEREAS, no complaints, lawsuits, claims or petitions have been filed against the City on or before__________________ (within the requisite 30 -day period), or anytime thereafter, challenging the City Council’s adoption of the MND and approval of the Project Entitlements (as defined below); and

WHEREAS, on ____________________, at a duly noticed public hearing conducted by the City Council, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. ______ approving Development Agreement Case No. DA2 3-0002; introduced Ordinance No. _______ approving Specific Plan Case No. SP23-0002; adopted Resolution No. _____ approving General Plan Zoning
Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23-0002, adopted Resolution No. _____ approving Tentative Parcel Map Case No. TPM23 -0004; and adopted Resolution No. ______ approving Preliminary Development Plan Case No s. PDP23-0006 and PDP23-0007 for the Project (collectively, the “Project Entitlements”); and

WHEREAS, to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State 7-940

3 | Page

of California adopted Sections 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code (" Development Agreement Statute") which authorizes cities to enter into property development agreements with any person(s) or entity(ies) having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such real property in order to establish certain development rights in the real property; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.56.010 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code, a development agreement is intended to provide assurance s to Developer that an approved project may proceed subject to the policies, rules, regulations, and conditions of approval applicable to the project at the time of approval, regardless of any changes to City policies, rules, and regulations after project approval in exchange for assurances that City will receive certain payment of fees, the installation of certain infrastructure, and other benefits City cannot otherwise unilaterally impose as conditions of approval of the project outside the context of a negotiated development agreement; and

W
HEREAS, this Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning for and secure orderly development of the Subject Property and Project (as specifically described in this Agreement below), assure progressive installation of necessary improvements, and ensure attainment of the maximum effective utilization of resources within City at the least economic cost to its citizens; and

WHEREAS, based on the foregoing recitals, City has determined that this Agreement is appropriate under the Development Agreement Statute and Chapter 17.56 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, this Agreement is voluntarily entered into in consideration of the benefits to and the rights created in favor of each of the parties hereto and in reliance upon the various representations and warranties contained herein; and

WHEREAS, the City shall benefit from the expedited processing of the necessary permits to complete and operate the Project in that the commercial center will produce sales tax revenue for the City’s General Fund, increased job opportunities, and the production of up to ninety-four (94) housing units for affordable to lower income households, consistent with the requirements of the City’s adopted and certified 6
th Cycle Housing Element Update, as well as up to 210 market- rate housing units for rent to existing and future City residents.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in the Development Agreement Statute and Chapter 17.56 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

A G R E E M E N T:

Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals

The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement by this 7-941

4 | Page

reference as though fully set forth herein.

S
ection 2. Effective Date

This Agreement shall become effective on the effective date (“Effective Date”) of the ordinance enacting this Agreement (“Enacting Ordinance”); provided, however, that if a City-wide referendum election is called and the Enacting Ordinance is repealed, this Agreement shall be null and void as of the date of the final declaration by the City Council of the repeal of the Enacting Ordinance.

Section 3. P
roject

The “Project” includes the development of up to 75,000 square feet of commercial space, and up to 305 housing units for lease, inclusive of ninety-four (94) housing units for affordable to lower income households, all as provided through the Project Entitlements and this Agreement.

Developer shall record a covenant against Parcel 2 of TPM38834 which provides that residential units developed on the property shall be rented at affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, or affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the California Health and Safety Code, to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. Rental units shall remain affordable to and occupied by lower income households for a period of 55 years for rental housing. These requirements shall be covenants or restrictions running with the land and shall be enforceable against any owner who violates a covenant or restriction and each successor -in-interest who continues the violation.

S
ection 4 . Subject Property

The “Subject Property” consists of approximately 36 acres of unimproved real property located at the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road, as more particularly described in Exhibit “A,” upon which the Project will be developed in accordance with this Agreement.

Section 5. P
urpose

The purpose of this Agreement is to ensure the Project and Subject Property are developed consistent with the terms of this Agreement.

S
ection 6 . Term

The parties agree that the Term of this Agreement shall be 20 years commencing on the Effective Date, subject to any extension and early termination provisions described in this Agreement (the “Term”).
7-942

5 | Page

Section 7. T ermination

Except as provided herein, this Agreement shall be terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events:

(a) Expiration of the 20 year term;
(b) Completion of the Project in accordance with the Project E ntitlements and City’s issuance of all required occupancy permits and acceptance of all improvements required under the Project Entitlements and this Agreement;
(c) Entry of final judgment or issuance of a final order directing City to set aside, withdraw, or abrogate City’s approval of this Agreement or any material part of the Project Entitlements; or
(d) The effective date of a party’s election to terminate the Agreement in response to an uncured default by the other party, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. (e) In the event of a termination of this Agreement with respect to any portion of the Project, any then-existing rights and obligations of the parties with respect to such portion of the Project shall automatically terminate and be of no f urther force, effect or operation. No termination of this Agreement with respect to any portion of the Property or Project shall affect in any way the parties’ rights and obligations hereunder with respect to any other portion of the Property or Project. In no event shall the expiration or termination of this Agreement result in any expiration or termination, without further action of City, of any entitlement approval then in existence.

Section 8.

Cooperation by Developer
Developer shall, in a timely manner, provide City with all documents, applications, plans and other information necessary for City to carry out its obligations under this Agreement and cause its planners, engineers and other consultants to do the same. Developer also shall apply in a timely manner for such other permits and approvals from other governmental or quasi - governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Subject Property and/or Project as may be required for the development of, or provision of services to, the Subject Property and/or Project, as contemplated by this Agreement.

Section 9. Cooperation by City
City shall, in a timely manner, review and comment on any entitlement application, building permit application, improvement plan and other required City permits. City shall take reasonable measures to also support Developer’s applications for State, federal and private financing of the lower income units within the Project; provided, however, City shall not be obligated to take any actions the City, in its sole and absolute discretion, find are not consistent 7-943

6 | Page

with the Project Entitlements or Applicable Law . City shall also take reasonable measures to advocate for the Project with other governmental and quasi -governmental agencies upon request by the Developer; provided, however, City shall not be obligated to take any action it determines, in its sole and absolute discretion are not consistent with the Project Entitlements or Applicable Law, and Developer shall reimburse City for its reasonable and actual costs incurred, if any.

Section 10. P
rocessing Fees
Notwithstanding anything else herein, Developer shall pay all applicable filing and processing fees pursuant to Section 17.36.050 “Fees” of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code in the amounts set forth in the schedule of fees in effect at the time such fees are due and payable during the land use entitlement review process.

S
ection 1 1. Additional Cost Reimbursement

In addition to the payment of the requisite processing fees, Developer shall reimburse City for t he actual costs and expenses incurred by City for all services provided by City and its consultants, including legal counsel, for review, preparation and processing of this Agreement and related Project Entitlements , and any research related thereto which are not factored in City processing fees. Fu rthermore, to the extent that City , on behalf of Developer , attempts to enter into binding agreements with other entities in order to assure the availability of certain permits and approvals or services necessary for development of the Subject Property and/or the Project as described in this Agreement, Developer shall reimburse City for all costs and expenses incurred in connection with seeking and entering into any such agreements, subject to Developer’s consent to such costs and expenses, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any fees, assessments or other amounts payable by City pursuant to any such agreements described herein shall be borne by Developer except where Developer has notified City in writing, prior to City entering into any such agreement, that it does not desire for City to execute said agreement. In the event Developer refuses consent with respect to the above matters, City reserves the right to refrain from entering into the respective agreement or payi ng any fees, assessment or other amounts on behalf of the Subject Property and/or Project, and may terminate this Agreement where such payments are otherwise required.

Sect
ion 1 2. Commencement of Construction
Developer will make commercially reasonable efforts to initiate construction of the Project within the timeframes shown below. However, City understands and agrees that market forces, State and federal financing agency requirements and other factors can affect the constructio n schedule. In acknowledgement of the holding in Pardee Construction v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 465, the parties agree that Developer shall have the discretion to develop the Property in one phase or multiple phases and at such times as Develo per deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment in light of market conditions.

Planning Area 1 (single family rental housing) Within 3 years of the Effective Date 7-944

7 | Page

Planning Area 2 (multi-family affordable housing) Within 4 years of the Effective Date Planning Area 3 (commercial center) Within 10 years of the Effective Date For purposes of this Agreement, initiation of construction shall be defined as the issuance of a building permit for the first structure in the applicable Planning Area. Notwithstanding anything set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, except as may be required in Section 11 of this Agreement, the Project Entitlements and processing thereof, City’s Municipal Code, and applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulation, Developer is not obligated solely by the terms of this Agreement to affirmatively act to develop all or any portion of the Property, pay any sums of money, dedicate any land, or to otherwise meet or perform any obligation with respect to the Property; provided, however, that if Developer elects to develop all or any portion of the Property, then Developer must comply with the terms of this Agreement, the Project Entitlements, and all other applicable restrictions and requirements governing development of the Project pursuant to this Agreement.

Section 13. V
ested Rights and Applicable Rules, Regulations and Policies Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project pursuant to the rules, regulations, and policies governing the use, density, intensity, design, improvement, construction, and building and occupancy standards, in effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement, as set forth in this Agreement, Project Entitlements, Title 17 (“Zoning”) of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code, and all other applicable state, federal and local laws, rules, and regulations (collectively, “Applicable Law”). In light of the foregoing, City shall apply the Applicable Law when considering any actions or decisions pertaining to both discretionary and ministerial permits related to the Project and Subject Property during the term of this Agreement, including future Planned Development P ermits, Conditional Use Permits and other entitlements required to implement the Specific Plan , which are consistent with the Project Entitlements. It is the intent of City and Developer that the vesting of development rights of Developer shall include the permitted land uses, density and intensity of use of the Property, timing or phasing of development, zoning, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the location and size of public improvements and other terms and conditions of development of the Project as set forth in the Project Entitlements and this Agreement. (a) In accordance with Government Code S ection 65866, nothing herein shall be construed to limit City's authority to apply new rules, regulations and policies to the Project which do not conflict with the Applicable Law, nor to limit City’s police power to implement, based upon appropriate and adequate findings, specific emergency measures necessary to protect against real and actual threats to the health and safety of City residents.

(b) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, City may apply to the Project, at any time during the term of this Agreement, the then- current California 7-945

8 | Page

Building Code, California Fire Code, and other uniform construction codes, provided that any such uniform code shall apply to the Project only to the extent that such code has been adopted by City, and is in effect on a City-wide basis.

(c) As provided in California Government Code Section 65869.5, this Agreement shall not preclude the application to the Project of changes in laws, regulations, plans or policies, to the extent that such changes are specifically mandated and required by changes in state or federal laws or regulations (“Changes in the Law”). In the event Changes in the Law prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended, or performance thereof delayed, only to the extent necessary to comply with the Changes in the Law, and City and Developer shall take such action as may be required pursuant to this Agreement.

(d) The City recognizes the necessity of certainty in the entitlement process, and agrees that the current Project Entitlements ( Environmental Assessment EA 23-0006, General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002, Specific Plan Case No. SP23-0002, Development Agreement Case No. DA23- 0002, Tentative Parcel Map Case No. TPM23-0004 (Tentative Parcel Map 38834), and Preliminary Development Plan Case Nos. PDP23- 0006 and PDP23-0007), and future Planned Development Permits, Conditional Use Permits and similar entitlements shall remain valid and effective during the term of this Agreement, without the need for extension, regardless of the requirements of the Municipal Code regarding expiration and extension of permits.

(e) Unless ordered by a court of law, or to the extent provided by state law, the City shall not impose on the Project (whether by action of the Council, or other local legislative body, or by initiative, referendum or other means), any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, standard, directive, condition, or other measure (each, a “City Law”) that is in conflict with Applicable Law or this Agreement, or that reduces the development rights or assurances provided by this Agreement.

Section 14. Extension of Tentative Maps

In accordance with Government Code Section 66452(a)(1), all tentative subdivision maps and tentative parcel maps, whether vesting or not, which may be approved by the City in connection with the development of the Subject Property, shall be extended for the greater period of (a) the term of this Agreement or (b) such maximum total time as is permitted in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Sections 66410 et seq.) or Applicable Law.

S
ection 1 5. Minor Revisions

Minor revisions to the entitlements related to the Subject Property and/or Project shall not require an amendment to this Agreement, provided that City finds and determines that the proposed change or modification is consistent with the development standards and guidelines set forth in this Agreement and Applicable Laws.
7-946

9 | Page

Section 16. Development Impact Fees
Except as expressly set forth herein, the Project shall be subject to all Development Impact F ees applicable to Project and Property as of the Effective Date, including but not limited to the fees set forth in Chapter 3.29 of the Municipal Code as set forth on Exhibit C hereto. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the up to 94 housing units affordable to lower income households, consistent with the requirements of the City’s adopted and certified 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (collectively, the “Affordable Units”) shall be subject up to a 100% waiver as determined by the City Manager at the time of permit application of all City Development Impact Fees set forth in Chapter 3.29 of the Municipal Code, the License Tax on New Construction set forth in Chapter 3.28 of the Municipal Code, and the land dedication or in lieu fee requirements under Section 16.18.060 of the Municipal Code (“Parks and Recreation Facilities”), The Affordable Units shall also be subject to a 50% waiver of all other fees paid at building permit issuance. The foregoing fee waiver for the Affordable Units will not apply to fees collected by the City on behalf any school districts, Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), or other government agencies, including but not limited to statutory school fees, the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Fee, and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF ) fees; provided, however, that such non- City fees will be subject to any waivers, reductions, or credits as may be provided pursuant to such fees or the ordinances related thereto.

Section 17.

Existing Exactions
Except to the extent expressly set forth in this Agreement, nothing set forth herein shall constitute a waiver of Developer’s obligation to pay or be subject to any other existing fees, exactions, in-lieu fees or payments, dedication or reservation requirements, obligations for on-site or off -site improvements, construction requirements for public improvements, facilities, or services required of the Project and/or Subject Property under the Applicable Law, whether such requirements constitute subdivision improvements, mitigation, or impositions made under any applicable ordinance or other applicable regulation.

