Rancho Mirage City Council
April 18, 2024

1.0 INTRODUCTION
At the request of Terra Nova Planning & Research (Terra Nova), this biological resource assessment report (BRAR) was prepared by WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. (WSP) for the proposed Ramon Rattler Residential Project (project site/project), located in the city of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California. Information contained herein is intended to be used for compliance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , as well as federal and California Endangered Species Acts.

2.0 P ROJECT LOCATION / DESCRIPTION
Terra Nova i s preparing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation for the proposed Ramon Rattler Residential Project on an approximately 36.17-acre project site located on currently undeveloped land south of the Rancho Mirage High School, north of Ramon Road, west of Rattler Road, and east of Da Vall Drive in a largely developed residential/commercial area. The current design is to have 24.43 -acres of Market Rate Town Homes, 3.33 -acres of Affordable Housing, and 8.41-acres of Commercial development (bordering Ramon Road). The project site is surrounded by paved roads on the east, west, and south and by the Rancho Mirage High School to the north. The Interstate 10 corridor is less than 1. 25 miles east of the site, and there is a railroad corridor less than 1 .13 miles east of the site (Appendix A – Figure 1). The project site includes one Assessor’s Parcel Number: 670-230-021. Specifically, the project site is located within the southwest ¼ of Section 14; Township 4 South; Range 5 East as shown on the United States Geological Survey (USGS ) Cathedral City , California, 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle (Appendix A – Figure 2). The geographic coordinates near the approximate center of the project area are 33°49'05.00" north latitude and 116°26'03.28" west longitude. The elevation of the project site ranges from approximately 317 to 334 feet above mean sea level.

3.0 RE GULATORY FRAMEWORK

3.1 Federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA) – The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service are the designated federal agencies accountable f or administering the ESA. The ESA defines species as “endangered” or “threatened” and provides regulatory protection at the federal level.
• Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the “take” of listed (i.e., endangered or threatened) species.

The ESA’s definition of take is “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct.” Recognizing that take cannot always be avoided, Section 10(a) includes provisions for take that is incidental to, but not the purpos e of, otherwise lawful activities. Specifically, Section 10(a) (1) (A) permits (authorized take permits) are issued for scientific purposes. Section 10(a) (1) (B) permits (incidental take permits) are issued for the incidental take of listed species that does not jeopardize the species.
• Section 7 (a) (2) requires federal agencies to evaluate the proposed project with respect to listed or proposed listed, species and their respective critical habitat (if applicable). Federal agencies must employ programs for the conservation of listed species and are prohibited from authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action that would jeopardize a listed species or destroy or modify its “critical habitat.”
As defined by the ESA, “individuals, organizations, states, local governments, and other non- federal entities are affected by the designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on federal lands, require a federal permit, license, or other authorization, or involve federal funding. 7-170
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

Section 10(a) of the ESA authorizes the issuance of incidental take permits and establishes standards for the content of habitat conservation plans (see Section 3.3 below).

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) – Treaties signed by the U.S., Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and the countries of the former Soviet Union make it unlawful to pursue, capture, kill, and/or possess, or attempt to engage in any such conduct to any migratory bird, nest, egg or parts thereof listed in th e document. As with the ESA, the MBTA also allows the Secretar y of the Interior to grant permits for the incidental take of these protected migratory bird species.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – If portions of a proposed project could fall under the jurisdiction of a federal agency (i.e., U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) they are subject to environmental review pursuant to NEPA . NEPA establishes certain criteria that must be adhered to for any project that is “financed, assisted, conducted or approved ” by a federal agency. The federal lead agency is required to “determine whether the proposed action will significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” Section 404 of the Clean Water Act – This section of the Clean Water Act, administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into “waters of the United States.” The USACE has created a series of nationwide permits that authorize certain activities within waters of the U.S. provided that the proposed activity does not exceed the impact threshold of 0.5 acre for nationwide permits, takes steps to avoid impacts to wetlands and other designated U.S. waters where practicable, minimize s potential impacts to wetlands, and provides compensation for any remaining, unavoidable impacts through activities to restore or create wetlands . For projects that exceed the threshold for nationwide permits, individual permits under Section 404 can be issued. An inspection of the project site to determine presence or absence of potential jurisdictional wetlands and waters was conducted during the assessment for this project.

3.2 State
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) – This legislation is similar to the federal ESA, but it is administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW – formerly Department of Fish and Game). The CDFW is authorized to enter into “memoranda of understanding” with individuals, public agencies, and other institutions to import, export, take, or possess state-listed species for scientific, educational, or management purposes. CESA prohibits the take of state - listed species except as otherwise provided in state law. Unlike the federal ESA, the CESA applies the take prohibitions to species currently petitioned for state -listing status (candidate species).

State lead agencies are required to consult with CDFW to ensure that actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any state- listed species or result in the destruction or degradation of occupied habitat.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) – The basic goal of CEQA is to maintain a high - quality environment now and in the future. The specific goals are for California's public agencies to:
1) i dentify the significant environmental effects of their actions; and, either 2) avoid those significant environmental effects, where feasible; or 3) mitigate those significant environmental effects, where feasible.

CEQA applies to "projects" proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval by state and local government agencies. Projects are activities that have the potential to have a physical impact on the environment and may include the enactment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of conditional use permits and the approval of tentative subdivision maps. Where a project requires approvals 7-171
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

from more than one public agency, CEQA requires one of these public agencies to serve as the "lead agency."
A "lead agency" must complete the environmental review process required by CEQA. The most basic steps of the environmental review process are to:
4) Determine if the activity is a "project" subject to CEQA. 5) Determine if the "project" is exempt from CEQA.
6) Perform an Initial Study to identify the environmental impacts of the project and determine whether the identified impacts are "significant". Based on its findings of "significance", the lead agency prepares one of the following environmental review documents:
a) Negative Declaration if it finds no "significant" impacts. b) Mitigated Negative Declaration if it finds "significant" impacts but revises the project to avoid or mitigate those significant impacts.
c) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if it finds "significant" impacts.

While there is no ironclad definition of "significance", Article 5 of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Natural Resources Agency 2014) provides criteria to lead agencies in determining whether a project may have significant effects.

The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) – The NPPA includes measures to preserve, protect, and enhance rare and endangered native plant species. Definitions for “rare and endangered” are different from those contained in CESA. However, the list of species afforded protection in accordance with the NPPA includes those listed as rare and endangered under CESA. NPPA provides limitations on take as follows: “no person will import into this state, or take, possess, or sell with in this state” any rare or endangered native plants, except in accordance with the provisions outlined in the act. If a landowner is notified by CDFW, pursuant to section 1903.5 that a rare or endangered plant is growing on their property, the landowner shall notify CDFW at least 10 days prior to the changing of land uses to allow CDFW to salvage the plants.

Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program – A NCCP, which is managed by the CDFW, is intended to conserve multiple species and their associated habitats, while also providing for compatible use of private lands. Through local planning, the NCCP planning process is designed to provide protection for wildlife and natural habitats before the environment becomes so fragmented or degraded by development that species listing are required under CESA. Instead of conserving small, often isolated “islands” of habitat for just one listed species, agencies, local jurisdictions, and/or other interested parties have an opportunity through the NCCP to work cooperatively to develop plans that consider broad areas of land for conservation that would provide habitat for many species. Partners enroll in the programs, and by mutual consent, areas considered to have high conservation priorities or values are set aside and protected from development. Partners may also agree to study, monitor, and develop management plans for these high value “reserve” areas. The NCCP provides an avenue for fostering economic growth by allowing approved development in areas with lower conservation value. The project site is in a combined Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) / NCCP, see Section 3.3.

Sections 1600-1603 of the State Fish and Game Code – The California Fish and Game (Wildlife) Code, pursuant to Sections 1600 through 1603, regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife resources. Under state code, CDFW jurisdiction is assessed in the field based on one, or a combination, of the following criteria:
7) At minimum, intermittent, and seasonal flow through a bed or channel with banks and that also supports fish or other aquatic life.
7-172
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

8) A watercourse having a surface or subsurface flow regime that supports or that has supported riparian vegetation.
9) Hydrogeomorphically distinct top-of-embankment to top-of-embankment limits. 10) Outer ground cover and canopy extents of, typically, riparian associated vegetation species that would be sustained by surface and/or subsurface waters of the watercourse.

The CDFW requires that public and private interests apply for a “Streambed Alteration Agreement” for any project that may impact a streambed or wetland. The CDFW has maintained a “no net loss” policy regarding impacts to streams and waterways and requires replacement of lost habitats on at least a 1:1 ratio.

Section 2081 of the State Fish and Game Code – Under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFW authorizes individuals or public agencies to import, export, take, or possess state endangered, threatened, or candidate species in California through permits or memoranda of understanding. These acts, which are otherwise prohibited, may be authorized through permits or “memoranda of understanding” if (1) the take is incidental to otherwise lawful activities, (2) impacts of the take are minimized and fully mitigated, (3) the permit is consistent with regulations adopted in accordance with any recovery plan for the species in question, and (4) the applicant ensures suitable funding to implement the measures required by the CDFW. The CDFW shall make this determination based on the best scientific information reasonably available and shall include consideration of the species’ capability to survive and reproduce.

Section 3505.5 of the State Fish and Game Code – This section makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey, e.g.: owls, hawks, eagles, etc.) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any bird-of-prey.

Clean Water Act – The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates activities pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 401 of the CWA specifies that certification from the State is required for any applicant requesting a federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities that may result in any discharge into navigable waters. Through the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the RWQCB asserts jurisdiction over Waters of the State of California (WSC) which is generally the same as WUS but may also include isolated waterbodies. The Porter Cologne Act defines WSC as “surface water or ground water, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state”.

3.3 C oachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Finalized in October 2008, and amended in 2016, the CVMSHCP is a comprehensive regional plan that addresses the conservation needs of 27 species of native flora and fauna and 24 natural vegetation communities occurring throughout the Coachella Valley region of western Riverside County, California. Permits for the CVMSHCP were issued by the CDFW on September 9, 2008 and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) on October 1, 2008 (TE104604 -0).

Managed by the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC), CVMSHCP participants include Riverside County, the Cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, as well as the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), Coachella Valley Water District, Imperial Irrigation District, Mission Springs Water District and the California Department of Transportation (CVAG 2008, 2016).

The CVMSHCP serves two primary purposes: Balancing environmental protection and economic development objectives in the CVMSHCP planning area and simplifying compliance with endangered species related laws. The CVMSHCP accomplishes this by conserving unfragmented habitat to permanently pro tect and secure viable populations of the covered 27 7-173
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

species within the planning area. The covered species include those plants and animals that are either currently listed as threatened or endangered, are proposed for listing, or are believed by an appointed Scientific Advisory Committee, USFWS and CDFW, to have a high probability of being proposed for listing in the future if not conserved by the CVMSHCP. The goal of the CVMSHCP is to meet the requirements of the ESA and CESA, while at the same time allow ing for the economic growth (land development) within the plan area without significant delay or hidden costs. Under the CVMSHCP, land development/mitigation fees are collected from all new development projects occurring in the plan area. The purpose of this fee is to support the assembly of a preserve system for the covered species and natural vegetation communities within areas identified as having high conservation value (CVAG 2008).

4.0 METHODS

4.1 Literature Review
In preparation for the field surveys, a literature search was conducted to identify special status biological resources known from the vicinity of the project site. In the context of this report, and for the purpose of this assessment, vicinity is defined as areas within a 5-mile radius of the project site.

The literature search included a review of the following documents:
• California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) RareFind 5 (CDFW 2023a) • Special Animals List (CDFW 2022)
• California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2023a)
• CVMSHCP (CVAG 2008)
• United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. Web Soil Survey
• USGS 7.5’ Cathedral City , Palm Springs , Myoma, and S even Palms Valley Calif. quadrangles (USGS 1972 and 1988)
Scientific nomenclature for this document follows standard reference sources: For plant communities, CVMSHCP (CVAG 2008), Sawyer et. al ( 2009), and/or Holland (1986); for flora, Jepson eFlora (2022) and the USDA NRCS PLANTS Database (2022) ; for amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, CDFW (2016); and for birds, California Bird Records Committee (2022).

4.2 Field Assessment
The field assessment was conducted on 24 January 2023 by WSP Senior Wildlife Biologist Nathan Moorhatch. On-site suitable habitat was assessed based on the presence of constituent habitat elements (e.g., soils, vegetation, and topography) characteristic of the potentially occurring special status biological resources determined by the literature review. The entire site and adjacent properties (where accessible) were assessed on foot to record pertinent field data and current site conditions. Adjacent undeveloped areas within an approximate 150-meter (~500-foot) buffer zone that w ere unfenced and unsigned (i.e ., not posted with “No Trespassing” and/or “Private Property”) were also assessed for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). This area was limited to the vacant land east of the site, as there is a chain link fence on the western border of this parcel that prevents access to the vacant land to the west (see Photo 4 in Appendix C) .

Inaccessible areas were scanned for burrowing owl habitat and sign (i.e., burrows & perches with whitewash) with binoculars. All on -site flora and fauna observed or otherwise detected (e.g., vocalizations, presence of scat, tracks, and/or bones) during the assessment were recorded in field notes and are included in Appendi x B. General weather and site conditions were also 7-174
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

recorded at the beginning and end of the survey. Temperatures and wind speeds were recorded with a handheld Kestrel 2000 anemometer. Percent cloud cover was visually estimated.

5.0 RESULTS
The proposed project site is partially surrounded by development, primarily residential development to the north and south . The Desert Memorial Park is west of the site, with an intervening undeveloped parcel between it and this project site. The entire project site was cleared in 2018, and currently consists of largely open ground with a scant cover of plant species that have regrown since 2018. No drainage features occur within the project site. Representative site photos are included in Appendix C.

5.1 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The entire project is located within the CVMSHCP fee area but is not within a conservation area.

The project site is located approximately 2.24 miles south of the Willow Hole Conservation Area (Figure 6, Appendix A). The development of the project site will have no effect on any CVMSHCP Conservation Areas.

5.2 Weather Conditions
Weather conditions during the field assessment were clear and cool. There was 0% cloud cover with temperatures that ranged from 63 to 73 degrees Fahrenheit. Winds were calm with wind speeds measured between 0 to 2 miles per hour.

5.3 Topography and Soils
The proposed project site is relatively flat. Two soil types occur on the project site. These include:
1) Myoma fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (MaB); 2) Myoma fine sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes (MaD); (USDA, NRCS. 2019) (Appendix A - Figure 4).

Myoma series soils consists of somewhat excessively drained soils formed in recent alluvium.

Slopes are 0 to 15 percent, elevations range from 1,800 feet above to 200 feet below sea level.

Myoma soils were historically, and still are used for irrigated cropland including citrus, grapes, alfalfa hay, dates, and homesites (USDA, NRCS. 2019).

The field assessment confirmed that on- site topsoils have been disturbed and in some areas removed during past grading and clearing activities on this site. Adjacent areas to the north have been developed for the High School and residential development. There is also a large golf course and residential development south of the site (south of Ramon Road). Vacant lands are present east and west of the site.

The site does not contain active sand dunes, rock outcrops, significant rocky areas, clay lenses, springs, or seeps.

5.4 Vegetation
The site appears to have been cleared of vegetation sometime in 2018 (historic aerial imagery Google Earth Pro 2023). The entire project site appears to have been grubbed at that time and had soil binders applied over the majority of it (please see Photographs 15 & 16 in Appendix C).

Evidence of past use of soil binders (of the green pigmented variety) is still present on several areas of this site (please see Photographs 3, 8, 9, & 11 in Appendix C) especially on the northern edge of the site just south of the Rancho Mirage High School. The native vegetation community present on this site is best described as a disturbed “Dicoria canescens – Abronia villosa Sparsely Vegetated Alliance Desert dunes” (Holland type “desert sand fields).

A total of 14 plant species were identified across the project site during the assessment (Appendix B). These included a mixture of native and a few non- native and/or weedy species, (only 14% 7-175
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

were nonnative species ). Representative plant species identified within the project site include four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), desert twinbugs (Dicoria canescens), California croton (Croton californicus ), Sahara mustard ( Brassica tournefortii ), Mediterranean grass ( Schismus sp.), Palmer’s tiquilia ( Tiquilia palmeri ), creosote bush ( Larrea t ridentata), Spanish needle (Palafoxia arida), and desert sand-verbena (Abronia villosa).

5.5 Wildlife
Vertebrate wildlife directly observed and/or detected otherwise (e.g., scat, bones, tracks, feathers, burrows, etc.) during the assessment was not notably diverse or abundant, limited to just six species, all of which were birds and are common to the region (Appendix B). This included some species common to desert scrub and/or relatively open areas with some disturbance. These included: mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), common raven (Corvus corax), verdin ( Auriparus flaviceps ), Costa’s hummingbird ( Calypte costae ), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). The number of species detected does not represent the total number of species that may occur on the project site. Brief, one visit assessments are limited by the seasonal timing and short duration of the survey period as well as the nocturnal, fossorial and/or migratory habits of many animals. The disturbed condition of the project site reduces and/or eliminates the potential for use by many special status species, as many of these require higher quality and/or more extensive areas of natural habitats. Some are habitat specialists requiring specific soils, landscape features, or riparian vegetation, which may not be present on a given project site. No actively nesting birds were detected on or adjacent to the site during the assessment.

5.6 S pecial Status Biological Resources
Some plant and/or animal taxa are designated as having special status due to declining populations, limited geographic distributions and/or vulnerability to climate change, habitat loss and/or fragmentation. Some have been listed as threatened or endangered by the USFWS or by the CDFW and are protected by the federal and state ESAs. Others have been identified, and are managed as sensitive by the USFWS, CDFW, or by private conservation organizations, including the CNPS, but have not been formally listed as threatened or endangered. Impacts to s uch species can still be considered significant under the CEQA, if not avoided, minimized and/or mitigated by specific project design and implementation.

The literature review and field visit resulted in a list of 63 special status biological resources which occur or potentially occur o n the project site and/or vicinity (3-mile radius) of the project site.

Tables 1- 3 provide a summary of these resources, their current conservation status, habitat associations and potential to occur on the project site. One special status species was observed immediately adjacent to the site during the assessment: loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) designated as a California Species of Special Concern (SSC) by the CDFW. No species listed as threatened or endangered were observed on the site.

7-176
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

Table 1. S pecial Status Plants
Species Protective Status Habitat Flowering
Period
Occurrence
Probability
Abronia villosa var. aurita
Chaparral sand-verbena
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 1B.1
State Rank: S2
CVMSHCP: No
Chaparral, coastal scrub,
desert dunes; found in
sandy areas. 245 to 5,250
feet.
(January)
March -
September
Absent – Low
The nominate
subspecies (A.
villosa var. villosa is
present on site).
2005 CNDDB record
less than 0.5 mi.
east of site.

Acmispon haydonii
pygmy lotus
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 1B.3
State Rank: S3
CVMSHCP: No
Rocky areas in Sonoran
desert scrub and pinyon-
juniper woodland
between 1,700 and 4,000
feet elevation.

Jan - June Absent
Habitat not present,
site is below
elevation range of
species.

Ambrosia monogyra
singlewhorl burrobrush
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 2B.2
State Rank: S2
CVMSHCP: No
Sandy areas in chaparral
and Sonoran desert scrub
habitats, between 35 and
1,640 feet elevation.

August -
November
Absent
The only Ambrosia
present on site is
the common
Ambrosia dumosa.

Astragalus hornii var.
hornii
Horn’s milk-vetch
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 1B.1
State Rank: S2
CVMSHCP: No
Lake margins, alkaline
sites, meadows, seeps,
and playas between 195
and 2,790 feet in
elevation.

May - October Absent
No habitat on or
adjacent to site.

Astragalus lentiginosus
var. coachellae
Coachella Valley milk-
vetch
F: END
C: ND
CNPS List: 1B.2
State Rank: S1
CVMSHCP: Yes
Annual/Perennial herb
found in sandy flats,
washes, alluvial fans,
sand field, dunes and
dune edges, at 130 to
2,150 feet, a CA endemic
.

February -
May
Low
Habitat marginal
(sandy soils appear
to have been
disturbed/altered
with soil binders in
the past). No
Astragalus or their
dead remains found
on site. CNDDB
record from 0.5 mi.

N of site.

Astragalus tricarinatus
Triple-ribbed milk-vetch
F: END
C: ND
CNPS List: 1B.2
State Rank: S2
CVMSHCP: Yes
Gravelly to sandy habitats
in Joshua tree woodland
and Sonoran desert scrub
between 1,475 – 3,905
feet. Mainly found along
the ecotone between the
Mojave and Colorado
deserts in the San Bndo.
and little San Bndo. Mtns.
area.

February -
May
Absent
Habitat not present,
site is below known
elevational range of
species. Also,
outside known
range of species.

Atriplex parishii
Parish’s brittlescale
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 1B.1
State Rank: S1
CVMSHCP: No
Alkaline soils associated
with vernal pools, playas,
and chenopod scrub,
between 80 and 6,235
feet.

June -
October
Absent
No habitat on-site.
7-177
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

Species Protective Status Habitat Flowering
Period
Occurrence
Probability
Ayenia compacta
California ayenia
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 2B.3
State Rank: S3
CVMSHCP: No
Found on rocky slopes, in
canyons, and
gravelly/sandy washes
between 490 and 3,595
feet elevation.

March - A pril Absent
No habitat on-site.

Site is below
elevation range of
species.

Caulanthus simulans
Payson’s jewelflower
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 4.2
State Rank: S4
CVMSHCP: No
Granitic/sandy substrates,
often in recently burned
areas, or dynamic
habitats like streambeds,
also rocky, steep slopes.

Between 295 - 7220 feet
(Feb)March –
May(June)
Absent
Habitat not present. Chorizanthe parryi var.
parryi
Parry’s spineflower
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 1B.1
State Rank: S2
CVMSHCP: No
Sandy or rocky openings
in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub,
and valley and foothill
grassland between 900 –
4,005 feet
April - June Absent
No habitat on-site,
site is both below
elevation range and
likely not in
geographic range of
species.

Chorizanthe xanti var.
leucotheca
white-bracted spineflower
F: ND, BLM: sensitive
C: ND
CNPS List: 1B.2
State Rank: S3
CVMSHCP: No
Sandy to gravelly places
in saltbush scrub, pinyon-
juniper, and pine-oak
woodlands between 985
and 3935 feet in elevation
April - June Absent
No habitat on-site,
site is both below
elevation range and
likely not in
geographic range of
species.

Eremothera boothii ssp.
boothii
Booth’s evening-primrose
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 2B.3
State Rank: S3
CVMSHCP: No
Open areas (including
rocky alluvial slopes) in
creosote scrub, Joshua
tree woodland and
pinyon-juniper woodland
between 2,675 and 7,875
feet in elevation.

April -June
(August -
September)
Absent
Site is well below
elevation range of
species, no habitat
present on or
adjacent to site.

Most accepted
records are from the
Mojave Desert.

Euphorbia abramsiana
Abram’s spurge
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 2B.2
State Rank: S2
CVMSHCP: No
Sandy microhabitats in
both Mojavean and
Sonoran desert scrub
areas between -15 to
4,300 feet in elevation.
(August)
September -
November
Absent - Low
Sandy habitat
present (disturbed),
no Euphorbia genus
observed during
survey.

Euphorbia arizonica
Arizona spurge
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 2B.3
State Rank: S3
CVMSHCP: No
Sonoran desert scrub
(sandy microhabitats)
between 165 and 985 feet
in elevation.

March -April Absent – Low
No Euphorbia sp.
seen during survey.

Habitat is disturbed.

Euphorbia platysperma
flat-seeded spurge
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 1B.2
State Rank: S1
CVMSHCP: No
Desert dune habitats and
sandy Sonoran scrub
areas between 215 and
330 feet in elevation.

Species is possibly a waif
in California, more
common in Arizona and
Mexico.

February -
September
Absent – Low
No Euphorbia sp.
seen during survey.

Habitat on site is
disturbed.
7-178
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

Species Protective Status Habitat Flowering
Period
Occurrence
Probability
Heuchera hirsutissima
shaggy-haired alumroot
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 1B.3
State Rank: S3
CVMSHCP: No
Rocky (granitic) areas in
subalpine and upper
montane coniferous forest
between 4,985 and
11,485 feet in elevation.
(May) - July Absent
Habitat not present,
site is well below
elevation range of
species
Imperata brevifolia
California satintail
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 2B.1
State Rank: S3
CVMSHCP: No
Mesic (wet) habitats such
as meadows and seeps
(often alkali) within
chaparral, coastal scrub,
desert scrub, and riparian
scrub between 0 and
3,985 feet.

Sept. - May
Absent
No habitat on-site or
in greater project
vicinity.

Lilium parryi
lemon lily
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 1B.2
State Rank: S3
CVMSHCP: No
Mesic (wet) areas in
meadows and seeps,
lower and upper montane
coniferous forest, and
riparian forest between
4,005 and 9,005 feet
elevation.

July - August
Absent
No habitat on-site or
in greater area, site
also far below
elevational range of
species.

Linanthus jaegeri
San Jacinto linanthus
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 1B.2
State Rank: S2
CVMSHCP: No
Dry rocky granitic
outcrops, sheer (almost
vertical) slopes in
subalpine/ upper montane
coniferous forest between
7,200 and 10,005 feet
elevation.

July -
September
Absent
No habitat on-site,
site also far below
elevational range of
species. Also not in
geographic range of
species.

Linanthus maculatus ssp.
maculatus
Little San Bernardino
Mtns. linanthus
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 1B.2
State Rank: S2
CVMSHCP: Yes
A California endemic that
is known mainly from
sandy areas near the
Little San Bernardino
Mtns., Joshua Tree N.P.,
and the northern end of
the Coachella Valley
between 460 and 4,005
feet in elevation. Often
quartz sands in washes
or bajadas.

March - May
Absent
No habitat on-site.

Site is below typical
elevation range of
species. Closest
CNDDB record
(1952) is ~5 NW of
the site.

Nemacaulis denudata var.
gracilis
slender cottonheads
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 2B.2
State Rank: S2
CVMSHCP: No
Sandy areas in coastal
and desert areas,
saltbush scrub, creosote
bush scrub, and coastal
grasslands between 165
and 1,310 feet elevation
(March) - May
Low
Habitat marginal,
sandy topsoil has
been disturbed on
this site.

Petalonyx linearis
narrow-leaf sandpaper-
plalnt
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 2B.3
State Rank: S3?
CVMSHCP: No
Mojavean/Sonoran desert
scrub in sandy or rocky
canyons between -80 –
3,660 feet.

Mainly March
–
May, but
can bloom
year-round
Absent
No habitat on-site.

No Petalonyx sp. on
site.

Saltugilia latimeri
Latimer’s woodland-gilia
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 1B.2
State Rank: S3
CVMSHCP: No
Grows on areas of coarse
sand to rocky soils on dry
desert slopes, chaparral,
and pinyon-juniper
woodland between 1,310
and 6,235 feet in
elevation.

March - June
Absent
No habitat on-site,
site also below
elevation range of
species.
7-179
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

Species Protective Status Habitat Flowering
Period
Occurrence
Probability
Selaginella eremophila
desert spike-moss
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 2B.2
State Rank: S2S3
CVMSHCP: No
Often found growing in
rock crevices or on rocks
(also the ground) on
rocky slopes between 655
and 4,250 feet in
elevation in desert and
desert edge areas.
(May) June –
(July) doesn’t
truly “bloom”,
but produces
antheridia
Absent
No habitat on-site,
site also below
elevational range of
species.

Stemodia durantifolia
purple stemodia
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 2B.1
State Rank: S2
CVMSHCP: No
Wet or moist sandy areas
in riparian habitats (within
surrounding Sonoran
desert scrub) between
590 and 1,000 feet
elevation.
(Jan)April -
December
Absent
No habitat on-site.

Site is below known
elevation range of
species.

Streptanthus campestris
southern jewelflower
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 1B.3
State Rank: S3
CVMSHCP: No
Rocky areas in chaparral,
lower montane coniferous
forest, pinyon and juniper
forest between 2,900 and
7,550 feet elevation.

April - July
Absent
No habitat on-site.

Site is well below
known elevation
range of species.

Thelypteris
(Pelazoneuron) puberula
var. sonorensis
F: ND
C: ND
CNPS List: 2B.2
State Rank: S2
CVMSHCP: No
Moist areas (shaded
preferable) along streams
and seepage areas in
desert canyons between
165 and 2,000 feet in
elevation.

Jan. – Sept.

Absent
No habitat present.

Species not found in
sand field habitat.

Xylorhiza cognata
Mecca-aster
F: ND, BLM sensitive
C: ND
CNPS List: 1B.2
State Rank: S2
CVMSHCP: Yes
Grows on sandstone and
clay substrates on steep
canyon slopes between
65 and 1,000 feet
elevation.

Jan - June
Absent
No habitat on-site.

Outside species’
range.

Table 2. S pecial Status Vegetation Communities
Community Protective Status
(F=Federal, C=California)
Occurrence
Probability
Desert Fan Palm Oasis
Woodland
F: ND
C: ND
State rank: S3.2
CVMSHCP: No
Absent
No palms present onsite.

Southern Riparian Forest
F: ND
C: ND
State rank: S4
CVMSHCP: No
Absent
This habitat is not present on or adjacent to the
project site

7-180
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

Table 3. S pecial Status Wildlife
Species
Protective Status
(F=Federal,
C=California)
Habitat Occurrence
Probability
Invertebrates
Bombus crotchii
Crotch’s bumble bee
F: C
C: C - END
State Rank: S2
CVMSHCP: No
Mainly coastal California east to
the Sierra-Cascade Crest and
south into Baja.

Absent
Most records are from
cismontane (coastal and
inland valley) California.

Not expected on this site
unless there were
sufficient flowering plants
favored by this species.

Danaus plexippus
Monarch Butterfly
F: C
C: CSC
State Rank: S2S3
CVMSHCP: No
Can be found in a variety of areas
where milkweed and flowering
plants are present; milkweeds are
necessary for breeding
Absent
No milkweed present on-
site. Very little remaining
vegetation for nectar
sources.