S
ection 18. Community Facilities District No. 1
Developer acknowledges the existence of Community Facilities District No. 1 (“CFD No. 1”) which was created pursuant to the Mello- Roos Community Facilities Act, as set forth in Government Code Sections 53311 et seq. (“Mello- Roos CFD Act”) for the purpose of funding certain public safety services. If the Project and Subject Property are currently subject to the assessments of CFD No. 1, Developer , on behalf of itself, its heirs, approved assignees, and successors, voluntarily consents that it will not vote or otherwise support the dissolution of said CFD No.1, in perpetuity. In the event CFD No. 1 formally dissolves prior to the first certificate of occupancy in the Project, Developer shall consent to paying an in-lieu assessment in a manner 7-947

10 | Page

and form, deemed acceptable by City , as though CFD No. 1 had never dissolved with respect to the Project and Subject Property, in equivalent amounts as would have otherwise been assessed by CFD No. 1. In the event CFD No. 1 formally dissolves on any portion of the Project or Property subsequent to the sale or transfer of any such portion of the Project or Property, the owners of said portion of the Project or Property shall consent to paying an in- lieu assessment in a manner and form, deemed acceptable by City, as though CFD No. 1 had never dissolved with respect to the Project and Subject Property, or portion thereof, in equivalent amounts as would have otherwise been assessed by CFD No. 1, which such in-lieu assessment shall be recorded against said portion of the Property, and shall run with the land. If, however, the Project or Subject Property is not currently subject to the assessments of CFD No. 1, Developer voluntarily consents to take whatever affirmative action it needs to take on its part to ensure that the Project and Subject Property are subject to the assessments of the CFD No. 1, which includes without limitation, voting to approve the annexation of the Project and Subject Property to said CFD No.1. This section shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.

S
ection 19. Nexus/Reasonable Relationship Challenges

Developer consents to, and waives any rights it may have now or in the future to challenge the legal validity of, the conditions or requirements set forth in this Agreement including, without limitation, any claim that they constitute an abuse of the police power, violate substantive due process, deny equal protection of the laws, effect a taking of property without payment of just compensation, or impose an unlawful tax. Developer reserves the right, however, to challenge in court any future fee, exaction, or other City Law that would, in Developer's opinion, conflict with Applicable Law (including this Agreement) or reduce the development rights provided by this Agreement.

Section 20. C
ovenants Running with the Land and Constructive Notice

All of the terms, provisions, and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon Developer and its heirs, successors, and assigns, and all other persons or entities acquiring all or any portion of the Subject Property and/or Project, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever, and the rights thereof shall inure to the benefit of City and its successors and assigns. As such, all of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law, including but not limited to, Section 1468 of the California Civil Code .

Notwithstanding the above, every person who now or hereafter owns or acquires any right, title or interest in or to any portion of the Subject Property and/or Project shall be deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision contained in this Agreement, whether or not any reference to this Agreement is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in the Subject Property and/or Project.

Section 21. Civil Code Section 1542 Waiver
7-948

11 | Page

Developer hereby waives any and all rights Developer or its successors and assigns may have under Article XIIIC or Article XIIID of the California Constitution and any and all rights Developer of its successors and assigns may have under any other applicable law to contest the fees, exactions and assessment s and/or their amounts payable to City under this Agreement as follows:

In furtherance of the intentions of the parties to this Agreement, Developer with and under advice of counsel, hereby expressly waives any and all right and benefit conferred upon Developer by the provisions of Civil Code Section 1542, which provides as follows:

“A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.”

Developer further expressly waives any and all rights and benefits conferred upon Developer by any provision of any other state, federal or local statute, code, ordinance or law similar to Section 1542 of the Civil Code. Developer expressly consents that the waiver of rights contained in the first paragraph shall be given full force and effec t, according to the express terms and provisions of the instant waiver, to unknown and unsuspected claims, demands and causes of action, if any, arising out of or relating to the waiver of rights contained in this Agreement.

Initials:

Developer ____ ______

Section 22. P
eriodic Review
City shall conduct a review of this Agreement as set forth as follows:

(a) Annual Review. City will review the extent of good faith compliance by Developer with the terms of this Agreement annually commencing on the first anniversary of the Effective Date of this Agreement.

(b) Notice. City shall notify Developer in writing of the date of review at least thirty (30) days prior thereto.

(c) Good-faith Compliance. During each annual review, Developer is required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement.

(d) Production of Documents and Other Evidence. Developer agrees to furnish such reasonable evidence and adequate documentation of good faith compliance as City , in the 7-949

12 | Page

exercise of its reasonable discretion, may require.

(e) Cost of Annual Review. The cos ts incurred by City in connection with the annual review shall be borne by Developer.

(f) Failure to Conduct Review. City’s failure to conduct an annual review of this Agreement shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement.

(g) Certificate of Compliance. If, at the conclusion of a periodic or special review, Developer is found to be in compliance with this Agreement, City shall issue a Certificate of Compliance (“Certificate”) to Developer stating that after the most recent periodic or special review, and based upon the information known or made known to City that: (i) this Agreement remains in effect and (ii) Developer is not in default. City shall not be bound by a Certificate if a default existed at the time of the periodic or special review, but was concealed from or otherwise not known to City , regardless of whether or not the Certificate is relied upon by assignees or other transferees or Developer.

S
ection 23. Relationship of Parties ; Several Liability

a. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the Project is a private development and that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder. City and Developer also hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making City and Developer joint venturers or partners.

The obligations and liabilities of Developer shall be several obligations and liabilities of MCKELLAR MCGOWAN HOLDINGS LLC and RAMON & RATTLER PARTNERS LLC , with each entity solely obligated and liable with respect to the portion of the Subject Property it owns.

S
ection 2 4. No Third Party Beneficiaries

The only parties to this Agreement are Developer and City . There are no third party beneficiaries and this Agreement is not intended, and shall not be construed, to benefit, or be enforceable by any other person whatsoever.

Section 25. Assignment of Rights

(a) R ight to Assign. Developer shall have the right to sell, transfer, or assign this Agreement in whole or in part to any person or entity acquiring an interest or estate in the Subject Property, or any portion thereof (each, a “Transferee”), at any time during the Term of this 7-950

13 | Page

Agreement, without the prior written consent of the City. Any sale, transfer or assignment shall include the assignment and assumption of the rights and duties set forth herein, and shall be made in compliance with the following conditions precedent:
(i) No sale, transfer, or assignment of any right or interest under this Agreement shall be made unless made together with the sale, transfer, or assignment of all or a portion of the Subject Property. Any partial transfer hereunder shall be in full compliance with the City’s subdivision requirements. (ii) Concurrent with any such sale, transfer or assignment Developer shall notify City, in writing, of such sale, transfer, or assignment and shall provide City with an executed agreement between Developer and the Transferee, and providing therein that the Transferee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the duties and obligations of Developer under this Agreement as to all portions of the Subject Property transferred (the Assignment and Assumptions Agreement).

The Assignment and Assumption Agreement shall also provide (i) that the Transferee has the vested rights to improve the portion of the Subject Property acquired, pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, (ii) the address for Transferee for any notices to be given hereunder, and (iii) any other matter deemed by Developer to be necessary or appropriate in connection with the transfer or assignment.
(b) R elease of Transferring Developer. Upon approval by the City of the executed Assignment and Assumption Agreement, Developer shall be released from all obligations under this Agreement, solely as to the property transferred, which approval shall be provided by City upon the full satisfaction by such transferring Developer of all the following conditions:
(i) Th e transferring Developer no longer has a legal interest in the portion of the Subject Property that is the subject of the Assignment and Assumption Agreement, except as a beneficiary under a deed of trust; (ii) The transferring Developer is not then in default under this Agreement; and
(iii) The transferring Developer has provided the City with the notice and executed agreement required under subsection (b) of this Section.

Developer shall be free from any and all liabilities and obligations accruing on or after the date of any assignment or transfer with respect to those obligations assumed by a Transferee under a fully executed Assignment and Assumption Agreement approved by the City. No breach or default hereunder by any Transferee shall be attributed to Developer, nor may any of Developer’s 7-951

14 | Page

rights hereunder be cancelled, terminated or diminished in any way by any breach or default of a Transferee.
(c) S ubsequent Assignment. Any subsequent sale, transfer, or assignment after an initial sale, transfer, or assignment shall be made only in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions of this Section.

S ection 2 6. Mortgagee Protection

(a) In General. The provisions of this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer's right to encumber the Subject Property or any portion thereof, or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to such portion.

City acknowledges that lenders providing such financing and other “Mortgagees” (defined below) may require certain modifications or amendments to this Agreement and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with Developer and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for modification or amendment. Any modification or amendment requested by a Mortgagee will be processed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Any person holding a mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument on all or any portion of the Property made in good faith and for value (each, a “Mortgagee”), shall be entitled to the rights and privileges set forth in this Section.
(b) Impairment of Mortgage or Deed of Trust. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Subject Property, or any portion thereof, including the lien of any mortgage. Notwithstanding the foregoing and except as otherwise specifically stated in the terms of any security instrument held by a Mortgagee, no default under this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust on the Subject Property made, or their interest in the Subject Property acquired by, any Mortgagee in good faith and for value.
(c) Notice of Default to Mortgagee. If a Mortgagee has submitted a request in writing to City in the manner specified herein for giving notices, City shall exercise its best efforts to provide such Mortgagee written notification from City of any failure or default by Developer in the performance of Developer's obligations under this Agreement, which notification shall be provided to such Mortgagee at such time as such notification is delivered to Developer. (d) Right of Mortgagee to Cure. Any Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure any failure or default by Developer during the cure period allowed Developer under this Agreement, plus an additional 60 days if, in order to cure such failure or default, it is necessary for the Mortgagee to obtain possession of the Subject Property such as by seeking the appointment of a receiver or other legal process. Any Mortgagee that undertakes to cure or attempt 7-952

15 | Page

to cure any such failure or default shall provide written notice to City that it is undertaking efforts of such a nature; provided that no initiation of any such efforts by a Mortgagee shall obligate such Mortgagee to complete or succeed in any such curative efforts. (e) Liability for Past Defaults or Obligations. Subject to the foregoing, any Mortgagee, including the successful bidder at a foreclosure sale, who comes into possession of the Project or the Subject Property or any part thereof pursuant to foreclosure, eviction or ot herwise, shall take such property subject to the rights and obligations of this Agreement, and in no event shall any such property be released from any obligations associated with its use and development under the provisions of this Agreement. Nothing in this Section shall prevent City from exercising any remedy it may have for a default under this Agreement; provided, however, that in no event shall such Mortgagee personally be liable for any defaults or monetary obligations of Developer arising prior to acquisition or possession of such property by such Mortgagee unless such Mortgagee desires to develop the Project pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, any such Mortgagee and its successors shall have no vested right to develop the Project without fully complying with the terms of this Agreement and executing and delivering to the City, in a form and with terms reasonably acceptable to the City, an assumption agreement of Developer’s obligation hereunder.

Section 27. S
everability

If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement is repealed by referendum or is held by a court of competent jurisdiction or an authorized government enforcement agency to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions, if any, of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect, unless enforcement of this Agreement as so invalidated would be unreasonable or grossly inequitable under all the circumstances or would frustrate the purposes of this Agreement.

S
ection 2 8. Singular and Plural; Gender; and Person

Except where the context requires otherwise, the singular of any word shall include the plural and vice versa; and pronouns inferring the masculine gender shall include the feminine gender and neuter, and vice versa, and a reference to “person” shall include, in addition to a natural person, any governmental entity and any partnership, corporation, joint venture or any other form of business entity.

S
ection 2 9. Time Is of the Essence

Time is of the essence of this Agreement and of each and every term and condition hereof.

S
ection 30. Waiver

7-953

16 | Page

All waivers must be in writing to be effective or binding upon the waiving party, and no waiver shall be implied from any omission by a party to take any action with respect to an Event of Default as defined in this Agreement . Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party shall not constitute waiver of such party's right to demand strict compliance and specific performance by the other party in the future.

In addition, no express written waiver of any Event of Default shall affect any other Event of Default, or cover any period of time other than as specified in such express waiver.

Section 31. Amendments

This Agreement may be amended from time to time by mutual consent of the original parties or their successors in interest, with City 's costs payable by amendment applicants, in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868 and City's adopted procedures and requirements for the consideration of amendments to development agreements.

Minor revisions, as described above, shall not require an amendment to this Agreement.

S
ection 32. Ambiguities or Uncertainties

The parties hereto have mutually negotiated the terms and conditions of this Agreement and each party received independent legal advice from its attorneys with respect to the advisability of executing this Agreement and the meaning of the provisions contained herein. As such, this Agreement is a product of the joint drafting efforts of both parties and neither party shall be deemed to have solely or independently prepared or framed this Agreement. Therefore, any ambiguities or uncertainties are not to be construed against or in favor of either party.

S
ection 33. Hold Harmless

Developer hereby agrees to, and shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, city council, commissions, boards, subcommittees and City ’s elected and appointed officials, commissioners, board members, officers, agents, consultants and employees (“City Parties”) from, any and all claims, costs and liability for any damages, personal injury or death, which may arise, directly or indirectly, from Developer's or Developer's officers’, agents’, consultants’, employees’, contractors’ or subcontractors’ negligent, willful or reckless conduct performed under this Agreement.

S
ection 34. Indemnification

Developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City , city council, commissions, boards, subcommittees and City’s elected and appointed officials, commissioners, board members, officers, agents, consultants and employees (“City Parties”) from and against any and all liabilities, demands, claims, actions or proceedings and costs and expenses incidental thereto (including costs of defense, settlement and reasonable attorneys' fees), which any or all of them may suffer, incur, be responsible for or pay out as a result of or in connection with any challenge to t he legality, validity or adequacy of any of the following: (i) any prior agreements by and between City and 7-954

17 | Page

Developer; (ii) this Agreement and the concurrent and subsequent permits, licenses and entitlements approved by City; (iii) any environmental determination made by City in connection with the Subject Property, the Project or this Agreement; and (iv) any proceedings or other actions undertaken by City in connection with the adoption or approval of any of the above. In the event of any administrative, legal, equitable action or other proceeding instituted by any third party (including without limitation a governmental entity or official) challenging the legality, validity or adequacy of any of the above items, any portion thereof, and/or any provision of this Agreement, the Parties shall mutually cooperate with each other in defense of said action or proceeding.

Notwithstanding the above, City, at its sole option, may tender the complete defense of any third party challenge as described herein. In the event City elects to contract with special counsel to provide for such a defense, City shall meet and confer with Developer regarding the selection of counsel, and Developer shall pay all costs related to retention of such counsel by City.

S
ection 3 5. Delays in Performance

In addition to any other provisions of this Agreement with respect to delay, Developer and City shall be excused for performance of their obligations hereunder during any period of delay caused by acts of God or civil commotion; major acts of terrorism occurring in the United States of America; riots, strikes, picketing, or other labor disputes; shortage of materials or supplies; damage to or prevention of work in process by reason of fire, floods, earthquake, or other casualties; litigation, acts or neglec t of the other party; restrictions imposed or mandated by governmental or quasi -governmental entities; and/or enactment of conflicting provisions of the Constitution, laws of the United States of America, the State of California, or any codes, statutes, regulations or executive mandates promulgated thereunder. If written notice of such delay is given to either party within the later of (i) thirty (30) calendar days the commencement of such delay, or (ii) reasonable period of time following the commencement of such delay as determined in the City’s reasonable discretion, an extension of time for such cause shall be granted in writing for the period of the delay, or longer as may be mutually agreed upon.

S
ection 3 6. Events of Default

A default under this Agreement shall be deemed to have occurred upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions: (i) a warranty, representation, or statement made or furnished by Developer expressly in this Agreement to City or by City to Developer is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made, and/or (ii) a finding by City made following a periodic review of the Agreement under the procedure provided for in Section 22 of this Agreement, based on substantial evidence, that Developer has not complied in good faith with one or more of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, and/ or (iii) City’s or Developer’s failure to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement ( each, an “Event of Default”). Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default by Developer or City, the non-defaulting party shall provide the other party thirty (30) calendar days written notice specifying the nature of the alleged default and the manner in which said default may be satisfactorily cured (“Notice of Default”). Subject to any extensions of time by mutual consent of the parties in writing, and subject to the provisions of Section 35 of this Agreement, the failure or unreasonable delay by 7-955

18 | Page

either party to perform any material term or provision of this Agreement for a period of thirty (30) days after the dispatch of a written notice of default from the other party, or a determination that a warranty, rep resentation, or statement made or furnished by Developer expressly in this Agreement to City is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made, shall constitute a default under this Agreement. If the nature of the alleged default is such that it cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty (30) calendar day period, the commencement of the cure within such time period and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure shall be deemed a cure within such period. Any Notice of Default given hereunder shall specify in detail the nature of the alleged Event of Default and the manner in which such Event of Default may be satisfactorily cured in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. During the time periods herein specified for cure of an Event of Default, the party charged therewith shall not be considered to be in default for purposes of termination of this Agreement, institution of legal proceedings with respect thereto, or whether any further building permit s shall be issued with respect to the Subject Property.

S
ection 3 7. General Default Remedies

Subject to Section 41 (No Damages Relief) of this Agreement, after notice and expiration of the thirty (30) calendar day period without cure, the non-defaulting party shall have such rights and remedies against the defaulting party as it may have at law or in equity, including, but not limited to, the right to terminate this Agreement pursuant to California Government Code Section 65868 or seek mandamus, specific performance, injunctive or declaratory relief. Any rights or remedies available to non-defaulting party under this Agreement and any other rights or remedies that such party may have at law or in equity upon a default by the other party under this Agreement shall be distinct and separate, providing the non- defaulting party with cumulative rights and remedies. None of such rights or remedies, whether or not exercised by the non- defaulting party, shall be deemed to exclude any other rights or remedies available to the non-defaulting party. The non-defaulting party may, in its discretion, exercise any and all of its rights and remedies, at once or in succession, at such time or times as the non-defaulting party considers appropriate.

S
ection 38. No Building Permit upon Developer Default

No building permit shall be issued or building permit application accepted for any structure or improvement on the Subject Property after Developer is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be in default of any of the material terms and conditions of this Agreement, until such default thereafter is cured by Developer or is waived by City. If City lawfully terminates this Agreement because of Developer's default, then City shall retain any and all benefits, including without limitation any money, improvements, structures, easements or dedications received by City pursuant to any term or condition of this Agreement, and/or Project Entitlements.

S
ection 3 9. Applicable Law

This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State 7-956

19 | Page

of California.

S ection 40. Venue

In the event that suit is brought by either party to this Agreement, the parties agree that venue shall be exclusively vested in the State courts of the County of Riverside, California or where appropriate, in the United States District Court, Central District of California, Riverside, California.

Section 41. No Damages Relief
Notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement to the contrary, the parties acknowledge that neither would have entered into this Agreement had it been exposed to damage claims for any breach hereof. As such, the parties agree that in no event shall either party be entitled to recover damages of any kind whatsoever (other than recovery of costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to the terms of this Agreement or applicable law) against the other for breach of this Agreement.

S ection 42. Legal Action; Attorneys’ Fees

Either party may, in addition to any other rights or remedies, institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy a default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation hereof, or enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the parties hereto. The prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to be paid by the losing party.

S
ection 4 3. Notices

Any notice or communication required hereunder between City and Developer shall be in writing, and may be given either personally or by registered mail, return-receipt requested. Notice, whether given by registered mail or personal delivery, shall be deemed to have been given and received on the actual receipt by any of the addresses designated below as the party to whom notices are to be sent. Any party hereto may at any time, upon written notice to the other party hereto, designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or communication shall be given. Such notices or communications shall be given to the parties at their addresses set forth below:

To City:

City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Attention: City Manager

7-957

20 | Page

To Developer:

Christopher McKellar
McKellar McGowan Holdings LLC
5120 Shoreline Place, Suite 280
San Diego, CA 92122

AND

Timothy B. Hobin
Ramon & Rattler Partners, LLC
100 Wilshire Blvd., 4th Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90401

With a copy to:

James D. Vaughn, Esq.

Stowell, Zeilenga, Ruth, Vaughn & Treiger, LLP
4580 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 190
Westlake Village, CA 91362

S
ection 4 4. Entire Agreement

This Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto contain all the representations and the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto, any prior corres pondence, memoranda, warranties, representations and agreements unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, are superseded in total by this Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto.

S
ection 4 5. Recordation; Subordination

a. In order to comply with Section 65868.5 of the Development Agreement Statute, the parties do hereby direct City Clerk to cause a copy of this Agreement to be recorded with the Riverside County Recorder’s Office within ten (10) days after the Enacting Ordinance takes effect.

b. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof, including the lien of any mortgage. In the event the Property is encumbered with a lien (including without limitation a lien held by or in favor of any lenders, lessees and other interested parties) at time of recordation of this Agreement, Developer shall ensure any and all 7-958

21 | Page

such otherwise superior liens are subordinated to this Agreement, to the reasonable satisfaction of City. Notwithstanding the foregoing and except as otherwise specifically stated in the terms of any security instrument held by a mortgagee, no default under this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust on the Subject Property made, or their interest in the Property acquired by, any mortgagee in good faith and for value.

S
ection 46. Counterparts

This Agreement may be executed in duplicate counterpart originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

S
ection 4 7. Consistency of Entitlements with Agreement

The parties hereto acknowledge that it is their intention that all terms, conditions and obligations of any and all entitlements related to the Subject Property and/or Project, or arising from this Agreement shall be consistent with, or at minimum, shall not conflict with, the terms, provisions and obligations of this Agreement. To the extent there is any conflict or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and any other provisions in the P roject Entitlements, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail.

S
ection 4 8. Authority to Execute Agreement

The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer and City warrant and represent that they have the authority to execute this Agreement and the authority to bind Developer and City, as applicable, to the performance of their respective obligations hereunder.

Section 49. Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
No party shall do anything which shall have the effect of injuring the right of another party to receive the benefits of this Agreement or do anything which would render its performance under this Agreement impossible. Each party shall perform all acts contemplated by this Agreement to accomplish the objectives and purposes of this Agreement.

S
ection 50. Partial Invalidity Due to Governmental Action In the event state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the effective date of this Agreement, or formal action of any governmental entity other than City, prevent compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by City, the parties agree that the provisions of this Agreement shall be modified, extended or suspended only to the minimum extent necessary to comply with such laws or regulations.
7-959

22 | Page

Section 51. Further Actions and Instruments
The parties agree to provide reasonable assistance to the other and cooperate to carry out the intent and fulfill the provisions of this Agreement. Each of the parties shall promptly execute and deliver all documents and perform all acts as necessary to carry out the matters contemplated by this Agreement.

Section 52. Prevailing Wages
Developer understands and agrees that it if the Project is subject to compliance with prevailing wage laws, it shall comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, including but not limited to California Labor Code 1720 et seq., including but not limited to paying prevailing wages in accordance with the State Labor Code. Without limiting the generality of the forgoing, compliance with the prevailing rates of wages and apprenticeship employment standards established by the State Department of Industrial Relations may be required.

[THIS PORTION LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY]

7-960

23 | Page

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the dates written above.

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE

APPROVED:

By: ___________________________
Stephen G. Downs, Mayor

ATTEST:

By: ___________________________
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: ____________________________
Colin Kirkpatrick, City Attorney

DEVELOPER

APPROVED:

*By:____________________________
____________________________
Name/Title

*By:____________________________
____________________________
Name/Title

*Signatures must be notarized.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: _____________________
Legal Counsel

7-961

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit A: Description of Property

Exhibit B: Specific Plan

Exhibit C: Development Impact Fees as of Effective Date

7-962
EXHIBIT “A”

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
[TO BE ATTACHED]
7-963
EXHIBIT “B”
[SPECIFIC PLAN]
[TO BE ATTACHED]
7-964
EXHIBIT “C”
[D
EVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES]
[TO B
E ATTACHED]
7-965
ATTACHMENT 6
7-966
7-967
7-968
7-969
7-970
7-971
Catana Specific Plan - Subject Property
E
nvironmental Assessment Case No. EA23-0006; Development Agreement Case No. DA23-0002; General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23-0002; Specific Plan Case No. SP23-0002; Tentative Parcel Map Case No. TPM23- 0004 (Tentative Parcel Map 38834); and Preliminary Development Permit Case Nos. PDP23-0006 and PDP23-0007 7-972
7-973
1 RESOLUTION NO. ___________
A RESO

LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO

MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPT ING AND APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH#2023120616) AND A MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM REGARDING CATANA
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP23-0002), GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT (GPZMA23-0002), STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT (DA23-0002), TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TPM23 -0004) AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS (PDP23-0006 and PDP23- 0007)
WHERE
AS, the City of Rancho Mirage is a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and recognized as a political subdivision of State of California for certain purpose; and
WHERE
AS, the “ Proposed Project” will generally subdivide the “Subject Property”, as defined in the March 28, 2024, Rancho Mirage Planning Commission Resolution [TO BE INSERTED], into three parcels, amend the General Plan Zoning Map to accommodate the proposed uses on the Subject Property, adopt a Speci fic Plan establishing development standards and guidelines for the three (3) Planning Areas
comprising the Subject Property (Planning Area 1: comprised of a up to two hundred ten (210) single family residences with central clubhouse and related amenities; Planning Area 2 comprised of up to ninety-five (95) affordable apartments and associated recreation area, with an affordable housing overlay; and Planning Area 3: up to seventy- five thousand (75,000) square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices); and Preliminary Development Plans for PA 1 and PA2, with Preliminary Development Plans for Planning Area 3 to be provided in the future; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Project includes a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (Case No. GPZMA23-0002), Specific Plan (Case No. SP23-0002) (“Catana Specific Plan”), a statutory Development Agreement (Case No. DA 23-0002); a Tentative Parcel Map ( TPM23-0004), and related Preliminary Development Plans ( PDP23-0006 and PDP23-0007); and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2024, the Rancho Mirage Planning Commission adopted Resolution [TO BE INSERTED], incorporated herein by this reference, recommending, in part, the City Council approve and adopt this Resolution, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2023120616) regarding the Proposed Project, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit “A”.
7-974

2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS AND EXHIBITS

That the foregoing Recitals and attached Exhibits are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 2. EVIDENCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

That the City Council has considered all of the evidence (“Evidence”) submitted into the administrative record (“Administrative Record”) for the Proposed Project, including, but not limited to, the following, which are all hereby incorporated herein by reference:

(a) Rancho Mirage Municipal Code;
(b) Rancho Mirage General Plan and Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and all relevant provisions contained therein; (c) General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA23-0002);
(d) Catana Specific Plan (SP23-0002);
(e) Development Agreement (DA23- 0002) by and between the City and the Developer;
(f) Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0004);
(g) Preliminary Development Plans (PDP23-0006 and PDP23-0007), (h) Initial Study,
(i) Notice of Intent to adopt MND,
(j) MND and MMRP,
(k) Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing scheduled for March 28, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall at 69- 825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(l) Planning Commission Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the March 28 , 202 4, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(m) Testimony and/or comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to, the March 28, 2024, Planning Commission Public Hearing; and
(n) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the March 28 , 202 4, Planning Commission Public Hearing.
(o) Initial Study;
(p) Notice of City Council Public Hearing scheduled for [TO BE INSERTED ], 2024, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall at 69- 825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(q) City Council Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related 7-975

3 thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the [TO BE INSERTED], 2024, City Council Public Hearing;
(r) Testimony and/or comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to, the [TO BE INSERTED] , 2024, City Council Public Hearing; and
(s) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the [TO BE INSTERTED] , 2024, City Council Public Hearing.

SECTION 3
. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS

That based on the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project, as set forth and described herein, the City Council acknowledges, accepts, and approves, and makes the following Findings and Determinations:

(a) That the City has independently reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, and the whole record before it (including, the Initial Study and comments received) and, based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby finds that all environmental impacts of the P roposed Project, with mitigation measures, are below a level of significance and there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment.

(b) That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan have been completed in compliance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines.

(c) That t he Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan represent the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission and City Council as lead agency for the Proposed Project.

(d) That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan are adequate to serve as the required CEQA environmental documentation for the Proposed Project.

SECTION 4
. ADOPT THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVAL OF MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

T
hat based on the Findings and Determinations set forth herein and the substantial evidence included in the Recitals, Exhibits and Evidence contained in Administrative Record, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the findings set forth therein which support a determination that all potentially significant environmental impacts from 7-976

4 implementation of the Proposed Project have been identified and, with the implementation of the mitigation measures defined and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

SECTION 5
. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

That the City Council authorizes and directs the Planning Division to prepare, execute, and file a Notice of Determination in accordance with Public Resource Code Section 21152.

SECTION 6
. EFFECTIVE DATE

That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

SECTION

7. SEVERABILITY

That if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of Resolution or any portion of the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 8
. CERTIFICATION.

That the City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause the same to be processed in the manner required by law.

SECTION 9.

REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS.

That all provisions of any resolution in effect prior to the effective date of this Resolution as adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution, are hereby repealed.