Dinacoma caseyi
Casey’s June beetle

F: END
C: ND
State rank: S1
CVMSHCP: No
Associated with Palm Canyon
Wash and its floodplain. Flightless
females live below ground and
come to surface only for mating.

Known only from two populations
in a small area of southern Palm
Springs.

Absent
Site outside currently
known geographic
distribution.

Macrobaenetes valgum
Coachella giant sand
treader cricket
F: ND
C: ND
State Rank: S2
CVMSHCP: Yes
Found in the sandy areas of the
specialized sand dune ecosystem
of Coachella Valley (aka “blow
sand” habitat)
Absent – Very Low
Habitat onsite is marginal
and disturbed, partially
isolated from sand
sources by development
on three sides. 1960
CNDDB record from ~0.7
miles west of site has
been developed.

Oliarces clara
cheeseweed owlfly
F: ND
C: ND
State Rank: S2
CVMSHCP: No
Occur on or near bajadas,
attracted to elevated topographic
features when mating
Absent
Habitat lacking, also no
elevated features for
males to congregate at
during mating. No stream
bed or wash areas on site
Nearest CNDDB record
(1952) is from >7 miles
NE of site.
7-181
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

Species
Protective Status
(F=Federal,
C=California)
Habitat Occurrence
Probability
Stenopelmatus
cahuilaensis
Coachella Valley
Jerusalem cricket
F: ND
C: ND
State Rank: S2
CVMSHCP: Yes
Found in a small segment of sand
dunes in the Coachella Valley,
from the pass down to Palm
Springs.

Absent – Very Low
The project site is
southeast of the currently
understood range of the
species. Most records are
from the western edge of
the valley, which is cooler
and more moist than the
eastern part.

Fish
Cyprinodon macularius

Desert pupfish
F: END
C: END
State rank: S1
CVMSHCP: Yes
Desert ponds, springs, marshes,
and streams. Able to adapt to a
variety of aquatic habitats,
including those having high
temperatures and salinities
Absent
No habitat on or adjacent
to site.

Amphibians & Reptiles
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
F: THR
C: SSC
State Rank: S2S3
CVMSHCP: No
Generally permanent water bodies
with shrubby or emergent riparian
vegetation in lowlands and foothill
areas (requires 11-20 weeks of
permanent water for larval
development).

Absent
No aquatic habitat on or
adjacent to site. Species
not present on floor of
Coachella Valley
(historically or currently).

Rana muscosa
southern mountain yellow-
legged frog
F: END
C: END
State Rank: S1
CVMSHCP: No
In the project area the nearest
known locations are in the San
Jacinto Mtns. Populations in
southern California historically
were in streams between 1,000
and 12,000 ft. in elevation, usually
with semi-permanent to permanent
pools.

Absent
No aquatic habitat on or
adjacent to site. Site is
below 350 ft. above mean
sea level (AMSL). Species
not present on floor of
Coachella Valley
(historically or currently).

Gopherus agassizii
Desert tortoise
F: THR
C: THR
State Rank: S2S3
CVMSHCP: Yes
Found in desert environments with
high plant diversity, digging
burrows in soils friable enough for
digging.

Absent
Habitat lacking, sandy
substrates not optimal
desert tortoise habitat
(especially for maintaining
burrow integrity long
term).
7-182
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

Species
Protective Status
(F=Federal,
C=California)
Habitat Occurrence
Probability
Phrynosoma mcallii
Flat-tailed horned lizard
F: ND
C: SSC
State rank: S2
CVMSHCP: Yes
Fine sand in desert washes and
flats with vegetative cover and
ants, generally below 600 feet
elevation in Riverside, San Diego,
and Imperial Counties.

Absent
Habitat marginal and poor
quality, site partially
isolated from sand
sources (by high school to
north of site), and sandy
topsoils have been altered
on this site. CNDDB
records in vicinity are
historic and have been
mostly developed.

Uma inornata
Coachella Valley fringe-
toed lizard
F: THR
C: END
State rank: S1
CVMSHCP: Yes
Sandy areas of the Coachella
Valley (dunes and sand field
habitats)
Absent
Habitat poor quality, site
partially isolated from
sand sources and many
areas have been disturbed
on this site. 1975 CNDDB
record from ~0.9 mi. east
of site is thought to be no
longer viable.

Crotalus ruber
red-diamond rattlesnake

F: ND
C: CSC
State rank: S3
CVMSHCP: No
Inhabits a variety of habitats
including chaparral, woodland,
grassland, and desert edge areas
from Coastal San Diego County to
eastern slopes of mountains
bordering the Colorado Desert.

Absent
More common in desert
edge areas [rocky], no
habitat onsite, not
expected on the valley
floor.

Birds *birds covered by the CVMSHCP still cannot be directly impacted while nesting or in burrows Aimophila ruficeps
canescens
southern California
rufous-crowned sparrow
F: MBTA
C: WL
State: S3
CVMSHCP: No
Usually found on rocky slopes
vegetated with coastal sage scrub
and/or chaparral.

Nesting: Absent
No suitable nesting habitat

Foraging: Absent
Not expected on desert
valley floor. Usually found
on rocky slopes in coastal
sage scrub or chaparral
communities.

Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle
F: MBTA, BLM
Sensitive
C: WL, Fully
Protected
State: S3
CVMSHCP:

No
Golden eagles occupy the
mountains and coastal areas of
southern California and often nest
in chaparral and oak
woodland/savanna habitats and
grassland amongst low rolling hill
typified by diverse vegetation. Not
common in true desert areas.

Nesting: Absent
Nesting habitat not
present (cliffs, canyons,
mountain slopes)

Foraging: Low - Absent
Not common in developed
areas, usually requires
large, open areas (not
usually in proximity to
residential/commercial
development).
7-183
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

Species
Protective Status
(F=Federal,
C=California)
Habitat Occurrence
Probability
Athene cunicularia
Burrowing Owl
F: MBTA, BCC
C: SSC
State: S3
CVMSHCP: Yes
Occupies open, dry grasslands,
scrub habitats, agricultural, railroad
rights-of-way, and margins of
highways, golf courses, and
airports. Utilizes ground squirrel
burrows and man-made structures,
such as earthen berms, cement
culverts, cement, asphalt, and
debris piles for nesting and shelter.

Nesting: Absent
No owls or suitable
burrows/surrogates
present

Foraging: Low
Portions of the site have
been cleared and graded,
surrounding open areas
also degraded/disturbed
or converted to residential
development (and a high
school immediately north
of the site). Nearest
CNDDB record is ~1.62
miles to the northeast.

Cypseloides niger
black swift
F: ND, BCC
C: SSC
State Rank: S2
CVMSHCP: No
In our area San Bernardino and
San Jacinto Mountains. Breeds in
small colonies usually roosting
behind or near waterfalls in deep
canyons. Can forage long
distances.

Nesting: Absent
No suitable nesting habitat

Foraging: Absent
Not expected on desert
valley floor, and even then
would be an extremely
rare flyover.

Falco mexicanus
Prairie falcon
F: ND
C: WL
State: S4
CVMSHCP: No
Another raptor that favors dry,
open terrain for foraging, although
smaller open areas adjacent to
human development are not as
commonly used. Usually nests on
cliff ledges.

Nesting: Absent
No suitable nesting habitat

Foraging: Low
Low quality foraging
habitat on-
site, not likely to
occur except if moving
through the area (rare).

Empidonax traillii extimus
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
F: END
C: END
State: S1
CVMSHCP: Yes
Nests in large areas of riparian
forests and woodlands
Nesting: Absent
No suitable nesting habitat

Foraging: Absent
No suitable foraging
habitat on or adjacent to
site.

Lanius ludovicianus
loggerhead shrike
F: MBTA
C: SSC
State Rank: S4
CVMSHCP: No
A variety of open habitats with
perches for scanning, and fairly
dense shrubs/brush for nesting.

Woodlands, pinyon-juniper, Joshua
trees, desert oases, scrub and
washes.

Nesting: Absent
No suitable nesting habitat

Foraging: Present
Observed perched on the
adjacent parcel
immediately west of the
site.
7-184
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

Species
Protective Status
(F=Federal,
C=California)
Habitat Occurrence
Probability
Polioptila melanura
Black-tailed gnatcatcher
F: ND
C: WL
State rank: S3S4
CVMSHCP: No
Nests in wooded desert wash
habitat containing mesquite, palo
verde, ironwood, and acacia. May
also occur in areas with salt cedar,
especially when adjacent to native
wooded desert wash habitat. Also
occurs in desert scrub habitat in
winter.

Nesting: Absent
Suitable habitat not
present

Foraging: Absent Site is
disturbed and lacks
enough shrub cover for
foraging.

Toxostoma crissale
Crissal thrasher
F: ND
C: SSC
State rank: S3
CVMSHCP: Yes*
Dense thickets of shrubs or low
trees in desert riparian and desert
wash habitats. Southeastern
California to Texas and northern
Mexico.

Nesting: Absent
Habitat nor present

Foraging: Absent
No habitat present.

Toxostoma lecontei
LeConte’s thrasher
F: BCC
C: ND)
State rank: S3
CVMSHCP: Yes
Resident of open desert wash,
scrub, alkali scrub, succulent scrub
habitats, nests in dense spiny
shrubs and cacti in washes, usually
within 2-8 feet of the ground.

Nesting: Absent
Nesting habitat not
present.

Foraging: Absent
Shrub cover is too sparse,
many of the larger
creosotes appear to have
been removed.

Development on three
sides, but open land to the
east. 1921 CNDDB record
~0.70 miles east of site.

Vireo bellii pusillus
Least Bell’s vireo
F: END
C: END
State rank: S2
CVMSHCP: Yes*
Riparian woodland habitats along
the riverine systems of Southern
California
Nesting: Absent
No suitable nesting habitat
on or adjacent to site.

Foraging: Absent
No suitable foraging
habitat on or adjacent to
site.

Mammals

Chaetodipus fallax
pallidus

Pallid San Diego pocket
mouse

F: ND
C: SSC
State rank: S3S4
CVMSHCP: No

Desert border areas in desert
wash, desert scrub, desert
succulent scrub, pinon-juniper, etc.

Associated with sandy herbaceous
areas usually in association with
rocks or coarse gravel from sea
level to 1350 m (4500 ft).

Absent Site largely
outside preferred range of
suspecies and lacking
preferred habitat.
7-185
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

Species
Protective Status
(F=Federal,
C=California)
Habitat Occurrence
Probability
Dipodomys merriami
collinus
Earthquake Merriam’s
kangaroo rat
F: ND
C: ND
State rank: S2
CVMSHCP: No

Only known from Riverside and
San Diego Counties. Lives in
Riversidean sage scrub, nonnative
grassland, and chaparral areas
with sandy loam substrates for
burrowing.

Absent
Species not associated
with desert habitats. None
of the required plant
communities are on or
near the site.

Lasiurus xanthinus
Western yellow bat
F: ND
C: SSC
State rank: S3
CVMSHCP: Yes
WBWG: H
Found in valley foothill riparian,
desert riparian, desert wash, and
palm oasis. Roosts in trees,
particularly palms. Forages over
water and among trees.

Absent
No palms on site for
roosting.

Neotoma lepida
intermedia

San Diego desert woodrat

F: ND
C: SSC
State rank: S3S4
CVMSHCP: No

Most often in Coastal scrub in
southern California (San Diego to
San Luis Obispo Counties) but
does range into desert areas. Most
common in areas with rock
outcrops, cliffs, and slopes.

Absent
Site lacks rocky habitat,
no “stick nests”
characteristic of this
species observed on site
during survey. Cacti and
succulent plants absent.

Site is disturbed.

Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed free-tailed bat
F: ND
C: SSC
State rank: S3
CVMSHCP: No
WBWG: M
Colonial and roosts primarily in
crevices of rugged cliffs, high rocky
outcrops and slopes. It has been
found in a variety of plant
associations, including desert
shrub and pine-oak forests. The
species may also roost in
buildings, caves, and (rarely) under
roof tiles.

Absent
No suitable habitat on
project site.

Nyctinomops macrotis
big free-tailed bat
F: ND
C: SSC
State rank: S3
CVMSHCP: No
WBWG: M
Low-lying arid habitats with high
cliffs or rocky outcrops for roosting
sites.

Absent
No suitable habitat on
project site.
7-186
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

Species
Protective Status
(F=Federal,
C=California)
Habitat Occurrence
Probability

Ovis canadensis nelsoni
pop 2

Peninsular bighorn sheep
DPS

F: END
C: THR, FP
State rank: S2
CVMSHCP: Yes
Eastern slopes of the Peninsular
Ranges generally below 4,600 ft.
elev., range of this DPS is from the
San Jacinto Mtns. South to the
international border. Optimal
habitat includes steep-walled
canyons and ridges bisected by
rocky/sandy washes w available
water.

Absent
No suitable habitat on site,
site is not within the
known range of this
subspecies (too far east
on the valley floor).

Perognathus
longimembris
bangsi
Palm Springs pocket
mouse
F: BLM Sensitive
C: SSC
State Rank: S2
CVMSHCP: Yes
Sonoran Desert habitats
with level to gently
sloping topography,
sparse to moderate
vegetative cover, and
loosely packed or sandy
soils.

Absent - Low
Habitat disturbed and
marginal, proximity to
development.

Xerospermophilus
tereticaudus chlorus
Coachella Valley (Palm
Springs) round-tailed
ground squirrel
F: ND
C: SSC
State Rank: S2
CVMSHCP: Yes
Prefers open, flat, grassy areas in
fine-textured, sandy soil in desert
succulent scrub, desert wash,
desert scrub, alkali scrub, &
levees.

Low
Suitable habitat present
but of low quality, native
soils remaining on site are
disturbed.

Definitions of occurrence probability:

Occurs: Observed on the site by WSP personnel or recorded on-site by other qualified biologists.

High: Observed in similar habitat in region by qualified biologists, or habitat on the site is a type often utilized by the species and the site is within the known range of the species.

Moderate: Reported sightings in surrounding region, or site is within the known range of the species and habitat on the site is a type occasionally used by the species.

Low: Site is within the known range of the species but habitat on the site is rarely used by the species.

Very Low: Species not expected on site, but can not be completely ruled out.

Absent: A focused study failed to detect the species, or no suitable habitat is present.

Definitions of status designations and occurrence probabilities.

Federal designations: (federal Endangered Species Act, US Fish and Wildlife Service):

END: Federally listed, Endangered.

THR: Federally listed, Threatened.

BCC: Bird of Conservation Concern
C: Candidate for Federal listing
ND: Not designated.

State designations: (California Endangered Species Act, California Dept. of Fish and Game) END: State listed, Endangered.

THR: State listed, Threatened.

C: Candidate for State listing
RARE: State listed as Rare (Listed "Rare" animals have been re-designated as Threatened, but Rare plants have retained the Rare designation.)
SSC: Species of Special Concern.

WL: Watch List Species.

ND: Not designated.

CDFW CNDDB rankings: Animals
S1 = Extremely endangered: <6 viable occurrences or <1,000 individuals, or < 2,000 acres of occupied habitat S2 = Endangered: about 6-20 viable occurrences or 1,000 - 3,000 individuals, or 2,000 to 10,000 acres of occupied habitat
7-187
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

S3 = Restricted range, rare: about 21-100 viable occurrences, or 3,000 – 10,000 individuals, or 10,000 – 50,000 acres of occupied habitat
S4 = Apparently secure; some factors exist to cause some concern such as narrow habitat or continuing threats S5 = Demonstrably secure; commonly found throughout its historic range SH = all sites are historical, this species may be extinct, further field work is needed

CDFW CNDDB rankings: Plants and Vegetation Communities
S1 = Less than 6 viable occurrences OR less than 1,000 individuals OR less than 2,000 acres S1.1 = very threatened
S1.2 = threatened
S1.3 = no current threats known
S2 = 6-20 viable occurrences OR 1,000-3,000 individuals OR 2,000-10,000 acres S2.1 = very threatened
S2.2 = threatened
S2.3 = no current threats known
S3 = 21-80 viable occurrences or 3,000-10,000 individuals OR 10,000-50,000 acres S3.1 = very threatened
S3.2 = threatened
S3.3 = no current threats known
S4 = Apparently secure within California; this rank is clearly lower than S3, but factors exist to cause some concern. i.e., there is some threat, or somewhat narrow habitat.

S5 = Demonstrably secure to ineradicable in California.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS) designations:

California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) Not
e: According to the CNPS
(http://www.cnps.org/programs/Rare_Plant/inventory/names.htm), ALL plants on Lists 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B meet definitions for state listing as threatened or endangered under Secs. 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code. Certain plants on Lists 3 and 4 do as well.

The CDFW (h ttp://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/t_e_spp/nat_plnt_consv.shtml) states that plants on Lists 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B of the CNPS Inventory consist of plants that may qualify for listing, and recommends they be addressed in CEQA projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15380). However, a plant need not be in the Inventory to be considered a rare, threatened, or endangered species under CEQA. In addition, CDFW recommends, and local governments may require, protection of plants which are regionally significant, such as locally rare species, disjunct populations of more common plants, or plants on the CNPS Lists 3 and 4.

List 1A:

Plants presumed extinct in California.

List 1B: Plants rare and endangered in California and throughout their range.

List 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere.

List 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.

List 3: Plants for which more information is needed.

List 4: Plants of limited distribution; a "watch list." CA Endemic: Taxa that occur only in California
CNPS Threat Code:
.1 - Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 – Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) .3 – Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened, or no current threats known) Note: All List 1A (presumed extinct in California) and some List 3 (need more information- a review list) plants lacking any threat information receive no threat code extension. Also, these Threat Code guidelines represent a starting point in the assessment of threat level. Other factors, such as habitat vulnerability and specificity, distribution, and condition of occurrences, are also considered in setting the Threat Code.

Western Bat Working Group (WBWG) designations:

The Western Bat Working Group is comprised of agencies, organizations and individuals interested in bat research, management and conservation from the 13 western states and provinces. Its goals are (1) to facilitate communication among interested parties and reduce risks of species decline or extinction; (2) to provide a mechanism by which current information on bat ecology, distribution and research techniques can be readily accessed; and (3) to develop a forum to discuss conservation strategies, provide technical assistance and encourage education programs.

H: High: Species which are imperiled or are at high risk of imperilment based on available information on distribution, status, ecology and known threats.

M: Medium: Species which warrant a medium level of concern and need closer evaluation, more research, and conservation actions of both the species and possible threats. A lack of meaningful information is a major obstacle in adequately assessing these species' status and should be considered a threat. 7-188
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

L:

Low: Species for which most of the existing data support stable populations, and for which the potential for major changes in status in the near future is considered unlikely. There may be localized concerns, but the overall status of the species is believed to be secure. Conservation actions would still apply for these bats, but limited resources are best used on High and Medium status species.

P: Periphery: This designation indicates a species on the edge of its range, for which no other designation has been determined.

CVMSHCP designations
Yes: Conserved by the CVMSHCP
No: Not Specifically Conserved by the CVMSHCP
C: Considered, but not included in the CVMSHCP
7-189
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

5.7 Discussion of the Special-status Species Tables
Based on examination of historic aerial photography of the site (on Google Earth Pro), the site appears to have been cleared of vegetation sometime in 2018 (please see Photograph in Appendix C). At that time, the entire site appeared to have been cleared for a project that to date was not completed. Green soil binder/tackifier appears to have been applied over this parcel (visible on the aerial). Remnants of this past soil binder use persist on the site currently (please see Photographs 3, 8, 9, & 11 in Appendix C). The project site is surrounded by paved roads on the east, west, and south and by development to the north, south, and west (beyond another vacant parcel). The Interstate 10 corridor is less than 1.25 miles east of the site, and there is a railroad corridor less than 1.13 miles east of the site. All of this serves to illustrate that this project is located in an area that has undergone a fair amount of disturbance and development .

Unsurprisingly, of the 63 special status biological resources listed in Tables 1-3, 49 have no potential for occurrence. They will not be discussed further. A single sensitive wildlife species, loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) was observed immediately adjacent to the project site on the western neighboring vacant lot. Please refer to Appendix C Site Photographs to observe the current site conditions and level of disturbance.

5.7.1 CVMSHCP Covered Species
Nineteen of the species listed in Tables 1 – 3 are conserved under the CVMSHCP : Coachella Valley milk -vetch, t riple-ribbed milk -vetch, Mecca aster, Little San Bernardino M ountains
linanthus, Coachella giant sand treader cricket, Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket, desert pupfish, desert tortoise, flat -tailed horned lizard, Coachella Valley fringe- toed lizard, burrowing owl, Southwestern willow flycatcher , crissal thrasher Le Contes’ thrasher, Least Bell’s vireo, western yellow bat, Palm Springs pocket mouse, Coachella Valley (Palm Springs) round- tailed ground squirrel, and Peninsular bighorn sheep. Six of these species are expected to have at least a low to very low probability of occurring on the project site. These include: Coachella Valley milk- vetch, Coachella giant sand treader cricket, Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket, burrowing owl, Palm Springs pocket mouse, and Coachella Valley (Palm Springs) round-tailed ground squirrel.

Participation in the CVMSHCP, payment of the CVMSHCP development /mitigation fee and participation in the plan will fully mitigate project related impacts (although none are anticipated) to all of these CVMSHCP covered species with the exception of burrowing owl.

No burrows suitable for burrowing owl use were observed on or adjacent to the project site. Where accessible, adjacent vacant lands were surveyed within 500 feet of the site. No burrowing owls, their sign, or burrows capable of supporting owls were observed in this buffer area. The burrowing owl is not listed as threatened or endangered by the USFWS or CDFW. It is, however, managed as a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) by the USFWS and designated as a SSC by the CDFW.

It is also protected from take by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. The burrowing owl is a covered species under the CVMSHCP, however the federal permit for the CVMSHCP does not allow take of this species under the MBTA. For these reasons, all burrowing owls must be avoided or relocated prior to any ground disturbing activities. A preconstruction survey for burrowing owl can be performed prior to construction to ensure that no owls have moved onto the site in the interim time between this survey and project implementation.

5.7.2 Potentially Occurring Species Not Covered Under the CVMSHCP and USFWS IPAC Species
Seven special status species that are not covered by the CVMSHCP are considered to have at least some potential (low to very low) to occur on or forage over the project site. Prairie falcon and golden eagle are expected to have a low probability to forage over the site (although this 7-190
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

would be rare given the disturbed nature of the site and surrounding area). Prairie falcon is not listed as threatened or endangered by either State or Federal agencies but is considered a “Species of Special Concern” by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The golden eagle is not listed as threatened or endangered but is a fully protected species under CDFW. Chaparral sand-verbena, Abram’s spurge, Arizona spurge, flat-seeded spurge, and slender cottonheads are expected to have a low probability of growing on this site. No spurge species or their dead remains were observed on the project site during the survey, but the seasonal timing of this survey was likely too early for many species. Sand verbena was present on the site, but this was the nominate subspecies, not Chaparral sand- verbena. Slender cottonheads were not observed during the survey, but the timing of this survey was also early for this species. 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. Still, they could not be absolutely ruled out due to presence of marginally suitable habitat and the seasonal timing of the site visit.

One special status species was observed immediately adjacent to the site during the assessment:
loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) designated as a California Species of Special Concern (SSC) by the CDFW. No species listed as threatened or endangered were observed on the site.

This species is not expected to nest on the site due to the lack of suitable dense, spiny shrubs favored by this bird for nesting.

The USFWS IPAC report generated for this project lists six sensitive wildlife species and one plant as having potential to be affected by development of this project. As discussed in Tables 1 – 3 in Section 5.6, only one of these species: Coachella Valley milk-vetch would be expected (low probability) to occur on this site. Monarch butterflies require milkweeds for larval development and other flowering plants for adult nectar sources. No milkweed were observed on the site, and flowering plants were mainly limited to a sparse growth along some of the street edges. This species is not expected to utilize this site apart from the occasional transient individual passing through. There is no habitat present for desert tortoise, Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, or Peninsular bighorn sheep on the project site.

Should project-related disturbance be conducted during the nesting season (1 February through 31 August), a nesting bird clearance survey is recommended to ensure that implementation of the proposed project does not impact nesting birds.

6.0 DISCUSSION
The proposed project includes the development of all 36.17 acres into a mixed residential development with limited commercial development. As discussed in Section 5.7 the project site was cleared of vegetation in 2018 for a project that was never built. The site has been grubbed in the past, and soil binders have been applied over much of the parcel and were still in evidence at the time of this survey. The “native” or natural topsoil has been disturbed and altered by these actions. The project site is also located in an area that consists of residential development with a school immediately north of the site, as well as a cemetery and golf course with associated housing in the immediate project area. There is low quality native habitat on the project site, with less disturbed habitat east of the site (east of Rattler Road) . It provides no connectivity to any conservation areas. The project site does not contain any United States Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, or CDFW jurisdictional waters. The project site is not within and/or adjacent to any CVMSHCP Conservation Areas, so will not be subject to CVMSHCP land use adjacency guidelines. Nevertheless, implementation of the proposed project is expected to permanently disturb all areas within the project site, which in turn may potentially result in direct or indirect disturbance to biological resources, sensitive and otherwise, occurring (not anticipated), or potentially occurring on - and/or adjacent to the site . We have made 7-191
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

recommendations above for the protection of these species. Additionally, to prevent impacts to all native birds protected by the MBTA and state fish and game code, the following measures should be taken:

6.1 Protection of Nesting Birds
All native bird species that are e xcluded from coverage under the CVMSHCP are still protected by the MBTA and the state Fish and Game Code. This includes virtually all native migratory and resident bird species. Avoidance of impacts to these birds is a requirement of the federal permit issued for the CVMSHCP. 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 would 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.

6.2 Burrowing Owl
As noted above, no burrowing owls or their sign were present on site. Also, no burrows or burrow surrogates that could be used by burrowing owls were present on the site at the time of this survey. This species nests and roosts underground so is uniquely vulnerable to ground disturbing activities. A preconstruction survey following CDFG (2012) guidelines must be conducted prior to initiating construction to ensure that no owls have moved onto the site in the interim between this survey and project startup. Unless avoidable, all burrowing owls present must be relocated prior to any ground disturbing activities. If burrowing owls remain on-site, a Burrowing Owl Relocation and Management Plan will be prepared to describe and outline how the burrowing owl will be actively or passively relocated per CDFW guidelines. Prior to construction, any owls occurring on- site will be relocated prior to vegetation removal or grading activities. Relocation will require prior permission from the CDFW, at a minimum. Since the burrowing owl is a covered species under the CVMSHCP, additional mitigation/conservation measures will not be required.

7.0 CONCLUSION
With the implementation of the recommendations above, impacts to special status biological resources are anticipated to be avoided, minimized , and/or mitigated in accordance with the CVMSHCP and other resource agency requirements.

7-192
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

8.0 LITERATURE CITED AND REFERENCES
California Bird Records Committee. 2022 . Official California Checklist. Accessed online at:
http://californiabirds.org/ca_list.asp.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

CDFG, Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022a. California Natural Diversity Data Base, Rarefind 5. Report for the Cathedral City, Palm Springs, Myoma, and Seven Palms Valley Calif. quadrangles. Accessed at: dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp CDFW. 2022b. Special Animals List. April. Periodic publication. Sacramento, CA. Accessed online at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline=1 CDFW. 2016. Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird and Mammal Species in California.

Accessed online at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=87155&inline California Legislative Information . 2021. Fish and Game Code of California. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=FGC&tocTitle =+Fish+and+Game+Code+-+FGC
CDFW. 2015a. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships, Life History Accounts and Range Maps.

Accessed online at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx CDFW. 2015b. Threatened and Endangered Species, Species Lists and Accounts, Species Accounts-Fish. Accessed online at: https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/ CDFW. 2016 . Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird and Mammal Species in California.

Accessed online at: nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=87155&inline=1 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2022a. Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California. Report for the Indio and West Berdoo, Calif. quadrangles. Accessed online at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org
CNPS. 202 2b. The California Rare Plant Ranking System. Accessed online at:
https://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/ranking.php
California Natural Resources Agency. 2014. CEQA Guidelines. Accessed online at:
http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/
CVAG. 2016. Final Major Amendment to the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. Accessed online at:
https://www.cvmshcp.org/Plan%20Documents/10.%20CVAG%20MSHCP%20Plan%20S ection%203.0.pdf
CVAG. 2008. Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Accessed online at:
cvmshcp.org
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.

Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game.

Jepson Flora Project (2 nd ed.). 2023. Jepson eFlora . Accessed online at:
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html
Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation (2nd ed.).