7-977

5 PASSED AND ADOPTED on this ___ day of ____, 2024.

_________________________
Steve Downs, Mayor

ATTEST:

_____________________________
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________
Colin Kirkpatrick, City Attorney

7-978

6 EXHIBIT “A”

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION &

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
[TO BE ATTACHED]

7-979
7-980
1 RESOLUTION NO. ___________
A RESO

LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO MIRAGE,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT AMENDING APPROXIMATELY 36 ACRES OF SECTION
14, AND APPLYING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY TO
APPROXIMATELY 3.3 ACRES AND CHANGING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 8.3 ACRES FROM HIGH

DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-H) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-G)
WHERE
AS, the City of Rancho Mirage is a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and recognized as a political subdivision of State of California for certain purpose; and
WHERE
AS, on March 28, 2024, the Rancho Mirage Planning Commission adopted Resolution [TO BE INSERTED], incorporated herein by this reference, recommending, in part, the City Council approve and adopt this Resolution, approving the General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA23-0002), as described in more detail In Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, on [TO BE INSERTED], at a duly noticed meeting of the City Council, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2024 -[TO BE INSERTED] adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approv ing the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

NOW,

THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS AND EXHIBITS
That
the foregoing Recitals and attached Exhibits are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 2. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN
That t
he City Council finds the GPZMA23-0002 is consistent with the General Plan.

SECTION 3. ADOPT GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
That th e Cit
y Council hereby approves General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA23-0002).

SECTION 4. CEQA COMPLIANCE
7-981

2 That pursuant to Resolution 2024- [TO BE INSERTED], the City Council adopt ed the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approv ing the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY
That the City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Resolution as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 6 . AMENDING OF BAIL SCHEDULE
That the City Attorney’s Office is hereby directed to determine whether this Resolution necessitates amendment of the City’s Bail Schedule and to cause such necessary amendments to be made and filed with the local branches of the Superior Court of the County of Riverside.

SECTION 7
. EFFECTIVE DATE

That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

SECTION 8. SEVERABILITY

That if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 9
. CERTIFICATION.

That the City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause the same to be processed in the manner required by law.

SECTION 1 0. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS.

That all provisions of any resolution and/or General Plan Zoning Map, in effect prior to the effective date of this Resolution as adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution, are hereby repealed.

7-982

3 The foregoing Resolution was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on ________________ by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE:

__________________________
Steve Downs, Mayor

ATTEST:

_______________________________
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________________
Colin Kirkpatrick, City Attorney

7-983

4 EXHIBIT “A”

GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
CASE NO. GPZMA23-0002
[TO BE ATTACHED]

7-984
7-985
1 ORDINANCE NO. ___________

AN ORDINANCE

OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CATANA SPECIFIC PLAN (SP23- 0002)
WHERE
AS, the City of Rancho Mirage is a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and recognized as a political subdivision of State of California for certain purpose; and
WHERE
AS, on March 28, 2024, the Rancho Mirage Planning Commission adopted Resolution [TO BE INSERTED], incorporated herein by this reference, recommending, in part, the City Council introduce and adopt this Ordinance, approving and adopting the Catana Specific Plan (SP23-0002) (the “Proposed Project”), attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit “A”, establishing the development standards and guidelines for three (3) separate Planning Areas regarding the Subject Property, as defined in the associated March 28, 2024, Rancho Mirage Planning Commission Resolution; and
WHEREAS, on [TO BE INSERTED], at a duly noticed meeting of the City Council, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2024- [TO BE INSERTED] adopt ing the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approv ing the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS AND EXHIBITS
That
the foregoing Recitals and attached Exhibits are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 2. EVIDENCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
That t
he City Council has considered all of the evidence (“Evidence”) submitted into the administrative record (“Administrative Record”) for the Proposed Project, including, but not limited to, the following, which are all hereby incorporated herein by reference:
(a) Ranc
ho Mirage Municipal Code;
(b) Rancho Mirage General Plan and Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and all relevant provisions contained therein; (c) Catana Specific Plan (SP23-0002);
(d) General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA23-0002)
(e) Development Agreement (DA23- 0002) by and between the City and the Developer;
7-986

2 (f) Tentative Parcel Map (TMP23-0004);
(g) Preliminary Development Plans (PDP23-0006 and PDP23-0007), (h) Initial Study,
(i) Notice of Intent to adopt MND,
(j) MND and MMRP,
(k) Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing scheduled for March 28, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall at 69- 825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(l) Planning Commission Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the March 28 , 202 4, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(m) Testimony and/or comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to, the March 28, 2024, Planning Commission Public Hearing; and
(n) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the March 28 , 202 4, Planning Commission Public Hearing.
(o) Notice of City Council Public Hearing scheduled for [TO BE INSERTED], 2024, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall at 69- 825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(p) City Council Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the [TO BE INSERTED] , 2024, City Council Public Hearing;
(q) Testimony and/or comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to, the [TO BE INSERTED] , 2024, City Council Public Hearing; and
(r) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the [TO BE INSTERTED] , 2024, City Council Public Hearing.

SECTION 3
. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS

That based on the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project, as set forth and described herein, the City Council acknowledge, accept, and approve, and make the following Findings and Determinations:

(a) That the proposed Catana Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan; (b) The proposed Catana Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city; (c) The Subject Property is physically suitable for the requested zoning district(s), planning areas and the anticipated land use developments; 7-987

3 (d) The proposed Catana Specific Plan ensures development of desirable character which would be harmonious with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood; and
(e) The Proposed Project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15074 the intent is to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2023120616) based on Environmental Assessment Case No. EA23-0006.

SECTION 4
. ADOPT SPECIFIC PLAN

That the City Council hereby approves the Catana Specific Plan (SP23-0002).

SECTION 5
. EFFECTIVE DATE

That this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.

SECTION

6. CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW

That the City Attorney prepared and framed this ordinance pursuant to Section

1.04.010 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and finds that the City Council has the authority to adopt this ordinance, that the ordinance is constitutionally valid and that the ordinance is consistent with the general powers and purposes of the City as set forth in Section 1.04.031 of the RMMC.

SECTION 7
. SEVERABILITY

That if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance or any portion of the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 8
. CERTIFICATION

That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published according to law.

SECTION 9.

REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS

That all provisions of any ordinance and/or Municipal Code in effect prior to the effective date of this Ordinance as adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance , are hereby repealed.

7-988

4 SECTION 1 0. AMENDING OF BAIL SCHEDULE

That the City Attorney’s Office is hereby directed to determine whether this Ordinance necessitates amendment of the City’s Bail Schedule and to cause such necessary amendments to be made and filed with the local branches of the Superior Court of the County of Riverside.

7-989

5 The foregoing Ordinance was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on ________________ by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE:

__________________________
Steve Downs, Mayor

ATTEST:

_______________________________
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________________
Colin D. Kirkpatrick, City Attorney

7-990

6 EXHIBIT “A”

CATANA SPECIFIC PLAN
[TO BE ATTACHED]

7-991
7-992
1 ORDINANCE NO. ___________

AN ORDINANCE

OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO

MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT WITH RAMON & RATTLER PARTNERS, LLC, AND

MCKELLER MCGOWAN HOLDINGS, LLC
WHERE
AS, the City of Rancho Mirage is a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and recognized as a political subdivision of State of California for certain purpose; and
WHERE
AS, Ramon & Rattler Partners, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company, authorized to do business in California, which owns approximately thirty -six (36) acres of undeveloped real property located within Section 14, generally located at the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road, in Rancho Mirage, County of Riverside, State of California, having Assessor’s Parcel Number 670-230-021 (the “Subject Property”), which is currently vacant and unimproved land, as more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, McKeller McGowan Holdings, LLC, represents it is in escrow to purchase a portion of the Subject Property, identified on Exhibit “A” as “Planning Area 1” or sometimes “PA1”, and “Planning Area 2” or sometimes “PA2” (for purposes of this Ordinance, McKeller McGowan Holdings, LLC, and Ramon & Rattler Partners, LLC, are collectively referred to herein as the “Developer”); and WHEREAS, for purposes of this Ordinance, the “Proposed Project” includes a Statutory Development Agreement (the “Development Agreement”) providing for the development of up to 75,000 square feet of commercial space, and up to 305 housing units for lease, inclusive of ninety -five (95) housing units for affordable to lower income households, all as provided through the Development Agreement and Project Entitlements, as that term is defined in the Development Agreement; and WHERE
AS, as set forth in more detail in the Development Agreement, Developer shall record a covenant against Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 38834, which shall provide that residential units developed on the said portion of the Subject Property shall be rented at affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, or affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the California Health and Safety Code, to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. Rental units shall remain affordable to and occupied by lower income households for a period of 55 years for rental housing; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2024, the Rancho Mirage Planning Commission adopted Resolution [TO BE INSERTED], incorporated herein by this reference, recommending, in part, the City Council introduce and adopt this Ordinance, approving and adopting the proposed Statutory Development Agreement, attached hereto and 7-993

2 incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit “B”; and

WHEREAS, on [TO BE INSERTED], at a duly noticed meeting of the City Council, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2024-[ TO BE INSERTED] adopt ing the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approv ing the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS AND EXHIBITS

That the foregoing Recitals and attached Exhibits are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 2.

CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN

That based on the foregoing Recitals and the evidence contained in the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project, the City Council finds that the Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and applicable Specific Plan.

SECTION 3 . ADOPT STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

That the City Council hereby adopts and approves the Development Agreement.

SECTION

4. EFFECTIVE DATE

That this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.

SECTION

5. CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW

That the City Attorney prepared and framed this ordinance pursuant to Section

1.04.010 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and finds that the City Council has the authority to adopt this ordinance, that the ordinance is constitutionally valid and that the ordinance is consistent with the general powers and purposes of the City as set forth in Section 1.04.031 of the RMMC.

SECTION 6
. RECORDATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

That in accordance with Section 17.56.050 of the City’s Municipal Code, the City Clerk is hereby directed to record the fully executed Statutory Development Agreement with the Riverside County Recorder no later than ten (10) days after its execution. 7-994

3 SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY

That if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance or any portion of the administrative record for the Proposed Project be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 8
. CERTIFICATION

That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published according to law.

SECTION 9.

REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS

That all provisions of any ordinance and/or Municipal Code in effect prior to the effective date of this Ordinance as adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance , are hereby repealed.

SECTION 1 0
. AMENDING OF BAIL SCHEDULE

That the City Attorney’s Office is hereby directed to determine whether this Ordinance necessitates amendment of the City’s Bail Schedule and to cause such necessary amendments to be made and filed with the local branches of the Superior Court of the County of Riverside.

7-995

4 The foregoing Ordinance was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on ________________ by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE:

__________________________
Steve Downs, Mayor

ATTEST:

_______________________________
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________________
Colin D. Kirkpatrick, City Attorney

7-996

5 EXHIBIT “A”

SUBJECT PROPERTY
[TO BE ATTACHED]

7-997

6 EXHIBIT “B”

STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
[TO BE ATTACHED]

7-998
7-999
1 RESOLUTION NO. ___________
A RESO

LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO

MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
(TPM23-0004) AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOP MENT PLANS (PDP23- 0006 & PDP23-0007)
WHERE
AS, the City of Rancho Mirage is a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and recognized as a political subdivision of State of California for certain purpose; and
WHERE
AS, on March 28, 2024, the Rancho Mirage Planning Commission adopted Resolution [TO BE INSERTED], incorporated herein by this reference, recommending, in part, the City Council approve and adopt this Resolution, approving the Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23- 0004) and Preliminary Development Plans PDP23- 0006 and PDP23 -0007 (collectively, the “Preliminary Development Plans”) (collectively, TPM23-0004 and the Preliminary Development Plans are sometimes referred to herein as the “Proposed Project”); and
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0004) subdivides the approximately 36 acre subject property into three (3) legal parcels; and WHEREAS, the Preliminary Development Plans are associated with Planning Area 1 (regarding up to 210 single family residences with central clubhouse and related amenities) and Planning Area 2 (regarding up to ninety -five (95) apartments and associates recreation area), with a separate Preliminary Development Plan(s) to be submitted for Planning Area 3 at some point in the future; and WHEREAS, on [TO BE INSERTED], at a duly noticed meeting of the City Council, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2024- [TO BE INSERTED] adopt ing the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approv ing the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS AND EXHIBITS
That
the foregoing Recitals and attached Exhibits are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 2. EVIDENCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
That t
he City Council has considered all of the evidence(“Evidence”) submitted into the administrative record (“Administrative Record”) for the Proposed Project, including, but not limited to, the following, which are all hereby incorporated herein by reference:
7-1000

2 (a) Rancho Mirage Municipal Code;
(b) Rancho Mirage General Plan and Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and all relevant provisions contained therein; (c) Catana Specific Plan (SP23-0002);
(d) General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA23-0002)
(e) Development Agreement (DA23- 0002) by and between the City and the Developer;
(f) Tentative Parcel Map (TMP23-0004);
(g) Preliminary Development Plans (PDP23-0006 and PDP23-0007), (h) Initial Study,
(i) Notice of Intent to adopt MND,
(j) MND and MMRP,
(k) Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing scheduled for March 28, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall at 69- 825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(l) Planning Commission Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the March 28 , 202 4, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(m) Testimony and/or comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to, the March 28, 2024, Planning Commission Public Hearing; and
(n) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the March 28 , 202 4, Planning Commission Public Hearing.
(o) Notice of City Council Public Hearing scheduled for [ TO BE INSERTED ], 2024, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall at 69- 825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(p) City Council Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the [ TO BE INSERTED], 2024, City Council Public Hearing;
(q) Testimony and/or comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to, the [TO BE INSERTED ], 2024, City Council Public Hearing; and
(r) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the [ TO BE INSTERTED], 2024, City Council Public Hearing.

SECTION 3.

FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS

That based on the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project, as set forth and described herein, the City Council acknowledges, accepts, and approves, and makes the following Findings and Determinations:

7-1001

3 (a) That Tentative Parcel Map ( TPM23-0004) is consistent with the General Plan and applicable Specific Plan;
(b) That the design and improvements related to Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0004) are consistent with the General Plan and applicable Specific Plan;
(c) That site covered by Tentative Parcel Map ( TPM23-0004) is physically suitable for the type of development;
(d) That the site covered by Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0004) is physically suitable for the proposed density of development;
(e) That Tentative Parcel Map ( TPM23-0004) design and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; (f) That the design and type of improvements related to Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0004) will not likely cause serious public health problems; (g) That the design and type of improvements related to Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0004) will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision;
(h) That proposed development under Preliminary Development Plan s are allowed withing the respective zoning district as permitted under the General Plan and applicable Specific Plan;
(i) That Preliminary Development Plans are generally in compliance with all of the applicable provisions of Title 17 that are necessary to carry out the purpose and requirements of the respective zoning district, including prescribed development standards and applicable design guidelines; (j) That Preliminary Development Plans are consistent with the General Plan and applicable Specific Plan; and
(k) That the Proposed Project which includes Tentative Parcel Map ( TPM23- 0004) and Preliminary Development Plans have been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15074 the intent is to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2023120616) based on Environmental Assessment Case No. EA23- 0006.