California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T. (Ed.). 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate 7-193
Terra Nova: Ramon Rattler Project
Biological Resources Assessment
City of Rancho Mirage, CA
March 2023

conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo , California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service. 1980. A Soil Survey of
Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/california/riversideCA1980/rive rsideCA1980.pdf
USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2023. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Team. Accessed online at: plants.usda.gov
USDA, NRCS. 2023. Web Soil Survey. Accessed online at:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
USFWS. 2016. Bird Laws and Treaties. Accessed online at:
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsandPolicies.html USGS 7.5’ Cathedral City, Palm Springs, Myoma, and Seven Palms Valley Calif., Calif. 7.5- minute topographic quadrangles (USGS 1972 and 1988)

7-194

APPENDIX A

FIGURES
7-195
Path: \\sdg1-fs1\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\TerraNova_RamonRattler_322520138\MXD\ReportFigures\Fig1_Regional.mxd, aaron.johnson 2/8/2023 1 inch = 2 miles
0 21
Miles°
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) FIGURE 1
Regional Map
Ramon Rattler Project
Riverside County, California
Project Location
7-196
'o
.!:
z
D11100 Rd
North Palm
Springs
E Viata Chino
>, .,
~
• ..
;
'J)
C
E ;;;
ll.
z Palm Springs
,,
a:

E R~mon Rd o
• 0
...
'J)
EPalm(' .,_,
"o,, Dr
@]
'ti
QC
Vista Chino
0 01/,
CT
~
~ ..
0 ,,
Dinah Shore Dr
Gerald Ford Dr
Cathedral
City
Rancho Mirage
-
ngeles
~
<
Thousand
Palms
r,~n~ Sinalr~ Or
j
5 Coun11y Club Dr -
:!! "' -""
8 u
Palm Desert
a
Co ,.helb
Val~ y Pie11erw
Co:,, h•)lla Vly
Nall W1fdlde
Reru;ie
Indian Well s
Hlgh .. 1y 11 t
Path: \\sdg1-fs1\gis\3554_NaturalResources\TerraNova_RamonRattler_322520138\MXD\ReportFigures\Fig2_USGS.mxd, lindsay.gutting 2/8/2023 1 inch = 2,000 feet
0 2,0001,000
Feet°
Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed FIGURE 2
USGS 7.5' Topo Quad: Cathedral City
Ramon Rattler Project
Riverside County, California
Project Boundary
7-197
12 IND I AN RESERVAT
'i
\

AGUA C A L I NTE
14 INDIAN R ESER
361
34 <
I \
< I

AGUA C A LIENTE
I ~
AGUA
22 I 23 24

I NDIAN RESERVATION I INDIAN RESERVA
I
i t I
i --·------ -------- --- -----·---- 1 ·- ·- · - · ""'o _ _ I -=-·· /. I . V I
I ' ..</ ! I
l
...
....... ·1: .. :.•··.· ....
.... . .... ,c:. • • ••
I •
i : ,. i:fJ
Path: \\sdg1-fs1\gis\3554_NaturalResources\TerraNova_RamonRattler_322520138\MXD\ReportFigures\Fig3_ProjectSite.mxd, lindsay.gutting 2/8/2023 1 inch = 250 feet
0 250125
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors FIGURE 3
Site Location
Ramon Rattler Project
Riverside County, California
Project Boundary
7-198
•
1•
. • • .. .. • . •
' ., • 'r
' ,. .
•• • ,
• .. .,
•• ..
e •• • • • • • • • • e
•
'• . .. .. • .. .
• • •
. •
•
• . .. •• . .
~ . "
• •
" • • ' .. ' •
Path: \\sdg1-fs1\gis\3554_NaturalResources\TerraNova_RamonRattler_322520138\MXD\ReportFigures\Fig4_Soils.mxd, lindsay.gutting 2/8/2023 MaD
MaB
1 inch = 250 feet
0 250125
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community FIGURE 4
Soils
Ramon Rattler Project
Riverside County, California
Project Boundary
Soils
MaB - Myoma fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes
MaD - Myoma fine sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes
7-199
Path: \\sdg1-fs1\GIS\3554_NaturalResources\TerraNova_RamonRattler_322520138\MXD\ReportFigures\Fig5_Vegetation.mxd, aaron.johnson 2/9/2023 1 inch = 250 feet
0 250125
Feet °
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community FIGURE 5
Vegetation Communities
Ramon Rattler Project
Riverside County, California
Project Boundary
Stabilized shielded sand fields
7-200
•
• •
..

CJ
D
• •
1•
. • • .. .. • . •
' ., • 'r ,. . ' •• • ,
• .. .,
•• ..
e •• • • • • • • • • e
•
'• . .. .. • .. .
• • •
( . •
•
• . .. •• . .
~ . "
•
"
'
•
Path: \\sdg1-fs1\gis\3554_NaturalResources\TerraNova_RamonRattler_322520138\MXD\ReportFigures\Fig6_CVMSHCP_Conservation.mxd, lindsay.gutting 2/8/2023 Edom Hill
Conservation Area
Edom Hill
Conservation
Area
Edom Hill
Conservation
Area
Santa Rosa and San
Jacinto Mountains
Conservation Area
Santa Rosa and San
Jacinto Mountains
Conservation Area
Santa Rosa and San
Jacinto Mountains
Conservation Area
Thousand Palms
Conservation Area
Whitewater
Floodplain
Conservation Area
Willow Hole
Conservation
Area
1 inch = 1 miles
0 10.5
Miles °
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community FIGURE 6
CVMSHCP Conservation Areas
Ramon Rattler Project
Riverside County, California
Project Boundary
CVMSHCP Conservation Area
7-201
CJ
CJ
...
•• 2 ,,..

G IF C ...

APPENDIX B

PLANTS AND VERTEBRATE WILDLIFE OBSERVED
7-202
Plant
s Observed or Detected
Ramon Rattler Project Site, Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California

ANGIOSPERMAE

DICOTYLEDONEAE DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Asteraceae Sunflower Family
Ambrosia dumosa white bur-sage
Dicoria canescens desert twinbugs
Palafoxia arida Spanish needle
Brassicaceae Mustard Family
*Brassica tournefortii Sahara mustard
Dithyrea californica California spectacle pod
Chenopodiaceae Goosefoot Family
Atriplex canescens four-wing saltbush
Ehretiaceae Ehretia Family
Tiquilia palmeri Palmer’s tiquilia
Tiquilia plicata fan-leaf crinklemat
Euphorbiaceae Spurge Family
Croton californicus California croton
Fabaceae Legume Family
Psorothamnus emoryi Emory’s indigobush
Nyctaginaceae Four O’Clock Family
Abronia villosa desert sand-verbena
Onagraceae Evening-Primrose Family
Eremothera sp. (germinating) evening-primrose sp.

Zygophyllaceae Caltrop Family
Larrea tridentata creosote bush

MONOCOT ANGIOSPERMS
Poaceae Grass Family
*Schismus sp. Mediterranean grass
* - denotes a non-native species
7-203
Wil
dlife Observed
Ramon Rattler Project Site, Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California

CHORDATES CHORDATA

BIRDS AVES

Pigeons and
Doves Columbidae
mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Hummingbirds Trochilidae
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae
Picidae Woodpeckers and Allies
northern flicker Colaptes auratus
Shrikes Laniidae
loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus
Jays, Magpies, and Crows Corvidae
common raven Corvus corax
Penduline Tits and Verdins Remizidae
verdin Auriparus flaviceps
* - non-native species
7-204

APPENDIX C

SITE PHOTOS

7-205

Photo 1. Looking west along southern edge of site from west of the intersection of Rattler Road and Ramon Road.

Photo 2. Looking north across central portion of site.
7-206

Photo 3. Old soil binder (green pigmented) still present along southern edge of site.

Photo 4. Looking north from the southwest corner of the site along fence line.

7-207

Photo 5. Western edge of site showing former disturbance (tracks and remains of flattened creosotes).

Photo 6. One of several dead creosotes likely uprooted during the clearing that took place in 2018.
7-208

Photo 7. View from northwest corner of site looking east along fence line with High School.

Photo 8. Fairly large area on northwest corner still showing soil binders used in 2018.
7-209

Photo 9. Another area where soil binders had been used along the north edge of site.

Photo 10. Northeast corner of site looking south along Rattler Road.

7-210

Photo 11. Soil binders and recent tracks.

Photo 12. View of southeast corner of site (intersection of Ramon and Rattler Roads).

7-211

Photo 13. Remnants of a structure that was formerly present on the southeast corner of the site.

Photo 14. Central portion of site, facing north. This area had the most sandy soils on the site.
7-212
Photo 15. Historic aerial image of the site from 2018. The entire site appears to have soil binders applied over it (no filter or color added to this photograph).

Photo 16. Aerial imagery from 2021 that still shows tracks from when the site was cleared (grubbed, dragged, or disced).
7-213
Site Condition 2/2018
2021 : Tracks still visible on site from clearing done in 2018 I •
. ..
.. ' . . . . .. '•.

Legend
0 Feature 1
9 Feature2
9 M1raVista
9 Rancho Mirage High School
9 Vibra Rehab1lrtat1on Hospll:al of Rancho?
• ' . ;
Legend
: • L-4000 f-fYOROTEST
t. L4000..P2TH-1,T15
,.

APPEND
IX D
CVMSHCP Table 4-112:

Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping 7-214
Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping

BOTANICAL NAME CO MMON NAME
Trees
W
ashingtonia filifera California fan palm
Cercidium floridum blue palo verde
Chilopsis linearis desert willow
Olneya tesota ironwood tree
Prosopis glandulosa var. torreyana h oney mesquite
Shrubs
Acacia greggii cat’s claw acacia
Ambrosia dumosa burro bush
Atriplex canescens four wing saltbush
Atriplex lentiformis quailbush
Atriplex polycarpa cattle spinach
Baccharis sergiloides squaw water-weed
Bebia juncea sweet bush
Cassia (Senna) covesii desert senna
Condalia parryi crucilllo
Crossosoma bigelovii crossosoma
Dalea emoryi dye weed
Dalea (Psorothamnus) schottii i ndigo bush
Datura meteloides jimson weed
Encelia farinosa brittle bush
Ephedra aspera Mormon tea
Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat
Eriogonum wrightii membranaceum Wright’s buckwheat
Fagonia laevis no common name
Gutierrezia sarothrae matchweed
Haplopappus acradenius goldenbush
Hibiscus denudatus desert hibiscus
Hoffmannseggia microphylla rush pea
Hymenoclea salsola cheesebush
Hyptis emoryi desert lavender
Isomeris arborea bladder pod
Juniperus californica California juniper
Krameria grayi ratany
Krameria parvifolia little-leav ed ratany
Larrea tridentata creosote bush
Lotus rigidus desert rock pea
Lycium andersonii box thorn
Petalonyx linearis long-leaved sandpaper plant
Petalonyx thurberi sandpaper plant
Peucephyllum schottii pygmy cedar
Prunus fremontii desert apricot
Rhus ovata sugar-bush
Salazaria mexicana paper-bag bush
Salvia apiana white sage
Salvia eremostachya Santa Rosa sage
7-215

Salvia vaseyi w and sage
Simmondsia chinensis j ojoba
Sphaeralcia ambigua g lobemallow (desert mallow)
Sphaeralcia ambigua rosacea a pricot mallow
Trixis californica t rixis
Zauschneria californica California fuchsia

Groundcovers
Mirabilis bigelovii w ishbone bush (four o’clock)
Mirabilis tenuiloba w hite four o’clock (thin-lobed)

Vines
Vitis girdiana d esert grape

Accent
Muhlenbergia rigens d eer grass

Herbaceous Perennials
Adiantum capillus-veneris m aiden-hair fern
Carex alma sedge
Dalea parryi Parry dalea
Eleocharis montevidensis spike rush
Equisetum laevigatum h orsetail
Juncus bufonis t oad rush
Juncus effuses j uncus
Juncus macrophyllus j uncus
Juncus mexicanus Mexican rush
Juncus xiphioides j uncus
Notholaena parryi Parry cloak fern
Pallaea mucronata b ird-foot fern

Cacti and Succulents
Agave deserti d esert agave
Asclepias albicans d esert milkweed (buggy-whip)
Asclepias subulata a jamete
Dudleya arizonica l ive-forever
Dudleya saxosa rock d udleya
Echinocereus engelmannii calico hedgehog cactus
Ferocactus acanthodes b ar
rel cactus
Fouquieria splendens o cotillo
Mamillaria dioica n ipple cactus
Mamillaria tetrancistra corkseed cactus
Nolina parryi Parry nolina
Opuntia acanthocarpa stag- horn or deer-horn cholla
Opuntia bigelovii t eddy bear or jumping cholla
Opuntia basilaris b eavertail cactus
Opuntia echinocarpa silver or g olden cholla
Opuntia ramosissima p encil cholla, darning needle cholla Yucca schidigera Mojave yucca, Spanish dagger
Yucca whipplei Our Lord’s candle

7-216

APPENDIX E

Prohibited Invasive Ornamental Plants

7-217

Prohibited Invasive Ornamental Plants

BO TANICAL NAME COMMON NAME

Acacia spp. (all species except A. greggii) (all species except native catclaw acacia)
Arundo donax g iant reed or arundo grass
Atriplex semibaccata Australian saltbush
Avena barbata slender wild oat
Avena fatua wild oat
Brassica tournefortii African or Saharan mustard
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens red brome
Bromus tectorum cheat grass or downy brome
Cortaderia jubata [syn.C. atacamensis] jubata grass or Andean pampas grass Cortaderia dioica [syn. C. selloana] pampas grass
Descurainia sophia tansy mustard
Eichhornia crassipes water hyacinth
Elaegnus angustifolia Russian olive
Foeniculum vulgare sweet fennel
Hirschfeldia incana Mediterranean or short-pod mustard Lepidium latifolium perennial pepperweed
Lolium multiflorum Italian ryegrass
Nerium oleander oleander
Nicotiana glauca tree tobacco
Oenothera berlandieri Mexican evening primrose
Olea europea European olive tree
Parkinsonia aculeata Mexican palo verde
Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu grass
Pennisetum setaceum fountain grass
Phoenix canariensis Canary Island date palm
Phoenix dactylifera date palm
Ricinus communis castorbean
Salsola tragus Russian thistle
Schinus mole Peruvian pepper tree
Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian pepper tree
Schismus arabicus Mediterranean grass
Schismus barbatus Saharan grass, Abu Mashi
Stipa capensis no common name
Tamarix spp. (all species) tamarisk or salt cedar
Taeniatherum caput-medusae Medusa-head
Tribulus terrestris p uncturevine
Vinca major p eriwinkle
Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm
Yucca gloriosa Spanish dagger

Sources: California Exotic Pest Plant Council, United States Department of Agriculture-Division of Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services, California Native Plant Society, Fremontia Vol. 26 No. 4, October 1998, The Jepson Manual; Higher Plants of California, and County of San Diego Department of Agriculture.

7-218
APPEND
IX F
USFWS IPaC Report
7-219
February 22, 2023
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Carlsbad Fish And Wildlife Office
2177 Salk Avenue - Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7385
Phone: (760) 431-9440 Fax: (760) 431-5901
In Reply Refer To:

Project Code: 2023-0048236
Project Name: Ramon Rattler Project Site

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

A biological assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological 7-220
02/22/2023   2

evaluation similar to a biological assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a biological assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found at the Fish and Wildlife Service's Endangered Species Consultation website at:
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/faq.html
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php.

The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to- birds.php.

In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/ executive-orders/e0-13186.php.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.
7-221
02/22/2023   3

▪
Attachment(s):

Official Species List
7-222
02/22/2023   1

OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".

This species list is provided by:

Carlsbad Fish And Wildlife Office
2177 Salk Avenue - Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7385
(760) 431-9440
7-223
02/22/2023   2

PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2023-0048236
Project Name: Ramon Rattler Project Site
Project Type: Residential Construction
Project Description: A proposed residential development located just north of Ramon Road, south of the Rancho Mirage High School, bordered by Rattler Road on the east, and an undeveloped parcel (with the Desert Memorial Park west of it) to the west.

Project Location:

The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps:
https://
www.google.com/maps/@33.81799945,-116.43424677208559,14z Counties: Riverside County, California
7-224
02/22/2023   3

1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 7 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

MAMMALS

NAME STATUS
Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis nelsoni
Population: Peninsular CA
pop.

There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4970
Endangered
BIRDS

NAME STATUS
Least Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii pusillus
There is
final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5945
Endangered
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6749
Endangered
1 7-225
02/22/2023   4

REPTILES

NAME STATUS
Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard Uma inornata
There is
final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2069
Threatened
Desert Tortoise Gopherus agassizii
Population: Wherever found, except AZ south and east of Colorado R., and Mexico There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4481
Threatened

INSECTS

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate

FLOWERING PLANTS

NAME STATUS
Coachella Valley Milk-vetch Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae There is
final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7426
Endangered

CRITICAL HABITATS

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.
7-226
02/22/2023   5

IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: WSP Environment and Infrastructure
Name: Nathan Moorhatch
Address: 1845 Chicago Avenue
Address Line 2: Suite D
City: Riverside
State: CA
Zip: 92507
Email [email protected]
Phone: 7144238559
7-227

City of Rancho Mirage 100
Appendix C
Phase I Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey
(Including Tribal Consultation letters and responses)
7-228

PHASE I HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY

WILLIAM WARREN GROUP PROJECT

Assessor’s Parcel Number 670-230-021
City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California

For Submittal to:

City of Rancho Mirage
Planning Division
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270

Prepared for:

William Warren Properties, Inc.
201 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401

Prepared by:

CRM TECH
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324

Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator
Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator

December 17, 2022
CRM TECH Contract No. 3817
7-229

Title: Phase I Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: William Warren Group Project, Assessor’s Parcel Number 670-230-021, City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California

Author(s): Deirdre Encarnación, Archaeologist/Report Writer Hunter O’Donnell, Archaeologist

Consulting Firm: CRM TECH
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-6400

Date: December 17, 2022

For Submittal to: City of Rancho Mirage
Planning Division
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
(760) 328-2266

Prepared for: Tim Hobin
William Warren Properties, Inc.
201 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(760) 341-4800

Project Size: Approximately 36 acres

USGS Quadrangle: Cathedral City, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangle (Section 14, T4S R5E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian)

Keywords: Coachella Valley, western Colorado Desert; Site 3817-1H*: historic-period can scatter; no “historical resources” under CEQA

* Temporary designation, pending assignment of official identification number

7-230
i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Between December 2021 and December 2022, at the request of William Warren Properties, Inc., CRM TECH performed a Phase I cultural resources survey on approximately 36 acres of undeveloped land in the northern portion of the City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California. The subject property of the study, Assessor’s Parcel Number 670-230-021, is located on the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road, in the southwest quarter of Section 14, T4S R5E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, as depicted in the United States Geological Survey Cathedral City, California, 7.5’ quadrangle.

The study is part of the environmental review process for a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development on the property. The City of Rancho Mirage, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the project area.

In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH initiated a historical/archaeological resources records search and a Native American Sacred Lands File search, pursued historical background research, and carried out an intensive-level field survey of the entire project area.

As a result of the field procedures, one previously undocumented archaeological site from the historic period was recorded in the project area and given the temporary designation of Site 3817-1H, pending assignment of an official identification number in the California Historical Resources Inventory.

Site 3817-1H consists of a refuse scatter with a total of four crushed metal cans, specifically three beverage cans and one chemical can. The site lacks an exceptional quantity or quality of artifacts and does not hold the potential for any important archaeological data. Therefore, 3817-1H does not appear to meet the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and does not qualify as a “historical resource” under CEQA provisions.

Based on these findings, CRM TECH recommends to the City of Rancho Mirage a determination of No Impact regarding “historical resources.” No further cultural resources investigation is recommended for the project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. However, if buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.

7-231
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 SETTING .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Current Natural Setting ..................................................................................................................... 4 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................................. 5 Prehistoric Context........................................................................................................................ 5 Ethnohistoric Context ................................................................................................................... 5 Historic Context ............................................................................................................................ 7 RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 8 Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 8 Sacred Lands File Search .................................................................................................................. 8 Historical Background Research....................................................................................................... 8 Field Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 8 RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 9 Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 9 Sacred Lands File Search .................................................................................................................. 9 Historical Background Research..................................................................................................... 11 Field Survey .................................................................................................................................... 12 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................... 12 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 13 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 14 APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications ............................................................................................ 16 APPENDIX 2: Sacred Lands File Search Results .............................................................................. 19 APPENDIX 3: California Historical Resources Inventory Record Forms ......................................... 23

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Project vicinity...................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. Project area ........................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 3. Aerial view of the project area ............................................................................................. 3 Figure 4. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area .................................................. 4 Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies within the scope of the records search ....................... 10 Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856 ........................................................................ 11 Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1901 ................................................................................. 11 Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941 ................................................................................. 12 Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1956 ................................................................................. 12

7-232
1 INTRODUCTION

Between December 2021 and December 2022, at the request of William Warren Properties, Inc., CRM TECH performed a Phase I cultural resources survey on approximately 36 acres of undeveloped land in the northern portion of the City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The subject property of the study, Assessor’s Parcel Number 670-230-021, is located on the northwest corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road, in the southwest quarter of Section 14, T4S R5E, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, as depicted in the United States Geological Survey Cathedral City, California, 7.5’ quadrangle (Figs. 2, 3).

The study is part of the environmental review process for a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development on the property. The City of Rancho Mirage, as the lead agency for the project, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the project area.

In order to identify and evaluate such resources, CRM TECH initiated a historical/archaeological resources records search and a Native American Sacred Lands File search, pursued historical background research, and carried out an intensive-level field survey of the entire project area. The following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and final conclusion of the study.

Personnel who participated in the study are named in the appropriate sections below, and their qualifications are provided in Appendix 1.

Figure 1. Project vicinity (based on USGS Santa Ana, Calif., 120’ x 60’ quadrangle [USGS 1979]). 7-233
2 Figure 2. Project area (based on USGS Cathedral City, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangle [USGS 1981]).

7-234
. I"
.; J '.'
A' G .J;:J A,. C . . . ., ....... <:~
. . • .. ~:
'?.$.
f'
' 15
-s,
.. ~ . : · ..
<

AGUA CAL IE TE
22 I
< I
I
I

AGUA CALI
Project
area
14 I. DIA'N RESER
'</
23 TE
I
I
.-l-.- -- ·
AGUA
24 I INDIAN RES

ND I AN RESERVATION
I
I
~
..
0 r-----------=----~ --- ---- ------· ____ 1 . - . - . - . ->,.o SCALE 1 :24,000 t, I
OE::=3'.:==E=:=3'.:==E=::i:1 i:/2:::::::::E::::=3:==::E::::=3:~1 mile ! I : ,</ !
·;. ·1'..· .. -.- I
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 feet
•
3 Figure 3. Aerial view of the project area (based on Google Earth imagery).

7-235
E-----------3
4 SETTING

CURRENT NATURAL SETTING

The City of Rancho Mirage lies in the heart of the Coachella Valley, a northwest-southeast trending desert valley that constitutes the western end of the Colorado Desert. Dictated by this geographic setting, the climate and environment of the region are typical of the southern California desert country, marked by extremes in temperature and aridity. Temperatures in the region reach over 120 degrees Fahrenheit in summer, and dip to near freezing in winter. Average annual precipitation is less than five inches, and the average annual evaporation rate exceeds three feet.

Situated in an area of relatively recent suburban growth on the northern edge of the city and along the Interstate Highway 10 corridor, the project area is bounded by Rattler Road on the east, Rancho Mirage High School on the north, Ramon Road on the south, and open desert land on the west (Fig. 3). Surrounding land uses include residential tracts, golf courses, a hospital, an RV park, and a cemetery. The terrain in the project area is relatively level, with a gentle incline towards the west and elevations ranging approximately from 325 to 335 feet above mean sea level. The property is currently open desert land that appears to have been grubbed in the past. Vegetation observed on the property includes purple sage, Mojave sand verbena, primrose, desert sunflower, and other small shrubs and grasses (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. Overview of the current natural setting of the project area (photograph taken on March 8, 2022, view to the southeast).
7-236
5 CULTURAL SETTING

Prehistoric Context

Numerous investigations on the history of cultural development in southern California have led researchers to propose a number of cultural chronologies for the desert regions. A specific cultural sequence for the Colorado Desert was offered by Schaefer (1994) on the basis of the many archaeological studies conducted in the area. The earliest time period identified is the Paleoindian (ca. 8,000 to 10,000-12,000 years ago), when “small, mobile bands” of hunters and gatherers, who relied on a variety of small and large game animals as well as wild plants for subsistence, roamed the region (ibid.:63). These small groups settled “on mesas and terraces overlooking larger washes” (ibid.:64). The artifact assemblage of that period typically consists of very simple stone tools, “cleared circles, rock rings, [and] some geoglyph types” (ibid.).

The Early Archaic Period follows and dates to ca. 8,000 to 4,000 years ago. It appears that a decrease in population density occurred at this time and that the indigenous groups of the area relied more on foraging than hunting. Very few archaeological remains have been identified to this time period. The ensuing Late Archaic Period (ca. 4,000 to 1,500 years ago) is characterized by continued low population densities and groups of “flexible” sizes that settled near available seasonal food resources and relied on “opportunistic” hunting of game animals. Groundstone artifacts for food processing were prominent during this time period.

The most recent period in Schaefer’s scheme, the Late Prehistoric, dates from ca. 1,500 years ago to the time of the Spanish missions, and saw the continuation of the seasonal settlement pattern.

Peoples of the Late Prehistoric Period were associated with the Patayan cultural pattern and relied more heavily on the availability of seasonal “wild plants and animal resources” (Schaefer 1994:66).

It was during this period that brown and buff ware ceramics were introduced into the region.

The shores of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, during times of its presence, attracted much settlement and resource procurement; but in times of the lake’s desiccation around 1700, according to Schaefer (1994:66), the Native people moved away from its receding shores towards rivers, streams, and mountains. Numerous archaeological sites dating to this time period have been identified along the shoreline of Holocene Lake Cahuilla. Testing and mitigative excavations at these sites have recovered brown and buff ware ceramics, a variety of groundstone and projectile point types, ornaments, and cremations.

Ethnohistoric Context

The Coachella Valley is a historical The Coachella Valley is a historical center of Native American settlement, where U.S. surveyors noted large numbers of Indian villages and rancherías, occupied by the Cahuilla people, in the mid-19th century. The origin of the name “Cahuilla” is unclear, but may originate from their own word káwiya, meaning master or boss (Bean 1978). The Takic- speaking Cahuilla are generally divided by anthropologists into three groups, according to their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla of the San Gorgonio Pass-Palm Springs area, the Mountain Cahuilla of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilla Valley, and the Desert 7-237
6 Cahuilla of the eastern Coachella Valley. The basic written sources on Cahuilla culture and history include Kroeber (1925), Strong (1929), and Bean (1978), based on information provided by such Cahuilla informants as Juan Siva, Francisco Patencio, Katherine Siva Saubel, and Mariano Saubel.

The following ethnohistoric discussion is based primarily on these sources.

The Cahuilla did not have a single name that referred to an all-inclusive tribal affiliation. Instead, membership was in terms of lineages or clans. Each lineage or clan belonged to one of two main divisions of the people, known as moieties. Their moieties were named for the Wildcat, or Tuktum, and Coyote, or Istam. Members of clans in one moiety had to marry into clans from the other moiety. Individual clans had villages, or central places, and territories they called their own, for purposes of hunting game, and gathering raw materials for food, medicine, ritual, or tool use. They interacted with other clans through trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies.

Cahuilla subsistence was defined by the surrounding landscape and primarily based on the hunting and gathering of wild and cultivated foods, exploiting nearly all of the resources available in a highly developed seasonal mobility system. They were adapted to the arid conditions of the desert floor, the lacustral cycles of Holocene Lake Cahuilla, and the environments of the nearby mountains.

When the lake was full, or nearly full, the Cahuilla would take advantage of the resources presented by the body of fresh water, building elaborate stone fish traps. Once the lake had desiccated, they relied on the available terrestrial resources. The cooler temperatures and resources available at higher elevations in the nearby mountains were also taken advantage of.

The Cahuilla diet included seeds, roots, wild fruits and berries, acorns, wild onions, piñon nuts, and mesquite and screw beans. Medicinal plants such as creosote, California sagebrush, yerba buena and elderberry were typically cultivated near villages (Bean and Saubel 1972). Common game animals included deer, antelope, big horn sheep, rabbits, wood rats and, when Holocene Lake Cahuilla was present, fish and waterfowl. The Cahuilla hunted with throwing sticks, clubs, nets, traps, and snares, as well as bows and arrow (Bean 1978; CSRI 2002). Common tools included manos and metates, mortars and pestles, hammerstones, fire drills, awls, arrow-straighteners, and stone knives and scrapers. These lithic tools were made from locally sourced material as well as materials procured through trade or travel. They also used wood, horn, and bone spoons and stirrers; baskets for winnowing, leaching, grinding, transporting, parching, storing, and cooking; and pottery vessels for carrying water, storage, cooking, and serving food and drink (ibid.).

As the landscape defined their subsistence practices, the tending and cultivation practices of the Cahuilla helped shape the landscape. Biological studies have recently found evidence that the fan palms found in the Coachella Valley and throughout the southeastern California desert (Washingtonia filifera) may not be relics of palms from a paleo-tropical environment, but instead a relatively recent addition brought to the area and cultivated by native populations (Anderson 2005).

Cahuilla oral tradition tells of a time before there were palms in the area, and how the people, birds, and animals enjoyed the palm fruit once it had arrived (Bean and Saubel 1972).

The planting of palms by the Cahuilla is well-documented, as is their enhancement of palm stands through the practice of controlled burning (Bean and Saubel 1972; Anderson 2005). Burning palm stands would increase fruit yield dramatically by eliminating pests such as the palm borer beetle, date scales, and spider mites (Bean and Saubel 1972). Firing palm stands prevented out-of-control wildfires by eliminating dead undergrowth before it accumulated to dangerous levels. The Cahuilla 7-238
7 also burned stands of chia to produce higher yields, and deergrass to yield straighter, more abundant stalks for basketry (Bean and Saubel 1972; Anderson 2005).

Population data prior to European contact is almost impossible to obtain, but estimates range from 3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons covering a territory of over 2,400 square miles. During the 19th century, the Cahuilla population was decimated as a result of European diseases, most notably smallpox, for which the Native peoples had no immunity. Today, Native Americans of Pass or Desert Cahuilla heritage are mostly affiliated with one or more of the Indian reservations in and near the Coachella Valley, including Agua Caliente, Cabazon, Torres Martinez, Augustine, and Morongo.

Historic Context

In 1823-1825, José Romero, José Maria Estudillo, and Romualdo Pacheco became the first noted European explorers to travel through the Coachella Valley when they led a series of expeditions in search of a route to Yuma (Johnston 1987:92-95). Due to its harsh environment, few non-Indians ventured into the desert valley during the Mexican and early American periods, except those who traveled along the established trails. The most important of these trails was the Cocomaricopa Trail, an ancient Indian trading route that was “discovered” in 1862 by William David Bradshaw and known after that as the Bradshaw Trail (Gunther 1984:71; Ross 1992:25). In much of the Coachella Valley, this historic wagon road traversed a similar course to that of present-day State Route 111.

During the 1860s-1870s, the Bradshaw Trail served as the main thoroughfare between coastal southern California and the Colorado River, until the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1876-1877 brought an end to its heyday (Johnston 1987:185).