SECTION 4
. T ENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. TPM23-0004

That based on the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project which includes Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0004), and the Findings and Determinations set forth herein, the City Council hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map ( Case No. T PM23-0004), attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and incorporated herein by this reference.

7-1002

4 SECTION 5. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS

That based on the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project, which includes Preliminary Development Plans (PDP23-0006 and PDP23- 0007), and the Findings and Determinations set forth herein, the City Council hereby approves Preliminary Development Plans, attached hereto as Exhibits “B” and “C”, and incorporated herein by this reference. .

SECTION

6. EFFECTIVE DATE

That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

SECTION

7. SEVERABILITY

That if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of Resolution or any portion of the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 8
. CERTIFICATION

That the City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause the same to be processed in the manner required by law.

SECTION 9.

REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS

That all provisions of any resolution in effect prior to the effective date of this Resolution as adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution, are hereby repealed.

7-1003

5 PASSED AND ADOPTED on this ___ day of ____, 2024.

_________________________
Steve Downs, Mayor

ATTEST:

_____________________________
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________
Colin D. Kirkpatrick, City Attorney

7-1004

6 EXHIBIT “A”

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
[TO BE ATTACHED]

7-1005
7 EX
HIBIT “B”
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN CASE NO. PDP23-0006 EXHIBIT BOOKLET [TO BE ATTACHED]
7-1006
8 EXHIBIT “C”
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN CASE NO. PDP23-0007 EXHIBIT BOOKLET [TO BE ATTACHED]
7-1007
7-1008
1 RESOLUTION NO. ___________
A RES

OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO

MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPT ING AND APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH#2023120616) AND A MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM REGARDING CATANA
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP23-0002), GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT (GPZMA23-0002), STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT (DA23-0002), TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TPM23 -0004) AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS (PDP23-0006 and PDP23- 0007)
WHE
REAS, the City of Rancho Mirage is a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and recognized as a political subdivision of State of California for certain purpose; and
WHE
REAS, the “ Proposed Project” will generally subdivide the “Subject Property”, as defined in the March 28, 2024, Rancho Mirage Planning Commission Resolution No. 2024-PC-01, into three parcels, amend the General Plan Zoning Map to accommodate the proposed uses on the Subject Property, adopt a Specific Plan establishing development standards and guidelines for the three (3) Planning Areas

comprising the Subject Property (Planning Area 1: comprised of a up to two hundred ten (210) single family residences with c entral clubhouse and related amenities; Planning Area 2 comprised of up to ninety -five (95) affordable apartments and associated recreation area, with an affordable housing overlay; and Planning Area 3: up to seventy- five thousand (75,000) square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices); and Preliminary Development Plans for PA 1 and PA2, with Preliminary Development Plans for Planning Area 3 to be provided in the future; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Project includes a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (Case No. GPZMA23-0002), Specific Plan (Case No. SP23-0002) (“Catana Specific Plan”), a statutory Development Agreement (Case No. DA 23-0002); a Tentative Parcel Map ( TPM23-0004), and related Preliminary Development Plans ( PDP23-0006 and PDP23-0007); and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2024, the Rancho Mirage Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2024- PC-01, incorporated herein by this reference, recommending, in part, the City Council approve and adopt this Resolution, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2023120616) regarding the Proposed Project, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit “A”.

ATTACHMENT 7
7-1009

2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS AND EXHIBITS

That the foregoing Recitals and attached Exhibits are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 2. EVIDENCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

That the City Council has considered all of the evidence (“Evidence”) submitted into the administrative record (“Administrative Record”) for the Proposed Project, including, but not limited to, the following, which are all hereby incorporated herein by reference:

(a) Rancho Mirage Municipal Code;
(b) Rancho Mirage General Plan and Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and all relevant provisions contained therein; (c) General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA23-0002);
(d) Catana Specific Plan (SP23-0002);
(e) Development Agreement (DA23- 0002) by and between the City and the Developer;
(f) Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0004);
(g) Preliminary Development Plans (PDP23-0006 and PDP23-0007), (h) Initial Study,
(i) Notice of Intent to adopt MND,
(j) MND and MMRP,
(k) Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing scheduled for March 28, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall at 69- 825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(l) Planning Commission Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the March 28 , 202 4, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(m) Testimony and/or comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to, the March 28, 2024, Planning Commission Public Hearing; and
(n) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the March 28 , 202 4, Planning Commission Public Hearing.
(o) Initial Study;
(p) Notice of City Council Public Hearing scheduled for April 18, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall at 69- 825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(q) City Council Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related 7-1010

3 thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the April 18, 2024, City Council Public Hearing;
(r) Testimony and/or comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to, the April 18, 2024, City Council Public Hearing; and
(s) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the April 18, 2024, City Council Public Hearing.

SECTION 3
. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS

That based on the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project, as set forth and described herein, the City Council acknowledges, accepts, and approves, and makes the following Findings and Determinations:

(a) That the City has independently reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, and the whole record before it (including, the Initial Study and comments received) and, based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby finds that all environmental impacts of the P roposed Project, with mitigation measures, are below a level of significance and there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment.

(b) That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan have been completed in compliance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines.

(c) That t he Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan represent the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission and City Council as lead agency for the Proposed Project.

(d) That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan are adequate to serve as the required CEQA environmental documentation for the Proposed Project.

SECTION 4 . ADOPT THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVAL OF MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

T
hat based on the Findings and Determinations set forth herein and the substantial evidence included in the Recitals, Exhibits and Evidence contained in Administrative Record, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the findings set forth therein which support a determination that all potentially significant environmental impacts from 7-1011

4 implementation of the Proposed Project have been identified and, with the implementation of the mitigation measures defined and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

SECTION 5
. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

That the City Council authorizes and directs the Planning Division to prepare, execute, and file a Notice of Determination in accordance with Public Resource Code Section 21152.

SECTION 6
. EFFECTIVE DATE

That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

SECTION

7. SEVERABILITY

That if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of Resolution or any portion of the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 8
. CERTIFICATION.

That the City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause the same to be processed in the manner required by law.

SECTION 9.

REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS.

That all provisions of any resolution in effect prior to the effective date of this Resolution as adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution, are hereby repealed.

7-1012

5 PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 18th day of April, 2024.

_________________________
Steve Downs, Mayor

ATTEST:

_____________________________
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________
Colin Kirkpatrick, City Attorney

7-1013

6 EXHIBIT “A”

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION &

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
[TO BE ATTACHED]

7-1014
1 RESOLUTION NO. ___________
A R

ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO MIRAGE,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT AMENDING APPROXIMATELY 36 ACRES OF SECTION
14, AND APPLYING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY TO
APPROXIMATELY 3.3 ACRES AND CHANGING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 8.3 ACRES FROM HIGH

DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-H) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-G)
WHE
REAS, the City of Rancho Mirage is a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and recognized as a political subdivision of State of California for certain purpose; and
WHE
REAS, on March 28, 2024, the Rancho Mirage Planning Commiss ion adopted Resolution 2024-PC-01 incorporated herein by this reference, recommending, in part, the City Council approve and adopt this Resolution, approving the General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA23- 0002), as described in more detail I n Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, on April 18, 2024, at a duly noticed meeting of the City Council, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2024-[TO BE INSERTED] adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

NOW
, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS AND EXHIBITS
That
the foregoing Recitals and attached Exhibits are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 2. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN
That
the City Council finds the GPZMA23-0002 is consistent with the General Plan.

SECTION 3. ADOPT GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
Tha
t th e City Council hereby approves General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA23-0002).

SECTION 4. CEQA COMPLIANCE
That pursuant to Resolution 2024- [TO BE INSERTED], the City Council adopt ed the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approv ing the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

ATTACHMENT 8
7-1015

2 SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY
That the City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, th e remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Resolution as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 6 . AMENDING OF BAIL SCHEDULE
That the City Attorney’s Office is hereby directed to determine whether this Resolution necessitates amendment of the City’s Bail Schedule and to cause such necessary amendments to be made and filed with the local branches of the Superior Court of the County of Riverside.

SECTION 7 . EFFECTIVE DATE

That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

SECTION 8. SEVERABILITY

That if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 9
. CERTIFICATION.

That the City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause the same to be processed in the manner required by law.

SECTION 1

0. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS.

That all provisions of any resolution and/or General Plan Zoning Map, in effect prior to the effective date of this Resolution as adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution, are hereby repealed.

7-1016

3 The foregoing Resolution was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on April 18, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE:

__________________________
Steve Downs, Mayor

ATTEST:

_______________________________
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________________
Colin Kirkpatrick, City Attorney

7-1017

4 EXHIBIT “A”

GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
CASE NO. GPZMA23-0002
[TO BE ATTACHED]

7-1018
1 ORDINANCE NO. ___________

AN ORDI

NANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO

MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT WITH RAMON & RATTLER PARTNERS, LLC, AND

MCKELLER MCGOWAN HOLDINGS, LLC
WHE
REAS, the City of Rancho Mirage is a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and recognized as a political subdivision of State of California for certain purpose; and
WHE
REAS, Ramon & Rattler Partners, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company, authorized to do business in California, which owns approximately thirty -six (36) acres of undeveloped real property located within Section 14, generally located at the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road, in Rancho Mirage, County of Riverside, State of California, having Assessor’s Parcel Number 670-230-021 (the “Subject Property”), which is currently vacant and unimproved land, as more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, McKeller McGowan Holdings, LLC, represents it is in escrow to purchase a portion of the Subject Property, identified on Exhibit “A” as “Planning Area 1” or sometimes “PA1”, and “Planning Area 2” or sometimes “PA2” (for purposes of this Ordinance, McKeller McGowan Holdings, LLC, and Ramon & Rattler Partners, LLC, are collectively referred to herein as the “Developer”); and WHEREAS, for purposes of this Ordinance, the “Proposed Project” includes a Statutory Development Agreement (the “Development Agreement”) providing for the development of up to 75,000 square feet of commercial space, and up to 305 housing units for lease, inclusive of ninety -five (95) housing units for affordable to lower income households, all as provided through the Development Agreement and Project Entitlements, as that term is defined in the Development Agreement; and WHE
REAS, as set forth in more detail in the Development Agreement, Developer shall record a covenant against Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 38834, which shall provide that residential units developed on the said portion of the Subject Property shall be rented at affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, or affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the California Health and Safety Code, to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. Rental units shall remain affordable to and occupied by lower income households for a period of 55 years for rental housing; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2024, the Rancho Mirage Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2024-PC-01 incorporated herein by this reference, recommending, in part, the City Council introduce and adopt this Ordinance, approving and adopting the proposed Statutory Development Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein by ATTACHMENT 9
7-1019

2 this reference as Exhibit “B”; and

WHEREAS, on April 18, 2024, at a duly noticed meeting of the City Council, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2024-[TO BE INSERTED] adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS AND EXHIBITS

That the foregoing Recitals and attached Exhibits are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 2.

CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN

That based on the foregoing Recitals and the evidence contained in the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project, the City Council finds that the Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and applicable Specific Plan.

SECTION 3 . ADOPT STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

That the City Council hereby adopts and approves the Development Agreement.

SECTION

4. EFFECTIVE DATE

That this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.

SECTION

5. CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW

That the City Attorney prepared and framed this ordinance pursuant to Section

1.04.010 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and finds that the City Council has the authority to adopt this ordinance, that the ordinance is constitutionally valid and that the ordinance is consistent with the general powers and purposes of the City as set forth in Section 1.04.031 of the RMMC.

SECTION 6
. RECORDATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

That in accordance with Section 17.56.050 of the City’s Municipal Code, the City Clerk is hereby directed to record the fully executed Statutory Development Agreement with the Riverside County Recorder no later than ten (10) days after its execution. 7-1020

3 SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY

That if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance or any portion of the administrative record for the Proposed Project be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 8
. CERTIFICATION

That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published according to law.

SECTION 9.

REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS

That all provisions of any ordinance and/or Municipal Code in effect prior to the effective date of this Ordinance as adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance , are hereby repealed.

SECTION 1 0
. AMENDING OF BAIL SCHEDULE

That the City Attorney’s Office is hereby directed to determine whether this Ordinance necessitates amendment of the City’s Bail Schedule and to cause such necessary amendments to be made and filed with the local branches of the Superior Court of the County of Riverside.

7-1021

4 The foregoing Ordinance was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on April 18, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE:

__________________________
Steve Downs, Mayor

ATTEST:

_______________________________
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________________
Colin D. Kirkpatrick, City Attorney

7-1022

5 EXHIBIT “A”

SUBJECT PROPERTY
[TO BE ATTACHED]

7-1023

6 EXHIBIT “B”

STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
[TO BE ATTACHED]

7-1024
1 ORDINANCE NO. ___________

AN ORDI

NANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CATANA SPECIFIC PLAN (SP23- 0002)
WHE
REAS, the City of Rancho Mirage is a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and recognized as a political subdivision of State of California for certain purpose; and
WHE
REAS, on March 28, 2024, the Rancho Mirage Planning Commiss ion adopted Resolution 2024-PC-01, incorporated herein by this reference, recommending, in part, the City Council introduce and adopt this Ordinance, approving and adopting the Catana Specific Plan (SP23- 0002) (the “Proposed Project”), attached heret o and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit “A”, establishing the development standards and guidelines for three (3) separate Planning Areas regarding the Subject Property, as defined in the associated March 28, 2024, Rancho Mirage Planning Commission Resolution; and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2024, at a duly noticed meeting of the City Council, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2024-[TO BE INSERTED] adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS AND EXHIBITS
That
the foregoing Recitals and attached Exhibits are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 2. EVIDENCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
That
the City Council has considered all of the evidence (“Evidence”) submitted into the administrative record (“Administrative Record”) for the Proposed Project, including, but not limited to, the following, which are all hereby incorporated herein by reference:
(a) R
ancho Mirage Municipal Code;
(b) Rancho Mirage General Plan and Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and all relevant provisions contained therein; (c) Catana Specific Plan (SP23-0002);
(d) General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA23-0002)
(e) Development Agreement (DA23- 0002) by and between the City and the Developer;
(f) Tentative Parcel Map (TMP23-0004);
ATTACHMENT 10
7-1025

2 (g) Preliminary Development Plans (PDP23-0006 and PDP23-0007), (h) Initial Study,
(i) Notice of Intent to adopt MND,
(j) MND and MMRP,
(k) Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing scheduled for March 28, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall at 69- 825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(l) Planning Commission Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the March 28 , 202 4, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(m) Testimony and/or comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to, the March 28, 2024, Planning Commission Public Hearing; and
(n) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the March 28 , 202 4, Planning Commission Public Hearing.
(o) Notice of City Council Public Hearing scheduled for April 18, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall at 69- 825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(p) City Council Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the April 18, 2024, City Council Public Hearing;
(q) Testimony and/or comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to, the April 18, 2024, City Council Public Hearing; and
(r) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the April 18, 2024, City Council Public Hearing.

SECTION 3
. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS

That based on the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project, as set forth and described herein, the City Council acknowledge, accept, and approve, and make the following Findings and Determinations:

(a) That the proposed Catana Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan; (b) The proposed Catana Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city; (c) The Subject Property is physically suitable for the requested zoning district(s), planning areas and the anticipated land use developments; (d) The proposed Catana Specific Plan ensures development of desirable character which would be harmonious with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood; and
7-1026

3 (e) The Proposed Project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15074 the intent is to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2023120616) based on Environmental Assessment Case No. EA23-0006.

SECTION 4
. ADOPT SPECIFIC PLAN

That the City Council hereby approves the Catana Specific Plan (SP23-0002).

SECTION 5
. EFFECTIVE DATE

That this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.

SECTION

6. CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW

That the City Attorney prepared and framed this ordinance pursuant to Section

1.04.010 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and finds that the City Council has the authority to adopt this ordinance, that the ordinance is constitutionally valid and that the ordinance is consistent with the general powers and purposes of the City as set forth in Section 1.04.031 of the RMMC.

SECTION 7
. SEVERABILITY

That if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance or any portion of the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 8 . CERTIFICATION

That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published according to law.

SECTION 9.

REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS

That all provisions of any ordinance and/or Municipal Code in effect prior to the effective date of this Ordinance as adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance , are hereby repealed.

SECTION 1 0
. AMENDING OF BAIL SCHEDULE

That the City Attorney’s Office is hereby directed to determine whether this Ordinance necessitates amendment of the City’s Bail Schedule and to cause such 7-1027

4 necessary amendments to be made and filed with the local branches of the Superior Court of the County of Riverside.

7-1028

5 The foregoing Ordinance was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on April 18, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE:

__________________________
Steve Downs, Mayor

ATTEST:

_______________________________
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________________
Colin D. Kirkpatrick, City Attorney

7-1029

6 EXHIBIT “A”

CATANA SPECIFIC PLAN
[TO BE ATTACHED]

7-1030
1 RESOLUTION NO. ___________
A RES

OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO

MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
(TPM23-0004) AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOP MENT PLANS (PDP23- 0006 & PDP23-0007)
WHE
REAS, the City of Rancho Mirage is a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and recognized as a political subdivision of State of California for certain purpose; and
WHE
REAS, on March 28, 2024, the Rancho Mirage Planning Commiss ion adopted Resolution 2024-PC-01, incorporated herein by this reference, recommending, in part, the City Council approve and adopt this Resolution, approving the Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23 -0004) and Preliminary Development Plans PDP23- 0006 and PDP23-0007 (collectively, the “Preliminary Development Plans”) (collectively, TPM23- 0004 and the Preliminary Development Plans are sometimes referred to herein as the “Proposed Project”); and
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0004) subdivides the approximately 36 acre subject property into three (3) legal parcels; and WHEREAS, the Preliminary Development Plans are associated with Planning Area 1 (regarding up to 210 single family residences with central clubhouse and related amenities) and Planning Area 2 (regarding up to ninety -five (95) apartments and associates recreation area), with a separate Preliminary Development Plan(s) to be submitted for Planning Area 3 at some point in the future; and WHEREAS, on April 18, 2024, at a duly noticed meeting of the City Council, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2024-[TO BE INSERTED] adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS AND EXHIBITS
That
the foregoing Recitals and attached Exhibits are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 2. EVIDENCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
That
the City Council has considered all of the evidence(“Evidence”) submitted into the administrative record (“Administrative Record”) for the Proposed Project, including, but not limited to, the following, which are all hereby incorporated herein by reference:
(a) R
ancho Mirage Municipal Code;
ATTACHMENT 11
7-1031

2 (b) Rancho Mirage General Plan and Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and all relevant provisions contained therein; (c) Catana Specific Plan (SP23-0002);
(d) General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA23-0002)
(e) Development Agreement (D A23-0002) by and between the City and the Developer;
(f) Tentative Parcel Map (TMP23-0004);
(g) Preliminary Development Plans (PDP23-0006 and PDP23-0007), (h) Initial Study,
(i) Notice of Intent to adopt MND,
(j) MND and MMRP,
(k) Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing scheduled for March 28, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall at 69- 825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(l) Planning Commission Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the March 28 , 202 4, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(m) Testimony and/or comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to, the March 28, 2024, Planning Commission Public Hearing; and
(n) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the March 28 , 202 4, Planning Commission Public Hearing.
(o) Notice of City Council Public Hearing scheduled for April 18, 2024 , at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall at 69- 825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(p) City Council Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the April 18, 2024, City Council Public Hearing;
(q) Testimony and/or comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to, the April 18, 2024, City Council Public Hearing; and
(r) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the April 18, 2024, City Council Public Hearing.

SECTION 3.

FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS

That based on the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project, as set forth and described herein, the City Council acknowledges, accepts, and approves, and makes the following Findings and Determinations:

7-1032

3 (a) That Tentative Parcel Map ( TPM23-0004) is consistent with the General Plan and applicable Specific Plan;
(b) That the design and improvements related to Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0004) are consistent with the General Plan and applicable Specific Plan;
(c) That site covered by Tentative Parcel Map ( TPM23-0004) is physically suitable for the type of development;
(d) That the site covered by Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0004) is physically suitable for the proposed density of development;
(e) That Tentative Parcel Map ( TPM23-0004) design and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; (f) That the design and type of improvements related to Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0004) will not likely cause serious public health problems; (g) That the design and type of improvements related to Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0004) will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision;
(h) That proposed development under Preliminary Development Plan s are allowed withing the respective zoning district as permitted under the General Plan and applicable Specific Plan;
(i) That Preliminary Development Plans are generally in compliance with all of the applicable provisions of Title 17 that are necessary to carry out the purpose and requirements of the respective zoning district, including prescribed development standards and applicable design guidelines; (j) That Preliminary Development Plans are consistent with the General Plan and applicable Specific Plan; and
(k) That the Proposed Project which includes Tentative Parcel Map ( TPM23- 0004) and Preliminary Development Plans have been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15074 the intent is to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2023120616) based on Environmental Assessment Case No. EA23- 0006.

SECTION 4
. T ENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO. TPM23-0004

That based on the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project which includes Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0004), and the Findings and Determinations set forth herein, the City Council hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map ( Case No. T PM23-0004), attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and incorporated herein by this reference.

7-1033

4 SECTION 5. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS

That based on the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project, which includes Preliminary Development Plans (PDP23-0006 and PDP23- 0007), and the Findings and Determinations set forth herein, the City Council hereby approves Preliminary Development Plans, attached hereto as Exhibits “B” and “C”, and incorporated herein by this reference. .

SECTION

6. EFFECTIVE DATE

That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

SECTION

7. SEVERABILITY

That if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of Resolution or any portion of the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 8
. CERTIFICATION

That the City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause the same to be processed in the manner required by law.

SECTION 9.

REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS

That all provisions of any resolution in effect prior to the effective date of this Resolution as adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution, are hereby repealed.

7-1034

5 PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 18
th day of April, 2024.

_________________________
Steve Downs, Mayor

ATTEST:

_____________________________
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________
Colin D. Kirkpatrick, City Attorney

7-1035

6 EXHIBIT “A”

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
[TO BE ATTACHED]

7-1036

7 EXHIBIT “B”
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN CASE NO. PDP23-0006 EXHIBIT BOOKLET [TO BE ATTACHED]

7-1037

8 EXHIBIT “c”
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN CASE NO. PDP23-0007 EXHIBIT BOOKLET [TO BE ATTACHED]

7-1038

STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission/City Council DATE: March 28, 2024 FR
OM: Colin D. Kirkpatrick, City Attorney
SUBJ
ECT: City Attorney’s Independent Analysis
SPECIFIC REQUEST OR RECOMMENDATION:

That
the Planning Commission receive and file the City Attorney’s Independent Analysis.

BACKGROUND
Si
nce the proposed Project requires the adoption of ordinances a pproving a Statutory Development Agreement and a Specific Plan, the City Attorney is required to make determinations which address whether the City has the legal authority to adopt said ordinances.

Rancho Mirage Municipal Code Section 1.04.031 (Review And Approval Of Legal Form Of Ordinances By City Attorney) provides that “[n]o ordinance shall be deemed effective unless the City Attorney determines that the City has the authority to adopt the proposed ordinance, that the proposed ordinance is constitutionally valid under the state and federal constitutions, and that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the general powers and purposes of the City, the City’s Charter, ordinances approved by the voters, and any applicable federal and/or state laws.

Legal Authority
De
velopment Agreement Ordinance
The D
evelopment Agreement Statute, as set forth in California Government Code sections 65864 through 65869.5 allows for the vesting of development rights to protect against later changes in planning and zoning regulations. State law permits cities to enter into development agreements with "any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property." See Govt C §65865(a) . In order to approve the proposed Development Agreement, it must be approved by an ordinance adopted by the City Council.

The
proposed Development Agreement may be approved by the City Council if the City Council finds that the provisions of the Development Agreement are consistent with the General Plan, which in this case will be if the City Council ultimately approves the proposed General Plan Zoning Map Amendment and the proposed Specific Plan. In other words, although development agreements cannot be used to establish land uses not authorized by the zoning ordinance applicable to the property, the subject Development Agreement is contingent upon the City ultimately approving the proposed General Plan Zoning Map Amendment and the proposed Specific Plan, which together with the Development Agreement will establish the plans, land use ATTACHMENT 12
7-1039
Date: March 28, 2024 City Attorney’s Independent Analysis Page 2 of 3

City Attorney’s Independent Analysis AGENDA ITEM #

regulations, development standards, design guidelines, infrastructure requirements, and implementation programs to guide the development of the proposed Project.

Notwithstanding the above, because the decision to enter into a development agreement is a legislative act, the decision of the City Council is not otherwise required to be supported by findings, except for those expressly required by state law (such as the general plan consistency finding) and any local development procedures. See Native Sun/Lyon Communities v City of Escondido (1993) 15 CA4th 892, 910.

Pursuant to Chapter 17.56 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code, the content of a development agreement must address the following: (1) specify the duration of the agreement; (2) specify the allowed uses for the subject property; (3) specify the density/intensity of the allowed uses; (4) describe the maximum height and size of proposed structures by clearly identifying and referring to the documents and exhibits approved; (5) describe the provisions, if any, for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes; (6) describe the provisions, if any, for the protection from either a future growth control ordinance or a future increase in development and/or effect fees; (7) provide for a tiered amendment review procedure; and (8) provide for the possibility of subsequent discovery of health and safety issues like a compelling public necessity (e.g., a new environmental health hazard is discovered), which would necessitate a reconsideration or amendment of the previously approved development agreement.

It is the independent opinion of the City Attorney that based on the content and findings in the Staff Report and the terms and conditions of the proposed Development Agreement, that the proposed Development Agreement conforms with and meets all of the above requirements. In addition, the City Attorney finds and concludes that based on the foregoing, the City Council has the legal authority to adopt the proposed Development Agreement Ordinance since the proposed ordinance is constitutionally valid under the state and federal constitutions, is consistent with the general powers and purposes of the City, the City’s charter, ordinances approved by the voters, and applicable federal and state laws.

Specific Plan Ordinance

The Specific Plan must contain certain specified details relating to land uses, major infrastructure, development and conservation standards, an implementation program, and a statement of relationship to the general plan. See Government Code Section 65451.

Moreover, pursuant to Section 15.54.0202 (Intent) of the Municipal Code, a specific plan adopted by ordinance shall replace the base zoning district for the subject property, and the development standards and guidelines identified in the specific plan shall take precedence over the general standards and guidelines contained in Title 17 “Zoning” of the Municipal Code.

Moreover, as set forth in Section 17.54.100 (Findings and Decision) a specific plan may be approved, provided that certain findings are made. Although it is beyond the scope of this analysis to address any required findings, based on the findings, evidence and conclusions set forth in the Staff Report prepared for the Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration which was prepared for the Project, there is substantial evidence in the whole of the administrative record to support the following requisite findings: (1) that the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan (as amended by the General Plan Zoning Map Amendment); (2) that the Specific 7-1040
Date: March 28, 2024 City Attorney’s Independent Analysis Page 3 of 3

City Attorney’s Independent Analysis AGENDA ITEM #

Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; (3) that the area covered by the Specific Plan is physically suitable for the requested zoning districts and the anticipated land use developments; (4) that the proposed Specific Plan ensures development of desirable character which would be harmonious with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood; and (5) that the proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

It is the independent opinion of the City Attorney that based on the content and findings in the Staff Report, the terms and conditions of the proposed Development Agreement, the provisions of the Specific Plan, the proposed General Plan Zoning Map Amendment, and the contents of the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program prepared for the Project, that the proposed Specific Plan conforms with and meets all of the above requirements. In addition, the City Attorney finds and concludes that based on the foregoing, the City Council has the legal authority to adopt the proposed Specific Plan Ordinance since the proposed ordinance is constitutionally valid under the state and federal constitutions, is consistent with the general powers and purposes of the City, the City’s charter, ordinances approved by the voters, and applicable federal and state laws.

7-1041

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270-2898 (760) 324-4511/328-2266

NOTICE O

F DETERMINATION AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To: Office of Planning and Research Chief Deputy County Clerk Sac
ramento, CA 95814 Riverside, CA 92501
Proje
ct Title/Case Nos.

Applicant:

Project Location:

Project Description:

Catana Specific Plan - Environmental A ssessment C ase N o. E A 23- 0006; D evelopment A
greement C ase No. D A 23 -0002; G eneral P lan Zoning Map Amendment C a se N o.

GPZMA23-0002; Specific Plan Case No. SP23-0002; Tentative Parcel Map Case No.

TPM23
-0004 (Tentative Parcel Map 38834); and Preliminary Development Plan Case Nos.

PDP23-0006 and PDP23-0007
McKellar McGowan Holdings, LLC
Northwest corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Roa d– Assessor’s Parcel Number: 670-230-021 The Catana Specific Plan pr oposes a mixed -use nei ghborhood on 36± a c res a t the northwest corner of Ram on Road and Rattler Road. General Pla n Zoning Ma p Amendment Case No.