Non-Indian settlement in the Coachella Valley began in the 1870s with the establishment of railroad stations along the Southern Pacific Railroad, and spread further in the 1880s after public land was opened for claims under the Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, and other federal land laws (Laflin 1998:35-36; Robinson 1948:169-171). Farming became the dominant economic activity in the valley thanks to the development of underground water sources, often in the form of artesian wells. Around the turn of the century, the date palm was introduced into the Coachella Valley, and by the late 1910s dates were the main agricultural crop and the tree an iconic image celebrating the region as the “Arabia of America” (Shields Date Gardens 1957). Then, starting in the 1920s, a new industry featuring equestrian camps, resorts, hotels, and eventually country clubs began to spread throughout the Coachella Valley, transforming it into southern California’s premier winter retreat.

In the Rancho Mirage area, the first notable settlement activities occurred in the 1910s-1920s, when several date ranches were established in the present-day city boundary (Love and Tang 1996:7). In 1924, R.P. “Bert” Davie and E.E. McIntyre subdivided the Rancho Rio del Sol Estates around today’s Clancy Lane, creating a small community nicknamed “Little Santa Monica” (ibid.:8). Ten years later, Louis Blankenhorn and Laurence Macomber began a new subdivision at the mouth of Magnesia Springs Canyon, and for the first time bestowed the name Rancho Mirage on the community (ibid.). After the end of WWII, Rancho Mirage embarked on a period of rapid growth.

With the development of the Thunderbird Country Club and the Tamarisk Country Club in 1951- 1952, Rancho Mirage set the trend in the post-WWII boom among the five cove communities along Highway 111 (ibid.:8-9). This trend has continued to the present time and has given rise to the City of Rancho Mirage’s popular reputation as the “country club city.” 7-239
8 RESEARCH METHODS

RECORDS SEARCH

The historical/archaeological resources records search for this study was conducted by the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System on March 30, 2022. Located on the campus of University of California, Riverside, the EIC is the State of California’s official cultural resource records repository for the County of Riverside. During the records search, EIC staff examined the center’s digital maps, records, and databases for previously identified cultural resources and existing cultural resources reports within a half-mile radius of the project area. Previously identified cultural resources include properties designated as California Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, or Riverside County Landmarks, as well as those listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the California Historical Resources Inventory.

SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH

On December 7, 2021, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a records search in the commission’s Sacred Lands File. The NAHC is the State of California’s trustee agency for the protection of “tribal cultural resources,” as defined by California Public Resources Code §21074 and is tasked with identifying and cataloging properties of Native American cultural value throughout the state, including places of special religious, spiritual, or social significance and known graves and cemeteries. In addition, CRM TECH contacted the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians to invite tribal participation in the field survey (see below). The NAHC’s reply is summarized below and attached to this report in Appendix 2.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Historical background research for this study was conducted by CRM TECH archaeologist Deirdre Encarnación. Sources consulted during the research included published literature in local and regional history, historical maps of the Rancho Mirage area, and aerial/satellite photographs of the project vicinity. Among the maps consulted were U.S. General Land Office (GLO) land survey plat map dated 1856 and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps dated 1904-1981, which are accessible at the websites of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the USGS. The aerial and satellite photographs, taken in 1972-2021, are available at the Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR) Online website and through the Google Earth software.

FIELD SURVEY

On March 8, 2022, CRM TECH archaeologist Hunter O’Donnell carried out the intensive-level field survey of the project area with the assistance of Native American monitors representing the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, including Cultural Resources Coordinator Andreas J. Heredia and tribal archaeologists Lacy Padilla and Arysa Gonzales. The survey was completed on foot by walking a series of parallel north-south transects spaced 15 meters (approximately 50 feet) apart. In this way, the ground surface in the entire project area was systematically and carefully examined for any evidence of human activities dating to the prehistoric or historic period (i.e., 50 years or older). 7-240
9 Ground visibility was excellent (90 to 95%) due to the sparse vegetation growth throughout the project area.

When archaeological artifacts were discovered during the survey, their locations were marked with survey flags. Upon completion of the survey, further field recordation, including descriptions of the artifacts, a location map with UTM coordinates, and a scaled sketch map, were completed to document the exact locations and nature of the finds. The field map, descriptions, and other data were then compiled into a standard site record form for submittal to the EIC and incorporation into the California Historical Resources Inventory (see App. 3).

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

RECORDS SEARCH

According to EIC records, the project area was covered in its entirety by a Phase I cultural resources survey in 2014 that included a historical/archaeological resources records search and a systematic field survey (George 2014), as well as by a large-scale overview study from 1996 (Love and Tang 1996). Because the 2014 survey is now eight years old, it is considered out of date for statutory compliance purposes today. Despite these previous survey efforts, no cultural resources were previously recorded within the project boundaries.

Within the half-mile scope of the records search, EIC records identify at least nine other previous studies on various tracts of land and linear features, including adjacent properties to the west and the south (Fig. 5). As a result of these and other similar studies in the vicinity, one historical/ archaeological site and two isolates—i.e., localities with fewer than three artifacts—were previously recorded within the half-mile radius, as listed below in Table 1.

Table 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Scope of the Records Search Resource No. Recorded by/Date Description
33-013685 Goodman and Moriquand 2004 Ceramic scatter with 13 undecorated sherds 33-013687 Goodman et al. 2004 Isolate: upper shoulder sherd of a brownware jar 33-013688 Goodman and Moriquand 2004 Isolate: pressed-metal button

As Table 1 shows, the site and one of the isolates in the project vicinity were of prehistoric—i.e., Native American—origin. Nearest among the three known cultural resources, 33-013687 was an isolate representing a single upper shoulder fragment of a brownware ceramic jar located just outside of the northern project boundary in an area now occupied by Rancho Mirage High School. The site consisted of a scatter of 13 prehistoric ceramic sherds, and the other isolate was a single pressed- metal button. Since none of the previously recorded cultural resources was located within the project area, none of them require further consideration during this study.

SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH

In response to CRM TECH’s inquiry, the NAHC states in a letter dated February 2, 2022, that the Sacred Lands File identified no Native American cultural resources in the project vicinity (see App. 2). Noting that the absence of specific information would not necessarily preclude the presence of 7-241
10 Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies within the scope of the records search, listed by EIC file number. Location of historical/archaeological resources are not shown as a protective measure.

7-242
1 RESE:RVATlON
' I: ·•.
- -- -- ·- Scope of -·- ·- ·-·· records
search
• ·5

AG UA CA LI
6823
I. D AN R
2719
9090 10668
I
I
.-l-.-
12 0 0
~- • · ~5'5-2'"1~5i3':31-!,----l ~ ~ ---~ - - --I

AGUA CALIE
22 NDIAN RESERVATION
't
0 ---- ·- ·-
_ _ _ _ J __ __ ________ _ _____ _
!. :

AGUA
24 INDIAN RES
D Project area
D Areas previously
surveyed
--Linear surveys
SCALE 1 :24,000
1000 o 1000 2000 feet
11 cultural resources, however, the NAHC recommended that local Native American groups be consulted for further information and provided a referral list of 16 individuals associated with 11 local Native American groups who may have knowledge of such resources. The NAHC’s reply is attached in Appendix 2 for reference by the City of Rancho Mirage in future government-to- government consultations with the pertinent tribal groups, if necessary. As noted above, representatives from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians were present during the current field survey.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Historical sources consulted for this study suggest that the project area is low in sensitivity for cultural resources from the historic period. Throughout the 1850s-1970s era, no evidence of any settlement or development activities were observed in or near the project area (Figs. 6-9; NETR Online 1972). The earliest notable human-made feature was Ramon Road, evident outside of the southern project boundary in the 1940s across an otherwise undeveloped landscape (Fig. 8).

Several residential tracts were constructed in the vicinity between 1984 and 1996, serving as the first sizable developments in the area (NETR Online 1984; 1996; Google Earth 1996). Located on the adjacent property to the north, Rancho Mirage High School was built between 2010 and 2012 (Google Earth 2009-2012; NETR Online 2010; 2012). While the commercial and residential development gradually continued to expand on the surrounding properties, the project area has remained undeveloped to the present time (NETR Online 1972-2018; Google Earth 1996-2021).

Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1855-1856
(source: GLO 1856).

Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1901 (source:

USGS 1904).
7-243
~L -- -----i---- "V/ 1 ..)2 .rl "V~t -.S ""T·
0 . i • Project ,
s~y L ~·-. area[=r -, .. ~ .. --'----
11 -'..Q-o
2000
1'-3 <'123
(i'./,()
4000 feet
No coverage
f3,,'\L
f············ ··· ·-·,1· ······················•-•l•-· ··· ·--·- ; ~~
)f
C
12 Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1941 (source:

USGS 1941).

Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1956 (source:

USGS 1958).

FIELD SURVEY

As a result of the field survey, a previously undocumented archaeological site from the historic period was recorded in the project area and given the temporary designation of Site 3817-1H, pending assignment of an official identification number in the California Historical Resources Inventory (see App. 3). No other cultural resources, either prehistoric or historical in origin, were found during the survey. Ground surface in the project area has been disturbed by heavy equipment, as evidenced by large-tread tracks.

Site 3817-1H measures roughly 10 feet by 9 feet in size and consists of a very small refuse scatter of four crushed metal cans. Two of the cans are 12-ounce, flat-top beverage cans with church-key openings, each measuring 4-5/8 inches in height and 3 inches in diameter. One is a 16-ounce, flat- top beverage can measuring 6-1/4 inches tall and 2-3/4 inch in diameter, also with a church-key opening. The fourth is an industrial chemical can with a friction closure measuring 7 inches by 5 inches by 2 inches. The site is located on a relatively level surface among scrub brush, surrounded by vehicular intrusions.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study is to identify any cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area, and to assist the City of Rancho Mirage in determining whether such resources meet the official definition of “historical resources,” as provided in the California Public Resources Code, in 7-244
0 0 15
-</
; 3 i ~"
INDIAN 4- ~-•~.

IR
22 IR •
SCALE 1 :62,500 26 I
1 mile ERVATION
25 \
\
\ I
)
/
\ \
\
\
\
'
<
I
I
I
I
\
~ GUA CALI NTE
\
\
14 23
0 2000 ==========i4000 feet
13 particular CEQA. According to PRC §5020.1(j), “‘historical resource’ includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.”

More specifically, CEQA guidelines state that the term “historical resources” applies to any such resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, included in a local register of historical resources, or determined to be historically significant by the lead agency (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)-(3)). Regarding the proper criteria for the evaluation of historical significance, CEQA guidelines mandate that “generally a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources” (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria:

(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1(c))

In summary of the research results outlined above, one previously undocumented historic-period archaeological site was recorded within the project area during the current study. Designated temporarily as 3718-1H, the site is evaluated below in accordance with the CEQA provisions outlined above. No other potential “historical resources” were encountered within or adjacent to the project area. In addition, the Native American Sacred Lands File does not identify any sites of traditional cultural value in the project vicinity, and no notable cultural features were known to be present in the project area throughout the historic period.

Site 3817-1H is a small refuse scatter with a total of four crushed metal cans, three of which are beverage cans and one is a chemical can. Light refuse deposits like this represent one of the most common types of historic-period archaeological remains found in the southern California desert region, typically the results of incidental trash discarding. Without an exceptional quantity or quality of artifacts, Site 3817-1H holds little promise for any new or important archaeological data.

Furthermore, with an unclear historical background, this minor refuse deposit does not demonstrate a close association with any persons or events of recognized significance in history. Based on these considerations, Site 3817-1H does not appear eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and does not meet CEQA definition of a “historical resource.”

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CEQA establishes that “a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC §21084.1). “Substantial adverse change,” according to PRC §5020.1(q), “means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be 7-245
14 impaired.” As stated above, the results of the present study indicate that no “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, are present within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, CRM TECH presents the following recommendations to the City of Rancho Mirage:

• The project as currently proposed will not cause a substantial adverse change to any known “historical resources.”
• No further cultural resources investigation is necessary for the proposed project unless development plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. • If buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.

REFERENCES

Anderson, M. Kat
2005 Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Bean, Lowell John
1978 Cahuilla. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8:

California; pp. 575-587. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, Lowell John, and Katherine Siva Saubel
1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.

CSRI (Cultural Systems Research, Inc.)
2002 The Native Americans of Joshua Tree National Park: An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment Study. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/jotr/history6.htm.

George, Joan
2014 Phase I Archaeological Assessment of the Rancho Bella Project, City of Ranch Mirage, Riverside County, California, Tentative Tract No. 36553. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.

GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1856 Plat map: Township No. 4 South Range No. 5 East, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian; surveyed in 1855-1856.

Google Earth
1996-2021 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity; taken in 1996, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011-2013, 2015-2019, and 2021. Available through the Google Earth software.

Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. J.D.

Gunther, Riverside.

Johnston, Francis J.
1987 The Bradshaw Trail; revised edition. Historical Commission Press, Riverside.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

7-246
15 Laflin, Patricia
1998 Coachella Valley California: A Pictorial History. The Donning Company, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Love, Bruce, and Bai “Tom” Tang
1996 Cultural Resources Report: Rancho Mirage General Plan, City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California. On File, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.

NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research) Online
1972-2018 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity; taken in 1972, 1984, 1996, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018. http://www.historicaerials.com.

Robinson, W.W.
1948 Land in California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Ross, Delmer G.
1992 Gold Road to La Paz: An Interpretive Guide to the Bradshaw Trail. Tales of the Mojave Road Publishing Company, Essex, California.

Schaefer, Jerry
1994 The Challenge of Archaeological Research in the Colorado Desert: Recent Approaches and Discoveries. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16(1):60-80.

Shields Date Gardens
1957 Coachella Valley Desert Trails and the Romance and Sex Life of the Date. Shields Date Gardens, Indio.

Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 26. Reprinted by Malki Museum Press, Banning, California, 1972.

USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1904 Map: Indio, Calif. (30’, 1:125,000); surveyed in 1901. 1941 Map: Edom, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); aerial photographs taken in 1941. 1958 Map: Cathedral City, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); aerial photographs taken in 1956. 1979 Map: Santa Ana, Calif. (120’x60’, 1:250,000); 1959 edition revised. 1981 Map: Cathedral City, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1958 edition photorevised in 1978.

7-247
16 APPENDIX 1:

PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/HISTORIAN
Bai “Tom” Tang, M.A.

Education

1988-1993 Graduate Program in Public History/Historic Preservation, University of California, Riverside.
1987 M.A., American History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 1982 B.A., History, Northwestern University, Xi’an, China.

2000 “Introduction to Section 106 Review,” presented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the University of Nevada, Reno.
1994 “Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites,” presented by the Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno.

Professional Experience

2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1993-2002 Project Historian/Architectural Historian, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1993-1997 Project Historian, Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California. 1991-1993 Project Historian, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. 1990 Intern Researcher, California State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 1990-1992 Teaching Assistant, History of Modern World, University of California, Riverside. 1988-1993 Research Assistant, American Social History, University of California, Riverside. 1985-1988 Research Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1985-1986 Teaching Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1982-1985 Lecturer, History, Xi’an Foreign Languages Institute, Xi’an, China.

Cultural Resources Management Reports

Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations Regarding California’s Cultural Resources Inventory System (with Special Reference to Condition 14 of NPS 1990 Program Review Report). California State Office of Historic Preservation working paper, Sacramento, September 1990.

Numerous cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit, Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991.

7-248
17 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ARCHAEOLOGIST
Michael Hogan, Ph.D., RPA (Registered Professional Archaeologist)

Education

1991 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 1981 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside; with honors. 1980-1981 Education Abroad Program, Lima, Peru.

2002 “Section 106—National Historic Preservation Act: Federal Law at the Local Level,” UCLA Extension Course #888.
2002 “Recognizing Historic Artifacts,” workshop presented by Richard Norwood, Historical Archaeologist.
2002 “Wending Your Way through the Regulatory Maze,” symposium presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals.
1992 “Southern California Ceramics Workshop,” presented by Jerry Schaefer. 1992 “Historic Artifact Workshop,” presented by Anne Duffield-Stoll.

Professional Experience

2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1999-2002 Project Archaeologist/Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1996-1998 Project Director and Ethnographer, Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands, California. 1992-1998 Assistant Research Anthropologist, University of California, Riverside. 1992-1995 Project Director, Archaeological Research Unit, U.C. Riverside. 1993-1994 Adjunct Professor, Riverside Community College, Mt. San Jacinto College, U.C.

Riverside, Chapman University, and San Bernardino Valley College. 1991-1992 Crew Chief, Archaeological Research Unit, U.C. Riverside. 1984-1998 Project Director, Field Director, Crew Chief, and Archaeological Technician for various southern California cultural resources management firms.

Research Interests

Cultural Resource Management, Southern Californian Archaeology, Settlement and Exchange Patterns, Specialization and Stratification, Culture Change, Native American Culture, Cultural Diversity.

Cultural Resources Management Reports

Principal investigator for, author or co-author of, and contributor to numerous cultural resources management study reports since 1986.

Memberships

Society for American Archaeology; Society for California Archaeology; Pacific Coast Archaeological Society; Coachella Valley Archaeological Society. 7-249
18 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/REPORT WRITER
Deirdre Encarnación, M.A.

Education

2003 M.A., Anthropology, San Diego State University, California. 2000 B.A., Anthropology, minor in Biology, with honors; San Diego State University, California.

2021 Certificate of Specialization, Kumeyaay Studies, Cuyamaca College, California. 2001 Archaeological Field School, San Diego State University. 2000 Archaeological Field School, San Diego State University.

Professional Experience

2004- Project Archaeologist/Report Writer, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 2001-2003 Part-time Lecturer, San Diego State University, California. 2001 Research Assistant for Dr. Lynn Gamble, San Diego State University. 2001 Archaeological Collection Catalog, SDSU Foundation.

PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST
Hunter C. O’Donnell, B.A.

Education

2018 M.A. (anticipated), Applied Archaeology, California State University, San Bernardino.
2015 B.A. (cum laude), Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino. 2012 A.A., Social and Behavioral Sciences, Mt. San Antonio College, Walnut, California. 2011 A.A., Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Mt. San Antonio College, Walnut, California.
2014 Archaeological Field School, Santa Rosa Mountains; supervised by Bill Sapp of the United States Forest Service and Daniel McCarthy of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.

Professional Experience

2016- Graduate Research Assistant, Applied Archaeology, California State University, San Bernardino.
2016-2017 Cultural Intern, Cultural Department, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, Temecula, California.
2015 Archaeological Intern, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California. 2015 Peer Research Consultant: African Archaeology, California State University, San Bernardino.
7-250
19 APPENDIX 2

SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH RESULTS

7-251

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

February 2, 2022

Nina Gallardo

CRM TECH

Via Email to: [email protected]

Re: Proposed Subdivision Project, Riverside County

Dear Ms. Gallardo:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,

Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst

Attachment

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

7-252
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6800
Fax: (760) 699-6919
Cahuilla
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6907
Fax: (760) 699-6924
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Augustine Band of Cahuilla
Mission Indians
Amanda Vance, Chairperson
P.O. Box 846
Coachella, CA, 92236
Phone: (760) 398 - 4722
Fax: (760) 369-7161
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Cabazon Band of Mission
Indians
Doug Welmas, Chairperson
84-245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio, CA, 92203
Phone: (760) 342 - 2593
Fax: (760) 347-7880
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Daniel Salgado, Chairperson
52701 U.S. Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 5549
Fax: (951) 763-2808
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla
and Cupeño Indians
Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson
P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189
Phone: (760) 782 - 0711
Fax: (760) 782-0712
Cahuilla
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Robert Martin, Chairperson
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5110
Fax: (951) 755-5177
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Ann Brierty, THPO
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5259
Fax: (951) 572-6004
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (928) 750 - 2516
[email protected]
Quechan
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (760) 572 - 2423
historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan
1 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Proposed Subdivision Project, Riverside County.

PROJ-2022-
000343
02/02/2022 10:06 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
2/2/2022
7-253
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson
P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
John Gomez, Environmental
Coordinator
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
Michael Mirelez, Cultural
Resource Coordinator
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
Phone: (760) 399 - 0022
Fax: (760) 397-8146
[email protected]
Cahuilla
2 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Proposed Subdivision Project, Riverside County.

PROJ-2022-
000343
02/02/2022 10:06 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Riverside County
2/2/2022
7-254
23 APPENDIX 3

CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY

RECORD FORMS

(Confidential)

7-255
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: √ Not for Publication Unrestricted
*a. County Riverside and (P2c, P2e. and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Cathedral City, Calif. Date 1958; photorevised 1978 T4S; R5E; SE 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Sec 14 ; S.B. B.M.
c. Address N/A City Rancho Mirage Zip
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11 ; 552316 mE/ 3742018 mN UTM Derivation: USGS Quad √ GPS (NAD 83)
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) The center of the site is located approximately 325 feet north of Ramon Road, between Rattler Road and Da Vall Drive, within APN 670-230-021.

*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The site measures roughly 10 x 9 feet and consists of four historic-era artifacts, specifically four cans. Two of the cans are 12-ounce, 4-5/8” x 3” flat- top beverage cans with church-key openings, one is a 16-ounce, 6-1/4” x 2-3/4” flat- top beverage can with a church key opening, and one is a 7” x 5”x 2” industrial chemical can with a friction closure. The site is located on a relative ly level surface among scrub brush, surrounded by vehicular intrusions.

*P3b.Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AH4: Trash scatter

*P4. Resources Present: ☐Building
☐Structure ☐Object ☒Site ☐District
☐Element of District ☐Other ( Isolates,
etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo (view, date,
accession #): Overview of site ,
view to the south; taken on
March 8, 2022
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources:☒ Historic ☐ Prehistoric ☐
Both
*P7. Owner and Address:
*P8. Recorded by (Name, affiliation, &
address): Hunter O’Donnell, CRM
TECH, 1016 East Cooley Drive,
Suite A/B, Colton, CA 92324
*P9. Date Recorded: March 8, 2022
*P10. Survey Type (describe):

Intensive-level pedestrian
survey

*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none.”) Deirdre Encarnación and Hunter O’Donnell (2022): Phase I Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: William Warren Group Project, Assessor’s Parcel Number 670-230-021, City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California

*Attachments: ☐NONE ☒Location Map ☒Sketch Map ☐Continuation Sheet ☐Building, Structure, and Object Record ☒Archaeological Record ☐District Record ☐Linear Feature Record ☐Milling Station Record ☐Rock Art Record ☐Artifact Record ☐Photograph Record ☐Other (List):

DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)

7-256
- ----===--=---=----=---=--=-==
-------::------=----- --=-=----=----=-==-===-
State of California—Natural Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD

A1. Dimensions: a. Length 10 feet (N-S) x b. Width 9 feet (E-W) Method of Measurement: ☐ Paced ☒ Taped ☐ Visual estimate ☐ Other:

Method of Determination (Check any that apply.): ☒ Artifacts ☐ Features ☐ Soil ☐ Vegetation ☐ Topography ☐ Cut bank ☐ Animal burrow ☐ Excavation ☐ Property boundary ☐Other (Explain):

Reliability of Determination : ☒ High ☐ Medium ☐ Low Explain: The artifacts are in a visible surface scatter
Limitations (Check any that apply): ☐ Restricted access ☐ Paved/built over ☐ Site limits incompletely defined

☐ Disturbances ☐ Vegetation ☐ Other (Explain):

A2. Depth: ☒ None ☐ Unknown ☐ Method of Determination:

*A3. Human Remains: ☐Present ☒Absent ☐Possible ☐Unknown (Explain):
*A4. Features: (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch map.) None
*A5. Cultural Constituents: (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., not associated with features.) The site contains a total of four cans (see Item P3a).
*A6. Were Specimens Collected? ☒No ☐Yes (If yes, attach Artifact Record or catalog and identify where specimens are curated.) *A7. Site Condition: ☐Good ☐Fair ☒Poor (Describe disturbances.): The artifacts are heavily degraded and partially crushed.

*A8. Nearest Water (Type, distance, and direction.): The Whitewater River is approximately 2.45 miles to the west.
*A9. Elevation: Approximately 335 feet above mean sea level A10. Environmental Setting: (Describe culturally relevant variables such as vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope, aspect, exposure, etc.): The site is located on the low-lying desert valley floor among rolling stabilized sand dunes and sand fields punctuated by creosote bush and herbaceous plants, and expanses of loose sand. The soil generally consists of fine to medium grain sand with a dearth of rocks. After recent rains, the vegetation is represented by blooming hairy desert sunflower, Mojave sand verbena, Palafox, primrose, and sage. The only fauna noted during site recordation was an undetermined variety of hawk though many rodent holes were noted.

A11. Historical Information: An extensive search of historic maps and aerial photographs produced no evidence that any buildings, structures, or roads were present on this parcel during the historic period.
*A12. Age ☐Prehistoric ☐Protohistoric ☐1542-1769 ☐1769-1848 ☐1848-1880 ☐1880-1914 ☐1914-1945 ☒Post 1945 ☐Undetermined Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known: Flat-top beverage cans are common artifacts at sites from the 1950s-1960s.

A13. Interpretations: (Discuss data potential, function[s], ethnic affiliation, and other interpretations) : The site is likely the result of a single dumping event in the mid-20th century.

A14. Remarks: Multiple vehicular tracks running north -south indicate past ground disturbance, likely in an effort to clear vegetation. Without an exceptional quantity or quality of artifacts, this site holds little promise for any new or important archaeological data. Furthermore, with an unclear historical background, the minor refuse deposit does not demonstrate a close association with any persons or events of recognized significance in history . Therefore, this site does not appear eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources.

A15. References: (Documents, informants, maps, and other references.):

A16. Photographs: (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Record.):

Original Media/Negatives Kept at: CRM TECH, Colton, California *A17. Form Prepared by: Hunter O’Donnell Date: March 9, 2022 Affiliation and Address: CRM TECH, 1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B, Colton, CA 92324

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
7-257
State of California—Natural Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
LOCATION MAP Trinomial

*Map Name: Cathedral City, Calif. *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map: 1958/1978

DPR 523J (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information 7-258
,·
·~· ;·'f- • ·-
A- G)'.! ~./y
·,:,•
•,'
. ~ ..
=-:~--:•.-
_:;-~·-
0 l!;

AGUA CAL I TE
' i'5 14
I. DI AN RESER
,s.. "
I ~
< I
< I
AGUA CALIENTE l ~
AGUA
22 I 23 24

ND I AN RESERVATION I INDIAN RES
I
I
~ 0
r-_____________ :__ _____ __________ ________ l . -- ·- . -- . .,,,0 SCALE 1 :24,000 I,,, I
01==:=3:==:::E=3:==::E=1 3/=2 ====3:==::E::=3:~1 mi le
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 feet
I
I
I
--<7 ! I
State of California—Natural Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
SKETCH MAP Trinomial

*Drawn by: Hunter O’Donnell *Date: March 9, 2022

DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) NOTE: Include bar scale and north arrow 7-259
0 Scattered vegetation growth
Site Boundary~ Obi F I ~ ong -stye
, ,...~ --"" , ✓friction lid can ~
, @& ' @&
I 8 ~
I ~ \
' @&
Flat top 16-oz 1
beverage can ~
\
10 \.
.... .,. ........ --', t ,'
Flat top 12-oz
beverage can
20 feet
I
I ,
Scattered vegetation growth

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Attn: Patricia Garcia
Director of Historic Preservation
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Ms. Garcia:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-260

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
Attn: Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Mr. Ontiveros:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-261

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
Attn: Jessica Valdez, Cultural Resource Specialist
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Ms. Valdez:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-262

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
Attn: Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Ms. Redner:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75 ,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-263

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Attn: Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson
P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Mr. Hamilton:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-264

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
Attn: Jordan Joaquin, President, Quechan Tribal Council P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Mr. Joaquin:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-265

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
Attn: Jill McCormick, Historic Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Ms. McCormick:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-266

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
Attn: Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman - Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Mr. Scott:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-267

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Attn: Ann Brierty, THPO
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Ms. Brierty:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 squar e feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-268

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Attn: Robert Martin, Chairperson
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Mr. Martin:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75 ,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-269

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
Attn: Michael Linton, Chairperson
P.O Box 270
Santa Ysabel, CA, 92070

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Mr. Linton:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-270

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation
Attn: Angela Elliott Santos, Chairperson
P.O. Box 1302
Boulevard, CA, 91905

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Ms. Santos:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-271

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
Attn: Javaughn Miller, Tribal Administrator
8 Crestwood Road
Boulevard, CA, 91905

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Mr. Miller:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-272

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
Attn: Thomas Tortez, Chairperson
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Mr. Tortez:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-273

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
Attn: Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson
8 Crestwood Road
Boulevard, CA, 91905

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Ms. Parada:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-274

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians
Attn: Robert Pinto, Chairperson
4054 Willows Road
Alpine, CA, 91901

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Mr. Pinto:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75 ,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-275

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians
Attn: Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson
4054 Willows Road
Alpine, CA, 91901

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Mr. Garcia:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-276

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians
Attn: Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson
P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Mr. Chapparosa:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-277

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
Attn: Ralph Goff, Chairperson
36190 Church Road, Suite 1
Campo, CA, 91906

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Mr. Goff:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-278

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Cahuilla Band of Indians
Attn: BobbyRay Esparza, Cultural Director
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Mr. Esparza:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-279

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Cahuilla Band of Indians
Attn: Daniel Salgado, Chairperson
52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Mr. Salgado:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 squar e feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-280

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Cahuilla Band of Indians
Attn: Anthony Madrigal, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 52701 CA Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Mr. Madrigal:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-281

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
Attn: Doug Welmas, Chairperson
84-245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio, CA, 92203

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Mr. Welmas:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-282

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
69-825 Highway 111 ● Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
www.RanchoMirageCA.gov ● (760) 328-2266
September 20, 2023

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
Attn: Amanda Vance, Chairperson
84-001 Avenue 54
Coachella, CA, 92236

RE: Catana Specific Plan - 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

Dear Ms. Vance:

In conformance with Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), we are sending you this letter to offer consultation to protect cultural resources that may occur within the City per your request. The project being considered is as follows:

The project site (APN:670-230-021) is located on 36± acres on the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Rattler Road. The Catana Specific Plan proposes three planning areas. The General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA23- 0002 is to change the High -Density Residential (R-H) land use designation to General Commercial (C-G) for 8.3 acres fronting Ramon Road (Planning Area 3), and apply the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow a density of up to 28 units per acre to 3.3± acres in the west -central portion of the site (Planning Area 2) , while preserving the High-Density Residential (R-H) designation on 24.5± acres (Planning Area 1). Planning Area 1 proposes up to 215 single-family homes with a central clubhouse and amenities. Planning Area 2 proposes up to 90 affordable housing apartments and includes a central recreation area. Planning Area 3 proposes up to 75,000 square feet of retail and office uses ranging from restaurants to medical offices and follows the development standards of the General Commercial (C -G) Zoning District . Enclosed please find Attachment 1 – Catana Site Plan and Attachment 2 – Catana Land Use Map Amendment.