GP
ZMA23-0002 proposes to change the High Density Residential (R-H ) land use designation to Gen eral C ommercial (C-G) for 8.3± acres (Planning Area 3) fr onting Ramon Road, a nd apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to 3.3± acres (Planning Area 2) in the west-central portion of the site while preserving the R-H designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 ( PDP23-0007) pr o p oses 21 0 single -family rental homes w ith a menities, P lanning A rea 2 (
PDP23-0006) pr oposes 94 apartments a nd a c entral r ecreation area, and Planning Area 3 pr
oposes up to 75,000 square feet of commercial uses. Additional Development Plan(s) will be submitted for Planning Area 3 in t he future.

No
tice of Determination
Fili
ng of Notice of Determination in compliance with Public Resources Code, Section 21108 or 21152. The City of Rancho Mirage has approved the above described project on _______, 2024 and has determined:

1. The pr
oject will will not have a significant effect/impact on the environment.

2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

3. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

4. Mitigation measures were were not made conditions of approval for the project.

5. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan was was not adopted for this project.

6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was was not adopted for this project.

7. Findings were were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

The Ci
ty Council adopted the following Finding: The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is to certify that the project file and record of project approval are available to the general public at: City of Rancho Mirage, 69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270.

Mitiga
ted Negative Declaration - Rancho Mirage City Council
Date: ____
_________
Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
I here
by certify that the City of Rancho Mirage has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the Mitigated Negative Declaration and hearing record the project will not have a significant effect on the environment.

Date: ____
__________
Pilar Lope
z
Lead Agency Responsible Agency Senior Planner
ATTACHMENT 13
7-1042

STAFF REPORT
Planning Commission Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #
TO: Planning Commission DATE: March 28, 2024 FRO
M: Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Catana Specific Plan - Environmental Assessment Case No. EA23-0006; General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23-0002; Specific Plan Case No.

SP23-0002; Development Agreement Case No. DA23-0002; Tentative Parcel Map Case No. TPM23-0 004 (Tentative Parcel Map 38834); and
Preliminary Development Plan Case Nos. PDP23-0 006 and PDP23-0007 SPECIFIC REQUEST OR RECOMMENDATION:

Staf
f recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2024-PC-(Next-in-Order), recommending that the City Council take the following actions:
a) Adopt Resolution No. 2024-(Next-in-Order), approving the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#202 3120616) for the Proposed Project based on Environmental Assessment Case No. EA23-0006. b) Adopt
Resolution No. 2024-(Next-in-Order), approving General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA2 3-0002), to change the High Density Residential land use designation to General Commercial for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road, and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to 3.3± acres.
c) Intr
oduce and adopt Ordinance No. (Next-in-Order), approving Specific Plan (SP23- 0002) to establish the development standards and guidelines for three (3) Planning Areas within the 36± acre site.
d) Intr
oduce and adopt Ordinance No. (Next-in-Order), approving the Development Agreement by and between McKeller McGowan Holdings, LLC. and Ramon & Rattler Partners, LLC. and the City of Rancho Mirage (DA23-0002). e) Adopt
Resolution No. 2024-(Next-in-Order), approving Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23- 0004) to subdivide the 36± acres into three parcels corresponding to the three (3) Planning Areas and Preliminary Development Plans Case Nos. PDP23- 0006 and PDP23-0007 for the single-family residential neighborhood in Planning Area 1 and the affordable apartments in Planning Area 2.

ATTACHMENT 14
7-1043
Date: March 28, 2024 EA23-0006, GPZMA23-0002, DA23-0002, SP23-0002, TPM23-0004, PDP23-0006 & PDP23-0007 Page 2 of 60

Planning Commission Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Aerial

2. Public Hearing Notice

3. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

4. Draft Specific Plan

5. Draft Development Agreement

6. Resolution of the Planning Commission recommending that the City Council Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve a Statutory Development Agreement, a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment, a Specific Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, and Preliminary Development Plans for the Catana Specific Plan.

7. Resolution approving and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2023120616) for the Proposed Project based on Environmental Assessment Case No. EA23-0006.

8. Resolution approving proposed General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No.

GPZMA23-0002 to change the High-Density Residential land use designation to General Commercial for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road, and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to 3.3± acres.

9. Ordinance [next in line] approving the Development Agreement (DA23- 0002) by and between the Developer and the City of Rancho Mirage.

10. Ordinance [next in line] approving Specific Plan (SP23- 0002) to establish the development standards and guidelines for three Planning Areas within the 36± acre site;

11. Resolution approving the proposed Tentative Parcel Map Case No. TPM23- 0004 (TPM38834) and the
Preliminary Development Plans Case Nos. PDP23- 0006 and PDP23-0007 for the single- family residential neighborhood in Planning Area 1 and the apartments in Planning Area 2.

12. City Attorney’s Independent Analysis

13. Draft Notice of Determination

14. General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23-0002 Exhibit

15. PDP23-0006 Exhibit Booklet

16. PDP23-0007 Exhibit Booklet

17. Tentative Parcel Map No. 38834 Exhibit

FACTS:

1. Applicant/Property Owner: McKellar McGowan Holdings, LLC

2. Purpose of Request: Consideration of a specific plan with three (3) planning areas for the development of a mixed-use
neighborhood on 36± acres located at the
northwest corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road.

General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No.

GPZMA23-0002 proposes to change the High
Density Residential (R- H) land use designation to
General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3± acres (Planning
Area 3) fronting Ramon Road, and apply the
Affordable Housing Overlay to 3.3± acres (Planning
7-1044
Date: March 28, 2024 EA23-0006, GPZMA23-0002, DA23-0002, SP23-0002, TPM23-0004, PDP23-0006 & PDP23-0007 Page 3 of 60

Planning Commission Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #
Area 2) in the west -central portion of the sit e while preserving the R -H designation on 24.5± acres
(Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 (PDP23- 0007)
proposes 210 single -family rental homes with
amenities, Planning Area 2 (PDP23 -0006)
proposes 94 affordable apartments and a central
recreation area, and Planning Area 3 proposes up
to 75,000 square feet of commercial uses.

Additional Development Plan(s) will be submitted
for Planning Area 3 in the future.

3. Location: Northwest corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road Assessor’s Parcel Number: 670-230-021

4. Parcel Size: 36± acres

6. Existing Land Use: High Density Residential (H-R)

7. Proposed Land Use: Catana Specific Plan; High Density Residential (H - R), General Commercial (C -G); High Density
Residential/Affordable Housing Overlay (H-R/AHO)

8. Surrounding Land Use: West: Vacant lands (Mixed Use (M-U)) North: Rancho Mirage High School (Institutional
(P/S))
South: Ramon Road, Mission Hills North Country
Club golf course (Private Open Space (OS-PV) and
residential (Medium Density Residential (R-M))
East: Rattler Road, vacant land in sphere of
influence (Medium Density Residential (R-M))

9. Environmental Information: The recommendation is to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2023120616) based on
Environmental Assessment Case No. EA2 3-0006
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Section 15074.

10. Date Staff Deemed
Application Deemed Complete: March 11, 2024

PROJECT SUMMARY
The Catana Specific Plan proposes a mixed- use neighborhood on 36± acres located at the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road.

General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23-0002 proposes to change the High Density Residential (R -H) land use designation to General Commercial (C -G) for 8.3± acres (Planning Area 3) fronting Ramon Road, and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to 3.3± acres (Planning Area 2) in the west-central portion of the site while preserving the R-H designation on

24.5± acres (Planning Area 1).

Planning Area 1 (Preliminary Development Plan Case No. PDP23-0007) proposes 210 single- family rental homes with amenities, Planning Area 2 (Preliminary Development Plan Case No.

PDP23-0006) proposes 94 affordable apartments and a c entral recreation area, and Planning 7-1045
Date: March 28, 2024 EA23-0006, GPZMA23-0002, DA23-0002, SP23-0002, TPM23-0004, PDP23-0006 & PDP23-0007 Page 4 of 60

Planning Commission Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #
Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of commercial uses. Additional Development Plan(s) will be submitted for Planning Area 3 in the future.

PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
The following applications comprise the entitlement package: Environmental Assessment, General Plan Zoning Map Amendment, Development Agreement , Specific Plan , Tentative Parcel Map, and two Preliminary Development Plans.

Given the multi-faceted nature of the proposed project, the applicant submitted several entitlement applications that are being processed concurrently pursuant to RMMC Section

17.36.020 which requires that “[a]n applicant for a development project that requires the filing of more than one application, shall file all related applications concurrently unless waived by the director,” and “permit processing and environmental/design review shall be concurrent.”

1. E
nvironmental Assessment Case No. EA23- 0006 for environmental determination pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

2. General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23-000 2 to change the High Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) land use designation for 8.3 ± acres fronting Ramon Road, and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to 3.3± acres (Planning Area 2).

3. Specific Plan C ase No. SP23- 0002 to establish the development standards and guidelines for 3 Planning Areas within the 36± acre site.

4. Development Agreement Ca se No. DA23 -0002 to establish development timelines and responsibilities of the applicant and developer in the development of the project.

5. Tentative Parcel Ma p Case No. TPM23-0004 (Tentative Parcel Map 38834) to subdivide the 36± acres into three parcels corresponding to the three (3) Planning Areas.

6. Preliminary Development Plans C ase Nos. PDP23-0006 and PDP23-0007 for the single family residential neighborhood in Planning Area 1 (PA 1) and the affordable apartments in Planning Area 2 (PA 2).

The M itigated Negative Declaration is the environmental assessment of the potential environmental impacts for the project as a whole. This is the first application in the entitlement package because the environmental assessment provides the support and justification (from an environmental perspective) for considering the project’s entitlements. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA) must be approved prior to changing the current High Density Residential land use designation to General Commercial for 8. 3± acres (Planning Area 3) fronting Ramon Road, and applying the Affordable Housing Overlay to 3.3± acres (Planning Area 2). The ordinance approving the Development Agreement memorializes the standards that are agreed upon for the project. The Specific Plan (SP) will establish development standards for the Planning Areas, which is needed to approve the Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) to subdivide the 36± acres into three parcels corresponding to the 3 Planning Areas , and the Preliminary Development Plans (PDPs)
for the single family residential neighborhood in Planning Area 1 and the affordable apartments in Planning Area 2.

7-1046
Date: March 28, 2024 EA23-0006, GPZMA23-0002, DA23-0002, SP23-0002, TPM23-0004, PDP23-0006 & PDP23-0007 Page 5 of 60

Planning Commission Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CASE NO. EA23-0006
An environmental assessment application was submitted for the proposed project and the determination was made that the project required an Initial Study. An Initial Study has been prepared resulting in the recommendation to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).

Mitigation measures were recommended for Biological Resources , Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Transportation/Traffic. A Notice of Determination will be filed with the Riverside County Clerk once a final determination has been made by the City Council.

The complete Initial Study, along with the Mitigation M onitoring and Reporting Program , is included in Attachment 3 – Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration.

An Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30-day public review period starting on December 22, 2023, to January 22, 2024, and the City received one comment letter.

The City received a comment letter from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) commenting on the document requesting additional mitigation measures to be incorporated.

While the City is not required to respond to comments, Sections 21091(d)(1) and 21092.5 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) and Section 150874 (b) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines require that before project approval a Lead Agency must consider all comments received before making a final determination. With due consideration of the proposed mitigation measures, the City included a response to comments which was included as Appendix F in the Draft IS/MND (Attachment 3). A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the Desert Sun on December 17, 2023, and distributed to interested parties.

AB 52 & SB 18 Tribal Consultation
Public Resource Code 21074 identifies “Tribal Cultural Resources” as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with culture value to California Native American Tribe” and that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion on the national, state, or local register of historic resources or that are determined by the lead agency, in its discretion, to be significant when taking into consideration the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.

California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill 18 [SB 18]) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a general or specific plan. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction, and are identified, upon request, by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). As noted in the California Office of Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines (2005), “The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.”.

Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) requires lead agencies to notify their local tribes about development projects. It also mandates lead agencies consult with Tribes if requested and sets the principals for conducting and concluding the required consultation process. Pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18 consultation requirements, the City of Rancho Mirage initiated a SB18 and AB52 consultation process. The City contacted 16 tribes and representatives provided by the NAHC.

7-1047
Date: March 28, 2024 EA23-0006, GPZMA23-0002, DA23-0002, SP23-0002, TPM23-0004, PDP23-0006 & PDP23-0007 Page 6 of 60

Planning Commission Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #
Pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18 consultation requirements, the City of Rancho Mirage initiated a consultation process for a 90- day period from September 20, 2023, to December 20, 2023.

During the consultation period, the City received one comment letter from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI). ACBCI responded that the project area is located within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation and within the Tribe’s Tradition al Use Area. ACBCI requested any copies of cultural resource documentation generated in connection with the proposed Project be provided. During consultation, ACBCI requested the addition of CUL- 2, to assure that impacts be further reduced by assuring that construction personnel is knowledgeable regarding what potential resources might be uncovered during grading and excavation. In addition, to highlight the requirements of State law, the Tribe requested the addition of CUL- 3, which requires the implementation of State law if human remains are uncovered during earth - moving activities.

The City received a meeting request from the Cahuilla Band of Indians to further understand the project. After the meeting, the Tribe deferred to ACBCI. No additional correspondence or requests for formal consultation were received and the SB 18 and AB 52 noticing period was concluded.

GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP AMENDMENT CASE NO. GPZMA23-0002 The purpose of the General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (“GPZMA”) is to amend the existing underlying General Plan zoning designations on the project site. The site is currently vacant and designated as High Density Residential (R -H) on the City’s Land Use and Zoning Map, which allows a residential density of up to 9 DU/AC. A General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment is proposed to change the High Density Residential land use designation to General Commercial for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road, and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to 3.3± acres.

Compliance with Government Code 66300 (SB 330)
The Legislature enacted Government Code 66300, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 in response to the State’s concerns regarding the shortage of housing of all types across the State. Under the Act, the City cannot change a land use designation if it would reduce the City’s residential capacity. All 36± acres of the proposed project are currently designated High Density Residential (5 to 9 units per acre). The proposed GPZMA would keep the High Density Residential designation for 24.4± acres for the development of Planning Area 1, add the Affordable Housing Overlay (28 units per acre) to the 3.3± acres of Planning Area 2 for affordable housing, but change the designation to General Commercial for the 8.3± acres in Planning Area 3. In order to comply with Government Code 66300, the City must demonstrate that it is not reducing its residential capacity by making this change.

In this case, the subject site as a whole currently has a residential capacity of 184 to 330 units.