If you wish to consult with the City regarding potential cultural resources within the City, or the SB 18 and AB 52 process, please contact me at 760 -328-2266 or via email at [email protected] or at the following address within 90 days from the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Pilar Lopez
Senior Planner
7-283
Dear Pilar Lopez,
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the Catana Specific Plan project. A records check of the ACBCI cultural registry revealed that the project area is within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation. In consultation the ACBCI THPO requests the following:
[VIA EMAIL TO:[email protected]]
City of Rancho Mirage
Pilar Lopez
68-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, California 92270
October 09, 2023
Re: Catana Specific Plan
03-008-2023-006
*A cultural resources inventory of the project area by a qualified archaeologist prior to any development activities in this area.
*A copy of the records search with associated survey reports and site records from the information center.
*Copies of any cultural resource documentation (report and site records) generated in connection with this project.
*The presence of an approved Agua Caliente Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office. *Formal government to government consultion under California Assembly Bill No. 52 (AB-52).
*Formal government to government consultion under California Senate Bill 18 # * Due to the close proximity of Tribal Cultural Resources, the area is highly sensitive.
7-284
AGUA CAL €NTE OAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS-
THH!AL HISTORIC PRf.SFffVATION
5401 DINAH SHOR£ DAIV, PAll SFiilNGS , CA 9226
T 7Fi0 / 699 J 6800 F 7 60 / G<ig / _ 21 WWW . A . lJA<-A LI C T C - NSl1 , G V Again, the Agua Caliente appreciates your interest in our cultural heritage. If you have questions or require additional information, please call me at (760) 883-1137. You may also email me at [email protected].

Cordially,
Luz Salazar
Cultural Resources Analyst
Tribal Historic Preservation Office

AGUA CALIENTE BAND

OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
7-285
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS"
TKIE!AL H ISTORIC PRr.SEflVATIQN
5 4 0 I O I N A II S ~ 0 R O fl I V , P l I 5 F' fl I N G , C A 9 2 2 "T 7f;0 / 699 / 6801) I" 7 60 / < 9 / 21 WWW . /\ G UACA I I! Tl! - NSt, . V

TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264
(760) 699-6800
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Monitoring Request Form
Please fill out the information below. Once the Tribal Historic Preservation Office receives the request we will complete a draft contract for your review. Upon your approval our team will provide legal review and finalize the contract for signatures.

1. What is the name of the project?

2. What is the address of the project?

3. What is t
he name of the land owner? Please provide the owner's address, phone number, fax number, email and President and/or owner's name.

4. Please provide a brief description of your project. Include a description of ground disturbing activities.

5. What date w
ill construction begin?

6. How many days grubbing?

7. How many days grading and pad preparation?

8. How many days utility installation?

9. Does your project have conditions of approval? Please provide our office with a copy.

10. Please provide contact information for authorized signatory. Include name, title, company name, address, phone number and email address.

11. Include a map of your project and return form and supporting documents to:

Agua Calient
e Band of Cahuilla Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
[email protected]
(760) 699-6800.
7-286
- .. GA£ _
•· ~~~ ~
~ . ~ I.,,
·~ '
• flHU\\\.!c'

City of Rancho Mirage 101
Appendix D
Traffic Analysis
7-287

CATANA SPECIFIC PLAN

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Reference Number Agency Date
June 30, 2023 City of Rancho Mirage 15284-03 TA Report.docx PREPARED BY: Janette Cachola | [email protected] Marlie Whiteman, P.E. | [email protected]
John Kain, AICP | [email protected]

7-288

URBAN CROSSROADS

15284-03 TA Report.docx
i

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

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

1.2  Analysis Scenarios ......................................................................................................................... 4

1.3  Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 5

1.4   Circulation Improvements ............................................................................................................ 7 2  Methodologies .................................................................................................................................................. 13

2.1  Level of Service ........................................................................................................................... 13

2.2  Intersection Capacity Analysis .................................................................................................... 13

2.3  Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology ............................................................................. 15

2.4  Minimum Level of Service (LOS) ................................................................................................. 16

2.5  Deficiency Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 16

2.6  Project Fair Share Calculation Methodology .............................................................................. 17 3  Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................................... 19

3.1  Existing Circulation Network ....................................................................................................... 19

3.2  City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Element .......................................................... 19

3.3  Transit Service ............................................................................................................................. 19

3.4  Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................. 19

3.5  Existing Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................................. 24

3.6  Existing Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................. 24

3.7  Existing Conditions Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis .................................................................. 26 4  Projected Future Traffic ................................................................................................................................... 29

4.1  Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 29

4.2  Project Trip Distribution .............................................................................................................. 29

4.3  Modal Split .................................................................................................................................. 33

4.4  Project Trip Assignment .............................................................................................................. 33

4.5  Cumulative Growth Traffic .......................................................................................................... 33

7-289

15284-03 TA Report.docx
ii
5  EAP (2025) Traffic Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 37

5.1  Access Improvements ................................................................................................................. 37

5.2  EAP (2025) Traffic Volume Forecasts .......................................................................................... 37

5.3  EAP (2025) Intersection Operations Analysis.............................................................................. 39

5.4  EAP (2025) Conditions Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ............................................................. 39 6  EAPC (2025) Traffic Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 41

6.1  EAPC (2025) Traffic Volume Forecasts ........................................................................................ 41

6.2  EAPC (2025) Intersection Operations Analysis ........................................................................... 41

6.3  EAPC (2025) Conditions Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ........................................................... 41 7  Horizon Year (2040) Traffic Conditions ........................................................................................................ 45

7.1  Horizon Year (2040) traffic volumes ........................................................................................... 45

7.2  Intersection Operations Analysis ................................................................................................ 45

7.3  Horizon year (2040) Conditions Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ............................................... 45

7.4  Queueing Analysis at Project Access Points ................................................................................ 49

7.5  Contribution to Off‐Site Intersection Improvements ................................................................. 49 8  Summary and Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 51

8.1   Project Traffic .............................................................................................................................. 51

8.2   Traffic Analysis Results ................................................................................................................ 51

8.3   Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 52 9  References ......................................................................................................................................................... 55

7-290

15284-03 TA Report.docx
iii

APPENDICES
Appendix 1.1: Traffic Study Scoping Agreement
Appendix 3.1: Traffic Counts – May 2023
Appendix 3.2: Existing (2023) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 3.3: Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Appendix 5.1: EAP (2025) Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 6.1: EAPC (2025) Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 7.1: Horizon Year (2040) Without Project Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 7.2: Horizon Year (2040) With Project Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets and Queueing Analysis Worksheets
7-291

15284-03 TA Report.docx
iv

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1-1: Preliminary Site Plan ................................................................................................................................ 2 Exhibit 1-2: Traffic Analysis Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 6 Exhibit 1-3: Recommended Improvements for Interim Year (2025) Conditions ............................................... 8 Exhibit 1-4: Recommended Improvements for Cumulative Horizon Year (2040) conditions......................... 9 Exhibit 1-5: On-Site Circulation Improvements ..................................................................................................... 10 Exhibit 1-6: Access 4 Median Left-In Only Configuration .................................................................................... 11 Exhibit 3-1: Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls .................................................... 20 Exhibit 3-2: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Element .............................................................. 21 Exhibit 3-3: City of Rancho Mirage City General Plan Cross-Sections ............................................................... 22 Exhibit 3-4: Existing Pedestrian Facilities ................................................................................................................ 23 Exhibit 3-5: Existing (2023) Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................... 25 Exhibit 4-1: Project Trip Distribution (Outbound) ................................................................................................. 31 Exhibit 4-2: Project Trip Distribution (Inbond) ....................................................................................................... 32 Exhibit 4-3: Project Only Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................... 34 Exhibit 4-4: Cumulative Development Location Map .......................................................................................... 35 Exhibit 5-1: EAP (2025) Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................................. 38 Exhibit 6-1: EAPC (2025) Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................ 42 Exhibit 7-1: Horizon Year (2040) Without project Traffic Volumes .................................................................... 46 Exhibit 7-2: Horizon YEar (2040) With Proposed Project Traffic Volumes ....................................................... 47

7-292

15284-03 TA Report.docx
v

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Level of Service (LOS) Summary ............................................................................................................... 3 Table 1-2: Intersection Analysis Locations ................................................................................................................ 5 Table 2-1: Signalized Intersection Description of LOS ......................................................................................... 14 Table 2-2: Unsignalized Intersection Description of LOS .................................................................................... 15 Table 2-3: Unsignalized Intersection Locations ..................................................................................................... 16 Table 3-1: Intersection Analysis for Existing (2023) Conditions ......................................................................... 27 Table 4-1: Project Trip Generation Summary ........................................................................................................ 30 Table 4-2: Cumulative Development Land Use Summary .................................................................................. 36 Table 5-1: Intersection Analysis for EAP (2025) Conditions ................................................................................ 40 Table 6-1: Intersection Analysis for EAPC (2025) Conditions .............................................................................. 43 Table 7-1: Intersection Analysis for Horizon Year (2040) Conditions ................................................................ 48 Table 7-3: Project Fair Share Calculations .............................................................................................................. 49 Table 7-2: Project Access Queueing Analysis for Horizon Year (2040) With Project ...................................... 50

7-293

15284-03 TA Report.docx
vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
CAMUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Caltrans California Department of Transportation
DU Dwelling Unit
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LI/RIRO Left-In/Right-In /Right-Out Access Only
LOS Level of Service
Project Catana Specific Plan
RIRO Right-In/Right-Out Access Only
TSF Thousand Square Feet
TA Traffic Analysis
TWLTL Two-Way Left Turn Lane Striped Median

7-294

15284-03 TA Report.docx
vii
This page intentionally left blank
7-295
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
1 1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the traffic anal ysis (TA) for the proposed Catana Specific Plan (“Project”), which is located northwest corner of Ramon Avenue and Rattler Road in the City of Rancho Mirage. The Project consists of 215 single family rental homes, 90 affordable apartment dwelling units and 75,000 square feet of commercial land use. It is anticipated that the Project would be developed by year 2025. A preliminary site plan of the proposed Project is shown in Exhibit 1-1.

The purpose of this TA is to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the proposed Project and re commend improvements to achieve acceptable circulation system operational conditions. This TA has been prepared based in accordance with the City of Rancho Mirage Transportation Analysis Policy (Revised February 18, 2021) and County of Riverside’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service & Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020). (1) (2)
T o e n s u r e t h a t t h i s T A s a t i s f i es the City of Rancho Mirage’s traffic study requirements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a traffic study scoping package for review by City staff. The scope provides an outline of the Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology. The Agreement approved by the City is included in A ppendix 1.1. Exhibit 1-2 shows the intersection analysis locations included in this study.

1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The intersection level of service (LOS) results for Ex isting (2023), Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project (EAP 2025), Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Plus Cumulative (EAPC 2025), Long Range 2040 Without and With Project conditions are summarized in Table 1-1.

For Existing (2023) conditions, the Rattler Road / School Access 1 an d Rattler Road / School Access 3 intersections are currently operating at an unacceptable level of service (LOS “E” or worse).

The Project is anticipated to generate a total of 5, 680 external trips per day with 215 AM peak hour trips and 443 PM peak hour trips. For EAP (2025) and EAPC (2025), there are no new deficient intersections in addition to those previously identified under existing conditions.

Signal warrant analysis results indicate that the inte rsection of Rattler Road / School Access 1 (#4) is anticipated to meet warrants under 2025 conditions even without the addition of Project and cumulative traffic. Consideration of a traffic signal at the intersection of Rattler Road / School Access 1 (#4) should be reviewed by the City traffic en gineer. Improvements are not recommended at the two deficient high school access intersections since the minor approach (eastbound) deficient delays are due to the high outbound scho ol traffic. Providing additional capacity (adding eastbound turn lanes) are not anticipated to improve traffic cond itions at these access driveways. Delays at high school parking lot driveways are a common occurrence during student arrival and departure times.

1 7-296

URBAN CROSSROADS

Catana Specific Plan
Rancho Mirage

Land Use Assumptions

Planning Area 1 - Single family rental homes: up to 215 units on 24.5 acres (light brown)

Planning Ares 2 – Apartments, affordable: up to 90 units on 3.3 acres (dark brown)

Planning Area 3 – Commercial (retail and office): up to 75,000 square feet on 8.3 acres (Ramon Road frontage)

3 CATANA

R ANCHO MIR AGE, CALIFOR NIA
22024.01 02/08/2023
3 SITE PLAN

STREET LANDSCAPING

STREET SECTION A
20’
SCALE: 1” = 80’-0”
0 40’ 80’ 160’
DAVID NEAULT ASSOCIATES, INC.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
ROBERT HIDEY ARCHITECTS, INC.

ARCHITECT

HEITEC CONSUL TING

CIVIL ENGINEER

TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH

CONSULT ANT
2 7-297
. . ' .
..
t •• ~-. , . . .. .. · . . ..
.. •
. •'
•
.. .
• • .. ..

URBAN I CROSSROADS
.
•
15284 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
EXHIBIT 1-1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
•
•
LEGEND:
~-'t.. = RIGHT·IN/RIGHT·OUT ONL V
~ -'t.. = LEFT·IN/RIGHT·IN/RIGHT·OUT ONLY
.:.I'
•
•
•
• . •
• •
.. • . .
•
• •
..
•
.,
"<I
I
.. .. .. .. .. . .,
•
• •
..
•
,.
• ..
~
• . • • .. . . -. • ,
. • .
. ~· .
# Intersection AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM AM MD PM 1 Date Palm Dr. / Ramon Rd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
- With Improvements N/A N/A
2 Da Vall Dr. / Ramon Rd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
- With Improvements N/A N/A
3 Da Vall Dr. / Dinah Shore Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 Rattler Rd. / School Access 1
5 Rattler Rd. / Ramon Rd.
6 Los Alamos Rd. / Ramon Rd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
7 Bob Hope Dr. / I-10 WB Ramps N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
8 Bob Hope Dr. / I-10 EB Ramps N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
9 Bob Hope Dr. / Ramon Rd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
10 Rattler Rd. / Access 1 N/A N/A N/A
11 Rattler Rd. / Access 2 N/A N/A N/A
12 Access 3 / Ramon Rd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
13 Access 4 / Ramon Rd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
14 Rattler Rd. / School Access 2 (Exit Only)
15 Rattler Rd. / School Access 3
Legend:
= A - D = E = F
F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Excel\[15284 - Report.xlsx]1-1_LOS Summary TABLE 1-1: LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY
Existing
(2023)
EAP
(2025)
EAPC
(2025)
HY (2040)
w/o Project
HY (2040)
w/ Project
3 7-298
URBAN I CROSSROADS Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• •
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
4 At the Project access locations, improvements are recommended for near term 2025 conditions as described in section 1.4.1 of this report. The single-family rentals will have one emergency only access driveway and one full access driveway (both gate d) along Rattler Road, while the affordable apartments will be accessed from the project driveway on the west side of the site, from Ramon Road.

The commercial portion of the Project will have one full access driveway along Rattler Road, and two restricted access driveways along Ramon Road. The commercial driveway located at a mid-point along Ramon Road is limited to Right-In/Right-Out (RIRO) movements.

The westerly driveway serves as the primary access to the affordable apartment, and also connects to the commercial and single-family portions of the Project. The westerly driveway is proposed as a Right-In/Right-Out with Left-In-Only (no left out) median configuration at the southwest driveway access to the site. This access provides the only eastbound left-in access opportunity from Ramon Road to the affordable apartments.

For long range future conditions (2040), cumulative LOS deficiencies are projected to occur at the following intersections without or with the Project:
# Intersection
1 Date Palm Drive / Ramon Road
2 Da Vall Drive / Ramon Road
4 Rattler Road / School Access 1
15 Rattler Road / School Access 3
Similar to near term conditions, improvements at the deficient intersection s along Rattler Road are Road are not recommended since these deficiencies are due to high morning school traffic activity.

For the off-site intersections along Ramon Road at Date Palm Drive and Da Vall Drive, improvements are ultimately needed to address intersection op erational deficiencies for 2040 without and with Project conditions. The Project’s fair share of cumulative traffic amounts to 5.7% towards the 2040 lane re-striping improvements at Date Palm Dr ive / Ramon Road (#1) and 8.2% towards the 2040 ultimate lane improvements and signal modification at Da Vall Drive / Ramon Road (#2).

1.2 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
For the purposes of this traffic study, potential impacts to traffic and circulation have been evaluated for each of the following conditions:
 Existing (2023) Conditions
 Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP)
 Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC)  Horizon Year (2040) Without Project Conditions
 Horizon Year (2040) With Project Conditions
All study area intersections are evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition analysis methodology.
4 7-299

URBAN CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
5 1.2.1 EXISTING (2023) AND EAP (2025) CONDITIONS
Information for Existing (2023) cond itions is disclosed to represent the baseline traffic conditions as they existed at the time this report was prepared. For a detailed discussion on the existing traffic counts, see Section 3.5 Existing Traffic Volumes. The EAP (2025) traffic conditions analyses determine potential traffic impacts based on a comparison of th e EAP traffic conditions to Existing conditions.

To account for background traffic growth, an ambient growth factor from Existing conditions of 4.04% (2 percent per year over 2 years, compounded annually) for 2025 conditions is included for EAP traffic conditions. The EAP analysis is intended to identi fy “Opening Year” deficiencies associated with the development of the proposed Project based only on the ambient background growth.

1.2.2 EAPC (2025) CONDITIONS
The EAPC (2025) traffic scenario adds known cumu lative developments as an overlay to ambient growth with the proposed Project. This scenario combines the traffic associated with other known cumulative development projects to an ambient growth factor from existing conditions to determine EAPC (2025) traffic conditions. The list of other pr ojects in the area was included in the scope and reviewed by the City of Rancho Mirage.

1.2.3 HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS
The Horizon Year (2040) conditions analysis is utilized to determine if General Plan improvements can accommodate the long term growth with the proposed Project. In addition, this scenario provides the basis for Project fair share contributions to cumulative circulation improvements.

1.3 STUDY AREA
Exhibit 1-2 presents the study area and intersection analysis locations. The Project study area was defined in coordination with the City of Rancho Mirage, and it includes any intersection of “Collector” or higher classification street, wi th “Collector” or higher classification streets at which the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips. The study area intersections are listed in Table 1-2.

TABLE 1-2: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
# Intersection # Intersection
1 Date Palm Dr. / Ramon Rd. 9 Bob Hope Dr. / Ramon Rd.
2 Da Vall Dr. / Ramon Rd. 10 Rattler Rd. / Access 1
3 Da Vall Dr. / Dinah Shore Dr. 11 Rattler Rd. / Access 2 4 Rattler Rd. / School Access 1 12 Access 3 / Ramon Rd. 5 Rattler Rd. / Ramon Rd. 13 Access 4 / Ramon Rd.
6 Los Alamos Rd. / Ramon Rd. 14 Rattler Rd. / School Access 2 (Exit Only) 7 Bob Hope Dr. / I-10 WB Ramps 15 Rattler Rd. / School Access 3 8 Bob Hope Dr. / I-10 EB Ramps

5 7-300

URBAN CROSSROADS
6 7-301

URBAN I CROSSROADS
EXHIBIT 1-2: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS STUDY AREA

SCHOOL I
ACCESS 36,
f1 '-.-, A' SCHOOL~ u
ACCESS21:J
r~
"SEE INSE'I'." ~
r
I ·
r ,.
r
I
r
' r
I
r.
c:i
D::

D::
~
--~
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
BOB
HOPE DR.
~ -~· ♦ nJ'~ •·r , •• , RAMON RD. _ : _ '. _ - : _; + I t,,_ -+ - 'I I _ 1 cit \ --, LOS
LAMOS RD.
!
15284 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
DINAH SHORE DR.
"' 0
:::l
~
~
INSET • PROJECT SITE AREA
r-·-
1· •
I ·
I
I 1·
I ··

1.·
I
1·
I ·
I.

I
I
I
I
SCHOOL ACCESS 1
: ,..

I ia · · · · .•.•. · .•.•. · · · .i:j. · · · · · · · .':: : ~ -,;{11 l . u •
1 u
1· ~

I I ,,J(
13)-------- ~
ATTLER
RD.

LEGEND:
~ = EXISTING ANALYSIS LOCATION
@ = FUTURE ANALYSIS LOCATION
---- =SITE ACCESS DRIVEWAY
~ '\. = RIGHT·IN/RIGHT·OUT ONLY
~ '\. = LEFT·IN/RIGHT·IN/RIGHT·OUT ONLY
f
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
7 1.4 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
Exhibits 1-3 and 1-4 depict the interim year (2025) and ultimate (2040) intersection lane configurations at study area locations, respectively.

1.4.1 SITE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
The following recommendations (also shown on Exhibit 1-5) achieve acceptable peak hour operations with full occupancy of the Project.

Rattler Road / Access 1 (#10)
 Access 1 serves the single-family rental home neighborhood of the Project and is located approximately 335 feet north of Access 2, measured from the south curb of Access 1 to the north curb of Access 2 along Rattler Road. Northbound left turns into the site will be accommodated within the existing two-way left turn lane (TWLTL) striped median on Rattler Road.

Rattler Road / Access 2 (#11)
 Access 2 serves the commercial retail portion of the Project and is located approximately 280 feet north of Ramon Road, measured from the south curb of Access 2 to the north curb of Ramon Road along Rattler Road. Because the retail parcel is also served by two other direct connections to Ramon Road, northbound left turns into the site at Access 2 from Rattler Road are minimal (16 AM peak hour vehicles and 40 PM peak hour vehicles). These low left turn volumes can be accommodated in the short northbound storage length available at this location within the existing two-way left turn lane (TWLTL) striped median on Rattler Road.

Access 3 / Ramon Road (#12)
 Access 3 serves the commercial retail portion of the Project from Ramon Road and is located approximately 590 feet west of Rattler Road, measured from the east curb of Access 3 to the west curb of Rattler Road along Ramon Road. This commercial driveway location will be restricted as right-in/right- out only access (no median break on Ramon Road).

Access 4 / Ramon Road (#13)
 In conjunction with development of either the affo rdable apartment dwelling units or the commercial retail parcel, construct median improvements on Ramon Road to accommodate a 150-foot eastbound left turn pocket. Provide a Left-In-Only (no left out) median configuration which allows left-in/right- in/right-out only access at Access 4 (see Exhibit 1-6).

A queuing analysis was performed for Horizon Year (2040) With Project conditions to assess the adequacy of turn bay lengths to accommodate vehicl e queues at the Project entries. As shown in Table 7-1 of this report, the proposed Project turn bay lengths generally provide adequate storage to accommodate the anticipated 95th percentile queues.

7 7-302

URBAN CROSSROADS
8 7-303

URBAN I CROSSROADS
mla__j:: i1 ~L f i t L'j ~1
EXHIBIT 1-3: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
FOR INTERIM YEAR (2025) CONDITIONS
SCHOOL ~
ACCESS!l~ ~
w
4 J{J .C F~ e~
~ -
0 ~ ~ : ~ u C ---- RATTLER RD.
i , ~ i::,,;c;;;;;-:::-:<•: HOPE DR.1
'-----""- ~ RAMON RD.
t t hr :m-1 1 ~.... J I LOS I /ffl - j J i i-- ALAMOS RD. \ : l--t -i ~ r ~, , J c::::1.: ~ Q r): INSET . • PROJECT SITE AREA 1 1 . l --,. ! r1 n . SCHOOL ACCESS I
a:

C r
...I I
;;i ~- I ...--,..1 > I
i--1 4 • I
M C I
I
............._. _,,--- I
__J I I ~ I
I
I I • I
DINAH SHORE DR. 0_/
I
I
I
I
I
I
15 j-W \U RAMON RD.

I ~~t l. ----

RATTLER
RD.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
LEGEND:
6) = INTERSECTION ID
~ = EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL
..A.. =STOP SIGN
L_ = EXISTING LANE
.i-- = EXISTING FREE RIGHT TURN LANE
-'\. = PROJECT LANE IMPROVEMENT
* = LEFT TURN ACCOMMODATED
WITHIN TWO·WAV LEFT TURN LANE
RTO = EXISTING RIGHT TURN OVERLAP PHASE
--- = FUTURE ROADWAY
~ t = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONL V
~ t = LEFT ·IN/RIGHT ·IN/RIGHT·OUT ONL V
.7
1 Date Palm Dr. / 2 Da Vall Dr./ 3 Da Vall Dr. / 4 Rattler Rd. / 5 Rattler Rd. / 6 Los Alamos Rd. / 7 Bob Hope Dr. / Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd. Dinah Shore Dr. School Access 1 Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd. 1-10 WB Ramps L
~
.!_
- .!_
0171
- .t-- - -- ,L, - - - r JUL, r r 1+ L, r ' JUL -
~rn-
_J v~ tt r _J ~1 tt r _J v7 tt r =::t 'L/~tt ---- ---- -------- ---- ---- ----.. .. ' -------- 8 Bob Hope Dr. t 9 Bob Hope Dr. / 10 Rattler Rd./ 11 Rattler Rd./ 12 Access 3 / 13 Access 4 / 14 Rattler Rd. / 15 Rattler Rd./ 1-10 EB Ramps Ramon Rd. Access 1 Access 2 Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd. School Access 2 School Access 3 !
L
~., If ~., If
(Exit Only)
-
~l11 ~l11 if 01 11
-++LL, .. JU+LL,F
_J Vt t f.1 dv~ttt r ----
j
+
0 ---- ----=: = ---- ----' ----4
15284 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
9 7-304

URBAN I CROSSROADS
mla__j:: i1 ~L f i t L'j ~1
EXHIBIT 1-4: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS
SCHOOL ~
ACCESS!l~ ~
w
4 J{J .C F ~ e~
~ -
0 ~ ~ : ~ u C ---- RATTLER RD.
i , ~ i ::,,;c;;;;;-:::-:<•: HOPE DR.1
'-----""- ~ RAMON RD.
t t hr :m-1 1 ~.... J I LOS I /ffl - j J i i-- ALAMOS RD. \ : l--t -i ~ r ~, , J c::::1.: ~ Q r): INSET . • PROJECT SITE AREA 1 1 . l --,. ! r1 n . SCHOOL ACCESS I
a:

C r
...I I
;;i ~- I ...--,..1 > I
i--1 4 • I
M C I
I
............._. _,,--- I
__J I I ~ I
I
I I • I
DINAH SHORE DR. 0_/
I
I
I
I
I
I
15 j-W \U RAMON RD.

I ~~~ l. ----

RATTLER
RD.

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
LEGEND:
6) = INTERSECTION ID
~ = EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL
_._ = STOP SIGN
L = EXISTING LANE
.i.- = EXISTING FREE RIGHT TURN LANE
-'\,. = 2040 CUMULATIVE LANE IMPROVEMENT
~ = PREVIOUS 2025 PROJECT LANE IMPROVEMENT
* = LEFT TURN ACCOMMODATED

WITHIN TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE
RTO = EXISTING RIGHT TURN OVERLAP PHASE
m> = RIGHT TURN OVERLAP PHASING IMPROVEMENT
--- = FUTURE ROADWAY
~ '\.. = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY
~ '\.. = LEFT ·IN/RIGHT ·IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY
.7
1 Date Palm Dr. / 2 Da Vall Dr./ 3 Da Vall Dr. / 4 Rattler Rd. / 5 Rattler Rd. / 6 Los Alamos Rd. / 7 Bob Hope Dr. / Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd. Dinah Shore Dr. School Access 1 Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd. 1-10 WB Ramps "- Lm>
~
-- -- .L
0171
-- .t--- -- ---- ,LI., -- -- -- r JUL, r r 1+ L, r ' JUL -- ~rn-
_J v~ff ... _J ~1 tt r _J v7 tt r =::t 'L/~tt -- ( -- ---- -- -- ---- .. ' --""\, -- 8 Bob Hope Dr. t 9 Bob Hope Dr. / 10 Rattler Rd./ 11 Rattler Rd./ 12 Access 3 / 13 Access 4 / 14 Rattler Rd. / 15 Rattler Rd./ 1-10 EB Ramps Ramon Rd. Access 1 Access 2 Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd. School Access 2 School Access 3 !
L
~ cD If ~ cD If
(Exit Only)
--
1 1
11 1 1
11 if
01 11
--++LL, .. JU+LL,F
_J Vt t f.1 dv~ttt r --
c:::3/
+
0 -- --=: = -- --' --4
15284 - 01 - Study Area.dwg

Catana Specific Plan
Rancho Mirage

Land Use Assumptions

Planning Area 1 - Single family rental homes: up to 215 units on 24.5 acres (light brown)

Planning Ares 2 – Apartments, affordable: up to 90 units on 3.3 acres (dark brown)

Planning Area 3 – Commercial (retail and office): up to 75,000 square feet on 8.3 acres (Ramon Road frontage)

3 CATANA

R ANCHO MIR AGE, CALIFOR NIA
22024.01 02/08/2023
3 SITE PLAN

STREET LANDSCAPING

STREET SECTION A
20’
SCALE: 1” = 80’-0”
0 40’ 80’ 160’
DAVID NEAULT ASSOCIATES, INC.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
ROBERT HIDEY ARCHITECTS, INC.

ARCHITECT

HEITEC CONSUL TING

CIVIL ENGINEER

TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH

CONSULT ANT
10 7-305
•
•
(ff;>e
MODIFY EXISTING RAISED MEDIAN 13 Access 4 /
TO PROVIDE AN EASTBOUND LEFT Ramon Rd.

TURN LANE WITH 150 FEET OF
~., 1~
STORAGE LENGTH (SEE EXHIBIT 1·6)
!
J
------

ON-SITE TRAFFIC SIGNING AND STRIPING SHOULD BE

IMPLEMENTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH DETAILED
CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE PROJECT SITE.

SIGHT DISTANCE AT THE PROJECT ACCESS POINTS

ALONG RAMON ROAD AND RATTLER ROAD SHOULD BE

REVIEWED WITH RESPECT TO STANDARD CALTRANS AND

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS

AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF FINAL GRADING,
LANDSCAPE AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS.
15284 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
12 Access 3 I
Ramon Rd.
-r J 1~ ------
LEGEND:

CI) = INTERSECTION ID
~ = EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL
...JI... = NEW STOP SIGN CONTROL
L_ = EXISTING LANE
"'\,. = PROJECT LANE IMPROVEMENT
~ '\_ = RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ONLY
~ '\. = LEFT·IN/RIGHT·IN/RIGHT·OUT ONLY
f
1 O Rattler Rd. t
Access 1
___iJ 71
~I*
11 Rattler Rd. t
s
Access 2
,
~7t
*
Rattler Rd. /
Ramon Rd.
~ -
=::t
----
* = LEFT TURN ACCOMMODATED

WITHIN TWO-WAY LEFT

TURN LANE (TWL TL)
11 7-306
URBAN

I CROSSROADS
RAMON
ROAD
+
+
!
80'
40'
0 80'
SCALE:
1"
=
BO'
15284
-01
-Study
Area.dwg
Catana
Specific
Plan
Traffic
Analysis

EXHIBIT
1-6:

ACCESS
4 MEDIAN

LEFT-IN
ONLY

CONFIGURATION
-------
~ U) U) w 0 0 ct ~
t
1--
150
FT.

TURN
POCKET
1--
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
12 1.4.2 LONG RANGE FUTURE OFF-SITE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS The recommended cumulative impr ovements required to achieve acceptable circulation system performance without or with the Project are described in detail within Section 7 Horizon Year (2040) Traffic Analysis of this report. Exhibit 1-4 depicts the recommended intersection lane configurations for Horizon Year (2040) conditions at Date Palm Drive & Ramon Road (#1) and Da Vall Drive / Ramon Road (#2).

Detailed fair share calculations, for each peak hour, are provided in Table 7-3 for the two study area intersections where cumulative long-term improv ements are needed. Project participation may include fee payments to established programs (e.g., TUMF), payment of a fair share contribution toward future improvements, or a combination of these approaches.

12 7-307

URBAN CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
13 2 METHODOLOGIES
This section documents the methodologies and assumptions used to perform this traffic assessment.

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

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

2.2 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The definitions of LOS for interrupted traffic flow (f low restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depe nding on the type of traffic control. The LOS is typically dependent on the quality of traffic fl ow at the intersections along a roadway. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. (4) The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control.

2.2.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Rancho Mirage requires signalized intersection operations analysis based on the methodology described in the HCM 6 th Edition (4). Intersection LOS operations are based on an intersection’s average control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final accele ration delay. For signalized inte rsections LOS is directly related to the average control delay per vehicle and is corre lated to a LOS designation as described in Table 2-1.

Study area intersections have been evaluated us ing the Synchro (Version 11) analysis software package.

Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program that is based on the signalized intersection capacity analysis as specified in the HCM. Macroscopic level models represent traffic in terms of aggregate measures for each movement at the study intersections.

Equations are used to determine measures of effect iveness in addressing such parameters as delay and queue length. The level of service and capaci ty analysis performed by Synchro takes into consideration optimization and coordination of signalized intersections within a network.

13 7-308

URBAN CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
14 TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION OF LOS

2.2.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Rancho Mirage requires the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using the methodology described in the HCM 6 th Edition. (4) The LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (see Table 2-2). At two-way or side-street stop- controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled movement and for the left turn movement from the major street, as well as for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the delay is computed as the av erage of all movements in that lane. Delay for the intersection is reported for the worst individual movement at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.

For all-way stop controlled intersections, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole (average delay).

Description
Average Control Delay
(Seconds), V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of Service,
V/C ≤ 1.01
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length.
0 to 10.00 A
Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths.

10.01 to 20.00 B
Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.

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

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

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

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

80.01 and up F
Source: HCM, 6th Edition
1 If V/C is greater than 1.0 then LOS is F per HCM.
14 7-309

URBAN CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
15 TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION DESCRIPTION OF LOS

At two-way or side-street stop-controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled movement and for the left turn movement from the major street, as well as for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane , the delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. For all-way stop cont rolled intersections, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole.

2.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRAN T ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The term "signal warrants" refers to the list of estab lished criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. This focused TA uses the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest edition of the Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), for all study area intersections. (5)
The signal warrant criteria for Existing conditions are based upon several factors, including volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, and location of school areas. The CAMUTCD indicates that the installation of a traffic signal sh ould be considered if one or more of the signal warrants are met. (5) Specifically, this focused TA utilizes the Peak Hour Volume-based Warrant 3 as the appropriate representative traffic signal warrant analysis for existing study area intersections for all analysis scenarios. Warrant 3 is appropriate to use for this TA because it provides specialized warrant criteria for intersection s with rural characteristics (e.g. located in communities with populations of less than 10,000 persons or with adjacent major streets operating above 40 miles per hour). For the purposes of this study, the spee d limit was the basis for determining whether Urban or Rural warrants were used for a given intersection.

Future intersections that do not currently exist ha ve been assessed regarding the potential need for new traffic signals based on future average daily tr affic (ADT) volumes, using the Caltrans planning level ADT-based signal warrant analysis worksheets.

Description
Average Control Delay
(Seconds), V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of Service,
V/C ≤ 1.01
Little or no delays. 0 to 10.00 A
Short traffic delays. 10.01 to 15.00 B
Average traffic delays. 15.01 to 25.00 C
Long traffic delays. 25.01 to 35.00 D
Very long traffic delays. 35.01 to 50.00 E
Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded. > 50.00 F Source: HCM, 6th Edition
1 If V/C is greater than 1.0 then LOS is F per HCM.
15 7-310

URBAN CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
16 Traffic signal warrant analyses were performed fo r all of the following unsignalized study area intersections (see Table 2-3):

TABLE 2-3: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
# Intersection
4 Rattler Road / School Access 1
10 Rattler Road / Project Access 1
11 Rattler Road / Project Access 2
15 Rattler Road / School Access 3

The Existing conditions traffic signal warrant analysis is presented in the subsequent section, Section 3 Existing Conditions of this report. The traffic signal warrant analysis for future conditions is presented Section 5 EAP (2025) Traffic Analysis , Section 6 EAPC (2025), and Section 7 HY (2040) Traffic Analysis, of this report.

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

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

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

2.5 DEFICIENCY CRITERIA
This section outlines the methodology used in this analysis related to identifying circulation system deficiencies. To determine whether the addition of project traffic at a study intersection or roadway segment results in a traffic deficiency, the following thresholds will be utilized:
16 7-311

URBAN CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
17  A traffic deficiency occurs at a signalized study area intersection if the addition of project traffic results in the intersection operations to go from LOS “D” or better (i.e., acceptable) to LOS “E” or “F.”  A traffic deficiency occurs at an unsignalized study ar ea intersection if the addition of project traffic results in the intersection operations to go from LOS “D” or better (i.e., acceptable) to LOS “E” or “F.”

2.6 PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
In cases where this TA identifies that the Projec t would contribute additi onal traffic volumes to cumulative traffic deficiencies, Project fair sh are costs of improvements necessary to address deficiencies have been identified. The Project’s fair share cost of improvements is determined based on the following equation, which is the ratio of Project traffic to total future traffic:

Project Fair Share % = Project Traffic / (Horizon Year 2040 With Project Traffic – Existing Traffic) The Project fair share contribution calculations are presented in Section 7.5 of this report.

17 7-312

URBAN CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
18 This page intentionally left blank

18 7-313

URBAN CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
19 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section provides a summary of the existing circulation network, the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Network, and a review of existing peak hour intersection operations as well as traffic signal warrants.

3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
Pursuant to the agreement with City of Rancho Mirage staff (Appendix 1.1), the study area includes a total of 11 existing intersection s as shown on Exhibit 1-2. Exhi bit 3-1 illustrates the study area intersections located near the proposed Project and identifies the number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls.

3.2 CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE GE NERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT Exhibit 3-2 shows the adopted City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Circulation Element. Exhibit 3-3 shows the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan roadway cross-sections.

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

STA Route 4 runs along Date Palm Drive north of Ramon Road and Ramon Road east of Date Palm Drive within the study area. STA Route 2 runs along Ramon Road west of Date Palm Drive and Date Palm Drive south of Ramon Road within the study area.

3.4 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
The existing pedestrian facilities within the study area are shown on Exhibit 3-4. Sidewalks currently exist adjacent to the site on Rattler Road and Ramon Road.

As shown on Exhibit 3-4, existing on-street bike lanes exist on both sides of Ramon Road between Da Vall Drive and Bob Hope Drive, east side of Da Va ll Drive north of Ramon Road and both sides of Da Vall Drive south of Dinah Shore Drive, south side of Dinah Shore Drive west of Da Vall Drive and both sides of Dinah Shore Drive east of Da Vall Drive, both side of Los Alamos Road south of Ramon Road, and west side of Bob Hope Drive south of Ramon Road within the study area.

19 7-314

URBAN CROSSROADS
20 7-315
URBAN I CROSSROADS Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS tf'U D
~5
~ -
if lc:a .... ,0
I-
<[
C
__ ., __ , $
J t 1·,,;;;1 •rre« 51 e(.'I)
4 ----, 1-tLJ
--< ~ ~ ---- RATTLER RD.

H J(J~ ~ r:1_:::::::::,;;~~;;;-~. Hoii 8DR.~ ~ ~
jl4S
·i,w RAMON RD. ~ ~o 6D o- LEGEND·
.........
--.
~ -. ~ 6D -t;
I~ a
1=--l so 6D ---- 6D ~ a SD l 4D •
i ,1 ~ i I ~ _ - lilF-ALAMOS RD. a, = INTERSECTION ID
L INSET • PROJECT SITE AREA ~ = TRAFFIC SIGNAL
Cl
J:
•
+ ,0
I I I
~ n- --~-- -
~!i-1
SPEED
s·o
ci

SCHOOL ACCESS I
Cl
N
_._ = STOP SIGN
4 = NUMBER OF LANES
!
-d ....
..............
__J
~
'/:::'t i DINAH SHORE DR.
45 4D
: ~; ~
C
..I
..I Cl
~-
<[ N
>
<[
C
-----
~
I@ l_ ----
1 Date Palm Dr. / 2 Da Vall Dr./ 3 Da Vall Dr. / 4
Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd. Dinah Shore Dr.

L
.!... - .!... - -JUL, -r ,L, - -r 1+ L, r
_J v~ tt r _J
--- ---~1 tt r _J
---v7 tt r
--- --- ---.. .. ' 8 Bob Hope Dr. t 9 Bob Hope Dr. / 10 Rattler Rd. / 11 HO EB Ramps Ramon Rd. Access 1
L
--++LL, .. JU+LL, F FUTURE
_J Vt t f.1 d v~tttr

INTERSECTION
+ --- !
' ---4
15284 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
15 RATTLER
RD.
6D j-W 6D \U RAMON RD. 6D
Rattler Rd. / 5 Rattler Rd. / 6
School Access 1 Ramon Rd.
~
0171
-
=::t
---------
Rattler Rd./ 12 Access 3 / 13
Access 2 Ramon Rd.

FUTURE FUTURE

INTERSEOION INTERSEOION
D = DIVIDED
u = UNDIVIDED
.t.- = FREE RIGHT TURN
RTO = RIGHT TURN OVERLAP PHASE
*
= LEFT TURN ACCOMMODATED

WITHIN TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE
---- =FUTURE ROADWAY
~ "\. = RIGHT·IN/RIGHT·OUT ONLY
~ "\. = LEFT ·IN/RIGHT ·IN/RIGHT ·OUT ONLY
.7
Los Alamos Rd. / 7 Bob Hope Dr. /
Ramon Rd. HO WB Ramps
- ,l-
-- r ' JUL
~rn-
'L/~tt
Access 4 / 14 Rattler Rd. / 15 Rattler Rd./
Ramon Rd. School Access 2 School Access 3
(Exit Only)
if
01 11
FUTURE

INTERSECTION

26 26
Exhibit 8 Circulation Roadway Plan Exhibit 9 Designated Truck Routes !! !! !! !!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
ST111
Gerald Ford Dr
Country Club Dr
30th Ave
Ramon Rd
Dinah Shore Dr
Los Alamos Rd
Da Vall Dr
Frank Sinatra Dr
Morningside Dr
Rattler Rd
Bob Hope Dr Monterey Ave
Rancho Las Palmas Dr
Conceptual
Alignment
Conceptual
Alignment
0 0.5 1
MilesN
!! Critical Intersections
City Roadways
Major Arterial (6D)
Minor Arterial (4D)
Minor Arterial (4D)
(Conceptual Alignment)
Major Collector (4D)
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
6D - Six-lane Divided Roadway
4D - Four-land divided Roadway
Sources: Riverside County, 2016; Esri World
Imagery, 2017.

ST111
Gerald Ford Dr
Country Club Dr
Ramon Rd
Dinah Shore Dr
Los Alamos Rd
Da Vall Dr
Frank Sinatra Dr
Morningside Dr
Bob Hope Dr Monterey Ave
0 0.5 1
MilesN
Designated Truck Routes
Time Restricted Truck Routes
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Sources: Riverside County, 2016;
Esri World Imagery, 2017.
21 7-316
URBAN I CROSSROADS Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis EXHIBI I 3-2: Ci It OF RANCHO IOIIRAGE GENERAL PLAN CIRCOLAI ION ELElvlEN I -
CJ .---,
~ ---·
15284 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
22 7-317
URBAN I CROSSROADS Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 3-3: CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS 7' 20' 12' 13'
Major Arterial*
120'
16'
4' I I 12'
I l
I
13'
(Six Lanes divided, no parking)
12' 20' 7'
.. Highway 111 has special design geometrics, See Rancho Mirage Highway 111 Alignment Study, 1996. 12' 6'
12' 6'
--
I
12'
15284 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
16' 13'
Minor Arterial
110'
16'
4' 1 I 12'
l l
I
13' 16'
(Four Lanes divided, w/bike lane/no parking)
Major Collector
110'
12' 12' 16' 12' 12'
4'1 I 12'
l l
.. (Four Lanes d1v1ded, w/b1ke lane/no parking)
Minor Collector
88'
f'
l 12' l 12' l 12'
t
12'
j 12j
) l l
(Four Lanes undivided, w/parking)
Local
I
60'
j
10'
t8• I
12' l 12'
I 8'j
10'
l
(Two Lanes, w/parking)
6' 12'
6' 12'
--
12'
j
SOURCE: CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
23 7-318

URBAN I CROSSROADS
"" C
3 ~
~
C
ra
Ii~ ...... a _ • . ·• •_L:aa:J_■ · O· ■ -m,
- ..... L:aa:J
qrl
!
RAMON RD .
15284 • 01 • Study Area.dwg
EXHIBIT 3-4: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
:::l
~
~
DINAH SHORE DR. :•,'!~ ~
■ · 8· ■ ~
nr--
INSET • PROJECT SITE AREA
• .:,- •
I ■
J ■■ r
, 1 ~ -ALA~gi RD.

SCHOOL ACCESS I
r··········cc·····• • •·•·• •··~.w-11 i
I, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • SITE ......... ACCESS I '·········································· -· I
r ·
1· ·
I .

I
t ·
I .
f • • •~• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •:;: • • • • •·• • • • • Aem~~ · "' Kl ··· ~ ···················· ~ -:

I ·~·
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
rel- :• ....
~{,
LEGEND:

CE) = INTERSECTION ID
- =SIDEWALK
■ ■ ■ ■■ = CROSSWALK
= ON·STREET BIKE LANES
(el = EXISTING BUS STOP
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
24 Sidewalks generally exist throughout the study area roadways, with the exce ption of some portions of Ramon Road (east of Rattler Road), Da Vall Drive (north of Dinah Shore Drive - west side), Rattler Road (east side), and Bob Hope Dive (north of Ramon Road – east side). Crosswalks currently exist at signalized study area intersections.

3.5 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected in May 2023. The following peak hours were selected for analysis:
 Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM)  Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM) Traffic count data were also collected in May 2023 during school afternoon peak hours (2:00 PM to 4:00 PM), specifically at the four existing st udy area intersections along Rattler Road where a concentration of high school traffic occurs.

The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix 3.1.

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

Existing weekday average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on arterial highways throughout the study area are shown on Exhibit 3-5. Existing ADT volumes are based upon factored intersection peak hour counts collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. using the following formula for each intersection leg where daily counts are unavailable:

Weekday PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) x 12.195 = Leg Volume For those roadway segments which ha ve 24-hour tube count data available in close proximity to the study area, a comparison between the PM peak hour and daily traffic volumes indicated that the peak- to-daily relationship of approximately 8.20 pe rcent would sufficiently estimate ADT volumes for planning-level analyses. As such , the above equation utilizing a fa ctor of 12.195 estimates the ADT volumes on the study area roadway segments assuming a peak-to-daily relationship of approximately

7.80 percent (i.e., 1/0.0820 = 12.195).

Existing weekday peak hour intersection volumes are also shown on Exhibit 3-5.

3.6 EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERS ECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis of this report. 24 7-319

URBAN CROSSROADS
25 7-320
!
URBAN I CROSSROADS Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 3-5: EXISTING (2023) TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AM & PM PEAK HOUR
1 Date Palm Dr. I 2 Da Vall Dr./ J Da Vall Dr. /
Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd. Dinah Shore Dr.
_;=-_
-in~ Ncio .,. ""'' NOC,-.,,.., ....

L86(145l ce =-=- L120(207) 3~~ L34(92)
g!~ in~~ ---774(759)
Jrt
---810(765)
Jrt
---346(501)
J t l ,133(160) ,211(125) ,48(40)
145(204)_j it i 32(42)_j iti 98(93)_j iti 646(693)--- in~f:"' 729(715)--- ~inc,; 432(479)--- 0:-COF:' 86(115)7 ~~~ 99(78)7 ~~~ 190(129)7
,._.,,,.,
--"' ~~f .,.,,., -o~= !=:!~ -!!!
4 Rattler Rd. / 5 Rattler Rd. / 6 Los Alamos Rd. /
School Access 1 Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd.
0 co'~
~~
NN
o ... i~ L259(89) ---1163(1028) ,n N
Jl j t ---923(986) ,100(42)
16{22)_j 7.J_ 225(53)_j 1(1)~ ii 270(112)7 a.E. 861(936) ..... 981(1022)--- ~$ "'"' 67(31)7 ce~ ot--,.,-
7 Bob Hope Dr. I 8 Bob Hope Dr. / 9 Bob Hope Dr. I
1-10 WB Ramps 1-10 EB Ramps Ramon Rd.
~N in ~~M .,_
"'"' L249(107) "'"' Lg(19)
N::::. ,::::-52 if5' ~~ on:=-
Jr
---1(1) ., ....

JTt
---454(320)
,638(496) t l ,116(76)
i t 269(145)_j t i 125(66)_j iti
0:-~ 1(2)--- co'~ 690(850) ..... inr::-O
§.~ 630(269)7 ..,.,. 224(175)7 .... .,,.,,
"':=-
~*~ .,,- ;;,-o .,,o -N 0 = ~ 52 ... "'
10 Rattler Rd. / 11 Rattler Rd. / 12 Access 3 /
Access 1 Access 2 Ramon Rd.

FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE

INTERSECTION INTERSECTION INTERSECTION
13 Access 4 / 14 Rattler Rd. / 15 Rattler Rd. /
Ramon Rd. School Access 2 School Access 3
;::- (Exit Only)
;;;-_ !l! ~;; 0 g::';jS'
:!! "'"'
FUTURE t j t
INTERSECTION 99(44)_j t 30(31)_j i t 135(31)7 8 64(36)7 ~~ in g~ ~
15284 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
t-µ:jj1 ---f I f _ ~J L _J ,
'" l =-1 I I >-- .=i •
- I- -
~
"' 0
)
SCHOOL ~ - 2.4
~~~~iP{-:-- 2.6
ACCESS.
(EXITO~LY) - 2.5
"' 0
I 1~0 :::1 , ... RATTLER RD.
~·, .... ,cf N ......
cti;
0 26.5 1~
· d t~ ufu
<[ •
> °'
~
' !
--, RAMON RD.

24.8 ~. ~ ~T 27.5 ~
~

26.0 INSET
..,.'-- LOS .,.1
ALAMOS RD .

LEGEND: ~1 .?~i\)Y °' ~ \ - 0 ,,..

PROJECT SITE AREA
'9 = INTERSECTION ID
L10(10) = AM(PM) PEAK HOUR

INTERSECTION VOLUMES

18.3 Ii
L10

10.0 • MID-DAY PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES
• VEHICLES PER DAY (lOOO'S)
---- • FUTURE ROADWAY
r
I
I
I
I
l
l
I

1. I
I
r
I
r r
"' ...
~t
~t .7
• RIGHT ·IN/RIGHT ·OUT ONLY
= LEFT·IN/RIGHT·IN/RIGHT·OUT ONLY
t
t.·4

1. I.. II "!

27.5! ~~ ~ ...

MID-DAY PEAK HOUR
4 Rattler Rd. / 5 Rattler Rd. / 10 Rattler Rd. /
School Access 1 Ramon Rd. Access 1
... ~E L161 ., ....
-N
j t J l ---1090 FUTURE
9_j i t 150_j INTERSECTION
1217 "'"' 906 ..... OC,N
N
11 Rattler Rd. / 14 Rattler Rd. / 15 Rattler Rd. /
Access 2 School Access 2 School Access 3
(Exit Only)
.,. N 0)
f "'"'

FUTURE JT
INTERSECTION 85_j t 57_j i t
1037 :,; 517 t--N ;: 0 N N

26.0 Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
26 The intersection operations analysis results are summarized in Table 3-1 which indicates that the following study area intersections are currently operating at an unacceptable LOS during peak hours:
 Rattler Road / School Access 1
 Rattler Road / School Access 3
The intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 3.2 of this TA.

Improvements are not recommended at the two defici ent high school access intersections since the minor approach (eastbound) deficient delays are due to the high outbound school traffic. Providing additional capacity (adding eastbound turn lanes) are not anticipated to improve traffic conditions at these access driveways. Delays at high school parking lot driveways are a common occurrence during student arrival and departure times.

3.7 EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFI C SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrants for Existing traffic conditions are based on existing peak hour intersection turning volumes. For Existing (2023) traffic co nditions, there are no unsignalized study area intersections that cu rrently warrant a traffic signal based on peak hour traffic flows (see Appendix

3.3).

26 7-321

URBAN CROSSROADS
Delay3 Level of
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service # Intersection Control1
LTRLTRLTRLTR A M MD4
PM AM MD4
PM
1 Date Palm Dr. / Ramon Rd. TS 221121130130 38.2 -- 44.5 D -- D 2 Da Vall Dr. / Ramon Rd. TS 121110130131 29.0 -- 29.9 C -- C 3 Da Vall Dr. / Dinah Shore Dr. TS 121120121120 35.3 -- 33.3 D -- C 4 Rattler Rd. / School Access 1 CSS 1100100 1 ! 0000 40.2 20.2 13.5 E C B 5 Rattler Rd. / Ramon Rd. TS 0001 1 ! 123003 1 > 14.2 14.7 12.2 B B B 6 Los Alamos Rd. / Ramon Rd. TS 201000131130 15.7 -- 15.3 B -- B 7 Bob Hope Dr. / I-10 WB Ramps TS 220031000 1 . 5 0 . 5 1 > > 14.2 -- 23.6 B -- C 8 Bob Hope Dr. / I-10 EB Ramps TS 0 2.5 1.5 2201 1 ! 1000 12.2 -- 10.1 B -- B 9 Bob Hope Dr. / Ramon Rd. TS 2 3 1> 2 3 1> 2 2 1>> 2 2 1 34.3 -- 35.1 C -- D 10 Rattler Rd. / Access 1
11 Rattler Rd. / Access 2
12 Access 3 / Ramon Rd.
13 Access 4 / Ramon Rd.
14 Rattler Rd. / School Access 2
(Exit Only) C S S 010010101000 14.1 17.6 12.0 B C B
15 Rattler Rd. / School Access 3 CSS 1* 100100 1 ! 0000 41.3 >80 14.4 E F B 1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-street Stop
2 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
3 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.

For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.

Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software .
4 Mid-Day analysis is only evaluated for intersections along Rattler Road where a concentration of high school traffic occurs.

F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Excel\[15284 - Report.xlsx]E Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 0.5 = Shared Lane; 1! = Shared Left/Through/Right lane; > = Right-Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free-Right Turn; * = Turn lane accommodated within two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) striped median TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2023) CONDITIONS Intersection Approach Lanes2

27 7-322
URBAN I CROSSROADS Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
28 This page intentionally left blank

28 7-323

URBAN CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
29 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
This section presents the traffic volumes estimated to be generated by the Project, as well as the Project’s trip assignment onto the study area roadway network.

The Project consists of 215 single family rental homes, 90 affordable apartment dwelling units and 75,000 square feet of commercial la nd use. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the Project will be constructed in its entirety with a projected Opening Year of 2025.

The single-family rentals will have one emergency only access and one full access (both gated) driveways along Rattler Road, while the affordable apartments will be acce ssed from the project driveway on the west side of the site, from Ramo n Road. The commercial port ion of the Project will have one full access driveway al ong Rattler Road, and two restrict ed access driveways along Ramon Road. The commercial driveway located at a mid-point along Ramon Road is limited to Right-In/Right- Out (RIRO) movements.

The westerly driveway serves as the primary access to the affordable apartment, and also connects to the commercial and single-family portions of the Project. The westerly driveway is proposed as a Right-In/Right-Out with Left-In-Only (no left out) median configuration at the southwest driveway access to the site. This access provides the only eastbound left-in access opportunity from Ramon Road to the affordable apartments.

4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
T r i p g e n e r a t i o n r e p r e s e n t s t h e a m o u n t o f t r a f f ic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the specific land uses being proposed for a given development.

Trip generation rates used to estimate Project traffic and a summary of the Project’s trip generation are shown in Table 4-1. The trip generation rates are based upon trip-generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation , 11th Edition, 2021 (3) for the following uses: Single Family Rental (ITE Land Use Code 220), Affordable Housing (ITE Land Use Code 223), and Shopping Center (ITE Land Use Code 821). As shown on Table 4-1, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 5,680 external trips per day with 215 AM peak hour trips and 443 PM peak hour trips.

4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The Project trip distribution and assignment proce ss represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the Project site. The trip distribution pattern is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of surrounding uses, and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The outbound and inbound trip distributi on patterns for the proposed Project are depicted on Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2, respectively.
29 7-324

URBAN CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
30 TABLE 4-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY

Trip Generation Rates1
Land Use
ITE
LU
Code Quantity 2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
In Out Total In Out Total

Single Family Rental Homes 220 215 DU 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.32 0.19 0.51 6.74 Affordable Apartments 223 90 DU 0.10 0.26 0.36 0.27 0.19 0.46 4.81 Shopping Center (40-150k) 821 75 TSF 1. 07 0.66 1.73 2.54 2.65 5.19 67.52

Trip Generation Results
Land Use
ITE
LU
Code Quantity 2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
In Out Total In Out Total

Single Family Rental Homes 220 215 DU 22 65 87 69 41 110 1,449 Affordable Apartments 223 90 DU 9 23 32 24 17 41 433
Residential Interaction with Commercial -3 -4 -7 -10 -10 -20 -253 Residential Subtotal 28 84 112 83 48 131 1,629
Shopping Center (40-150k) 821 75 TSF 80 50 130 191 199 390 5,064 Commercial Pass-By (15%) -10 -10 -20 -29 -29 -58 -760 Commercial Interaction with Residential (5%) -4 -3 -7 -10 -10 -20 -253 Commercial Subtotal 66 38 104 152 160 312 4,051
PROJECT TOTAL EXTERNAL TRIPS 94 121 215 235 208 443 5,680

1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021). 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Units

30 7-325

URBAN CROSSROADS
31 7-326

URBAN I CROSSROADS
!
15284 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION (OUTBOUND)
5 DINAH SHORE DR.
ct:

C
...I
...I
~
ct
C
g
11'1
RAMON RD.
50 g

ON-SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION
11'1
ct: C
~
~
25 RAMON RD. 48
3(U-TURN)
~
LEGEND:
10 = PERCENT FROM PROJECT
---- =SITE ACCESS DRIVEWAY
LOS
ALAMOS RD.
40 SCHOOL
ACCESS 1
t:.:.: : : • : • : : : • : : : .cu~~::Z:l
I·
r.
t.
f
r·
L·
I·
r.
t.
f
r·
U"I ·•· _ ...
!·~· .
-~- .
~ .U.
) +:t ~3J--~
1'
11'1
M
~ 't. = RIGHT·IN/RIGHT·OUT ONLY
50 ~ 't. • LEFT·IN/RIGHT·IN/RIGHT·OUT ONLY
1'
32 7-327

URBAN I CROSSROADS
25 !
15284 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION (INBOUND)
a: •!f I
I
0 .J ,•.it!<
.J
~ <( , ·,.;:_,
> ~-
<(
0 DINAH SHORE DR.
c:i
D::

D::
~
~ 50
LOS
ALAMOS RD.

ON-SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION
in
a: 0
.J
.J
<(
>
<(
0 RAMON RD.
25 45
~
LEGEND:
10 = PERCENT TO PROJECT
---- =SITE ACCESS DRIVEWAY
SCHOOL
ACCESS 1
in
[: ·: ·: : : ·: ·: : : ·: : : ~~~~~c:Z:l
I·
r.
t.
f
r·
L·
I·
r.
t.
f
r·
L·
I·
r.
t.
f
r·
L-
J' 23
...

N
0 ....
17 ~ 't. = RIGHT·IN/RIGHT·OUT ONLY
50 ~ 't. • LEFT·IN/RIGHT·IN/RIGHT·OUT ONLY
J'
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
33 4.3 MODAL SPLIT
Although the use of public transit, walking, and/or bicycling have the potential to reduce Project- related traffic, such reductions have not been taken into considerations in this traffic study to provide a conservative analysis of the Project’s potential to contribute to circulation system deficiencies.

4.4 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system improvements in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project.

Residents exiting the affordable apartments will need to utilize the existing westbound U-turn movement at the Da Vall Dr. / Ramon Rd. intersecti on in order to travel eastbound on Ramon Road away from the site. This is not the case for the single-family rental homes and 75,000 square feet of commercial buildings, which will predominantly use the available southbound left turn at the Rattler Rd. / Ramon Rd. intersection to travel eastbound on Ramon Road.

Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project AM peak hour, and PM peak hour peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibit 4-3.

4.5 CUMULATIVE GROWTH TRAFFIC

4.5.1 AMBIENT GROWTH RATE
Future year traffic forecasts have been based upon background (ambient) growth at 4.04 percent (2 percent per year over 2 years) for EAP and EAPC tr affic conditions. The am bient growth factor is intended to approximate regional traffic growth. This ambient growth rate is added to existing traffic volumes to account for area-wide growth not reflected by cumulative development projects.

Ambient growth is added to daily and peak hour traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, in addition to traffic generated by the development of future projects that have been approved but not yet built and/or for which development applications are actively underway.

4.5.2 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
A cumulative project list was developed for the purposes of this analysis through consultation with planning and engineering staff from the City of Rancho Mirage. Exhibit 4-4 illustrates the cumulative development locations.

A summary of cumulative development projects and their proposed land uses are shown on Table 4-

2. If applicable, the traffic volumes generated by individual cumulative projects were manually added to the Opening Year Cumulative forecasts to ensure that traffic generated by the listed cumulative development projects in Table 4-2 are reflected as part of the background traffic. 33 7-328

URBAN CROSSROADS
34 7-329
!
URBAN I CROSSROADS Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 4-3: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AM & PM PEAK HOUR
1 Date Palm Dr. I 2 Da Vall Dr./ 3 Da Vall Dr. /
Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd. Dinah Shore Dr.

OO!i L6(10) 00~ L6(11) o~o Lo(O)
OOin ---12(21) OOin ---30(52) =-Ne, ---0(0)
J t l ,12(21) .H l F22(37) JT l ,o(O)
O(O)_j it i O(O)_j iti 5(12)_j iti 9(24)-- 00~ 23(59)-- OOin O(O)-- o~o 0(0)7
--N
0(0)7
__ ,.,
0(0)7
-N-
ooc;: ooj' oa:;-o
4 Rattler Rd. / 5 Rattler Rd. / 6 Los Alamos Rd. /
School Access 1 Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd.
o:: r::-i ~r::' L16(40) Oin
Jt
---38(94)
j t ---31(78) ,o(O)
O(O)_j i t 21(54)_j 0(0)~ ii
0(0)7
~~
4(6)-- 48(83)-- ~o
13(21)7
N-
;;;-o
7 Bob Hope Dr. I 8 Bob Hope Dr. / 9 Bob Hope Dr. I
1-10 WB Ramps 1-10 EB Ramps Ramon Rd.

0.::- Lo(O) gc, ~-- Lo(O) -oo
o;=- ---0(0) 520
.,_ __
---0(0) N00
j t ,9(24) t l J • l ,o(O)

7..J..

O(O)_j t i 36(62)_j iti
N ", O(O)-- ~~ O(O)-- ~00 ,,_
19(47)7 12(21)7
N--
.,o ~N c;:oo
N N-
10 Rattler Rd. / 11 Rattler Rd. / 12 Access 3 /
Access 1 Access 2 Ramon Rd.
., "' ~~
_.,, .... c~ :;,
L28(71l ,.,,.,
J j t j t ---19(34)
2(4)_j i t 4(6)_j i t 25(60)--
34(58)7 i§: 39(67)7 0~ ..,.,, _..,
~~ ;;;
13 Access 4 / 14 Rattler Rd. / 15 Rattler Rd. /
Ramon Rd. School Access 2 School Access 3
(Exit Only)
;;i°
L3(7l
o: l2" ~ Oin'
j ---40(69) t j t
21(52)_j O(O)_j t O(O)_j i t 25(60)-- 0(0)7 §" 0(0)7
~~ ;;,
15284 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
t-µ:Jl11'} -~r L _J , '" l - 1 >-- ,=:L •
r - t- -
~ ~o ! d • d t ~ Jfu
c ~ ~ •
~
--, RAMON RD.

1.4 "" C
:::1 , .., <[ •
> 0
~
)
SCHOOL ~ - 0.3
~~~~iP{-:-- 0.3
ACCESS.
(EXITO~LY) - 0.3
RATTLER RD.