If the GPZMA is approved, Planning Areas 1 and 2 will allow 94 apartments and 210 single family homes on 27.7± acres, for a total of 304 units, and an overall density of 10.97 units per acre. Even with the loss of the 8.3± acres to commercial development, the proposed project will generate the upper range of the subject site’s allowed density and will meet 92% of the site’s maximum capacity and 165% of the minimum capacity. Therefore, the City complies with Government Code 66300, and will not reduce the City’s housing capacity by applying General Commercial to 8.3± acres of the Project area.
7-1048
Date: March 28, 2024 EA23-0006, GPZMA23-0002, DA23-0002, SP23-0002, TPM23-0004, PDP23-0006 & PDP23-0007 Page 7 of 60

Planning Commission Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #

In addition, Govt. Code Section 66300(i) provides an express exemption for projects that facilitate housing restricted to lower income housing, as this project does. Specifically, Section 66300(i) provides:

“(i) Notwithstanding subdivisions (b) and (e), this section does not prohibit an affected city or an affected county from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition that is intended to preserve or facilitate the production of housing for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or housing types that traditionally serve lower income households, including mobile home parks, single-room occupancy units, or units subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.”

As this project facilitates the development of up to 94 apartments restricted for lower income households, it satisfies the “no net loss” requirements of SB 330.

Although the Specific Plan will guide development on the site, changing the underlying zoning designation will provide more consistency between the Specific Plan and the General Plan. In addition, this GPZMA will help achieve and/or establish the framewor k for implementation of Goals, Policies and Programs within the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan.

Land Use Goals & Policies
• GOAL LU 1: A resort residential community of desirable neighborhoods, a variety of community facilities, and high-quality development.

• GOAL LU 2: A balanced mix of functionally integrated land uses, meeting the general social and economic needs of the community through simplified, compatible, and consistent land use and zoning designations.

• Policy LU 2.1: Specific pla ns shall be required, where appropriate, to ensure new development achieves high- quality building, design, and development standards and provides amenities above those expected in conventional development.

• Policy LU 2.2: Specific plans shall be utilized, where appropriate, to assure that phased, logical and cost-effective extension of infrastructure and build-out of new development.

• Policy LU 2.3: Specific plans shall be updated periodically to reflect existing land use conditions, to modernize land use trends, to review boundaries, and to ensure that the long-term goals of the General Plan are being met through implementation of said specific plans.

• Policy LU 2.6: The City shall ensure privacy and safety for residential neighborhoods by providing adequate buffering and screening, particularly where neighborhoods adjoin or are integrated with commercial developments.

Response: The proposed Catana Specific Plan provides guidance to ensure the phased, logical, and cost -effective development of the subject site. The standards and guidelines 7-1049
Date: March 28, 2024 EA23-0006, GPZMA23-0002, DA23-0002, SP23-0002, TPM23-0004, PDP23-0006 & PDP23-0007 Page 8 of 60

Planning Commission Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #
provided in the Specific Plan will ensure that the resulting residential and commercial development is high quality, providing ample shared residential amenities, access to nearby commercial resources, as well as adequate privacy via buffering and screening. The proposed land use will ensure that the commercial development will be highly visible on Ramon Road, the residential development will be screened from the major arterial by the commercial uses, and that the two land uses are functionally integrated.

Housing Goals & Policies
• GOAL H 1: A variety of housing types that meet the needs of residents in Rancho Mirage.

• GOAL H 2: Housing to meet the needs of Rancho Mirage’s lower income households and other special need groups, including seniors and persons with disabilities.

• Policy H 1: The General Plan shall provide for a mixture of residential densities dispersed throughout Rancho Mirage.

• Policy H 2: The City’s residential development standards shall allow for a diversity of housing types to provide new housing choices and enhance housing mobility while adhering to the General Plan’s community design policies.

• Policy H 3: Affordable housing developments shall be distributed throughout Rancho Mirage rather than concentrated in one area.

• Policy H 9: The Housing Authority shall pursue the development of 1,073 extremely low, very low, low and moderate income units in this planning period.

• Policy H 10: The City may, whenever it deems feasible and necessary, reduce, subsidize or defer development fees to facilitate the development of affordable housing.

Response: The Specific Plan proposes a combination of market -rate and affordable housing.

The site will include both attached and detached single family rental housing, as well as multi - family apartments. The project expands the type of housing opportunities provided in the city by introducing market-rate for lease single family homes and developing affordable apartments.

The standards and guidelines provided in the SP will ensure that this diversity of housing types will adhere to the General Plan’s community design policies. Development Impact Fees, or DIF fees, are fees charged to new residential and com mercial projects that are intended to recover a reasonable and proportional share of the cost of public facilities and infrastructure improvements that serve or will benefit that project. Per Section 10 of the Development Agreement, the Developer shall pay the City’s Development Impact Fees set forth in Chapter

3.29 of the Municipal Code on all new development square footage at the City’s commercial and residential rates in effect as of the date of the ordinance enacting the agreement . In addition Section 16 of the Development Agreement, up to ninety-four (94) housing units for affordable to lower income households, consistent with the requirements of the City’s adopted and certified 6th Cycle Housing Element Update shall be subject up to a 100% waiver as determined by the City Manager at the time of permit application of all City Development Impact Fees set forth in Chapter 3.29 of the Municipal Code, the License Tax on New Construction set forth in Chapter 7-1050
Date: March 28, 2024 EA23-0006, GPZMA23-0002, DA23-0002, SP23-0002, TPM23-0004, PDP23-0006 & PDP23-0007 Page 9 of 60

Planning Commission Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #

3.28 of the Municipal Code, and the land dedicati on or in lieu fee requirements under Section

16.18.060 of the Municipal Code.

The proposed development of 94 affordable housing units will directly implement the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. The Specific Plan includes the application of the Affordable Housing Overlay included in the 6 th Cycle Certified Housing Element
and Preliminary Development Plan Case No. PDP23-0006 proposes entitlements for the units.

Community Design Goals & Policies
• GOAL CD 1: Preservation and promotion of the special identity of Rancho Mirage as an “Oasis in the Desert,” combing quality development with scenic, natural, and open space amenities.

• GOAL CD 3: Scenic roadways that impart a sense of place and are attractively landscapes, provide visual continuity along adjacent uses, preserve views, and create focused intersection landscaping.

• GOAL CD 5: Walls and fences that act as attractive elements of the streetscape, while providing privacy and views, creative design, and visual continuity.

• GOAL CD 6: Signage of the highest level of design and construction quality.

• GOAL CD 7: Protection of the star-studded desert night sky from excessive glare.

• GOAL CD 8: Architecture that is sensitive to its context, blending quality materials, distinctive detailing, and a strong sense of living with nature.

• GOAL CD 9: Retail centers in Rancho Mirage that are visually attractive, people-friendly, and economically successful.

• GOAL CD 10: Distinctly designed parking areas in Rancho Mirage’s commercial centers that incorporate rich paving materials, drought and heat -tolerant landscaping, clear and safe pedestrian and vehicular access, and protection from the desert climate through the use of well-placed trees and/or carports.

• GOAL CD 11: Parking areas that are screened from public streets to the greatest extent possible.

Response: The development standards and design guidelines provided in the Specific Plan promote a distinct and high- quality residential and commercial development that is compatible with the character of nearby residential developments and of the City as a whole. Shared neighborhood community spaces will be provided on- site, including a club house, pool, and paseo for the single-family rental housing, as well as shared outdoor amenities including pools for the affordable housing. The SP provides standards to ensure the adequate provision of parking, the screening of trash enclosures and other services areas, a c omprehensive landscaping plan that is consistent with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance 7-1051
Date: March 28, 2024 EA23-0006, GPZMA23-0002, DA23-0002, SP23-0002, TPM23-0004, PDP23-0006 & PDP23-0007 Page 10 of 60

Planning Commission Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #
(MWELO), and perimeter walls with integrated landscaping to provide screening. The SP provides standards requiring signage to be high quality, attractive, and informative. The standards require lighting to be shielded and directed downward in order to reduce glare, preserve dark night skies, while still providing directional, safety, and informational functions.

The Specific Plan provides standards and guidelines to ensure high- quality, context sensitive design, while allowing flexibility for future tenants. It also includes guidelines to ensure cohesive yet visually-interesting schemes in building materials, color palettes, landscaping, signage, and lighting.

Arts & Culture Goals
• GOAL A&C 3: Night sky protection.

Response: Design guidelines provided in the Specific Plan require the use of shielded outdoor lighting in order to reduce light pollution and glare, consistent with §17.18.050 of the City’s zoning code.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CASE NO. DA23
-0002
In California, cities are allowed to enter into development agreements with any person(s) or entity(ies) having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of property in order to establish certain development rights in the real property.

A development agreement is intended to provide assurances to the developer that an approved project may proceed subject to the policies, rules, regulations, and conditions of approval applicable to the project at the time of approval, regardless of certain changes to the City’s policies, rules, and regulations after the project approval. This is in exchange for assurances that the C ity will receive certain payment of fees, the installation of certain infrastructure , and other benefits and conditions the City cannot otherwise unilaterally impose as conditions of approval of the project outside the context of a negotiated development agreement.

Development agreements eliminate a lot of uncertainty in planning, secure orderly development of the projects, assure progressive installation of improvements, and provide the least economic cost to its residents.

One purpose of the proposed Development Agreement is to ensure that Planning Area 2 is designated for affordable housing and to establish construction commencement. Pursuant to the development agreement’s Section 12, Planning Area 1 will begin construction within 3 years from the Development Agreement effective date, Planning Area 2 will begin construction within 4 years of the effective date, and Planning Area 3 will begin construction within 10 years of the effective date. The Development Agreement (Attachment 5) and accompanying ordinance are attached to this report.

SPECIFIC PLAN CAS
E NO. SP23-0002
The purpose of the Catana Specific Plan (SP) is to create a comprehensive planning document that will guide development of the project site. As stated in the City’s General Plan, s pecific plans seek to generate development of exceptional quality through flexible planning and design.

Specific plans differ in that they are intended for larger, more complex projects that integrate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses.
7-1052
Date: March 28, 2024 EA23-0006, GPZMA23-0002, DA23-0002, SP23-0002, TPM23-0004, PDP23-0006 & PDP23-0007 Page 11 of 60

Planning Commission Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #
Specific plans can also permit uses, development standards, and density/intensity levels beyond those allowed in the City’s Zoning Code. In return, specific plans require an applicant to demonstrate exceptional design quality and amenities, as well as a phased, cost -effective extension of infrastructure.

The California Government Code provides authority for a city to adopt a specific plan by ordinance (as a regulatory plan) or resolution (as a policy plan). The SP would be adopted by the Rancho Mirage City Council as an ordinance and would function as the regulatory document that serves as the zoning for the project site; the SP establishes the prevailing land use regulations for all development activities within the project site.

Pursuant to Section 17.54.020 “Intent” of the Municipal Code, a specific plan adopted by ordinance shall replace the base zoning district for the subject property, and the development standards and guidelines identified in the specific plan shall take precedence over the general standards and guidelines contained in Title 17 “Zoning” of the Municipal Code. In short, if adopted, the Catana Specific Plan will become the regulatory planning document for the 36-acre project site, superseding certain provisions within Title 17 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code.

This Specific Plan is intended to guide future development and use of land within the project site boundary, including the establishment of site -specific development standards and regulations.

The Specific Plan is intended to ensure quality development consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan.

Per the Rancho Mirage
General Plan land use plan and zoning map, the project site is designated as High Density Residential (R-H), which allows a residential density of up to 9 DU/AC. The SP would modify the proposed permitted uses on the site to allow a mix of high- density residential and commercial uses.

Organization
The Specific Plan is organized into six chapters as described below:

Chapter 1: Introduction – Pages 1-1 to 1-5
This section provides an overview of the document, the legislative authority for the Specific Plan, and other contextual information.

Chapter 2: The Project – Pages 2-1 to 2-3
This section describes the existing setting of the 36± acre project site as well as introduces the three distinct Planning Areas of the Catana Specific Plan.

The planning areas are briefly summarized below:
• Planning Area 1 proposes up to 210 single family homes with a central clubhouse, pool, gym and interconnected paseos that bring internal connectivity to the residents and PA
No. PA Use Area Propose Land Use Designation
1 210 rental single-family homes and amenities 24.4 ac High Density Residential (H-R) 2 95 apartments and amenities 3.3 ac High Density Residential (H-R) with Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO)
3 Up to 75,000 square feet of commercial uses 8.3 ac General Commercial (C-G) Grand Total 36 ac
7-1053
Date: March 28, 2024 EA23-0006, GPZMA23-0002, DA23-0002, SP23-0002, TPM23-0004, PDP23-0006 & PDP23-0007 Page 12 of 60

Planning Commission Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #
provides their homes a garden setting. This planning area is being developed consistent with the currently allowed density of 9 units per acre under the High Density Residential (R-H) designation.
• Planning Area 2 proposes up to 95 apartments and includes a central recreation area.

Residents are expected to be working couples and families who will benefit from affordable housing. This Planning Area will apply an Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre.
• Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of commercial uses . This Planning Area will be developed using the General Commercial (C-G) development standards.

Chapter 3: Development Standards – Pages 3-1 to 3-19
This chapter identifies the development standards applicable to the Catana Specific Plan area.

The establishment of the site- specific development standard s are intended to guide orderly development within the Specific Plan area. It establishes the types of land uses allowed in each Planning Area, as well as the setbacks, building heights, and parking requirements.

Permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited land uses are listed in the Specific Plan for Planning Areas 1 , 2, and 3. Planning Areas 1 and 2 will be limited to residential uses, while Planning Area 3 follows the allowable uses within the C-G Zoning District, with the rem oval of uses that are not compatible with surrounding uses including the Rancho Mirage High School .

The list of uses is intended to be complete enough to adequately describe the permitt ed uses that are compatible with the land use objectives for each Planning Area.

The below tables show the proposed development standards for the various Planning Areas:

Planning Areas 1 & 2 – Residential Development Standards PA 1 PA 2
Minimum Parcel Size 25 ac. 3 ac.

Minimum Parcel Dimensions
East-west
North-south

980 feet
450 feet

270 feet
400 feet
Density 5-9/acre 28/acre
Units (max.) 210 95
Private Outdoor Living Space (min.) 325 SF 60 SF
Common Open Space (min.) 20% 5,000 SF
Setbacks
Building to internal driveway 8 10
Building to parking lane 2 10
Distance between buildings (min. feet):

Detached units
Attached units
Between apartment buildings

15 N/A

N/A
10 Buildings in PA 2 (min. feet)
To PA 1 and PA 3
To west boundary

← All documents from this meeting