2.8 0.6 J: ft:: £"'I 2.7
t. I_}-~ ~
INSET
"''-- LOS o1
ALAMOS RD.
~ I )',
o: ~'~o~ o )>,O~

PROJECT SITE AREA
LEGEND:
'9 = INTERSECTION ID
L10(10) = AM(PM) PEAK HOUR

INTERSECTION VOLUMES
- es

0.3 1:
r
I
I
I
I
l
l
I

1. I
I
..,
C>

10.0 • VEHICLES PER DAY (l000'S) r r ·1 I -.
---- • FUTURE ROADWAY
~ -'\.. • RIGHT ·IN/RIGHT ·OUT ONLY
~-'\.. = LEFT·IN/RIGHT·IN/RIGHT·OUT ONLY
.7

PROJECT PASS-BY ONLY
5 Rattler Rd. / 11 Rattler Rd. /
Ramon Rd. Access 2
0~
Lo(O)
00 Oin 00
J l ---0(0) j t
O(O)_j O(O)_j i t ·5(·15)-- 5(15)7 §:§:
00 12 Access 3 / 13 Access 4 /
Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd.
in
L5(15)
0 Lo(O) ~ 0
j -5(·15) j ---o(O)
·5(·15)-- 5(15)_j
·5(·15)--
r r
t

2.8 35
7-330
URBAN I CROSSROADS Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 4-4: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP
Jarana R:d
~ 1adlovab Dr
,~~ ~ c,ontepd g fl Rr1
~c' 111osllle> ~a
Vera110 ll<I
Pf!dita Rd
Dinah Sllore Dr
Cathedral
Cit,1
301th Ave
i
5'
W11l01w ln
MtCollum Wuy
Outdoor
R~onsPalm
Spri~~
Gerbld_ford -IOI
Date Polrn
Count'! ~lub
"'"'-~~ .. , ... ....... _
15284 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
~
s
E
~
Sunn.y Ln._ .§
amafilk_Ln
..
0 " ,.
" -:;i
J
0 .,
Q,
0 X
" .. "'
30th -'"@
bei1 Norte way
Datil Rd
~arnon Rd
s~
~
-0 ,.

Oinah Shore Or '1
'
!,
Vla Vail
,.

Victary Or
e
"'
~15 '1
,-.... ,u ,_,
I 7 1,- ::;:
y ~ S I 110 -'19'1
...__ ,)P .• .,f-l\ ):.:"'J •a
(!!)(!!)
Jltowcnce Or
Vl~ Marta l'a,~1 WOi
G@rilLd Ford Or
@ )
(14) ,_
Thousan
Palms
~ ,.

A SL
a,
> < ,.,
!!
::

C
0 ::i:

Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
36 TABLE 4-2: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
TAZ Project Land Use Quantity Units 1
1 Isle of Capri
Multifamily Residential 224 DU
Single Family Residential 8 DU
2 Commercial Property Commercial 175.0 TSF
3 Vibrante Condominium 41 DU
4 Cathedral City Events Center
(35900 Date Palm Dr) Event Center 80.0 TSF
5  Pulte Homes/ Del Webb Residential 1,200 DU
Marijuana Dispensary 3.0 TSF
6  Miragedunes Properties Residential 9 DU
7  Estilo Residential 39 DU
8  Rancho Mirage LLC Residential 4 DU
9  38 JV, LLC c/o Meriwether Companies Residential 10 DU 10  GRV Mirage, LLC (ECHO) Residential 9 DU
11  RM 38 JV LLC Residential 82 DU
12  38 JV, LLC c/o Meriwether Companies Residential 97 DU 13  ED Rancho Mirage Residential 354 DU
14  Section 31 Specific Plan Project
Hotel 400 Rooms
Commercial 175.0 TSF
Residential 1,932 DU
1 DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet

36 7-331

URBAN CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
37 5 EAP (2025) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) (2025) traffic conditions and the resulting peak hour intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.

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

Rattler Road / Access 1 (#10)
 Access 1 serves the single-family rental home neighborhood of the Project and is located approximately 335 feet north of Access 2, measured from the south curb of Access 1 to the north curb of Access 2 along Rattler Road. Northbound left turns into the site will be accommodated within the existing two-way left turn lane (TWLTL) striped median on Rattler Road.

Rattler Road / Access 2 (#11)
 Access 2 serves the commercial retail portion of the Project and is located approximately 280 feet north of Ramon Road, measured from the south curb of Access 2 to the north curb of Ramon Road along Rattler Road. Because the retail parcel is also served by two other direct connections to Ramon Road, northbound left turns into the site at Access 2 from Rattler Road are minimal (16 AM peak hour vehicles and 40 PM peak hour vehicles). These low left turn volumes can be accommodated in the short northbound storage length available at this location within the existing two-way left turn lane (TWLTL) striped median on Rattler Road.

Access 3 / Ramon Road (#12)
 Access 3 serves the commercial retail portion of the Project from Ramon Road and is located approximately 590 feet west of Rattler Road, measured from the east curb of Access 3 to the west curb of Rattler Road along Ramon Road. This commercial driveway location will be restricted as right-in/right- out only access (no median break on Ramon Road).

Access 4 / Ramon Road (#13)
 In conjunction with development of either the affo rdable apartment dwelling units or the commercial retail parcel, construct median improvements on Ramon Road to accommodate a 150-foot eastbound left turn pocket. Provide a Left-In-Only (no left out) median configuration which allows left-in/right- in/right-out only access at Access 4 (see Exhibit 1-6).

5.2 EAP (2025) TRAFFI C VOLUME FORECASTS
An ambient growth from Existing conditions of 4.04% (2 percent per year over 2 years, compounded annually) is included for EAP traffic conditions. Cumulative development projects are not included as part of the EAP analysis. EAP traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit 5-1. 37 7-332

URBAN CROSSROADS
38 7-333
!
URBAN I CROSSROADS Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 5-1: EAP (2025) TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AM & PM PEAK HOUR
1 Date Palm Dr. / 2 Da Vall Dr. t 3 Da Vall Dr. /
Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd. Dinah Shore Dr.
in='cO 00 §'[¢ "',,.,.,,
L.g5(161) ~~~ Lm(226l L 35(96J ~fi2
--N
~~~ ~ g, 0: $! >D ~ ---817(811)
Jrt
---873(848)
Jrt
---360(521)
Jtl ,150(187) ,242(167) ,5o(42l
151(212)_j iti 33(44)_j i ti 107(109)_j it i 681(745)-- inMLn 781(803)-- ~u=i'CO 449(498)-- ~NCO 89(120)7 ~;~ 103(81)7 ~~~ 198(134 )7 .. "' ...
v5c,,, "'0 ... ~~~
:t ... ~- -!:::
4 Rattler Rd. / 5 Rattler Rd. / 6 Los Alamos Rd. /
School Access 1 Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd.
;;;- 0N
;;--~ .., ...
-N
C-0 ~~ L285(133J
N ,o
---1248(1164) U, N
Jt j t ---991(1104) ,104(44)
17(23)_j i t 255(109)_j 1(1)~ ii 281(117)7 N~ 895(965)-- 1069(1146)-- [~
MN
83(53)7
~~ ... "'
7 Bob Hope Dr. / 8 Bob Hope Dr. / 9 Bob Hope Dr. /
1·10 WB Ramps 1-10 EB Ramps Ramon Rd.
,.::-;;--
g§' i~-.... "' N Co
L259(111l i~l L.g(20)
;~ ~~ ---1(1) a-r--
Jrt
---472(334)
j t ,673(540) • l ,121(79)
i t 280(151)_j t i 166(131)_j it i ~i 1(2)-- inO 718(884)-- §"i~ U,N 674(327)7 E.~ 245(203)7
i~i5 Ulr::' Nu,
..... ;si;r-- -~~ -...
10 Rattler Rd./ 11 Rattler Rd. / 12 Access 3 /
Access 1 Access 2 Ramon Rd.
;;;- s
"'
N ,::-N ...
~~ E~ ... a:- L33(86J NU, ...... J j t j t ---1305(1178) 2(4)_j i t 4(6)_j i t 1150(1074)--
34(58)7 ¢¢ 44(82)7 ON ...... ... o
~i2 :o~
0 -... ... N
...
13 Access 4 / 14 Rattler Rd. / 15 Rattler Rd. /
Ramon Rd. School Access 2 School Access 3
;;; (Exit Only)
..::-8 ;;;" :t ~~
L3(1J "' ., .... ~2
J ---1331(1228) r j t
26(67)_j 103(46)_j t 31(32)_j j t
1150(1074)-- 140(32)7 ;;;- 67(37)7 :ili ...
~ :a.:::.
"'"' 0 - :t N
15284 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
t'ttjl::-] ~ 1 1 -1 l -~ r:--511~ SCMOOI i-- 2.8
<i r f f }o - I (EXITOr'Y) -r_2.8
~ t ) o, ____ ______ RATTLER RD.
;;i '"! YU o: 'a. cw, • -1- + -1-
~ N -t \
c,:
0 -I RAMON RD .

28.2i ~ 27.2
~(\:: 2
LEGEND:
ll:.. ~..,I 29.8
~ '
-----~ 1 o ?~oy
- ~ q _ _ ., ,,_q
6) = INTERSECTION ID
L10(10) = AM(PM) PEAK HOUR

INTERSECTION VOLUMES

19.4 I~
L10 • MID·DAY PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES

10.0 • VEHICLES PER DAY (1OOO'S)
---- • FUTURE ROADWAY
~ '\.. = RIGHT ·IN/RIGHT ·OUT ONLY
~ '\.. = LEFT·IN/RIGHT·IN/RIGHT·OUT ONLY
.7

MID-DAY PEAK HOUR
4 Rattler Rd. / 5 Rattler Rd./ 10
School Access 1 Ramon Rd.
"' ~ a- L2oa "'"' -N
Jt j t ---1212
9_j i t 210_j
1267 "' ... 934--.....

N
11 Rattler Rd. / 14 Rattler Rd./ 15
Access 2 School Access 2
(Exit Only)
"' ..
"'
0 ...... N
j t t
6_j i t 88_j t
827 0 .. 1077 .. •l:; ...

N

29.7 29.9 oj_ LOS
.,;I ALAMOS RD.

INSET ...

PROJECT SITE AREA "'
r
I
I
I
I
l
l
I

1. I
I
I •
r r
t
t
t •
I ,o

29.8 J:.ffii_>'-_____ _
1-W RAMON RD.

Rattler Rd. /
Access 1
.. ....
j t
4_j i t 5a7 •o ...... ...

Rattler Rd. /
School Access 3
....... ...... JT
59_j i t
537 NO
NN -N
... ... ...

29.9 Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
39 5.3 EAP (2025) INTERSECTI ON OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
EAP peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TA. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 5-1, which indicates that there are no new intersections operating at an unacceptable LOS with the addition of Project traffic. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAP traffic conditions are included in Appendix 5.1 of this TA.

For the existing deficient intersections of Rattler Road / School Access 1 (#4) and Rattler Road / School Access 3 (#15), improvements are not recommended for EAP conditions since the worst movement that causes both intersections to fail are due to th e high eastbound outbound school traffic (minor approach) and not anticipated to impede the flow of traffic for the northbound and southbound through traffic (major approaches). Providing additional capacity (adding eastbound turn lanes) is not anticipated to improve intersection delay at these school driveways.

5.4 EAP (2025) CONDITIONS TRAF FIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrants for EAP (2025) traffic conditions are based on EAP peak hour intersection turning volumes and ADT volumes. For EAP (2025) traffic conditions, the intersection of Rattler Road / School Access 1 (#4) is anticipated to warrant a traffic signal based on peak hour traffic flows (see Appendix 3.3). It should be noted that existing wa rrant analysis for this loca tion is already close to meeting signal warrants, and slight increase in traffic by adding 2025 ambient growth will also result in warrant being met at this location even without the addition of Project tr af fi c. A s m e nti o ned previously, meeting this condition does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified.

39 7-334

URBAN CROSSROADS
Delay3 Level of
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service # Intersection Control1
LTRLTRLTRLTR A M MD4
PM AM MD4
PM
1 D a t e P a l m D r . / R a m o n R d . T S 221121130130 3 9 . 3- -4 7 . 1 D - - D 2 D a V a l l D r . / R a m o n R d . T S 121110130131 3 0 . 3- -3 0 . 2 C - - C 3 D a V a l l D r . / D i n a h S h o r e D r . T S 121120121120 3 6 . 0- -3 4 . 3 D - - C 4 R a t t l e r R d . / S c h o o l A c c e s s 1 C S S 1100100 1 ! 0000 5 4 . 5 2 3 . 0 1 4 . 4F C B 5 R a t t l e r R d . / R a m o n R d . T S 0001 1 ! 123003 1 > 1 5 . 3 1 7 . 4 1 3 . 9 B B B 6 L o s A l a m o s R d . / R a m o n R d . T S 201000131130 1 6 . 2- -1 6 . 0 B - - B 7 B o b H o p e D r . / I - 1 0 W B R a m p s T S 220031000 1 . 5 0 . 5 1 > > 1 4 . 9- -3 3 . 5 B - - C 8 B o b H o p e D r . / I - 1 0 E B R a m p s T S 0 2 . 5 1 . 5 2201 1 ! 1000 1 2 . 5- -1 0 . 5 B - - B 9 Bob Hope Dr. / Ramon Rd. TS 2 3 1> 2 3 1> 2 2 1>> 2 2 1 36.6 -- 37.4 D -- D 10 Rattler Rd. / Access 1 CSS
1 * 100100 1! 0000 1 2 . 9 1 1 . 9 1 0 . 4 B B B
11 Rattler Rd. / Access 2 CSS 1 * 100100 1! 0000 1 3 . 6 1 3 . 0 1 1 . 2 B B B 12 Access 3 / Ramon Rd. CSS 00000 1 030030 1 7 . 7- -1 8 . 2 C - - C 13 Access 4 / Ramon Rd. CSS 00000 1 1 30030 1 7 . 2- -2 3 . 6 C - - C 14 Rattler Rd. / School Access 2 (Exit Only) C S S 010010101000 1 4 . 8 1 9 . 3 1 2 . 5 B C B 1 5 R a t t l e r R d . / S c h o o l A c c e s s 3 C S S 1 * 100100 1 ! 0000 5 6 . 4 > 8 0 1 5 . 7F F C 1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-street Stop
2 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
3 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersecti ons with a traffic signal or all way stop control.

For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movemen ts sharing a single lane) are shown.

Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software. 4 Mid-Day analysis is only evaluated for intersections along Rattler Road where a concentration of high school traffic occurs.

F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Excel\[15284 - Report.xlsx]5-1 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defact o Right Turn Lane; 0.5 = Shared Lane; 1! = Shared Left/Throug h/Right lane; > = Right-Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free-Right Turn; * = Turn lane accommodated within two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) striped median; 1 = Improvement TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAP (2025) CONDITIONS Intersection Approach Lanes2

40 7-335
URBAN I CROSSROADS Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
41 6 EAPC (2025) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to evaluate Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (EAPC) (2025) traffic conditions and the resulting peak hour intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.

6.1 EAPC (2025) TRAFFI C VOLUME FORECASTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions are consistent with existing conditions shown previously on Exhibit 3-1, except for the following:
 Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements at the Project’s frontage and driveways).
 Driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by cumulative developments to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for EAPC conditions (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along the cumulative development’s frontages and driveways).

EAPC traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit 6-1. Other known cumulative development projects in the study area are included in addition to 4.04% of ambient growth for EAPC traffic conditions plus traffic associated with the proposed Project.

6.2 EAPC (2025) INTERSECTI ON OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
EAPC peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TA. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 6-1, which indicates that there are no new intersections operating at an unacceptable LOS with the addition of Project and cumulative traffic under EAPC conditions. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for EAPC traffic conditions is included in Appendix 6.1 of this TA.

Similar to EAP conditions, for the existing deficient intersections of Rattler Road / School Access 1 (#4) and Rattler Road / School Access 3 (#15), improv ements are not recommended for EAPC conditions since the worst movement that causes both intersections to fail are due to the high eastbound outbound school traffic (minor approach) and not an ticipated to impede the flow of traffic for the northbound and southbound through traffic (major approaches). Providing additional capacity (adding eastbound turn lanes) is not anticipated to improve intersection delay at these school access driveways.

6.3 EAPC (2025) CONDITIONS TRAF FIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrants for EAPC (2025) traffic conditions are based on EAPC peak hour intersection turning volumes and ADT volumes. For EAPC (2025 ) traffic conditions, there are no additional unsignalized study area intersections that are projected to warrant a traffic signal based on peak hour traffic flows and ADT volumes, in comparison to EAP conditions. 41 7-336

URBAN CROSSROADS
42 7-337
!
URBAN I CROSSROADS Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 6-1: EAPC (2025) TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AM & PM PEAK HOUR
1 Date Palm Dr. I 2 Da Vall Dr./ J Da Vall Dr. /
Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd. Dinah Shore Dr.
-~';o' -i~ ~&~ §.*g L110(173J ~~i L141(234) "'"'"' L42(100J ... .., ... NM';:::' ~ '° t:: ---837(826)
Jrt
---906(873)
Jrt
---384(541)
J t l ,151(190) ,245(176) ,10(57)
155(221)_j it i 34(46)_j iti 107(109)_j iti 689(769)--- ';o';::::-,:-- 794(842)--- M¢'in 461(527)--- ;::::-';o'N 90(121)7
oni;::N
104(84)7
.,...,..,
204(150)7 ~g~ ~~~ ~~5' "'oo- '° 8 !!: ""'"' :! .. -!!!
4 Rattler Rd. / 5 Rattler Rd. / 6 Los Alamos Rd. /
School Access 1 Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd.
., $~ ~~ §"~ ::::.o
L300(146J
Nt-- .,,,._
---1255(1171) "1N
Jt j t ---1034(1137) ,108(56)
17(23)_j i t 262(116)_j 1(1)~ ii 281(117)7 N~ 912(1016) ..... 1072(1155) ..... ';o'i: ..... 104(114)7 ~~ [~ "' 7 Bob Hope Dr. I 8 Bob Hope Dr. / 9 Bob Hope Dr. I
1-10 WB Ramps 1-10 EB Ramps Ramon Rd.
i:f "'- ;.,-
L259(111J
.,, .... e;;~
Lg(20)
N::::. ~2 -... o- N-'°
;~ ---1(1)
_.,. U"l~N
---472(334) .,. ....

Jrt j t ,681(564) t l ,121(79)
i t 280(151)_j t i 217(170)_j iti
';o'¢ 1(2)--- c,;'';o' 718(884)--- r::-inO .. "' 707(422)7 ....... 248(212)7 ;:;:; N -0 ~~
t--,::.
f~is: ~~
"'"' ... -re~ N st
10 Rattler Rd. / 11 Rattler Rd. / 12 Access 3 /
Access 1 Access 2 Ramon Rd .
,::- ., .,. .. ,::-N M
-.;;- E~ "' :!. ... .;;- L33(86J NOil
"'"' J j t j t ---1351(1220)
2(4)_j i t 4(6)_j i t 1175(1132)---
34(58)7 if 44(82)7 ON ... N
~~
-N
~~
"' ... "'
13 Access 4 / 14 Rattler Rd. / 15 Rattler Rd. /
Ramon Rd. School Access 2 School Access 3
(Exit Only)
;::::-¢ i2 ;;i°
L3(7J
~ ~~
l2" !!! "'"' M ,=
j ---1377(1270) t j t
26(67)_j 103(46)_j t 31(32)_j j t
1175(1132)--- 140(32)7 .;;- 67(37)7 ;;;-s
"' ~~ i "'"' N - :2
15284 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
t-µ:jj1 ---f I f _ ~J L _J ,
'" l =-1 I I >-- .=i •
"' 0
~·,-,cf ..
......
cti;
0 28.8j 3
- I- -
I 1~0
· d t~ ufu
' !
--, RAMON RD.

28.0 ~
"' 0
_, , ... ....I •
<[ 0
> -<[
0 )
SCHOOL ~ - 3.3
~~~~iP{-:-- 3.5
ACCESS.
(EXITO~LY) - 3.3
RATTLER RD.

31.1 "°'-- LOS .. I ALAMOS RD.

LEGEND:
~. ~ ;-
1 30.9
~ ~
-------~1 )',
g s~~\)1/
- o.q:q
INSET

PROJECT SITE AREA
..,
.,;
'9 = INTERSECTION ID
L10(10) = AM(PM) PEAK HOUR

INTERSECTION VOLUMES
• MID·DAY PEAK HOUR

20.2 1;
L10

10.0 • VEHICLES PER DAY (lOOO'S)
---- • FUTURE ROADWAY
• RIGHT ·IN/RIGHT ·OUT ONLY ~t
~t .7
= LEFT·IN/RIGHT·IN/RIGHT·OUT ONLY

MID-DAY PEAK HOUR
4 Rattler Rd. / 5 Rattler Rd. /
School Access 1 Ramon Rd.
.. $Q L221 c,.N _..,
Jt j t ---1245
9_j i t 217_j
1267 .,..,, 985 .....
"'"' N
11 Rattler Rd. / 14 Rattler Rd. /
Access 2 School Access 2
(Exit Only)
.... "' .,. M ....... N
j t t
6_j i t 88_j t
827 0"' 1077 ~ ... :?; N
10 15
r
I
I
I
I
l
l
I
I
I
I
r r -11 •
r r
t
t.·~ -- ---

1. I . . II 0:

30.9 ~f--t_ 29.7 I "° ~a,-- ~ ~=-e
Rattler Rd. /
Access 1
"' ... ......
j t
4_j i t 587 ... 0
"'"' M
Rattler Rd. /
School Access 3
.......
"'"'
JT
59_j i t
537 NO
~~

31.1 Delay3 Level of
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service # Intersection Control1
LTRLTRLTRLTR A M MD4
PM AM MD4
PM
1 D a t e P a l m D r . / R a m o n R d . T S 221121130130 3 9 . 9- -4 9 . 1 D - - D 2 D a V a l l D r . / R a m o n R d . T S 121110130131 3 0 . 4- -3 3 . 7 C - - C 3 D a V a l l D r . / D i n a h S h o r e D r . T S 121120121120 3 6 . 9- -3 5 . 2 D - - D 4 R a t t l e r R d . / S c h o o l A c c e s s 1 C S S 1100100 1 ! 0000 6 0 . 5 2 6 . 4 1 5 . 7F D C 5 R a t t l e r R d . / R a m o n R d . T S 0001 1 ! 123003 1 > 1 5 . 6 1 7 . 9 1 4 . 1 B B B 6 L o s A l a m o s R d . / R a m o n R d . T S 201000131130 1 6 . 4- -1 6 . 4 B - - B 7 B o b H o p e D r . / I - 1 0 W B R a m p s T S 220031000 1 . 5 0 . 5 1 > > 1 6 . 1- -4 8 . 6 B - - D 8 B o b H o p e D r . / I - 1 0 E B R a m p s T S 0 2 . 5 1 . 5 2201 1 ! 1000 1 2 . 9- -1 1 . 2 B - - B 9 Bob Hope Dr. / Ramon Rd. TS 2 3 1> 2 3 1> 2 2 1>> 2 2 1 36.1 -- 37.3 D -- D 10 Rattler Rd. / Access 1 CSS
1 * 100100 1! 0000 1 3 . 0 1 2 . 3 1 0 . 7 B B B
11 Rattler Rd. / Access 2 CSS 1 * 100100 1! 0000 1 3 . 8 1 3 . 4 1 1 . 5 B B B 12 Access 3 / Ramon Rd. CSS 00000 1 030030 1 8 . 3- -1 8 . 8 C - - C 13 Access 4 / Ramon Rd. CSS 00000 1 1 30030 2 3 . 5- -2 4 . 9 C - - C 14 Rattler Rd. / School Access 2 (Exit Only) C S S 010010101000 1 5 . 4 2 1 . 3 1 3 . 3 C C B 1 5 R a t t l e r R d . / S c h o o l A c c e s s 3 C S S 1 * 100100 1 ! 0000 6 8 . 5 > 8 0 1 7 . 6F F C 1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-street Stop
2 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
3 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersecti ons with a traffic signal or all way stop control.

For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movemen ts sharing a single lane) are shown.

Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software. 4 Mid-Day analysis is only evaluated for intersections along Rattler Road where a concentration of high school traffic occurs.

F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Excel\[15284 - Report.xlsx]6-1 L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defact o Right Turn Lane; 0.5 = Shared Lane; 1! = Shared Left/Throug h/Right lane; > = Right-Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free-Right Turn; * = Turn lane accommodated within two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) striped median; 1 = Improvement TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EAPC (2025) CONDITIONS Intersection Approach Lanes2

43 7-338
URBAN I CROSSROADS Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
44 This page intentionally left blank

44 7-339

URBAN CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
45 7  HORIZON YEAR (2040) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the evaluation of HY (2040) traffic forecasts, and the resulting intersection operations and roadway segment operations analyses.

7.1 HORIZON YEAR ( 2040) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Future horizon year 2040 traffic projections from the City of Rancho Mira ge General Plan Update Traffic Impact Analysis, 2017 (6), prepared by Urba n Crossroads Inc., Draft Se ction 31 Specific Plan Transportation Impact Study, 2019, prepared by Fe hr & Peers (7), and City of Cathedral City Draft Comprehensive General Plan, July 2019 (8), prepar ed by Terra Nova Planning & Research. For intersections without 2040 data, a minimum growth of 10% ov er existing (2023) has been applied to turn movements in addition to traffic data from known cumulative projects in the area.

The Horizon Year (2040) without and with Project traffic volumes are shown on Exhibits 7-1 and 7-2, respectively.

7.2 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
LOS calculations have been conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under HY (2040) traffic conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with Exhibit 1-4. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 7-1. As shown in Table 7-1, the following intersections are operating at an unacceptable LO S (LOS “E” or worse) during peak hours for 2040 conditions without and with Project traffic.
# Intersection
1 Date Palm Drive / Ramon Road
2 Da Vall Drive / Ramon Road
4 Rattler Road / School Access 1
15 Rattler Road / School Access 3
The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Horizon Year (2040) Wi thout and With Project conditions are included in Appendices 7.1 and 7.2 of this TA, respectively.

7.3 HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrants for Horizon Year (2040) With out and With Project traffic conditions are based on peak hour intersection turning volumes and ADT volumes. For both Horizon Year (2040) scenarios, there are no additional unsignalized study area in tersections that are projected to warrant a traffic signal based on peak hour traffic flows and ADT volumes, with the exception of high school access intersections where the installation of a traffic signal is not recommended.

45 7-340

URBAN CROSSROADS
46 7-341
!
URBAN I CROSSROADS Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 7-1: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AM & PM PEAK HOUR
1 Date Palm Dr. I 2 Da Vall Dr./ J Da Vall Dr. /
Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd. Dinah Shore Dr.
~~~ ~re~
-:;;:-
~N!.'!!. L119(199J ·-!:'.!. L215(775J [~~ L44(185J onN,o -ono re~~ NoO
---870(1251) ~::?;u=. ---1258(1110) ---609(1203)
Jrt ,215(241) .H l ,304(157) J • l ,13(84)
170(233)_j it i 49(124)_j iti 193(107)_j iti 817(959)--- :;;:'NO:- 1163(1014)--- MMin 803(904)--- f~~ 120(246)7 ~;~ 224(165)7 -OON
315(166)7
~~~
Non-
~LO~ ~~~ .... -g~N -N
4 Rattler Rd. / 5 Rattler Rd. / 6 Los Alamos Rd. /
School Access 1 Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd.
.;;- 0:-M -N ON ~~ N-
LOS; ig L315(146J ---1427(1597) on N
Jt J ♦ ---1184(1532) ,114(58)
18(24)_j i t 277(63)_j 1(1)~ ii 297(123)7 ~in 1n2(1506) ..... 1837(1556) ..... inLn M ... 94(94)7 °' =
~~ Oin
M :c
., =
7 Bob Hope Dr. I 8 Bob Hope Dr. / 9 Bob Hope Dr. I
1-10 WB Ramps 1-10 EB Ramps Ramon Rd.
o- ~- -on
NO OM-M'° Non on
isJ L380(190J §-~ ~~§ L40(75J °' 0 !;:;;;; ---1(1) OM ;e ::l .:i ---515(630) J ♦ ,901(1036) TT.. J • l ,150(12oi
i t 415(260)_j t i 324(178)_j j t j
~~ 1(2)--- F,::-c,; 104o(95oJ--- l;f ;;;-s
Ov 1259(938)7 o=
426(496)7 *g~ :::.o ~f -g:,"' VMO
..,on M N ,o on ., on N
10 Rattler Rd. / 11 Rattler Rd. / 12 Access 3 /
Access 1 Access 2 Ramon Rd.

FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE

INTERSECTION INTERSECTION INTERSECTION
13 Access 4 / 14 Rattler Rd. / 15 Rattler Rd. /
Ramon Rd. School Access 2 School Access 3
in (Exit Only)
Sin
~ on!::
0 ~~ N M-
FUTURE ♦ J ♦
INTERSECTION 109(48)_j t 33(34)_j i t 149(34)7 .;;- 70(40)7 cO~ °'
......
.. ~i2' ... -o N N
15284 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
t-µ:jj1 ---f I f - ~J L _J '
'" l =-1 I I >-- .=i •
"' 0
~·, ... ,cf ...:
......
cti;
0 - I- -
I 1~0
· d t~ ufu
' !
~
"' 0
...I • ...., , ...
<[ "' > N
<[
0 <
SCHOOL ~ - 5.3
~~~~iP{-:-- 5.5
ACCESS.
(EXITO~LY) - 5.4
RATTLER RD.
---< RAMON RD.

40.1 39.4 8 -

38.4 1; 38.2
LEGEND:
~. ~ ~-1 39.3
~ ~
--------~1 )',
::.~ - 0 5 ,.o.'> '9 = INTERSECTION ID
L10(10) = AM(PM) PEAK HOUR

INTERSECTION VOLUMES

34.1 , ~
L10

10.0 • MID·DAY PEAK HOUR
• VEHICLES PER DAY (lOOO'S)
---- • FUTURE ROADWAY
• RIGHT ·IN/RIGHT ·OUT ONLY ~t
~t .7
= LEFT·IN/RIGHT·IN/RIGHT·OUT ONLY

MID-DAY PEAK HOUR
4 Rattler Rd. / 5 Rattler Rd. /
School Access 1 Ramon Rd.
0 ;e von
L203
a, N
NM
Jt J ♦ ---1762
10_j i t 192_j
1337 on 0
°' 0
1599 .....

M
11 Rattler Rd. / 14 Rattler Rd. /
Access 2 School Access 2
(Exit Only)
M .,
N
FUTURE ♦
INTERSECTION 94_j t
1137 ;;;
10 15
"''-- LOS -.1
ALAMOS RD.

INSET

PROJECT SITE AREA
r
I
I
I
I
l
l
I
I
I
I
r
I
r r
t
• .,;
t.-~ •

1. I.. 11 "!
393 ~J.~. l ~
- ~ - .

Rattler Rd. /
Access 1
FUTURE

INTERSECTION
Rattler Rd. /
School Access 3
on ... .,.N -N
J ♦
63_j i t
567 °' on N,-.. -N
\i

40.1 47
7-342
!
URBAN I CROSSROADS Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis EXHIBIT 7-2: HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AM & PM PEAK HOUR
1 Date Palm Dr. I 2 Da Vall Dr./ J Da Vall Dr. /
Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd. Dinah Shore Dr.
~~- -~~ i°in-..........

Cf\!~ L125(209) !~~ L221(786) §-~~ L44(185) ~~= ~~2
Jrt
---882(1272) ~::?;u=. ---1288(1162) ---609(1203)
,221(262) .H l ,326(194) J • l ,13(84)
170(233)_j it i 49(124)_j iti 198(119)_j iti 826(983)--- :;;:'NM 1186(1073)--- MMO 803(904)--- i~~ 120(246)7 ~;~ 224(165)7
.., 0..,
315(166)7 N,o-
--«> ~~~ M"' M
~;N N~- ::t ~
4 Rattler Rd. / 5 Rattler Rd. / 6 Los Alamos Rd. /
School Access 1 Ramon Rd. Ramon Rd.
0 ~~ _.,. 0 <O

ON NN N- ON -N
L331(186l
It> 0
"'"' ---1465(1691) lt>M
Jt J ♦ ---1215(1610) ,114(58)
18(24)_j i t 298(117)_j 1(1)~ ii 297(123)7 ~in 1711(1497)--- 1885(1639) ..... ~Ul M <O
107(115)7 ii ~:::::.. MN
M ;e
7 Bob Hope Dr. I 8 Bob Hope Dr. / 9 Bob Hope Dr. I
1-10 WB Ramps 1-10 EB Ramps Ramon Rd.

Oin .,,_ _.,,
r--o OM-Mlt>
~;t "'"'"' ~~ L380(190l *~§ L40(75) g~ o-g~
Jr
---1(1)
TT..
~ ::l .:i ---515(630)
,910(1060) J • l ,150(12oi
i t 415(260)_j t i 360(240)_j j t j
«>O 1(2)--- coo 104o(95oJ--- ., ;;;-s
"'"' 1278(985)7 ~§: 438(517)7 ; !2 ~ Ov
i~ ig
N;;;'O
"''°"' .... .,, N It> N
10 Rattler Rd. / 11 Rattler Rd. / 12 Access 3 /
Access 1 Access 2 Ramon Rd .
.;;- 0 It>
•
;::-M
~~ Ere
It>
a'° L33(86l Nit> M-0
J J ♦ J ♦ ---1562(1730)
2(4)_j i t 4(6)_j i t 2009(1614)---
34(58)7 ~in 44(82)7 OM
~E .,...,
N~ ~~
It> ;;;
13 Access 4 / 14 Rattler Rd. / 15 Rattler Rd. /
Ramon Rd. School Access 2 School Access 3
;;;- (Exit Only)
s~ N
;;i° ~ &n!!l
L3(7l
<O
~~ l2" 0
N M-
J ---1588(1780) ♦ J ♦
26(67)_j 109(48)_j t 33(34)_j j t
2009(1614 l ..... 149(34)7 .;;- 70(40)7 ~f 0
N
~a-0
<O -N
N
15284 - 01 - Study Area.dwg
t-µ:jj1 ---f I f - ~J L _J '
'" l =-1 I I >-- .=i •
~ SCHOOL ~ - 5.5
~~~~iP{-:-- 5.8 - I- -
I 1~0
< ACCESS.
"' 0 "' 0
(EXITO~LY) - 5.7
::E'
.:a , ... 0.. ...;
......
cti;
0 38.91 ;
· d t~ ufu
...I • -' l e, <[ ...
> N
<[
0 ' !
--, RAMON RD.

39.6 ~. ~ ;T 42.0 ~
LEGEND:
~
-----._l);.Y./'---1 )',
0 .?~\)1/
N ~ ':,
- 0 ?,0•
'9 = INTERSECTION ID
L10(10) = AM(PM) PEAK HOUR

INTERSECTION VOLUMES
• MID·DAY PEAK HOUR

34.4 1;
L10

10.0 • VEHICLES PER DAY (lOOO'S)
---- • FUTURE ROADWAY
• RIGHT ·IN/RIGHT ·OUT ONLY ~t
~t .7
= LEFT·IN/RIGHT·IN/RIGHT·OUT ONLY

MID-DAY PEAK HOUR
4 Rattler Rd. / 5 Rattler Rd. /
School Access 1 Ramon Rd.
ol;; =~ L243 NM
Jt J ♦ ---1840
10_j i t 246_j
1337 lt>O
"';;; 1590 .....
11 Rattler Rd. / 14 Rattler Rd. /
Access 2 School Access 2
(Exit Only)
.... -g_ .., ,._.,, N
J ♦ ♦
6_j i t 94_j t
827 0"'
... ::i: 1137 !5l
10 15
RATTLER RD.

42.9 o, '-- LOS -.1
ALAMOS RD.

INSET .... .,; PROJECT SITE AREA
r
I
I
I
I
l
l
I
I
I
I
r r -11 _.
r r
t
t.·:.:c·- ---
1, I.. 11 "!

42.0 ~f--t_ 40.9 I o,
~a,-- ~ ~=-e
Rattler Rd. /
Access 1
.... .,.;;;
J ♦
4_j i t 587 ~ ~
Rattler Rd. /
School Access 3
It> <O
... M -N
J ♦
63_j i t
567 "'"' N <O
-N
8 -
\~

42.9 Delay3 Level of Delay3 Level of
Traffic Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service (secs.) Service # Intersection Control1
LTRLTRLTRLTR A M MD4
PM AM MD4
PM AM MD4
PM AM MD4
PM
1 Date Palm Dr. / Ramon Rd.
- W i t h o u t I m p r o v e m e n t s T S 221121130130 4 8 . 6- -6 2 . 7 D - - E8 0 . 0- -6 7 . 2E - - E - With Improvements TS 2 3 012113 1 131 45.9 -- 51.6 D -- D 50.0 -- 52.0 D -- D 2 Da Vall Dr. / Ramon Rd.
- W i t h o u t I m p r o v e m e n t s T S 121110130131 6 7 . 2- -7 3 . 0E - - E6 8 . 1- -7 5 . 4E - - E - With Improvements TS 1 2 1 2
1013013 1> 38.7 -- 0.0 D -- A 39.9 -- 52.8 D -- D
3 D a V a l l D r . / D i n a h S h o r e D r . T S 121120121120 4 1 . 9- -4 8 . 5 D - - D 4 2 . 6- -5 1 . 3 D - - D 4 R a t t l e r R d . / S c h o o l A c c e s s 1 C S S 1100100 1 ! 0000 > 8 0 4 0 . 2 1 9 . 1F E C> 8 0 4 3 . 6 2 0 . 0F E C 5 R a t t l e r R d . / R a m o n R d . T S 0001 1 ! 123003 1 > 1 6 . 4 1 8 . 6 1 6 . 4 B B B 1 6 . 9 2 1 . 1 1 7 . 5 B C B 6 L o s A l a m o s R d . / R a m o n R d . T S 201000131130 2 2 . 3- -1 7 . 1 C - - B 2 3 . 4- -1 7 . 6 C - - B 7 B o b H o p e D r . / I - 1 0 W B R a m p s T S 220031000 1 . 5 0 . 5 1 > > 3 9 . 8- -4 4 . 6 D - - D 4 4 . 5- -4 8 . 0 D - - D 8 B o b H o p e D r . / I - 1 0 E B R a m p s T S 0 2 . 5 1 . 5 2201 1 ! 1000 4 7 . 2- -2 0 . 4 D - - C 4 9 . 6- -2 0 . 9 D - - C 9 Bob Hope Dr. / Ramon Rd. TS 2 3 1> 2 3 1> 2 2 1>> 2 2 1 43.2 -- 43.0 D -- D 44.3 -- 44.3 D -- D 10 Rattler Rd. / Access 1 CSS
1 * 100100 1! 00000 . 00 . 00 . 0 A A A 1 3 . 7 1 3 . 1 1 1 . 3 B B B 11 Rattler Rd. / Access 2 CSS 1 * 100100 1! 00000 . 00 . 00 . 0 A A A 1 4 . 6 1 4 . 5 1 2 . 2 B B B 12 Access 3 / Ramon Rd. CSS 00000 1 0300300 . 0 - - 0 . 0 A - - A 2 1 . 2- -2 8 . 8 C - - D 13 Access 4 / Ramon Rd. CSS 00000 1 1 300300 . 0 - - 0 . 0 A - - A 3 0 . 2- -3 4 . 8 D - - D 14 Rattler Rd. / School Access 2 (Exit Only) C S S 010010101000 1 7 . 4 2 7 . 1 1 4 . 7 C D B 1 7 . 7 2 8 . 6 1 5 . 1 C D C 1 5 R a t t l e r R d . / S c h o o l A c c e s s 3 C S S 1 * 100100 1 ! 0000 > 8 0 > 8 0 2 2 . 6F F C> 8 0 > 8 0 2 4 . 2F F C 1 TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross-street Stop
2 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
3 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control.

For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.

Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 11 analysis software. 4 Mid-Day analysis is only evaluated for intersections along Rattler Road where a concentration of high school traffic occurs.

F:\UXRjobs\_15100-15500\_15200\15284\02_LOS\Excel\[15284 - Report.xlsx]7-1 Without Project With Project
TABLE 7-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS Intersection Approach Lanes2
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 0.5 = Shared Lane; 1! = Shared Left/Throug h/Right lane; > = Right-Turn Overlap Phasing; >> = Free-Right Turn; * = Turn lane accommodated within two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) striped median; 1 = Improvement

48 7-343
URBAN I CROSSROADS Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
49 7.4 QUEUEING ANALYSIS AT PROJECT ACCESS POINTS
A queuing analysis was conducted along the Project Driveways Horizon Year (2040) with Project traffic conditions to determine the turn pocket lengths and lane geometric necessary to accommodate near- term 95th percentile queues and recommend storage lengths for the turning.

The analysis was conducted for the weekday AM an d weekday PM peak hours using the SimTraffic modeling software. Queuing analysis findings are presented in Table 7-2 for Horizon Year (2040) With Project traffic conditions. Queueing analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix 7.2.

7.5 CONTRIBUTION TO OFF-SITE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
The recommended cumulative impr ovements required to achieve acceptable circulation system performance without or with the Project consist of the following:

Date Palm Drive & Ramon Road (#1)
 Modify existing NB right turn lane to stri ping to a shared through/right lane. The 3 rd NB receiving lane exists.
 Provide a separate EB right turn lane.
 Provide a separate WB right turn lane.

Da Vall Drive / Ramon Road (#2)
 Modify traffic signal phasing to provide overlap phase to the existing WB right turn lane.  Provide a 2nd SB left turn lane.

Exhibit 1-4 depicts the recommended intersection lane configurations fo r Horizon Year (2040) conditions. Detailed fair share calculations, for each peak hour, are provided in Table 7-3 for the two study area intersections where cumulative long-term future improvements are needed.

TABLE 7-3: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS
# Intersection
Existing
(2023)
Traffic
HY 2040
With Project
Traffic

Project
Only
Traffic
Total
New
Traffic1

Project
Fair Share
(%)2
1 Date Palm Dr. / Ramon Rd.
• AM Peak Hour 3,451 5,119 53 1,668 3.2%
• PM Peak Hour 3,903 5,865 112 1,962 5.7%
2 Da Vall Dr. / Ramon Rd.
• AM Peak Hour 2,774 4,738 100 1,964 5.1%
• PM Peak Hour 2,666 5,181 206 2,515 8.2%

1 Total New Traffic = (Horizon Year 2040 With Project Traffic - Existing Traffic) 2 Project Fair Share % = (Project Only Traffic / Total New Traffic)

49 7-344

URBAN CROSSROADS
AMM DP M Peak Volume
5 SBL 1.5 292 338 286 MD 338 200 87 102
SBR 1.5 380 311 206 AM 380 200 70 78
EBL 2 298 246 117 AM 298 300 226 107
WBR 1 331 243 186 AM 331 205 80 44
10 NBL4
1 21 54 54 MD 54 100 30 36
EBL/R 1 36 62 62 MD 62 >50 57 47
11 NBL4
1 1 64 04 0M D 4 0 2 5 1 6 3 9 5
EBL/R 1 48 88 88 MD 88 90 59 76
12 SBR 1 29 57 57 MD 57 >100 44 56
13 SBR 1 18 31 31 MD 31 >100 39 57
EBL 1 26 67 67 MD 67 150 37 70
Access 4 / Ramon Rd.
4 Left turn lane accommodated within existing two-way left turn lane. 3 NOM = Nominal, less than 5 feet.

AMP M
Rattler Rd. / Ramon Rd.
1 Queue length calculated using SimTraffic.
2 100 = Existing/Proposed storage length
Rattler Rd. / Access 1
Rattler Rd. / Access 2
Access 3 / Ramon Rd.
5 Review of SimTraffic simulation results indicate that the turn lane queue is anticipated to clear in a timely manner and that the provided pocket length is adequate to accommodate the 95th percentile queue.

TABLE 7-2: PROJECT ACCESS QUEUEING ANALYSIS FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ID Intersection Movement
# of
Lanes
HY (2040) With Project
Storage
Length2
(ft.)
95th Percentile
Queue Length (ft.)1
50 7-345
URBAN I CROSSROADS Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
51 8 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 PROJECT TRAFFIC
The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 5,680 external trips per day with 215 AM peak hour trips and 443 PM peak hour trips.

The single-family rentals will have one emergency only access and one full access (both gated) driveways along Rattler Road, while the affordable apartments will be acce ssed from the project driveway on the west side of the site, from Ramo n Road. The commercial port ion of the Project will have one full access driveway al ong Rattler Road, and two restrict ed access driveways along Ramon Road. The commercial driveway located at a mid-point along Ramon Road is limited to Right-In/Right- Out (RIRO) movements.

The westerly driveway serves as the primary access to the affordable apartment, and also connects to the commercial and single-family portions of the Project. The westerly driveway is proposed as a Right-In/Right-Out with Left-In-Only (no left out) median configuration at the southwest driveway access to the site. This access provides the only eastbound left-in access opportunity from Ramon Road to the affordable apartments.

Residents exiting the affordable apartments will need to utilize the existing westbound U-turn movement at the Da Vall Dr. / Ramon Rd. intersecti on in order to travel eastbound on Ramon Road away from the site. This is not the case for the single-family rental homes and 75,000 square feet of commercial buildings, which will predominantly use the available southbound left turn at the Rattler Rd. / Ramon Rd. intersection to travel eastbound on Ramon Road.

8.2 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS RESULTS
Traffic count data were collected in May 2023 during the AM peak period of 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and PM peak period of 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Traffic count data were also collected in May 2023 during school afternoon peak hours (2:00 PM to 4:00 PM), specifically at the four existing study area intersections along Rattler Road where a concentration of high school traffic occurs.

The intersection level of service (LOS) results for Ex isting (2023), Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project (EAP 2025), Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Plus Cumulative (EAPC 2025), Long Range 2040 Without and With Project conditions are summarized in Table 1-1.

For Existing (2023) conditions, the Rattler Road / School Access 1 an d Rattler Road / School Access 3 intersections are currently operating at an unacceptable level of service (LOS “E” or worse).

For EAP (2025) conditions, no new intersections are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS with the addition of Project traffic. For the existing de ficient intersections of Rattler Road / School Access 1 (#4) and Rattler Road / School Access 3 (#15), improvements are not recommended. 51 7-346

URBAN CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
52 Providing additional capacity (adding eastbound turn lanes) would not improve intersection delay at these school driveways. The worst movement that causes both intersection s to fail are due to the high eastbound outbound school traffic (minor appr oach) and not anticipated to impede the flow of traffic for the northbound and southbound through traffic (major approaches).

For long range future conditions (2040), cumulative LOS deficiencies are projected to occur at the following intersections without or with the Project:
# Intersection
1 Date Palm Drive / Ramon Road
2 Da Vall Drive / Ramon Road
4 Rattler Road / School Access 1
15 Rattler Road / School Access 3
Similar to near term conditions, improvements at the deficient intersection s along Rattler Road are Road are not recommended since these driveway deficiencies are due to high morning school traffic activity.

For the off‐site intersections along Ramon Road at Date Palm Drive and Da Vall Drive, improvements are ultimately  needed  to  address  intersection  operational  deficiencies  for  2040  without  and  with  Project conditions.

An assessment of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) asso ciated with the Project has been prepared in a separate letter “Catana Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Assessment”, dated June 30, 2023.

8.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations (also shown on Exhibit 1-5) achieve acceptable peak hour operations with full occupancy of the Project.

Rattler Road / Access 1 (#10)
 Access 1 serves the single-family rental home neighborhood of the Project and is located approximately 335 feet north of Access 2, measured from the south curb of Access 1 to the north curb of Access 2 along Rattler Road. Northbound left turns into the site will be accommodated within the existing two-way left turn lane (TWLTL) striped median on Rattler Road.

Rattler Road / Access 2 (#11)
 Access 2 serves the commercial retail portion of the Project and is located approximately 280 feet north of Ramon Road, measured from the south curb of Access 2 to the north curb of Ramon Road along Rattler Road. Because the retail parcel is also served by two other direct connections to Ramon Road, northbound left turns into the site at Access 2 from Rattler Road are minimal (16 AM peak hour vehicles and 40 PM peak hour vehicles). These low left turn volumes can be accommodated in the short northbound storage length available at this location within the existing two-way left turn lane (TWLTL) striped median on Rattler Road.
52 7-347

URBAN CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
53 Access 3 / Ramon Road (#12)
 Access 3 serves the commercial retail portion of the Project from Ramon Road and is located approximately 590 feet west of Rattler Road, measured from the east curb of Access 3 to the west curb of Rattler Road along Ramon Road. This commercial driveway location will be restricted as right-in/right- out only access (no median break on Ramon Road).

Access 4 / Ramon Road (#13)
 In conjunction with development of either the affo rdable apartment dwelling units or the commercial retail parcel, construct median improvements on Ramon Road to accommodate a 150-foot eastbound left turn pocket. Provide a Left-In-Only (no left out) median configuration which allows left-in/right- in/right-out only access at Access 4 (see Exhibit 1-6).

On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjun ction with detailed construction plans for the Project site. Sight distance at each project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of Rancho Mirage sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans.

Improvement strategies have been recommended for those intersections identified as deficient for 2040 traffic conditions. The following Intersection improvements are ultimately needed to address intersection operational deficiencies for 2040 without and with Project conditions:

Date Palm Drive / Ramon Road (#1) – Modify existing striping for the northbound right turn lane to provide a shared through/right lane (3 rd northbound receiving lane exists). Provide a separate eastbound and westbound right turn lanes.

Da Vall Drive / Ramon Road (#2) – Improvements at this location include providing an overlap phase for the existing westbound right turn lane and providing a 2 nd southbound left turn lane.

The Project’s fair share of cumulative traffic am ounts to 5.7% towards the 2040 lane re-striping improvements at Date Palm Drive / Ramon Road (#1) and 8.2% towards the 2040 ultimate lane improvements and signal modification at Da Vall Drive / Ramon Road (#2). Project participation may include fee payments to established programs (e.g., TUMF), payment of a fair share contribution toward future improvements, or a combination of these approaches.

53 7-348

URBAN CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

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

54 7-349

URBAN CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
55 9  REFERENCES

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

2. City of Rancho Mirage. Transportation Analysis Policy. (Revised February 18, 2021).

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

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

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

6. Urban Crossroads, Inc. City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Update Traffic Impact Analysis. City of Rancho Mirage : s.n., 2017.

7. Fehr & Peers. Draft Section 31 Specific Plan Transportation Impact Study. City of Rancho Mirage :
s.n., March 2019.

8. City of Cathedral City. Draft Comprehensive General Plan. City of Cathedral City : s.n., July 2019. 55 7-350

URBAN CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
56 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
56 7-351

URBAN CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
APPENDIX 1.1: TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT
7-352

URBAN CROSSROADS
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis

15284-03 TA Report.docx
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
7-353

URBAN CROSSROADS

15284-02 - Scope.docx

May 9, 2023

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

CATANA SPECIFIC PLAN TRAFFIC SCOPING LETTER AND VMT SCREENING SCOPE Dear Mr. Ryan Stendell:

Urban Crossroads, Inc. is please d to submit this traffic analysis scope regarding the proposed Catana Specific Plan development (“Project”), which is located at the northwest corner of E.

Ramon Avenue and Rattler Road in the City of Rancho Mirage. It is our understanding that the project is to consist of 215 single family rent al homes, 90 affordable apartment dwelling units and 75,000 square feet of commercial land use.

The remainder of this letter describes the pr oposed analysis method ology, Project trip generation, trip distribution, and Project traffi c assignment/project trips on the surrounding roadway network. The following scoping assumpti ons have been prepared in accordance with the City of Rancho Mirage Transportation An alysis Policy (Revised February 18, 2021) and County of Riverside’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service & Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020).

A preliminary site plan for the pr oposed Project is shown on Exhi bit 1. For analysis purposes, occupancy of the Project is anticipated to occur in year 2025. The single family rentals will have two full access (gated) driveways along Rattler Road, while the af fordable apartments will be accessed from the project driveway on the we st side of the site, from Ramon Road. The commercial portion of the Project will have one full access driveway along Rattler Road, and two restricted access driveways along Ramon Road. The commercial driveway located at a mid- point along Ramon Road is limited to Right-In/ Right-Out (RIRO) movements. The westerly driveway serves as the primary access to the af fordable apartment, and also connects to the commercial and single family portions of the Project.

Exhibit 2 shows a proposed Left-In-Only (no left out) median configuration at the southwest driveway access to the site. The turning volumes and traffic operational characteristics of this restricted median break at Project Access 5 will be evaluated in the study. Access 5 provides the only eastbound left-in access opportunity from Ramon Road to the affordable apartments.

TRIP GENERATION
In order to develop the traffic ch aracteristics of the proposed proj ect, trip-generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (11th Edition, 2021) manual for the proposed land uses (220 – Multi- family Residential (Low Rise), 223 – Affordable Housing, and 821 – Shopping Center) are utilized. It should be noted that ITE LU code 220 (multi-family residential) is utilized to evaluate si ngle family rental homes. Table 1 presents the trip generation rates and the resulting trip generation summary for the proposed Project.

1.1-1
7-354

URBAN CROSSROADS
20341 SW Birch Street I Suite 230 I Newport Beach, CA 92660 I (949) 660-1994 I urbanxroads.com

Catana Specific Plan
Rancho Mirage

Land Use Assumptions

Planning Area 1 - Single family rental homes: up to 215 units on 24.5 acres (light brown)

Planning Ares 2 – Apartments, affordable: up to 90 units on 3.3 acres (dark brown)

Planning Area 3 – Commercial (retail and office): up to 75,000 square feet on 8.3 acres (Ramon Road frontage)

3 CATANA

R ANCHO MIR AGE, CALIFOR NIA
22024.01 02/08/2023
3 SITE PLAN

STREET LANDSCAPING

STREET SECTION A
20’
SCALE: 1” = 80’-0”
0 40’ 80’ 160’
DAVID NEAULT ASSOCIATES, INC.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
ROBERT HIDEY ARCHITECTS, INC.

ARCHITECT

HEITEC CONSUL TING

CIVIL ENGINEER

TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH

CONSULT ANT
2 1.1-2
7-355
. . ' .
..
t •• ~-. , . . .. .. · . . ..
.. •
. •'
•
.. .
• • .. ..

URBAN I CROSSROADS
.
•
15284 - scope.dwg
Catana Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
EXHIBIT 1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
•
•
LEGEND:
~-'t.. = RIGHT·IN/RIGHT·OUT ONL V
~ -'t.. = LEFT·IN/RIGHT·IN/RIGHT·OUT ONLY
.:.I'
•
•
•
• . •
• •
.. • . .
•
• •
..
•
.,
"<I
I
.. .. .. .. .. . .,
•
• •
..
•
,.
• ..
~
• . • • .. . . -. • ,
. • .
. ~· .
3 1.1-3
7-356
URBAN

I CROSSROADS
RAMON
ROAD
+
+
!
80'
40'
0 80'
SCALE:
1"
=
BO'
15284
-scope.dwg
Catana
Specific
Plan
Traffic
Analysis

EXHIBIT
2:

ACCESS
5 MEDIAN

LEFT-IN
ONLY

CONFIGURATION
-------
an U) U) w 0 0 ct ~
t
1--
150
FT.

TURN
POCKET
1--
City of Rancho Mirage
May 9, 2023